THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 3>^s
 
 Kys/L the //s/t 
 
 SPEECHES and JUDGEMENT 
 
 'OF THE 
 
 Right Honourable 
 
 The LORDS of COUNCIL and SESSION 
 in Scotland, 
 
 -, ' UPON c/ y . , ' / S?^ 
 
 The important Caufe, 
 
 V, ' 
 
 His Grace GEORGE-JAPvIES Duke of 
 HAMILTON and others, Purfuers j 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS, Efq; Defender. 
 
 Accurately taken down and published 
 
 B Y 
 
 WILLIAM ANDERSO N Writer in Edinburgh. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Printed byBALFOU R, A U L D, and SMELLI E, 
 
 For J. BALFOUR, Edinburgh ; T. BECKET 
 and P. A. D U HOND T, London. 
 
 M,D,CC,LXVJII.
 
 c^ntcrcD in gtattottcr^f all conform 
 to act of parliament.
 
 K 
 
 To the PUBLIC. 
 
 7.-/ - 
 
 TH E following meets contain the 
 opinions delivered by the judges 
 of the court of Sefhon in Scot- 
 land, at deciding the great caufe of 
 Douglas. The general attention which 
 the importance and extraordinary cir- 
 cumftances of this caufe excited, perfua- 
 ded the pubhiher, that it would be do- 
 ing an acceptable fervice to the public, to 
 give them, as exactly as he could, the fub- 
 ftance, and, as nearly as poilible, the 
 words of the feveral opinions. To qualify 
 him for this tafk, he made himfelf fully 
 acquainted with the caufe; and, while 
 the judges were delivering their opinions, 
 he took down the greatell part of what 
 each of them faid. Thefe notes he daily 
 corrected and enlarged from his memory : 
 Not fatisfled with this, he got the feveral 
 opinions revifed by thofe who were bed 
 qualified to correct any errors, or to fup- 
 
 ply 
 
 
 i / < .
 
 [ iv ] 
 
 ply omiilions, which might have cfcaped; 
 So 'hat the prefent publication may be 
 depended upon as exact and genuine. 
 
 Thi. long vacation which followed 
 foon after the decilion of the cauie, by 
 difperfing the gentlemen of the law, re- 
 tarded the publication. The winter fei- 
 fion has given the publifher an opportu- 
 nity of making the whole more correct ; 
 and he now offers it to the public, with 
 humble confidence, that his diligence 
 and candor will meet with approbation. 
 
 Sf.veral of the judges, in deliver- 
 ing their opinions, took occafion to 
 oblerve, that in a caufe of fuch extent, 
 they did not mean, nor was it necef- 
 fary for them, to refume the whole of the 
 facls and arguments of either party ; 
 but merely to date the outlines, and 
 fome of thofe circumflances which had 
 made the ftrongefl imprefhon on their 
 own minds It would be in vain, there- 
 fore, to expect that from any fingic opi- 
 nion.
 
 [ v 1 
 
 nion, or perhaps from the whole of them 
 taken together, a thorough knowledge of 
 the caufe can be acquired : They alone 
 who have a previous acquaintance with 
 at lead the great lines of the caufe, can 
 reap the proper entertainment or in- 
 ftruction. However, to render their u- 
 tility as general as polTible, the publifher 
 lias caufed reprint the cafes of both par- 
 ties, which were given in by appointment 
 of the court a few days before the hear- 
 ing of the counfel in fummer i j66 9 in or- 
 der to give a general idea of the founda- 
 tions of this important fuit ; and as 
 they are authentic, and the only papers 
 which contain an abridgement of the 
 capital facts in queflion, it is thought 
 
 J. ± ' o 
 
 they may be of confiderablc ufe in af- 
 lifting the reader to undeiiland the im- 
 port of fome paffages in the judges opini- 
 ons, which may happen to be too briefly 
 cxprcflcd for thofe who are totally unac- 
 quainted with the circumftances. 
 
 Tii-
 
 [ vi ] 
 
 These cafes being already in many- 
 peoples hands, are printed feparately, 
 that the fpeeches may be had either 
 by themfelves, or with the cafes prefix- 
 ed. 
 
 Ed in. 12. Feb. 
 1768. 
 
 CON-
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Tuesday, 7th July 1767. 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Lord Prefident, - 
 
 r 
 
 Lord Stricken, - 
 
 46 
 
 Wednesday, 8th July. 
 
 
 Lord Karnes, - 
 
 57 
 
 Lcri Auch'inleck, - 
 
 62 
 
 Lord Coaljlon, - 
 
 87 
 
 T hursda y, 9th July. 
 
 
 Lord Barjarg, 
 
 Ir 3 
 
 Lord Akmoore, - 
 
 130 
 
 Lord Ell'iock, - 
 
 ^74 
 
 Friday, 10th July. 
 
 
 I.sr J Stonefeld, - 
 
 2 34 
 
 Lord Pit/our, - 
 
 2 53 
 
 LW Gardenfloun, 
 
 28S 
 
 Saturday, nth July. 
 
 
 isr^ Ken net, 
 
 33- 
 
 Lord Hailes. - 
 
 380 
 
 Tuesday, 14th July 
 
 
 T^rr/ Ji/fticc-Clcrk, - 
 
 4* 1 
 
 Lord Mo iboddo, 
 
 4^3 
 
 Judgement oj the court, — — 
 
 62*
 
 THE 
 
 LORD PRESIDENT fpoke firft, in 
 the following Manner. 
 
 My Lords, 
 
 IN delivering my opinion on this great and 
 important caufe, it was my refolution to 
 have fpoken Lift, and not until I had heard 
 the opinions federally given by your Lordfhips. 
 This was my refolution fo long as we fat four- 
 teen in number, and fo long as there was a 
 certainty, that the queftion could not fall to 
 l>e determined by my cafting vote. But, as we 
 now fit fifteen in number, and that there is a 
 pofiibility that my cafting vote may be called 
 for, I judge it my duty to fpeak firft, to ftatc 
 my opinion and the grounds of it, not doubt- 
 ing but that, if it is erroneous, fome of your 
 Lordfliips who are to fpeak after mc will cor- 
 rect me. 
 
 And, in giving this my opinion, I fliall ftate 
 only fuch arguments as move me, and fcarce- 
 ly at all touch thole which tend to fupport 
 a contrary opinion; at leaft, until I firft hear 
 what opinions arc formed by your Lord- 
 A fliips ;
 
 2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 fhips ; for to thefe at prefent I am an entire 
 ftranger. 
 
 o 
 
 If I fliall omit any thing, I {hall hope for 
 your Lordfhips indulgence to have leave t® 
 add it in the way of reply. 
 
 I agree thea with the principle laid down 
 in the defender's memorial, page 38. " That 
 " the acknowledgment of parents is not of it- 
 " felf probatio probata ; but that a proof of fuch 
 " acknowledgment, or even of habite and re- 
 " pute, is good prefumptive evidence, and 
 " fuflicient for a jury to ferve." This prin- 
 ciple is true; and it is alfo true, that a jury 
 might have fcrved, nay, ought to ferve, upon 
 fuch evidence. But then it is equally true, 
 that when fuch fervice is brought before 
 this court by reduction, the verdict becomes 
 no more than a legal prefumption, and may be 
 redargued by a contrary proof: — The que- 
 ftion of fact remains to be reviewed by your 
 Lordfhips, as in .place of a grand jury, and 
 to be tried by the rules of evidence. 
 
 Evidence is either direct, or moral, or cir- 
 cumflantiatc. 
 
 The firft leaves no room for doubt in the 
 bread of the judge or jury. It is fomctimes 
 compared to mathematical demonftration. — 
 Such evidence is not in ^this caufe, The fe- 
 
 con4
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 3 
 
 cond equally compels the mind, from convic- 
 tion, to aflent ; but it depends on a chain of 
 circumftances laid together, and always in- 
 troduces proofs on both fides. In fuch cafes 
 the judge muft weigh every circumftance in 
 the fcale of juftice, and give his opinion where 
 he thinks the evidence preponderates. 
 
 It is not fair to fay, that a ponability of be- 
 ing deceived ought to deftroy a conclufion 
 drawn from circumftantiate evidence : From 
 the frailty of human nature, perhaps a pofti- 
 bility of deception attends every kind of evi- 
 dence. In matters of the hio-heft moment, 
 even in religion, we mult be fitislied with mo- 
 ral evidence, and are bound to form our opi- 
 nions upon it. In direct evidence, two wit- 
 neffes may fwear falfely : Alibi may be pro- 
 ved. Circumftantiate or moral evidence is of- 
 ten ftronger, becaufe it hangs on many de- 
 pendent circumftances, which mutually aid 
 and fupport each other. Inftanccs of this oc- 
 cur every day. 
 
 As to the application of certain general 
 maxims quoted boih by purfuer and de- 
 fender, concerning the onus probandi, 1 do not 
 agree with either party. There is, in this 
 caui'e, a fingle fact to be determine J., Is the 
 defender the fon oi Lady Jane Douglas ? This 
 
 fact
 
 4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 fact does not now reft on the fimple acknow- 
 ledgment of parents, or on habite and re> 
 putc; would to God it had; but the ac- 
 knowledgment of the furviving parent is qua- 
 lified by time, place, the prefence of other 
 people at the birth, and many other circum- 
 ftances. 
 
 The purfuer offers circumftantiate evidence 
 to difprove this fact; the defender has brought 
 evidence to fupport it. The proof lies before 
 your Lordfliips. It then remains for me, as 
 for others, to weigh this evidence ; and; with 4 
 my hand upon my heart, and as I mall anfwer 
 to the fupreme Judge of the world, to fay 
 whether I can or cannot affent to the follow- 
 ing propofitions, viz. 
 
 That upon the ioth day of July 1748, La- 
 dy Jane Douglas, in the houfe of Madame 
 le Brune at Paris, was delivered of this de- 
 fender, and of another' fon now dead, by the 
 ailiftance of Pier la Marr a man-midwife : That 
 Sir John Stewart became acquainted with this 
 La Marr, in the year 172 1, at Leige ; was in* 
 troduced to him by Colonel Fountaine; met 
 him accidentally at Paris in the year 1748, 
 where La Marr had come fur une affaire epineufe\ 
 thought he would get him cheaper than any 
 
 other ;
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. $ 
 
 other ; therefore employed him to deliver 
 Lady Jane : That La Marr at firft declined to 
 tell Sir John Stewart where he lodged ; but af- 
 terwards gave him his addrefs (as corrected by 
 Sir John, in his depofition 9th Auguft 1763) : 
 That La Marr actually delivered Lady Jane : 
 That the perfons prefent at the delivery were 
 Madame le Brune, her daughter, La Marr, 
 Mrs Hewit, and Sir John : That the youngeft 
 child of whom Lady Jane was delivered was 
 fent to be nurfed at a village near Paris under 
 La Marr's care : That La Marr correfponded 
 with Sir John and Lady Jane concerning this 
 child : That the letters of La Marr, produced 
 by Sir John, are part of that correfpondence : 
 And, in fine, That the facts contained in Sir John 
 Stewart's declaration, as to thefe things, are 
 true, under the correction already mentioned 
 as to La Marr's addrefs ; for, it muft be ob- 
 fcrved, that to his dying hour, Sir John Stew- 
 art never made any other correction of his 
 declaration whatfocver. 
 
 In examining the evidence of any aver- 
 ment, built upon one's own proper fact and 
 deed, the fimplicity of the ftory told de- 
 ferves attention; for truth is fimplc, and has 
 no need of difguife. A ftory, to gain credit, 
 ought to be, imo, Probable; zdo, Attended 
 
 with
 
 6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 with no inconfiftencies ; 3//0, Without co- 
 vering or concealment; 4A?, There ought to 
 be no attempt, by falfe or indirect means, to 
 fupport it; 5/0, It ought to be uniformly 
 told, and maintained, not by the words on- 
 ly, but by the actions of thofe concerned. 
 When thefe concur, the ftory deferves great 
 regard, and there are ftrong prefumptions for 
 the truth of it. But, when thefe are reverfed, 
 when a ftory told is improbable, inconfiftent, 
 full of myftcry, fupported by falfe means, not 
 uniformly told, nor uniformly maintained; 
 thefe are legal prefumptions againft the 
 truth of it, and deftroy, at leaft weaken, the 
 frafumptio hominls which fhould fupport it. In 
 fuch a cafe, the attention will be roufed to 
 weigh the evidence of the ftory in the niceil 
 balance, and not to truft to general aver- 
 ments, or general prefumptions, for the truth 
 cf it. 
 
 In applying thefe maxims to the caufe be- 
 fore me, 1 cannot hefitate to rcfufe my affent 
 to the truth of the proportion already men- 
 tioned ; and am forry to fay, that I think 
 the reafons of reduction are well fupported. 
 And as many of my objections to the truth 
 of that proportion arife from the general 
 compledion of , the caufe, and the res gefta, 
 
 which
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 7 
 
 which cannot lye, I fhall begin with them : 
 For, as to the parole-evidence, where each 
 party charges perjury againft the witneffes of 
 the other, when I come to that, I mall not 
 infill for full credit to all the witnefles upon 
 cither fide. 
 
 I obferve, therefore, in the jirft place, that 
 the defender's ftory is improbable. 
 
 That a lady of Lady Jane's age, fo near 
 to the period of her delivery, and in her firft 
 child, mould leave Aix-la-Chapclle, travel to 
 Leige, thence to Sedan, from thence to Rhcims, 
 and from Rheims to Paris, without abfolute 
 neceflity, is to me extremely improbable : 
 That, in this journey, flic mould linger eight 
 days at Sedan, and near four weeks at Rheims, 
 when her refolution was to go on to Paris, 
 and her delivery fail approaching, is ftilJ 
 mere fo ; and that fhe mould drop her maids 
 at Rhcims, at the time when die flood moft 
 in need of them, and when they could have 
 been carried to Paris at the cxpcncc of a few 
 livrcs, is not to be believed. 
 
 It is to me equally improbable, that Lady 
 \x\\z mould have concealed her being with 
 child fo carefully, as it is laid flic did. Was 
 not her being with child the accomplishment 
 and crown of all herwimes, the very end and 
 
 motive
 
 8 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 motive which had led her to give her hand 
 to Colonel Stewart ? Why then conceal it ? 
 She had wrote to the Duke of Douglas in 
 April 1 748, acquainting him of her marriage, 
 and of the happy conferences which might 
 be expected from it. After this, why con- 
 ceal her fituation from any body ? And yet, 
 among all her correfpondence, fhe does not 
 acquaint one of them that fhe was with child, 
 even when fhe is going to Paris in order to 
 be delivered. 
 
 Altho' fhe had dropt her maids at Rheims ; 
 yet, at Paris, fhe hires no fervants, nor any 
 attendants whatever. Though carried thither 
 in order to have the beft afiiftance which 
 France could afford, fhe is put into the hands 
 of an old furgeon to a Walloon regiment, 
 or, as the defender himfelf allows, into the 
 hands of a perfon of no character. When 
 {he arrives at Paris, fhe flays four days in 
 Godefroy's ; during that time, fhe takes no 
 advice as to her fituation, not even from 
 Madam Godefroy; leaves Godefroy's, and 
 goes to a lodging, which, after the moft pain- 
 ful fearch, cannot now be found, unlefs, as 
 the defender afferts, we fliould believe it to 
 be the houfe of a garde maladc. From this 
 fhe goes to another houfe, hired by Sir John 
 
 Stewart;
 
 LORD PKESIDENT. 9 
 
 Gtewart ; there one child appears in a very 
 fingular manner; the other is lent away with 
 Monfieur la Marre ; and though a child weak 
 and lickly, and Lady Jane, a lady remarkable 
 for maternal affection, is not once fecn by 
 her for fixteen months, that is, not till No- 
 vember 1 749. 
 
 At this period, Lady Jane, Sir John, and 
 Mrs Hewit return to Paris, in order to bring 
 home this fecond child : They leave their car- 
 riage and driver without the town, and go 
 off in a hackney coach to an unknown houfe. 
 They fend for La Marr, in order to get the 
 child ; La Marr makes his appearance ; they 
 fet out to bring the child ; Lady Jane, taken 
 ill with a headach, is carried into another 
 unknown houfe, where me remains with Mrs 
 Hewit ; mean time, Sir John goes and brings 
 the child ; and then they all let out in their 
 return to Kheims. 
 
 As the defender's ftory is, in thefe refpects, 
 improbable ; lo alio, 1 obfeiwe, fccondly, that, 
 in other refpects, it is inconfiftent. 
 
 It is faid, that Lady Jane intended to have 
 been delivered at Kheims, but left it, as no 
 proper afilltance for her delivery was to be 
 got there. This information Mrs Hewit 
 iwcars ihe received from Madam Andrieux, 
 
 B who
 
 io THE SPEECH OF 
 
 who had got her death by being unfkilfully 
 delivered. But, in this fact, Mrs Hew it is 
 contradicted by the fon Mr Andrieux ; and 
 that Sir John and Lady Jane had no fuch in- 
 tention, appears clearly from Mr Hepburn's 
 evidence, who depones, in a very pointed 
 and precife manner, that, at Leige, Sir John 
 told him he was to carry Lady Jane to Paris, 
 in order to be delivered there. If then their 
 deftination was for Paris, "Was it not incon- 
 fiftent, in the higheft degree, to flay eight 
 days at Sedan, and near four weeks at Rheims, 
 that is, from the 5th of June to the 2d of 
 July ; efpecially after, as they fay, they were 
 informed, that no proper aiTrftance could be 
 had at Rheims, and that they were reduced to 
 their laft guinea ? 
 
 Mrs He wit fays, that this information 
 concerning the want of proper affiftance at 
 Rheims, fhc received from Madame Andrieux, 
 But, What fays Lady Jane in the account of 
 this matter given by her to the late Countefs 
 of Stair, as deponed to by her daughter, the 
 Honourable Mrs Primrofe. a witnefs above 
 all exception, and who depones with the 
 greateft air or candor ? " The morning after 
 " I came to Rheims, fays fhe, a Lady cf that 
 
 " place defired to fee me. I fent anfwer, that 
 
 « T
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. « 
 
 " I was fatigued with my journey, was ftili 
 " in bed, and could fee no body." The lady 
 fent word, that it was a matter of confe- 
 quence fhe had to tell me, Upon this fhe 
 was admitted, fhe begged pardon for intru- 
 ding, faid it was a matter of confcience. She 
 had heard I had come there with an intention 
 of lying in ; but fiie was bound to tell me, 
 that there was no perfon in that city capable 
 of doing the office of a midwife. I faid, that 
 I had fent away my coach, and that my fi- 
 nances were too low to proceed further. But 
 the lady's arguments were fo pathetic, that 
 fhe perfuaded me to take a poft-chaife, in 
 which Mrs Hewit and I went to Paris. 
 
 And, upon Lady Stair's obferving, that 
 Paris never was without Britifh people of 
 credit, who ought to have been at her la- 
 bour, conlidering her age, and the enemies 
 ■fiie had with her brother ; and that her labour 
 mould have been in a royal manner, allu- 
 ding probably to the ftory of the Emprefs 
 Conftantia (words fo fenhblc, and fo much in 
 the character of Lady Stair, that I think I 
 could almoft fwear to their identity). Lady 
 J. me anfwercj, " That, fays (lie, was not in 
 " my power, as I was not half an hour, or 
 
 "an
 
 12 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 " an hour and a half in Paris, before I was 
 " delivered." 
 
 As to leaving the maids atllheims, Mrs 
 He wit fays, they were left for want of money, 
 and that Sir John and L;idy Jane had only 
 one guinea when they arrived at Paris : That 
 they endeavoured to perfuade their banker 
 to advance a little money on the credit of 
 Lady Jane's pennon ; but in vain. So they 
 wrote to Monfeur Andrieux for a fupply; 
 and this fupply ai rived on the very day of Lady 
 Jane's delivery. And in this Sir John Stewart 
 agrees with her. But this fact turns now out 
 
 o 
 
 clearly to be faHe. For the money fent by 
 Monfieur Andrieux was not received by Sir 
 John till the 26th of July. And this being 
 the cafe, I would gladly know, how they fa- 
 tislied former fcores at Godefroy's, Le Brun's, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Mrs He wit fays, that fhe could not keep 
 Lady Jane in bed after the ninth day; me 
 had wrote fo to the maids at the time : Surely 
 fiie could not then be miflaken. But, after 
 Sir John Stewart's examination, fhe feems to 
 have been ftartled; and therefore writes a 
 letter to the Reverend Mr Harper, dated 
 nth January 1763, (but which fhe did not 
 deliver till die 15th of March thereafter), 
 
 wherein
 
 LOUD PRESIDENT. 13 
 
 wherein flie tells him, " That ffie was in a 
 " miftake in declaring that it was the tenth 
 *« day after Lady Jane was delivered, that 
 41 they left the houfe of Madame Le Brune ; 
 " for it was the fixth day." It would appear 
 to me, that Mr Harper had fome fufpicions 
 as to Mrs Ilewit's intention in writing him 
 this letter, by his accuracy in marking on 
 the back the precife day upon which he re- 
 ceived it. 
 
 The accounts given of the nurfes are alfo 
 full of inconfiftencies ; but I fhall not enter 
 upon them. 
 
 I proceed to obferve, in the third place, 
 That in this whole affair, Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas and Sir John Stewart affected myftery 
 throughout. Their very marriage is conceal- 
 ed from many of their countrymen, whom 
 they had occafion to fee ; and even, when 
 the time of Lady Jane's delivery is at hand, 
 when Sir John and me are fetting out from 
 Rheims to Paris for that purpofc ; when they 
 are procuring recommendations from Mon- 
 fieur Maillefer, a man of character, the Syn- 
 dic at Rheims, to Monfieur Godcfroy, wlio 
 was to receive them at Paris ; yet even, from 
 this Monfieur Mailiefer do they carefully 
 conceal that Lady Jane was with child, or that.
 
 i 4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 fhe was going to Paris in order to be deliver- 
 ed. This appears from the letter of recom- 
 mendation wrote by Monfieur Mailkfer to 
 Monfieur Godcfroy, and is confirmed by Mon- 
 fieur Maillefer himfelf. He is not permitted 
 to fee Lady Jane ; to him fhe is faid to be in- 
 difpofed, while, at the very time fhe receives 
 vifits from an Abbe Hibert, and is daily 
 walking about in his company. Nay, the 
 letter of recommendation from Monfieur 
 Maillefer to Monfieur Godefroy proves more. 
 It proves, that they ufed falfe pretences for 
 their journey to Paris : " Comme il aura 
 " quelques emplettes a faire a Paris, je lui ai 
 " dit qu'il pouvoit s' addreffer a vous, comme 
 " etant fort connoiffeur, et que vous ne fuf- 
 " frirez pas qu'on le trompat." A ftrange 
 way this of recommending a Lady juft go- 
 ing to be delivered. 
 
 During their ftay at Paris, they not only 
 conceal their being there from their coun- 
 trymen ; they even conceal it from Cheva- 
 lier Johnfton their correspondent, their friend, 
 and coufm to Mrs Hewit. Did ever Sir 
 John Stewart, in any other place, on any o- 
 ther occafion, or at any other period of his 
 life, neglect or forfake the company of his 
 countrymen ? Was he not in ufe to herd 
 
 with
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 15 
 
 with them, efpecially with fuch of them as 
 were at this time to be met with at Paris ? Was 
 there no Scots coffee-houfe in Paris? Did 
 Sir John never go there ? Why, or for what 
 reafon did he not ? How is this conduct to 
 be accounted fcr ? But above all, when Sir 
 John and Lady Jane were about to quit Paris, 
 leaving a weak and fickly infant behind them, 
 to be nurfed at a village only three leagues 
 diftant from it ; could any thing be more 
 natural, than to have recommended this 
 child to the care of Mr Johnfton, and to have 
 entreated him to vifit it as often as conve- 
 nient ? Yet, no fuch thing is done ; not even, 
 when after their return to Rhcims, they ac- 
 quaint Mr Johnfton of Lady Jane's delivery. 
 
 Another ftrange concealment, while at 
 Paris, was, dating their letters as from Rheims, 
 which were truly wrote from Paris: That 
 tli is was done deliberately, and with de- 
 sign to miflead, appears from the after 
 correfpondence with Mr Haldane and Lady 
 Mary Hamilton ; a correfpondence evidently 
 tending to induce a belief, that Lady Jane 
 and Sir John had gone no farther than 
 Rheims, and that Lady Jane had been deli- 
 vered at that place ; for, in the whole of 
 
 that
 
 i6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 that correfpondence, there is not any men- 
 tion made of Paris. 
 
 It is alfo ftrange, that notwithstanding 
 the many dark and myflerious circumftances 
 attending the accounts given of Lady Jane's 
 delivery ; notwithftanding that Sir John and 
 Lady Jane knew well that thefe accounts and 
 thefe circumftances were fufpe&ed ; yet ftill, 
 at no after period, did they ever give fuch a 
 detail of particulars as could give fatisfaction 
 upon this great point, or, in the event of their 
 death, could avail their children ; but chofe to 
 reft the proof of their ligitimacy upon gene- 
 ral prefumptions, and that the onus probandi 
 of the contrary lay upon their adverfaries. 
 But this I will rather carry foreward to my 
 next obfervation, viz. 
 
 To the falfehoods by which the defender's 
 caufe has been fupported, and by which the 
 objections againft it have been attempted to 
 be obviated. 
 
 -And, 1/720, The caufe of Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas and Sir John Stewart their coming to 
 Ilheims, is not well fupported : But, as I am 
 not now talking of the proof, except in 
 fo far as it arifes from real evidence, which 
 cannot be contradicted, I obferve, 
 
 2 do,- That
 
 LORD PRESIDEN T. 17 
 
 tdo, That the leaving the maids at 
 Rheims, when they could have been carried 
 on to Paris at the expence of twelve or four- 
 teen millings, is a firikins; circumilance which 
 remains to be obviated : The want of money, 
 therefore, has been affirmed as the caufe of 
 this. Lady Jane and Sir John are faid to have 
 been reduced to their Lift ominea, and when 
 their banker a!: Paris would not advance, they 
 applied to Monfieur Andricux. In this par- 
 ticular Sir John and Mrs lie wit's memories 
 are fo diftinct, that they remember the very 
 critical day when Monfieur Andrieux's mo- 
 ney arrived, viz. the day of Lady jane's deli- 
 very ; and fo Mrs Hewit wrote to the maids 
 at the time : Yet this, we have already feen, 
 is altogether falfe. But the falfchood was ab- 
 iblutely neccilary ; for, at the time when 
 this fact was averred, no mention had been 
 made in this procefs of Godeiroy or his houfe. 
 It was believed, that Sir John and Lady Jane 
 had, before the delivery, redded only in 
 one houfe. By Mrs Hewit's evidence, they 
 went directly to La Brune's; yet this houfe be- 
 hoved to be cleared off before leaving it: ()- 
 therexpenccs abb about the time of the deli- 
 very fell to be incurred; and, for paying 
 theic, money was requifite : And it was re- 
 
 C qui lite
 
 18 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 (juifitc alfo, that this money mould arrive in 
 time for that pui pofe. 
 
 And, as it is falfe that they received the 
 money fent by Monfieur Andrieux fooner 
 than the 26 th, fo it is equally falfe that they 
 were in want of money when they arrived at 
 Rheims ; for it is in evidence, that they carried 
 with them from Aix-la-Chapelle, a letter of 
 credit upon Paris for near 2000 livres, which 
 they actually received upon the 6th of Ju- 
 ly, four days before Lady Jane's delivery ; 
 and this letter of credit was fo conceived as 
 that they could have drawn the money at 
 Rheims, if neceffary. 
 
 3//0, As it was given out, that they came 
 to Paris on purpofe to procure Lady Jane bet- 
 ter affiftance in her delivery, it was incumbent 
 on Sir John to give fome account what affift- 
 ance they did actually procure, and who was 
 the midwife who delivered Lady Jane. 
 
 And here it is to be obfervcd, that Sir John 
 was always diftinct and pointed as. to his de- 
 fcription of La Marr; firft, in his note to Mrs 
 Napier, and next in his judicial declaration. 
 In his note given toMrs Napier, asearlyas the 
 year 1756, he {tiles La Marr a Walloon, and 
 fays, that for feveral years he had been furgeon 
 to a regiment : He likeways mentions the 
 
 name
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. i 9 
 
 name of Colonel Fontaine oculift to the in- 
 valides at Paris, and tells Mrs Napier, that 
 Fontaine was the perfon who introduced, 
 him to La Marr. Thefe things he confirms 
 in his judicial declaration, with the addition 
 of fundry other particulars ; and thefe things 
 he never amended, nor, to his dying hour, e- 
 ver retracted or contradicted. 
 
 And how was Sir John's declaration taken? 
 In the moil folemn and deliberate manner. 
 It took up three days : Sir John had full time 
 given to recollect every particular of the fto- 
 ry; he was allowed to correct, to retract, and 
 to explain, upon an after day, what he had 
 declared upon the day preceeding; and in one 
 word, was treated with the greatefl candour. 
 He was indeed fomewhat deaf; but, to obviate 
 ii\y inconvenience which might thence arife, 
 the queftions afked were given to him in 
 writing, one by one, and he was allowed 
 time maturely to conflder them, before he 
 give Lis anfvers. 
 
 With refpert to his account of La Marr, as 
 given in this declaration, he never pretended 
 to amend or contradict it, except as to his ad- 
 diefs, which in his after oath he fwears La 
 Marr gave him; although in his declaration 
 !■' ''-id (aid the contrary. The reafons of 
 
 this
 
 so THE SPEECH OF 
 
 this correction arc too obvious ; and yet, 
 after all the deliberation and folemnity with 
 which this declaration was taken, after all 
 the opportunities given to Sir John to re- 
 tract, explain, amend, and correct it; after he 
 had done fo in one or two articles ; yet, after 
 all this, the defender, who fays he is the fon 
 of this Sir John Stewart, and values himfelf 
 upon his acknowledgment, is pleafed to main- 
 tain, that his father's declaration, in many 
 points, is falfe and untrue, and that no re- 
 gard ourfit to be paid to it. 
 
 Ajo, The forged letters, laid to have 
 been written by La Marr to Sir John Stewart, 
 mentioned in Sir John's declaration, at once 
 fhew the falfchood of that declaration, and 
 the fhameful and illegal attempts made to 
 fupport the defender's (lory, and to obvi?te 
 objections againft it. The forgery of thefe 
 letters was committed eaily, and at a time 
 when the Delamarre, whom the defender 
 now fays was the true accoucheur, was a- 
 Hvc, and that fair and genuine letters to 
 prove that fact could have been procured 
 from him. The bit of the lour letters men- 
 tioned in Sir John's declaration, as written to 
 him by La Marr, appears to have been brought 
 to Sir John in Lady Jane's prefence, and to 
 
 have
 
 LOUD PRESIDENT. 21 
 
 have been read and explained by her to Mrs 
 Glafs, &c. 
 
 But upon thefe letters, perhaps, I may 
 touch again, when I come to confider the 
 evidence adduced by the defender. 
 
 5/5, It was neceffary for Sir John and 
 Lady Jane to obviate the many Axons: and 
 (hiking objections to their conduct after the 
 
 O -J 
 
 birth. Nothing could have been eafier than 
 to have done this, had their ftory been true. 
 Truth is fimple, and generally carries con- 
 viction along with it. At any rate, it is uni- 
 form ; but the ftory told by Sir John Stewart 
 was not fo ; and therefore labours under fu* 
 fpicion : And this leads me to obferve, 
 
 Ix the fourth place, That the ftory told by 
 Sir John Stewart of the defender's birth was 
 by no means uniformly told, nor uniformly 
 maintained. In the courfe of Providence, a 
 falfe tale is often detected by the tellers. 
 
 As to Lady Jane's account of this event, 
 we have none given by her, further than 
 what paiTed in her conversation with Lady 
 Stair, a converfation which, we have already 
 obferved, turns out to be falfe in every par- 
 ticular. But, with refpect to Sir John, we 
 have his declaration and his oath; and as to 
 thefe, they are, in feme particulars, contra- 
 dicted
 
 22 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 dieted by Sir John himfclf, and in others are 
 given up by the defender as untrue. 
 
 By Sir John's oath and declaration, Lady 
 Jane's delivery is faid to have happened in the 
 houfe of Madam le Brune : But, in the note 
 given by him to Mrs Napier, it is faid to have 
 happened in the houfe of Madam Micheil. 
 Strange ! that, in the year 1756, there mould 
 have been fo great a failure in Sir John's me- 
 mory. Indeed, Sir John's behaviour, when 
 he gave this note to Mrs Napier, is very re- 
 markable, and deferves attention : For, when 
 prefled by Mrs Napier to tell her in what 
 houfe the children were born, and who were 
 prefent and affiftant on that occafion ? Sir 
 John anfwers, That fo many years had palled, 
 and fo many misfortunes had happened to 
 him, fome of which he enumerated, that he 
 could not be fo diftincl: in names as he could 
 wifli : That, for different reafons, Lady Jane 
 had been obliged to change houfes about the 
 time of her lying in j one houfe was full of 
 buggs ; another houfe was fmoaky ; fo that 
 he could not fay what precife houfe the chil- 
 dren were born in ; but he would confider 
 of it at home, and make a note of thefe cir- 
 cum fiances. And when itill prefled by Mrs 
 Napier to make a memorandum of fucb 
 
 thin p%
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 23 
 
 tilings as he was fure of, he accordingly gives 
 her a memorandum ; and, intar clia, fets down 
 Madam Michelle's houfe as the place of de- 
 livery. This feems to me to be the ortgs 
 mali; and liere I begin to fee the finger of 
 Providence pointing to the difcovery of the 
 impofture. It is not fufficient to alledge here 
 forge tfulnefs or miftake ; it was too early to 
 miftuke in the 1756. It is true, that, in an 
 after-converfation with Mrs Napier> Sir John 
 mentions Le Brune's as the houfe where 
 Lady Jane was delivered : But as it is not 
 clear that this fecond converfation happened, 
 until he knew that inquiry had been made 
 at Madam Michelle's, and that his former 
 ftory was difproved, I can pay no regard to 
 it. It is alfo very material to obferve, that 
 the fcroll of the letter from Mrs Hewit to 
 the Duke of Douglas, fo accidentally found, 
 mentions Madam Michelle's houfe as the 
 place of delivery. Strange ! that both Si; 
 John and me fhould fall into the fame mif- 
 take. 
 
 But, how is it pohible to account for the 
 conduct of Lady Jane and Sir John Stewart, 
 after they knew that the legitimacy of their 
 children was fufpeftcd P Eafy would it have 
 been at that time to have put the matter be- 
 
 yoncj
 
 24 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 yond all queftion. A letter by poft would 
 have done it. If that was not fuilicient, a 
 more formal inquiry might have been made ; 
 yet, in place of this, a few declarations only 
 are got from Aix-la-Chapelle, and thefe mere- 
 ly relating to Lady Jane's pregnancy. No 
 application is made for any proof from Pa- 
 ris, the principal fcene of action, and which 
 at once could have put the matter out of 
 all doubt. Indeed, they afterwards faw the 
 propriety, or rather the neceflity, of clear- 
 ing up this affair, and gave different reafons 
 to juftify their ftrange conduct, with regard 
 to it ; but, in vain, none of them are fatif- 
 factory. At one time, Lady Jane doubts 
 how far the making fuch an inquiry would 
 be conhflent with her honour. At another 
 time, me laments the want of money to car- 
 ry it on. To Mrs Menzies fhe boafts, that 
 fhe had evidence of the birth in her pocket. 
 And, at a late period of her life, in a conver- 
 sation with Mrs Greig, fhe inciters herfelf 
 under a legal prefumption ; and tells Mrs 
 Greig, that if any body called her childrens 
 legitimacy in queftion, they behoved to prove 
 the contrary. Mrs Hewit, indeed, talks more 
 boldly upon this fubjecl : Walter Colvill, 
 foon after the birth, had informed her of the 
 
 fufpicions
 
 LORD PRESIDENT, 25 
 
 liifpicions concerning it; but me feems to 
 defpife thefe fufpicions ; and roundly tells 
 him, that the birth was too well proved 
 to admit of any doubt. 
 
 All thefe circumftances of improbability, 
 inconfntency, concealment, falfehood, and 
 vacillancy, are extremely linking ; and altho 1 
 I do not argue upon them as conclufive ; yet 
 furely they are more than fuflicient to awa- 
 ken the attention, to lead us to examine 
 things with accuracy and precifion ; to de- 
 mand proof, and not to reft upon general 
 prcfumptions. 
 
 And this leads me to confider what proof 
 has been brought by the defender in fupport 
 of his averment. 
 
 The firft material fael, upon the pact of 
 the defender, is to prove the exiflence of the 
 accoucheur, Pier La Marr ; for, if there was 
 no La Marr, it is impoflible to believe one 
 jotta of the whole ftory. 
 
 The hiftory of La Marr, as told by Sir 
 John Stewart, and never contradicted, is, That 
 he was a Walloon, and furgcon to a Walloon 
 regiment, remarkable for his fk.il! in mid- 
 wifery: That, in the year 17.21, Sir John 
 acquainted with him at Leige, and 
 !\m.I need to him by Colonel Fontaine: 
 to That,
 
 i6 T II E SPEEC H OF 
 
 That, when Sir John was at Paris by himfelf, 
 in June 1748, lie accidentally met with La 
 Marr, and they renewed their acquaintance : 
 That La Marr was there at that time fur une 
 qff aire cpneufe, and was to be found at the 
 Thuillieres, or the Luxembourg, in certain 
 particular walks which he named, and at 
 certain times of the day: That Sir John, 
 for the fake of cheapnefs, engaged this La 
 Marr to deliver Lady Jane ; which he did 
 accordingly : That the youngefi child of 
 whom Lady Jane was fo delivered, was en- 
 trufted to La Marr's care for fixteen months ; 
 during which time, -he regularly correfpond- 
 ed with *Sir John upon that fubjeot : And as 
 to the letters from La Marr to Sir John pro- 
 duced in prOcefs, Sir John averred, That 
 two of them were originals, and two of them 
 copies ; in one of which letters La Marr fays, 
 that he had been ten months in Naples after 
 the year 1748. 
 
 This account is altogether unfupported by 
 any evidence; and however circumftantiate 
 it may be as to Sir John's firft acquaintance 
 with La Marr, his knowledge of his profef- 
 fion, manner of renewing acquaintance, wri- 
 ting to him, &c. it is impoiiible to believe 
 it. Failure in memory may excuic miftakes 
 as to leiier matters, or trivial circumftances, 
 
 but
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 27 
 
 but cannot palliate errors in capital points. 
 Indeed, the defender himfelf does not believe 
 it ; he has therefore bent his whole force to 
 prove, that not this La Marr, but another 
 Delamarre was the accoucheur who deliver- 
 ed Lady Jane, although it ftands proved, 
 that this Delamarre was no Walloon, but 
 a native of Montreal! fur Mer, was only ten 
 years old in the 1721, had never been fur- 
 geon to a Walloon regiment, had his conftant 
 refidencc at Paris, and was never out of it 
 after the year 1748. Further, there is no e- 
 vidence that this Delamarre was befpoke or 
 could be befpoke as accoucheur for Lady 
 fane ; and flill lefs probability, that, when Lady 
 Jane had travelled fo far to procure the beit 
 afliftancc, Sir John would befpeak for her a 
 low operator at the Hotel Dieu. 
 
 Indeed, according to the defender's own 
 account, he fcems to liave taken no great 
 care of his patient ; for, if it was he who re- 
 commended Le Brune's, and knew that La- 
 dy J;ine was to remove from thence foon af- 
 ter her delivery to another houfe, it is 
 flrange, what Mrs He wit fays, that me never 
 law La Marr vifiting Lady Jane but once af- 
 ter her delivery. If it was he who provided 
 die bad nurfes, flrange that he fhoukl take 
 
 no
 
 it THESPEECHOF 
 
 no further nor better care to provide good 
 ones. But what proves beyond contradic- 
 tion, that this Delamarrc was not the ac- 
 coucheur, and that the ftory of his delivering 
 a great foreign lady does not, and cannot 
 apply to Lady Jane, is the time when this 
 is faid to have happened. It happened, fays 
 Menager, while Delamarrc was in the Hotel 
 Dieu. It happened, fays Gilles, before the 
 year 1748. It happened, fays Cocquerell, be- 
 fore February 1 748 ; for, in that month, I was 
 married. I had left the Hotel Dieu about two 
 months before my marriage ; and La Marr 
 had left it about a year before me. 
 
 This article of the time appears to me 
 very material, clinches the whole, and proves, 
 that the ftory told by Delamarre at the Ho- 
 tel Dieu could not relate to Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas. 
 
 But how did Sir John Stewart ftumble up- 
 on the name of La Marr ? How came he to 
 pitch upon this name, as the name of the 
 accoucheur who delivered Lady Jane ? Per- 
 haps Sir John was acquainted with this De- 
 lamarre, knew him as a merry companion, 
 and pitched upon his name to help forward 
 his ftory, but gave fuch a falfe defcription of 
 
 the
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 2? 
 
 the other particulars concerning him, as 
 might be fufficient to prevent difcoveries, and 
 to obviate after inquiries. For, is it pofiible 
 for any mortal to believe, if this Delamarre 
 had truly been the accoucheur who deliver- 
 ed Lady Jane, that Sir John Stewart would 
 have forged the letters from him which arc 
 now produced, when, at that very time, De- 
 lamarre was alive, was refiding at Paris, and, 
 in courfe of poft, Sir John might have had 
 letters from him ? Debmarre lived till the 
 year 1753, and the letters produced were for- 
 ced in the year 1752. 
 
 With refpect to thefe letters, die defen- 
 der's ftory of this Dclainarrc proves their 
 Luiehood in a ftrong manner; and, if they 
 are falfe, and falfc they arc admitted to be, 
 even by the defender, What becomes of the 
 mncruructure thev were intended to fupport? 
 They are the chief, if not the only written c- 
 videnee on the part of the defender. They 
 appear to me to have been the proofs which 
 Lady Jane boalted to Mrs Mcnzics ihe had 
 in her pocket. They alfo fecm to have been 
 the documents which Lady jane carried to 
 Douglas-cattle, to convince the Duke of 
 Douglas. They were mentioned by Sir John 
 to Mrs Napier; they were explained by La- 
 
 dy
 
 3 o THESPEECHOF 
 
 dy Jane to her fervants j they were produ- 
 ced to the jury ; they were printed with the 
 fervice ; yet thefe are forged, and, in my opi- 
 nion, forged by Sir John. Is it in nature to be- 
 lieve, that Sir John Stewart would have for- 
 ged falfe letters from La Marr, if, at the 
 expence of a poftage from Paris, he could 
 have had letters which were true ? 
 
 Before difmiiling Sir John Stewart's de- 
 claration, permit me to obferve the ftrange 
 and unaccountable conduct of the defender 
 with regard to it. He talks of his filiation, 
 of the acknowledgement of his parents, of 
 his habite and repute, &c. His father is 
 examined, the perfon who beft can tell the 
 circumftances of his birth, whofe inclination, 
 whofe intereft, and whofe duty it is to fay 
 every thing that can fupport it. The examina- 
 tion is gone about in the faireft, in the moft 
 folemn, in the moft candid manner poilible : 
 But no fooner is it taken, than the defender 
 rejects it, maintains it to be falfe, endea- 
 vours to have it fupprefied, infifts that it 
 can be no^ evidence, and, when your Lord- 
 flvips jultice had ordered it to be confidered 
 as evidence, he appeals from that fentence 
 to a higher court ; though, for reafons beft 
 known to himfclf, he afterwards drops it. 
 
 Did
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 31 
 
 Did any of your Lordfhips ever read or 
 hear of fuch a conduct ? I confefs I never 
 did. 
 
 The fecond material facf upon the part of the 
 defender is to prove the exiftence of a Ma- 
 dame le Brun, in whofe houfe Lady Jane 
 was delivered ; for, if there was no Madame 
 le Brun, it is impoflible to believe one jot 
 of the ftory. 
 
 Here again the ground flips from under 
 my feet : There is not more evidence of the 
 exiftence of a Madame le Brun than there 
 is of a Pier la Marr. No fuch perfon can be 
 found : even no fuch name, I mean of Ma- 
 dame le Brun who kept a hotel, occurs in 
 the capitation-rolls of any kind. 
 
 The defender is fain to fuppofe, that the 
 Madame le Brun, in whofe houfe Lady Jane 
 was delivered, was a garde malade. This how- 
 ever is incredible : It was never once infinua- 
 ted by Sir John or Mrs Hewit, not even in 
 the letter wrote by Mrs Hewit to the maids, 
 though a circumftance remarkable, and which, 
 in thefc letters, fell naturally to be mentioned. 
 
 Sir John hints as if fhe had been recom- 
 mended by Godcfroy : This is falfe : The proof 
 now points as if flic had been recommended 
 by La Marr. Had this been fo, Sir John 
 
 could
 
 5 2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 could not have forgot it : But it was not fo : 
 The res gefta belies it : Even Menager himfelf 
 never knew any lady of character carried to 
 be delivered in fuch a houfe, one lady in a 
 maik excepted. 
 
 If La Marr had recommended Le Brun, 
 how comes he not to have appeared fooner 
 upon the ftage, and to have been better 
 known to Lady jane and Mrs Hewit ? Mrs 
 Hewit, who attended Lady Jane, fwears, that 
 previous to the delivery, flie had no conver- 
 fation with Lady jane about the perfon who 
 was to deliver her j nor did fhe ever fee Pier 
 la Marr until me faw him in Lady jane's 
 room at the time of her delivery ; nor did fhe 
 fee him after, except once, when he called to 
 inquire after Lady Jane and the defender. 
 At what time, therefore, did he recommend 
 Madame le Brun ? The thing is incredible. 
 
 The Le Brun living on her income in the 
 houfe of Travers, rue ds la Comedie, cannot be 
 the perfon pointed at. The defcription does 
 not apply, and the defender cannot be allow- 
 ed to found on an allegation fo vague, fnni- 
 lar in nothing but the name, when he has 
 brought no evidence to fupport it. An in- 
 lying was a circumftance too material to have 
 efcaped the obfervation of the people of the 
 
 houfe;
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 33 
 
 houfe ; neither would it have efcaped the fa- 
 gacity of the defender's advifers to have made 
 an inquiry concerning this matter when the 
 woman was alive : But it is plain to me that 
 the defender has catched at the fimilarity of 
 the name and by that fimilarity means to fup- 
 ply a blank in the proof, which otherways he 
 cannot account for. 
 
 A third material fact upon the part of the 
 defender, is to prove the exiftence of Madame 
 Michell, and that Sir John and Lady Jane 
 lodged in her houfe. 
 
 And it is true, that Sir John and Lady 
 Jane did lodge at Madame Michell's ; and 
 though the 8th of July is marked in the livre 
 cCinfpccteur as the day of their entry; yet, it 
 appears to me, that they entered upon the 
 1 8th; for Michell's people fwcar, that the 
 marking of Fluratl and his company belongs 
 to Sir John Stewart and his company ; and 
 that they were the only Britifh people at that 
 time in the houfe. 
 
 Tu v. 1 k arc feveral circumftanccs which hap- 
 pened at Madame Michell's which deferve to 
 be mentioned. 
 
 And, //>//, There is no appearance of Pier 
 la Marr at Madame Michell's. The people 
 
 E of
 
 34 T II E S ? E E C II OF 
 
 of that houfe do not feem to have known a- 
 ny thing about him. 
 
 Secot'dly, The fecond child, Shoito, is never 
 heard of at that houfe. 
 
 Thirdly, -The defender docs not appear im- 
 mediately on their going there, nor till after 
 the enlevement of Mignon\s child. 
 
 Fourthly, The people in that houfe fwear, 
 that when the defender was brought, he was 
 brought from St Germain, the very place 
 where Sir Join 1 , in his declaration, fays he 
 went to feck for a nurfe to him. Indeed, as 
 to the nurfes, the accounts given arc full of 
 contradictions. I will not run through them. 
 
 The lafl material fact upon the part of the 
 defender, and which ousrht to have been af- 
 ccrtained without the leaft fhadow of ambi- 
 guity, is the day of Lady Jane's delivery; 
 and this day the defender pofitively fays was 
 the icth day of July 1748. One thing is c- 
 vident, that if Mrs Ilewit fpokc true, the day 
 of delivery behoved to be at leaf! nine days 
 before their coming to Madame Michell's : 
 lev :'b writes flie to the maids, that Lady Jane 
 could not be kept in bed alter the ninth day. 
 This indeed may bring the day of delivery to 
 the icth; and yet, how to reconcile this let- 
 ter
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 35 
 
 ier to the maids with her after letter to the 
 Reverend Mr Harper, I know not. 
 
 But indeed as to this point, viz. That the 
 day of delivery w?.s the roth day of July 
 1748, we meet with infuperable difficulties. 
 
 And, in the firft place, in all the letters 
 wrote by Sir John and Mrs Hewit upon the 
 10th of July, there is no mention made of La- 
 dy Jane's delivery. The defender is aware of 
 the force of this objection; and therefore in- 
 fills, that although thefe letters bear date up- 
 on the 10th; yet they were actually wrote 
 upon fome day preceeding. But where is the 
 evidence of this ? The letters themfelves bear 
 to be wrote upon the 10th, and muft be fup- 
 pofed to have been fo, unlefs the contrary is 
 proved. But the contrary is not proved, it' 
 a latitude of this kind is to be allowed ; if 
 mere fuppontion is to be held fuilicient to de- 
 ftroy evidence fuch as this, all poiilbility of 
 detection would be at an end. 
 
 Bur, idly, There is a letter from Mrs Hewit 
 to the maids, bearing date the 2-:d of Julv 
 1 7^8, from which it appears, that flic had 
 wrote them a former letter upon the nth; 
 and yet that former letter had made no men- 
 tion of Lady Jane's delivery: How is this to 
 be accounted for? Mrs Ilcwil herfelf faw the 
 
 force
 
 36 THESPEECH OF 
 
 force of this objection; and therefore endea- 
 vours to obviate it, by faying, in her letter al- 
 ready mentioned, of the 2 2d, that her former 
 letter, though dated upon the nth, ought to 
 have been dated upon the io.th; and that tins 
 miftake had happened through hurry. In the 
 former cafe, the defender maintained, that 
 the letters dated upon the 10th ought to be 
 dated upon the 9th, otherways he feems to 
 acknowledge they ought to have made men- 
 tion of Lady Jane's delivery. Here again 
 he infills, that a letter dated the nth 
 ought to have been dated the 10th. If lb. 
 Why did not this letter make mention of 
 Lady Jane's delivery ? How are thefe things 
 to be reconciled ? 
 
 In the thir d place, Sir John wrote to the 
 Earl of Crawfurd upon the 10th of July ; fa 
 the letter b^ars. In this letter alfo, there is 
 no mention of Lady Jane's delivery; .On the 
 contrary, Sir John fays, that the happy hour 
 was looked for daily. How is this taken oif? 
 Sir John feems to have perceived it; and 
 therefore, in his next letter to Lord Craw- 
 furd, upon the 2 2d of July, he Ally iniinuates 
 and fays, that his former letter was of the 6th, 
 not only in direr! contradiction to the date of 
 the letter itfelf, but alfo to the date of the 
 
 letter
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 37 
 
 letter to Mr Florentin, in which it was inclo- 
 fed. 
 
 In the fourth place, Sir John, in his letter 
 to Mrs Hepburn of the 6th of Auguft, men- 
 tions his having wrote her upon the icth of 
 July preceeding ; and adds, that Lady Jane 
 had been brought to bed the evening of 
 that day ; yet Mrs llewit fwears, and in her 
 letter to the maids fays, that Lady Jane was 
 imcafy during the whole night preceeding her 
 delivery j that about eleven in the forenoon, 
 me turned extremely ill ; and it is acknow- 
 ledged by all of them, that fhe was not long 
 in labour. So that, if fhe was delivered at all, 
 /lie m.uft have been delivered in the forenoon, 
 
 In the fifth place, It cannot but appear ex- 
 traordinary, that although Lady Jane is faid 
 to have been delivered upon the icth; yet 
 no letters were wrote notifying this e- 
 vent to any mortal, not even to her female 
 friends or the maid-fervants, fooner than 
 the 2 2d. This appears to me extremely lin- 
 gular, and, I am perfuaded, mufl do fo to c- 
 vcry perfon who hears me. Lady Jane ap- 
 pears to have married Sir John Stewart with 
 a view to bring an heir to the great eftatc and 
 noble family of Douglas. Both Sir John and 
 ihe were well advanced in life, and could not 
 
 be
 
 38 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 be fuppofed capable of having many children. 
 Lady Jane, in a foreign country, and far from 
 her friends, was fafely delivered of two boys : 
 Was it not natural then for Sir John and her to 
 haften to convey the news of this happy event 
 to their friends ? Is it pofliblc to believe that Mrs 
 Hewit would not do it to the maid-fervants ? 
 and yet, no fuch intimation is given. This 
 is evident, not only becaufe no fuch letters 
 are produced, but that it appears from Lady 
 Jane's pocket-book, that no letters were wrote 
 betwixt the ioth and 2 id. 
 
 And thus, with refpect to the day of Lady 
 Jane's delivery, every thing is doubtful and 
 dark ; every thing is myfterious and afiected. 
 Some particulars are given up as untrue, un- 
 der the fofter name of miftakes; others are 
 unnatural and unfupported. 
 
 But one thing ftill remains. What fays 
 the purfuer to the day of delivery ? What 
 evidence has he brought P or has he brought 
 any, to mew, that the ioth day of July 1748 
 neither was nor could be the day of Lady 
 Jane's delivery? Yes, the purfuer has brought 
 evidence upon this point, and evidence 
 which appears to me to prove, much more 
 clearly than could have been expected, that 
 the whole fiery of Lady Jane's delivery in 
 
 the
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 39 
 
 the houfe of Madame le Bran upon the roth 
 of July 1748 is fictitious and faife; for that, 
 at that period, Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs 
 Hewit refided in the hotel kept by Monfieur 
 Godefroy ; and that there was in that houfe, 
 not only no delivery, but no appearance of 
 any. 
 
 I will not take up the time of the court, in 
 recapitulating the manner in which Monfieur 
 Godefroy's books were kept. One thing is 
 clear, that books were kept ; and though I 
 ill ill not call them per fe full evidence; yet 
 they are. ftrong adminicles, as being made up 
 km<r ago, and without any view to fupport 
 this caufe. I will not enter into all the objec- 
 tions Hated againft them on the part of 
 the defender. I think the premmptions 
 arc in favour of the books ; and that I am 
 bound to pay them great regard; efpe- 
 cially when fupported, as they are in the 
 ftrongeft manner, by the direct tcftimony of 
 Godefroy and his wife. 
 
 It is true, the name of the pcrfon and his 
 company, to whom the accompt of the 4th of 
 July belongs, was entered blank in the book, 
 and continues fo; yet is fo rivetted by circum- 
 flanccs, as to add faith to the oaths of Gode- 
 froy and his wife, who fwcar that it was o- 
 
 pened
 
 4 o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 pened for Sir John Stewart; and the way 
 how it came to be opened blank is accounted 
 for from Monfieur Maillefer's letter to Gode- 
 froy, in which he recommends Sir John Stewart 
 and his Lady, but without telling him their 
 
 names. 
 
 By this accompt, begun upon the 4th of 
 July, the firft payment made by Sir John 
 Stewart to Monfieur Godefroy appears to 
 have been made upon the 8th of July, a day 
 or two after they got the money from Tallin ; 
 which, by the bye, is an additional proof of 
 the falfchood of the ftory of their having 
 firft got money from Monfieur Andrieux. 
 
 The number of perfons for whom this ac- 
 compt is ftated tallies exactly with the num- 
 ber of Sir John's company; fo does the ar- 
 ticle of the wine, and fo docs the day upon 
 which it commences; for it is confeifed on 
 all hands, that Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs 
 Hewit entered into Godefroy's houfe upon the 
 4th of July. If then this accompt does not re- 
 late to Sir John Stewart and his company,where 
 is the accompt which does ? But Godefroy 
 and his wife fwcar, That this accompt does re- 
 late to Sir John Stewart. Why, or for what rea- 
 fon mould we not believe them ? I cannot fup- 
 pofe them perjured. T fee not the leaft evi- 
 dence
 
 LORD PRESIDENT. 41 
 
 dence of it; on the contrary, Godefroy's 
 fwearing fo candidly as he did, from memory, 
 concerning the letter which he received from 
 Monfieur Maillefer, in my apprehenfioii, fays 
 much in his favour. 
 
 As to the two enlevements, though not 
 by themfelves fufficient, yet I cannot get 
 them out of my mind. Strange, lingular! y 
 ftrange it is ! that they fhould co-incide fo 
 exactly with the events in queftion. 
 
 As to the enlevement of Mignon's child, 
 it is clearly proved, that fuch enlevement 
 happened in July 1748; and though I do not 
 think myfelf under any necemty to main- 
 tain, that the defender is that child ; yet it 
 appears to me a ftrong fad, in the fcale of e- 
 vidence, that a child mould be carried off by 
 a foreigner, under feveral circumftances cor- 
 rclponding to Sir John and his ftory, particu- 
 larly as to the time ; for, by the delay of the 
 feaft of St Clair that year till the 2 2d of Ju- 
 ly, it appears to me, that the date of the en- 
 levement of Mignon's child mull either have 
 been the nth or the 18th of July; and the 
 laft of the two feems rnoft probable. 
 
 The co-incidence of the other enlevement 
 nf Sanry's child is not lefs extraordinary. 
 This happened in November 1749; at this 
 
 F t imc
 
 42 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 time Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit were 
 again in Paris: Surely, if they had no con- 
 cern in either of thefe enlevements, never 
 were people more unlucky. There is no e- 
 vidence that an enlevement at Paris is an or^ 
 dinary event, or that it happens frequently. 
 Strange, that Sir John and his company 
 mould have been there at times fo fufpicious 
 and unfortunate! Saury's child is proved to 
 have been carried off by foreigners : Thefe 
 foreigners three in number, having no atten- 
 dants, the age of the child exactly agreeing 
 with the fuppofed age of Sholto. Thefe cir- 
 cumftances correfpond to Sir John Stewart 
 and his company ; yet it is not the minutia of 
 theftory which move me. In a circumftantiate 
 evidence, circumfiances mull: be laid toge- 
 ther. A feparate link in the chain may bear 
 a challenge ; and yet the whole remain firm 
 and impregnable. 
 
 As to the way in which this caufe has been 
 conducted by the gentlemen on both fides, I 
 do not fee any reafon for blame, either upon 
 the one fide or the other ; though there had 
 been fuch due, yet it would not have varied 
 my judgment; but I fee none due. And as to 
 the cry railed againft the purfuer for having 
 varied Lis ground, his doing fo may fhew fpi- 
 
 rit,
 
 LOUD PRESIDENT. 43 
 
 lit, as it does, but cannot influence the deter- 
 mination ; in a labyrinth fo dark and intricate, 
 it was no wonder that the falfe lights hung 
 out on the part of the defender fhould often 
 miflead him. 
 
 The witnefTes are faid to be low people : 
 They are fo ; but they were not of the pur- 
 fuer's chuhng : They were chofen by the de- 
 fender's fuppofed parents : The purfuer was 
 obliged to follow them : He could examine 
 no other. 
 
 But what could move Lady Jane to com- 
 mit fo great a crime as is here fuppofed ? 
 What could influence her to play a part fo 
 criminal, and to continue it to the lail ? 
 
 That Lady jane was anxious to have chil- 
 dren appears from her converfation with Mr 
 Hepburn ; and that this was her intention 
 in marrying Sir John Stewart, appears from . 
 her letter to the Duke of Douglas. What 
 other motive on earth could flic have for 
 marrying him ? When once flic had put on 
 the mafic, (lie was under a nccenity to wear 
 it. She had faid, that the defender and Shol- 
 to were her children. Common fenfe, of 
 which (lie had a lar T c marc, led her to behave 
 to them as fuch ; other /.ays her actions would 
 have given the He to her words ; and it is 
 
 cafy
 
 44 T H E SPEEC II O F 
 
 eafy to fee which of them would have been 
 bell believed. The death-bed declarations in 
 this caufe do not move me : When crimes 
 are committed, the committers rarely chufe 
 to confers, if by concealing they can efcape 
 that infamy which otherways would purfue 
 them. Lady Jane could not but fee, that, 
 when the Rubicon was paft, there was no 
 retreating. Had fhe been tempted to have 
 divulged a fecrefe fo important, the confe- 
 quences would have been, infamy on her own 
 memory, and capital punHliment on her aflo- 
 ciates. That in Sir John's judicial declara- 
 tion many things are falfc, cannot be denied. 
 Between an oath and a declaration there is 
 little difference; and yet Sir John, upon his 
 death-bed, does not confefs them; and tho* 
 he makes a death-bed declaration, takes no 
 notice of any of them. 
 
 Lady Jane's pregnancy is the great argu- 
 ment infilled in on the part of the defender. 
 I admit that it is a ground of doubt ; but it 
 can never outweigh my ftrong conviction a- 
 rifinG: from evidence fo circumft mtiate as that 
 which I have already obferved. One thing 
 is ftrange, that Lady Jme's attendants fwear 
 to her pregnancy as fo remarkable, that one 
 would think no body, with their eyes open, 
 
 but
 
 LORD PRESIDEN T. 45 
 
 but would perceive it. Mrs Hewit particular- 
 ly mentions the fize of her breafts as well as 
 belly ; yet we fee even women did not per- 
 ceive it until it was told them. At Rheims, 
 Abbe Ilibert fpeaks of a pregnancy which 
 could not be difcovered, except when Lady 
 Jane wanted a hoop. Lieutenant M'Lean 
 faw it not ; Chiercngal faw it not, until he 
 was told of it ; the company in the ftage- 
 coach faw it not. 
 
 As to the mifcarriages, I like them not; 
 they are too numerous; and, upon the whole, 
 I am for fuftaining the reafons of reduction. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ 4* J 
 
 LORD STRICHEN. 
 
 I AM of a very different opinion from that 
 juft now given from the chair. The proof of 
 pregnancy ftrikes me fo ftrongly in this caufe, 
 that I own I cannot get over it. I fee a ftrono- 
 proof of it, even at a period when the 
 marriage of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane 
 Douglas was not difcovered. I lay a great 
 deal of weight upon the Earl of Crawford's 
 letter to the Duke of Douglas upon this fub- 
 jecl:. Lord Crawford would not have told 
 a lie for the whole eftate of Douglas. I 
 cannot but think, that pregnancy may be 
 proved fo as to infer an abfolute certainty of 
 the fact. It has been faid, that the proof of 
 Lady Jane's Douglas's pregnancy depends 
 chiefly upon eye-fight. Why, my Lords, 
 don't we owe half our knowledge to the 
 eye ? Is it not by the eye we acquire our 
 knowledge of aftronomy, the effects of the 
 moon, the change of tides ? We know 
 the progrefs of the feafons by the obferva- 
 tion of our eye-fight ; and why may not the 
 
 advance-
 
 THE SPEECH OF, &c. 47 
 
 advancement of pregnancy be afcertaincd by 
 flmilar observation ? I lee it proved beyond 
 controverfy, that Lady Jane gradually increa- 
 fed in her lize. Ifabel V\ r alkcr depofes to this 
 id explicitely, and I believe, with fo much ho* 
 neity, that I own I cannot get over it j efpecial- 
 ly when we have joined to this a poiitive proof 
 of Lady Jane's capacity of having children. 
 In my confeience 1 believe Lady Jane Douglas 
 was with child. Now I cannot flop; what is 
 the natural confequence of pregnancy ? Deli- 
 very. If Lady Jane was pregnant, it is clear, 
 that ilie mull have been delivered, or elfe a 
 mifcarriage mull: have happened, which it was 
 undoubtedly incumbent on the purfaers to 
 prove; as the pregnancy, once fully afcertain- 
 cd, lays the prefumption for a full birth. 
 This being the cafe, I cannot think that the 
 defender is bound to prove his own birth. 
 This mull reft upon the acknowledgment of 
 his parents, and upon their uniform irada- 
 tus or treatment of him as their fon. It is 
 incumbent upon the purfuers to difprove the 
 birth by clear and pofitive evidence ; and 
 none fuch, in my opinion, have they been 
 able to bring. Their flory is fo unnatural 
 and fo improbable, that I own it will not go 
 down with me. The defender has one wit- 
 
 r.efs
 
 4 3 T II K SPEECH OF 
 
 nefs {"wearing pofitively that flic was prefcnt 
 at his birth. He has an uniform traSlatus 
 parentum, a variety of circumftances corro- 
 borative of the truth of his birth ; fo many 
 circumftances, indeed, that I own they (peak 
 ftronger to my mind than would a number 
 of witneffes fwearing to their having been 
 prefent at the birth. When the ftory of the 
 impofture, fet forth by the purfuers, (which 
 I cannot help thinking highly improbable), 
 is compared with this, we fliall foon find the 
 balance incline to the fide of the defender. 
 Let us examine the ftory of the purfuers, 
 and fee if they have probability on the fide 
 of their hypothetic. Is it credible, that when 
 Lady Jane and Sir John were fo poor, that it 
 is proved they could fcarcely maintain them- 
 felves, is it credible, I fay, that they mould 
 add to this poverty, by bringing upon them- 
 feives the burden of maintaining other peo-t 
 pies children, and that too, with the danger of 
 fo much guilt as that of committing the crime 
 of partus fuppofitiaf Is it credible, that when, 
 one child would have ferved their purpofe, 
 they would have burdened themfelves with 
 two ? Is it credible, that they would go to 
 Paris, without any perfon to aflift them in the 
 commnTion of fc dangerous a crime ? And, 
 
 what
 
 LORD STRICHEN. 49 
 
 what is ftronger than all this, is it credible, 
 that after they had got the impofhire of the 
 firft child accomplished, and knew what a 
 dreadful punifhment they rnuft fuffer, if de- 
 tected j is it credible, I fay, that they would 
 have remained fo long in Paris, where 
 they might be eafily found out by thole 
 who might be in fearch of them ? Yet this is 
 the ftory of the purfuers; and, after they 
 leave Paris, where do they go ? To Dammar- 
 tin, juft in the neighbourhood ; and where 
 next ? to Rheims ; to the very place where 
 they were moft likely to be difcovered. I own 
 this will not go down with me. It was furely 
 much more natural for them to have left 
 France altogether after having committed -fo 
 great a crime. But not only do they remain 
 <;uietly and peaceably at Rheims for the fpace 
 of fifteen months, where they were always in 
 dangerof being convicted, but they even go 
 back to Paris a fecond time in the year 1749, 
 again to run fo dreadful a rifk, and in order to 
 pick up a poor weakly child. Can I believe 
 this ? I own I cannot. There is another cir- 
 cumftance too which I take into confidcra- 
 tion, which is, that, as Lady Jane Douglas 
 was, at this time, undoubtedly capable of ha- 
 ving children, would fhe be guilty of two 
 G fuch
 
 50 T 11 E S PEE Gil O F 
 
 fuch impofturcs, when the confequence might 
 he to deprive her own children of their birth- 
 i ight ? The fecond child indeed (when they did 
 find him) correfponds exactly to the accounts 
 which they had given of him before they law 
 him, or knew any thing about him. Such is the 
 ftory as fet forth by the purmers ; finely a moil 
 improbable one. I own it will not go clown 
 with me. On the other hand, the conduct oi 
 Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas is 
 very- ccnfiftcnt with the notion of a true 
 birth. Much has been faid of the folic ac- 
 counts given by Sir John Stewart concern- 
 ing the particulars of this birth; and the in- 
 ference drawn from Sir John Stewart's ac- 
 count of the matter is, that the defender is 
 not his ion. But I humbly apprehend, that 
 had Sir John, at the time of his declaration, 
 even acknowledged, that the defender was 
 not his fon, that this would rot have been 
 iuilicient to have ice him aiide after he had 
 attained the poffeihon of his eftate, in confe- 
 cuence of his own acknowledgement of bAm 
 as his fon. Upon this point, I refer to the 
 great Lord Stair, who expreffes himfelf in the 
 following words: " Filiation is premmed 
 " from marriage, whereby the children are 
 " prefumed to be die lawful children of thofc 
 
 " whti
 
 LORD STRICKEN. 51 
 
 u who arc 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 fucceiiion, and is 
 " the probation of the marriage betwixt 
 " thofe who are prefumed parents, which is 
 " fo ftrong a prefumprion, that the mother 
 " acknowledging- another father than he that 
 " is married to her will not prejudice the 
 " children ; much lef: will the aflertion of the 
 " father, that the children are not his, tho' 
 " lie condefcend upon another to be the true 
 " father ; yet, if both the married perfons do 
 " acknowledge, that the child is net procreate 
 " betwixt them, but by another as a father, 
 "who fhould alio acknowledge the fame, 
 " and own the child, it would elude the pre- 
 " fumption ; but, if both married perfons had 
 " owned and treated the child as theirs, the 
 " concurring teftimonies of all the three 
 " would not prejudice the child in the rl^ht 
 " of fucceflion to his reputed father and mo- 
 " ther." 
 
 V. r K ice then, that upon this great authori- 
 ty in law, that had Sir John and Lady Jane 
 both positively declared, that the defender 
 was not their fon, afrer having treated him 
 ~:n!y as fnrh for any lengjj of time, he 
 
 miifi 
 
 ■ ' .V
 
 52 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 muft neverthelefs be maintained in the pofTef* 
 fion of his cftate. It then, the pofitive decla* 
 rations of parents would not be fuflicient to 
 deprive the defender of his eftate, {hall we de- 
 prive him of it, from only fufpicions arifing 
 from any miftakes and contradictions which 
 may appear in Sir John's account of the mat- 
 ter?— I repel fuch reafons of reduction. 
 
 I mall now make a few obfervations upon 
 the proof brought by the purfuers, no part of 
 which, excepting that of Monfieur Godefroy's 
 books and his oath, is totally inconfiftent with 
 the truth of the birth ; that is to fay, excludes 
 the pofiibility of it. All the reft of the proof is 
 merely of the negative kind, which will fei- 
 dom be allowed to redargue direct pofitive te- 
 fiimony. The purfuers fay there is no Pierre la 
 Marre, nor no Madame le Bran found. Againft 
 this negative proof, we have the direct and po- 
 sitive tcftimony of Sir John Stewart and Mrs 
 Hewit, both of whom concur in fwearing, 
 that Lady Jane Douglas was delivered of 
 twins in the houfe of Madame le Brun ; that 
 La Marre was the accoucheur; and that Mrs 
 Hewit was one of the witneiles to, the deli- 
 very. This of itfelf is enough ; for though 
 people thus pofitively fworn to had not been 
 found at ib great a diflance of time, as this 
 
 pvoceis
 
 LORD STRICKEN. 33 
 
 procefs has been brought fo late, I could not 
 sive it acrainft the defender. But the defender 
 has done more : He has fhewn clearly, that 
 there was in the year 1748 a La Marr an ac- 
 coucheur in Paris; that he delivered a foreign 
 Lady of advanced age of twins, who he faid 
 would be people of great rank and wealth in 
 their country; that the one of them wasftrong 
 and healthy, the other weak and fickly : The 
 defender has alfo mown, that there was at 
 this time a Madame le Brum Taking all 
 thefe things together, can I doubt that the 
 ftory told by Sir John Stewart and Lady 
 Jane Douglas is true ? The purfuers lay great 
 ftrefs upon Godefroy's books, together with 
 the oath of him and his wife, and afiert, that 
 they have thereby proved an alibi from the 
 4th to the 1 /[tli of July; during all which time 
 Lady Jane, being in the houfe of Godcfroy, 
 could not be delivered on the 10th in Ma- 
 dame le Brun's. I muft here obferve, that 
 we ousjht to have had the books themfelves 
 produced by the purfuers ; and that the pro- 
 ducing a notorial copy of them is not enough. 
 11 Godcfroy was punning even a trifling debt, 
 il would not be enough. But, however, letus 
 look into the entries made in thefe books, we 
 Ih ill fee !b many blanks, fo much indiftinct- 
 
 ncis
 
 54 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 nefs and inaccuracy, that, without believing 
 implicitely in the memories of Monfieur 
 Godcfroy and his wife, we cannot pay any 
 regard to the books. Godefroy and his wife, 
 indeed, have fworn pofitivcly, that the blank 
 article of the 4th of July does relate to Sir 
 John Stewart and his company. But in this, 
 it appears to me, they are very probably both 
 miftaken, and the proof by their oaths fingly 
 iuppletory of their books, which, I fee, are 
 liable to fo much error, will not be fufiicient 
 tofet afide the whole evidence, direct and cir- 
 cumftantial, which the defender has brought 
 in fupport of his birth. 
 
 It remains for me to make a few obferva- 
 tions on fome circumftances of which wc 
 have heard a great deal. It has been object- 
 ed, that Lady Jane, foon after her delivery, 
 was feen going abroad and jaunting about Paris. 
 As to this I obferve contradictory evidence ; 
 but fuppofe it true, that fhe was feen going a- 
 broad; what then? it was not till the 17 th day 
 after her delivery. Much has been faid as to 
 Sir John and Lady Jane's concealment at Paris. 
 Why, my Lords, I don't know; they are 
 now dead ; I cannot explain the reafons' of 
 their conduct, nor can the defender; but what 
 is this at bed ? Much ftrcfs has been laid up- 
 on
 
 L O II D STRIC H E N. 55 
 
 on an alledged detection of falfehood on the 
 part of Sir John Stewart and Mrs Hewit, in 
 faying, that they were in want of money at 
 Paris. It is in proof that Sir John had letters 
 of credit for a pretty confiderable fum: But, 
 my Lords, I remember a ftory of a man in 
 high rank at London, who was accufed of 
 embezzling the public money. In order to 
 fupport.this accufation, it was faid he had a 
 great deal of money in his hands; for he had 
 built a magnificent houfe and made very line 
 gardens : Ay, ay, laid he; but how do you 
 know that my workmen are paid ? Now, my 
 Lords, how do we know that Sir John Stew- 
 art's debts were paid ? . We do not know how 
 much of the fum contained in thefe letters of 
 credit was Sir John Stewart's own. Do we not 
 ail know the character of Sir John Stewart, 
 a thoughtlefs, diflipated, extravagant man? 
 Why, he might have been owing the grcateil 
 part of this money, and had little free in his 
 pocket by the time he got to Paris. That 
 they were in want of money when in Paris, 
 is pofitively fworn to by both Sir John and 
 Mrs Hew it. That it may have been fo, I can 
 cafily believe; it will account for many things 
 in their conduct which may now appear very 
 odd to us. 
 
 As
 
 S6 THE SPEECHOF, k 
 
 As to the two enlevements, none of 
 them apply to Sir John Stewart. It is clear 
 that the defender cannot be Mignon's child; 
 for Mignon's child had fair eyes, and the de- 
 fender is proved to have had black eyes 
 when he was produced at Rheims. The eyes 
 of a child could never change from fair to 
 black in fo fhort a time as in going from Pa- 
 ris to Rheims. Sanry's child had as little 
 connection with Sholto. Sanry's child, at 
 the time it was carried off, could both walk 
 and fpeak; Sholto could do neither, even after 
 he was brought to England. 
 
 Upon the whole then, my Lords, I am 
 clearly of opinion for repelling the reafons of 
 reduction, and afibilzieing the defender. 
 
 LORD
 
 E 57 3 
 
 LORD K A M E S. 
 
 Pi opofed to have given my opinion at a late 
 period of the deliberation, becaufe I wifh- 
 ed to hear others, and to be as ripe as poflible 
 in a caufe lb intricate arid involved ; and in- 
 deed, when I came into court yeilerday, I 
 was prepared to give my vote and no more, 
 as nothing further appeared rieceffary; and I 
 confefs I would fall incline to give my vote 
 fingly. But fince I am now called on by your 
 Lordfhip, I mall ftate fhortly what occurs to 
 me, without pretending to go through the 
 whole mare ma?num of circumfrances in this 
 caufe. 
 
 There are different views in which the 
 prefent queflion may be conlidered. In the 
 fir'l place, 1 mail fuppcfe every thing at this 
 moment entire, and that Mr Douglas were ap- 
 plying to be ferved heir to the Duke of Dou- 
 glas ; would I in that cafe, as a juryman, find 
 fufiicient grounds to fervc him ? The cafe is 
 intricate; and I admit, that the arguments 
 which came with fo much energy from the 
 chrir, made great impreflion upon me, as a 
 
 H juryman
 
 58 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 juryman ferving Mr Douglas, and had I been 
 called on recently to give my voice, I mould 
 have been almoft overwhelmed with the 
 weight of them ; but I have had time to de- 
 liberate upon the circumftances, and I feel 
 that they are enervated and fiy off. 
 
 One general remark occurs, and is to be 
 kept in view in examining this caufe. Facts 
 are fet forth, to appearance unaccountable, 
 and which create fufpicion and doubt, becaufe 
 they cannot be explained. But how are we 
 fure that every difficulty of this kind would 
 not evanifh, if we knew the whole extent of 
 the facts ? Great allowance muft be made for 
 the lapfe of time and death of witneffes. 
 Dropping the man-fervant at Leige was once 
 founded on as a molt fufpicious circumftance; 
 but accidentally the whole fact has been dif- 
 covered, and it comes to nothing. This 
 fhews, that a fact or circumftance may be 
 doubtful, merely becaufe one half of it only 
 is known. 
 
 In other inftanccs, facts wear a double face, 
 and may be urged with equal plaufibility on 
 either iidc of the qucftion : For example, La- 
 dy jane's loitering upon the road before 
 reaching the intended place of delivery : 
 This, in one view, may feem unaccountable, 
 
 if
 
 LORD KAMES, 59 
 
 if me was with child : But, on the other hand, 
 if me had no child, and if an impofturc was re- 
 folved on, there was no occafion to loiter. This, 
 and every other fcheme would have been fo 
 laid, as to avoid the leaft handle for fufpi- 
 cion. Where falfehoods are intended, great 
 care is taken to difrniife them. 
 
 o 
 
 There is a third clafs of circumftanccs, 
 which have the appearance of being weighty ; 
 but when conlidered and fcrutinized, the ar- 
 gument founded on them is difcovered to be 
 inconcluhve. For example, the fervant maid 
 Ifabel Walker was left at llheims. This, at 
 firft fight appears fufpicious ; becaufe, w T hy 
 leave her at llheims, if it was not to conceal 
 from her what was intended to be done at 
 Paris ? Yet Ifabel Walker was a fit woman 
 to be trufted. She mull have committed the 
 mofl glaring perjury before your Lordfhips, 
 in fupporting the caufe of the defender, and 
 in vindicating the memory of her deceafed 
 miftrefs, if the pregnancy and birth were not 
 real. She was therefore a mo ft proper per- 
 ion to be ulcd as an accomplice in any fraud; 
 and, if we can fuppofe, that fhc has gone fuch 
 lengths in the affair lincc Lady Jane's death, 
 {he certainly would not be lefs fcrupulous du- 
 ring her life, and when in her fervice. 
 
 But
 
 6o THE SPEECH O F 
 
 But fuppofe we allowed the fulleft weight 
 to all thefe circumftances urged for the pur-? 
 fucrs, the whole of them muit go for nothing, 
 if the pregnancy of Lady Jane Douglas is e- 
 ftablifhed. The purluers fay, that the evi- 
 dence of her pregnancy is falfe. I differ from 
 them in opinion. I think the evidence on this 
 head is complete ; I have no notion of evi- 
 dence more complete ; and I dare not fay that all 
 the witneffes are perjured. I always expected, 
 that fome evidence would have been attempt- 
 ed by the purfuers of a mifcarriage fubfe- 
 qucnt to the pregnancy, and that the fcheme 
 of impofing on the world would have been 
 dated only from that period. But I fee no 
 fuch thing in evidence ; and therefore I mull 
 neceffarily yield to the proof brought by the 
 defender. 
 
 For thefe reafons, were I here fitting as a 
 Juryman to determine whether the defender 
 ihould be put in pofTefiion or not, I would 
 give my voice for ferving him, though, with* 
 doubt and diffidence, as the cafe is indeed 
 the moft intricate and lingular that has at 
 any time occurred, much more fo than any 
 fet forth in the Caufes Celebres. 
 
 But wc are not now in fo ftrait a cafe: 
 Matters are greatly altered : The defender 
 is eftablifhed in the pofiefnon of his eflate as 
 
 the
 
 LORD KAMES. 61 
 
 Hie fon of Lady jane Douglas : Not only has 
 he the traclatus in his favour; but he has 
 been ferved heir to the Duke of Douglas : 
 He has obtained the King's charter ; and he 
 inherits the fucceflion of a noble family, He 
 inuft continue in the pofFeflion which he has 
 obtained according to the legal forms of 
 this country, until full proof is fhown that 
 he is fuppofititious, and that a wrong ver- 
 dict has been given in his favour. 
 
 Every decree muft be held pro verltate un- 
 til it is reduced; and, in this cafe, the ftrongeit 
 and molt convincing proof is neccflary to de- 
 feat the fervice of the defender. The proof 
 which has been brought for this purpofe is 
 infuilicient. I cannot be prevailed on to 
 think, that the whole facts fworn to on the 
 pirt of the defender are falfc and fictitious. 
 What touches me moil is the forgery of the 
 letters ; for forged they certainly appear to be. 
 But I cannot give fo much weight, even to 
 this circumftancc, as to make it preponderate 
 and defeat the whole evidence that appears 
 in favour of the birth. Were I indeed to fee it 
 under Sir John Stewart's own hand, that the 
 whole circumftances of the birth were a fiction, 
 I would at once give up the point : But this 
 I do not fee. It was wrong in Sir John to 
 
 write
 
 6z THE SPEECH OF, &c. 
 
 write thefe letters ; but his having wrote 
 them is not neceifarily inconfiilent with the 
 truth of the birth. We mult take along with 
 us the circumftances in which they were 
 wrote. Sir John was then in jail. Some- 
 thing perhaps, like one of the plcz fraudes of 
 old, was done at a time when he could not 
 have accefs to better proof. 1 he real matter 
 of fa£t could afterwards be explained. 
 
 I cannot forfeit the party of his birth-right, 
 becaufe his father was guilty of an impru- 
 dent act The purfuers have no right to de- 
 mand this. They themfelves were guilty of 
 a moft unjuftifiable ftep in railing the Tour- 
 nelle procefs. This was fimilar to ftabbiftg 
 a man in the dark ; and their conduct in that 
 particular has been juftly condemned. I am 
 far from infmuating, that the gentlemen 
 concerned in it meant any thing wrong; 
 they had convinced themfelves of the juftice 
 of their caufe ; and they thought every 
 means lawful which could tend to the cfta- 
 blifhment of the impofture. This mows that 
 men are fometimes led to do things wrong 
 in themfelves without any criminal view, 
 but in order to ferve purpofes which they 
 imagine to be good. Upon the whole, I am 
 for repelling the reafons of reduction. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ 6 
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 
 
 I Have confidered this bulky caufe with alt 
 the attention that I poffibly could, and I 
 am not furprifed that your Lordihips mould 
 differ in opinion, where there is fuch a varie- 
 ty of matter before you, two huge volumes 
 of proof, and two moft accurate, ingenious, 
 and laborious memorials. 
 
 My Lords, contrary to my common cuftom 
 of never reading law-cafes in time of vacation, 
 I have bellowed a good deal of laft vacation 
 upon this caufe. But though I made very full 
 notes, I refolved not to form a decifive opini- 
 on till 1 mould be fure that I was not, as it 
 were, drawn off at a tangent, but had the 
 whole of the caufe under my view. After 
 much labour when I came to town, I did 
 form an opinion ; yet, I ftill wifhed for fur- 
 ther evidence ; and in this view, I fecondedthe 
 motion made from the chair for the re-exami- 
 nation of Ifabcl Walker. She was re-exami- 
 ned : She anfwercd difhnctly, pointedly, and 
 coherently, and confirmed the humble opi- 
 nion I had formed, which, I own, fhe would 
 
 have
 
 6 4 tHE SPEECH dF 
 
 have fhaken, had flic anfvvered in a different: 
 manner. She was examined by the purfuers 
 for two whole days ; and examined by them, 
 not for information, but, if poflible, to get 
 her to contradict hcrfelf. She flood it all, and 
 jnever but once loft her temper,- and in fhort, 
 the whole of her behaviour fully fatisfied me 
 that fhe was fpeaking the truth. 
 
 I come now to tell your Lordfhips why I 
 have formed my opinion for the defender. 
 
 I will firft mention a few general principles. 
 In all queftions of filiation, which are quefli- 
 ons of the greateft importance, fceptical peo- 
 ple may fuggeft innumerable doubts, as fcep- 
 tical people can render every thing uncer- 
 tain, They may talk of the infidelity of a 
 wife, or of the infidelity of a nurfe, who may 
 change a child, fo that a man cannot be cer- 
 tain of his offspring : But, my Lords, it is 
 the fpirit of our law, and it is the fpirit of a 
 wife law, to difregard fuch poflible cafes, and 
 to look for a legal certainty, not a certainty 
 in the abflracl. Strong inflances of what I 
 am faying frequently occur before this houfe, 
 A man may have the misfortune to be mar- 
 ried to a woman of infamous character j to a 
 woman perhaps, whom he knows to be a pro- 
 ftitute j and yet, the children born of that 
 
 woman
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 65 
 
 woman muft be maintained by him. He is 
 fixed down to be the father of them, if he 
 has been within the feas the ftated time. It 
 is the genius of the law to lay down general 
 rules by which we are to judge. Were it 
 not for fuch rules in the cafe of filiation, we 
 iliould be in a very unhappy flate of uncer- 
 tainty, not knowing what queftions may be 
 moved againft our children after we are 
 s^one. 
 
 o 
 
 With regard to filiation, I hold it to be a 
 rule in law, that if a hufband and wife own 
 a child as theirs, the]/ are to be believed ; and 
 this acknowledgement of parents is ■probatio 
 probata in favour of that child, if direct con- 
 trary evidence is not brought ; and the long- 
 er this acknowledgement has fubfiftcd, the 
 greater evidence arifes in favour of the child, 
 and the ftronger the proof mull be to get the 
 better of it. 
 
 In the cafe before us, it is not difputed that 
 the defender was uniformly acknowledged 
 by Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, 
 as their fon ; and it was not fuch an acknow- 
 ledgement as in the cafe of Kinnaird, where 
 all that was faid was, that the Lady had 
 brought forth twins. They were immediate- 
 ly challenged; the fraud was immediately 
 I difcovered.
 
 66 .THE SPEECH OF 
 
 difcovered. But here there is an acknowledge- 
 ment which carries the ftrongeft evidence tc* 
 n1e. Sir John and Lady Jane, for a courfe 
 of years, fhow the warmeil affection for their 
 children ; when any thing ails them, we find 
 her fainting and mowing every mark of the 
 moll tender concern ; and this not oftentati- 
 ouily difplayed, but feen by accident by per- 
 fens cf the firft character, who have depofed 
 to it ; and there was one circumftance which 
 1 thought very important, and with regard 
 to which I wanted to be fatis£ed by Ifabel 
 Walker, which was, if thefe poor people (for 
 poor they were , though of rank and quality), 
 I fay, my Lords, if thefe poor people, amidft 
 all their difficulties, ever repined at the ex- 
 pence occafioned by thefe children? She an- 
 fwered, they never did ; and (though it is not 
 taken down), fhe added, that on the contrary, 
 they constantly exprefTed the greateft love and 
 fondnefs for them. My Lords, I confefs, this 
 circumftance weighs very ilrongly with me ; 
 for had thefe been fuppofititious children, I 
 cannot believe, but that Sir John and Lady 
 Jane would have, at fome time or other, dif- 
 covered that they had brought upon them- 
 felves the burden of taking care of two chil- 
 dren not their own ; and yet, here is a woman 
 
 who
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 67 
 
 who was conftantly with them, even in their 
 raoft unguarded moments, and me never per- 
 ceived the leaft appearance of any fuch thing. 
 
 Such is the flatus or ft ate of this defender; 
 and I do not think that he, who is a ftrangcr 
 to all the various fads now before us, can be 
 anfwcrable for any conduct of his jnanagers. 
 He is intitled to plead every thing ; he fol- 
 lows out his defences as well as he can ; it he 
 fails, he cannot help it. Had he been a party 
 in what is now charged againft his parents, 
 the cafe would have been different. When a 
 perfon is brought to trial as a criminal, his 
 very looks and his manner of fhaping his 
 defence will prove againlt him. Bat here, if 
 the defender proves his filiation, it will not 
 hurt him, though his other proof may be de- 
 fective or liable to exception. And, my 
 Lords, were this defender now before me, 
 deliring to be ierved heir to Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas, I, as a juryman, fhould think it my du- 
 ty to ferve him. 
 
 Now, what has the other party proved? 
 Here again I mult be allowed to lay a word 
 or two in general. I fairly own, that, in lb 
 great a cauie, I wifhed 10 ice a full and clear, 
 as well as a fair proof. 1 wifhed, that the 
 caufe had arifen at a time, when we could have 
 
 thought
 
 68 THESPEECHOF 
 
 thought there were no by-motives. But when 
 was the challenge brought againft this defend- 
 er ? Not till after he had defeated Duke Hamil- 
 ton in point of law. That being the cafe, 
 furely the purfuers were called upon to bring 
 their challenge in the moll formal, orderly, 
 and unfufpicious manner. 
 
 Now, it is moll material for your Lord-* 
 fhips to obferve; how the procefs was con- 
 ducted, juftice to this defender obliges us 
 to give all attention to this ; for it is a key to 
 the evidence againft him, and to the defects 
 in the evidence for him. Inftead of apply- 
 ing to this court for a warrant to have a 
 proof taken, where the witnefles might give 
 a fair and unbiaffed evidence, what were 
 the proceedings of the purfuers ? A mock cri- 
 minal procefs (for as it could have no iffue, 
 it deferves no better name) was inftituted be- 
 fore the Tournelle ; and this mock procefs 
 was backed with a menitoire important, which 
 treats Sir John Stewart and Mrs Hewit as 
 already convicted of the crime of fuppo- 
 fition of children. They were not named 
 indeed ; but was there a woman in all France 
 who did net know who they were by the de- 
 fcription given, as much as if they had infert- 
 ed their names ? 
 
 Now j
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 6 9 
 
 Now, I fay, here the purfuers were aiming 
 at a moft undue advantage, which was accor- 
 dingly moft jufriy condemned by this court, 
 and by the houfe of Lords. Thefe pro- 
 ceedings were not condemned folely becaufe 
 they were unprecedented, but becaufe it was 
 forefeen they would pervert evidence : That 
 they would difcourage thofe to appear who 
 could tell the truth, and would ferve as an 
 inftigation from the bifhop to all the people 
 in Paris to bring faggots to burn thefe con- 
 victs. 
 
 This monitoire had a {trance effect. It 
 weakened the memories of fome, it ftrength- 
 ened the memories of other witnefies. And, 
 my Lords, this is no random-afTertion ; it was 
 what I always believed would happen ; and 
 now there is full evidence of it. I fhali felect 
 a few proofs of it from thefe bulky volumes. 
 The Houfe of Lords ordered a production by 
 thefe purfuers, from which we are enabled to 
 fee a good deal into this caufe. ' In one of 
 the pieces produced, to wit, Mr Andrew 
 Stewart's journal, we find, that, when that 
 gentleman converfed with Mifs Louifa Hi- 
 bert, fhe told him, that Lady Jane had much 
 tlic appearance of pregnancy, and appeared to 
 be five months gone with child. This was 
 
 the
 
 7* THE SPEECH OF 
 
 the account that young woman gave, when 
 uninftructed. But, when the fame Mifs Louifa 
 Hibert is called as a witnefs after the Tournelle 
 proceedings, fhe fwears fhe obferved no marks 
 of pregnancy. Another inftance equally ftri- 
 king, is that of Francois La Marre, brother to 
 Pierre la Marre. In Monfieur Danjou's firft 
 note, we find, that, upon examining this 
 Francois, he was told by him, that his brother 
 Pierre the accoucheur was in correfpondence 
 with Madame le Brun, and that he himfelf 
 knew her. In Monfieur Danjou's fecond note, 
 we find Francois telling this agent of the 
 purfuers, that the other party had been with 
 him, and that he had informed them of all 
 that he knew, except as to Madame le Brun, 
 This mows, that Francois la Marre was, by this 
 time, pretty well difpofed to conceal what 
 might favour the defender, and that he was 
 informed what was proper for the purfuers 
 intereft to conceal ; and, when he comes to 
 be examined, he fwears directly the reverfe of 
 what he told Monfieur Danjou, Another in- 
 ftance is, that of Madame Michell. It is fta- 
 ted by the purfuers, in one of their French 
 memorials, that fhe faid Lady Jane had all 
 the appearance of a woman newly brought to 
 bed : But, after the Tournelle procefs and 
 
 monitoire,
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 7* 
 
 monitoire, fhe minces down the matter, and 
 fays only, that Lady Jane had an air malade. 
 Thefe instances convey to my mind full evi- 
 dence of the baneful effects of thefe French 
 proceedings. I fairly own, that, if I could 
 believe the purfuers witneifes, who were 
 brought to fvvear after the Tournelle procefs, 
 I mould believe there was no proof of an ap- 
 pearance of pregnancy. Forlfhould haveMifs 
 Hibert, who had the beft occafion to obferve 
 it, fwearing fhe obferved none. Nay, I 
 I mould have Madame Sautre, who, to make 
 dead fure of it, meafures Lady Jane : But, 
 after the glaring circumftances which I have 
 mentioned, can I give any credit to fuch e- 
 vidence? 
 
 And here, on the appearance of pregnancy, 
 I cannot help mentioning Godefroy and his 
 wife, who are reprefentcd by the purfuers as 
 prodigies of memory, furpaffing very far old 
 Scaliger. They mind mimit'us, the very colour 
 of Sir John's coat, fifteen years after they had 
 feen him ; yet both concur that they obferved 
 no marks of pregnancy about Lady jane ; and 
 yet it is fixed, beyond poill^ility of cavil, 
 that fhe had the pppearancc of pregnancy, 
 whether real or afiumed, is of no moment in 
 this argument ; and the purfuers agents in 
 
 Francs
 
 72 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 France were fo fatisfied of her having had 
 | the appearance of pregnancy, that, in their 
 plaints to the Tournelle, they exprefsly fet 
 forth that Lady Jane aflumed thefe appearan- 
 ces. But, after the monitoire, it feems to have 
 been thought it was making fure work 
 to prove flic had not even the appearance ; 
 and fo thefe witnefTes have fworn. 
 
 There is one branch of this huge proof 
 where I expected to have got fomething that 
 I could lay my hand upon, fomething'of writ- 
 ten evidence, and that was the books. But, 
 when I look unto them, why it is a battle of 
 books, a fair battle, the books of different inns 
 contradicting each other ; nay, fome of them 
 contradicting themfelves. Such is my general 
 view of the evidence brought by the purfuers 
 in this great caufe, except what I fhall fay by 
 and by as to the conduct of the parties. 
 
 My Lords, we have here a full and ftrong 
 filiation of this defender ; and I moreover fee 
 a variety of proofs, which could have come 
 out for him, had it not been for thefe wrong- 
 ous proceedings in France. 
 
 Now let us confider more particularly what 
 is here brought asjainft the defender's filiation. 
 It may be reduced to two heads : \ft\ Proofs 
 exclufive of the real birth: zdly, Circuni- 
 
 flances
 
 LOUD AUCHINLECK. 73 
 
 ftances which look like prcfumptions againft 
 it. Under the Jirfi head, there are but two 
 articles, Lady Jane's not being pregnant and 
 the alibi at Godefroy's; for as to the age o£ 
 Lady Jane, that is now given up. Her ca- 
 pacity of having children is proved beyond 
 a doubt ; though I think iuch a proof was 
 hardly neceffary. And I cannot help obfer- 
 ving, now that the age of Lady Jane is given 
 up, that it was upon her age alone that all 
 the fufpicions againft her were at firft founded. 
 As to the pregnancy, none of your Lordfhips 
 will difpute that Lady Jane had the appearan- 
 ces of a woman with child ; and that is fulH- 
 cient to defeat any pretence that the purfuers 
 have for pleading that me was not pregnant. 
 For, in this whole mafs of proof, there is not 
 a grain of evidence againft the real pregnan- 
 cy, but the teftimonies of Mifs Hibert, and 
 fome others, {'wearing they faw no appearance 
 of pregnancy ; teftimonies that merit no re- 
 gard. 
 
 As to the alibi at Godefroy's, on the roth of 
 July, that, no doubt, if proved, would be dc- 
 cifive of the caufe : But I fairly own, after 
 all i have read upon tins article, 1 think the 
 -.;;.:!> !myc total!) tailed. This refts on 
 :_:'.:;:,' Vo; .lid his wife, the 
 
 keepers
 
 74 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 keepers of :i very much frequented inn, fwear- 
 ing to facts that happened fifteen years be- 
 fore. I do not know thefe people. I do not 
 fay they are perjured ; I am unwilling to be- 
 lieve there is perjury where I can avoid it ; 
 but I think it is very clear, they have got 
 their memories refreshed, as Mifs Hibert and 
 Francis La Marr got theirs leiTened. 
 
 Godefroy and his wife have been milled by 
 their books : They find in their Ihre de Vin- 
 fpeclcur Colonel Stewart and his lady ; and 
 they find in their Ihre de depenfe a blank ar- 
 ticle for three perfons : They fee no article in 
 their Ihre de depenfe for two, and no article 
 in their Ihre de Vinfpecleur for three ; 10 they 
 compound matters and fill up this blank with 
 Colonel Stewart and his company. It is ac- 
 knowledged, that there are fome people mark- 
 ed in the police-bcok that are not marked in 
 the Ihre de depenfe ; and all thofe who come 
 at night and go away in the morning are not 
 entered in the books ; fo that the books were 
 only kept as a charge againft fuch as did not 
 pay their bills, but run accounts ; fo, if a per- 
 fon came there, and paid every day, he never 
 would enter the books. Such books there- 
 fore, kept fo irregularly, were very improper 
 helps to aflift their memories. But there is 
 
 another
 
 LORD AU CHIN LECK. 75 
 
 another argument againfc thefc books in this 
 cafe, and I think a ftrong one : It is acknow- 
 ledged, that Sir John and his ( family did not 
 dine at the table d'hote, but in their own a- 
 partment. Now, all I mail fay is, that Sir 
 John had better fortune than ever I had, it 
 he was entertained as cheap in his own apart- 
 ment as if he had gone to the table d'hote, 
 and taken a fhare of what was groin c: alone; 
 with the marchands and all forts of people that 
 came to the inn, People who eat in their 
 own apartment are entertained at a higher 
 rate, and to be fure it rauft be fo ; therefore, 
 there is no probability that this blank article, 
 which is according to the rate of the table 
 d'hote, can be the account of Sir John Stewart. 
 Upon thefc grounds, my Lords, I think there 
 is '10 evidence cxcluiive of the birth. 
 
 Tjie fecond head of the purfuers evidence 
 ■ ; a number of circumftances which are urged 
 is prefumptions ; as Lady Jane's making a 
 long journey to Paris when flic was big with 
 child; me and her hufband eluding to live 
 by thcmfelvcs in fo private a manner; their 
 writing letters from Paris, and dating them 
 at Rheims ; two enlevements happening at 
 fuch critical periods; La Marr and Le Brim 
 
 not
 
 7<5 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 not certainly difcovercd ; and laftly, letters 
 forged as from Pierre La Marr. 
 
 With refpect to thefe circumftanccs, it will 
 occur, that they relate to the conduct of two 
 very extraordinary perfons ; and fome of 
 them things which were not fpoken of when 
 Sir John Stewart was alive ; fuch as the letters 
 being dated at Rhcims, which was not infrfted 
 on when he was examined ; we may fay the 
 fame thing, as to why he did not call on his 
 countrymen ? It is difficult to account for 
 thefe circumftances ; yet I have endeavoured 
 to form fome reafons for fuch conduct, and 
 I think natural ones ; for I do believe Sir 
 John Stewart was at that time miferably poor. 
 It is nothing to me, that he had a bill along 
 with him for about 2000 livres. "What was 
 fuch a fum as 2000 livres to Sir John Stew- 
 art ? We all know the character of the man, 
 and we all know he could have got fome 
 good people to cafe him of it at a fitting. I 
 fay, my Lords, they were at this time crying 
 for want, and writing home to the Duke of 
 Douglas, begging a fupply from him. Now, 
 it would occur to them, if we date our let- 
 ters from Paris, the Duke will fay, Here this 
 woman has left Rheims, and is gone to Paris, 
 forfooth; to fend money to fuch people, 
 
 would
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 77 
 
 would be throwing it into the fea. After 
 they got to Paris, Lady Jane became fenfible 
 that flie had done a foolifh thing, as me had 
 no occafion to 2;o thither. She had fet off 
 fromRheims in a panic, as women in her fitua- 
 tion often do take panics ; but ihe was too 
 near her delivery to go back again ; fo it 
 -was neceffary for her to remain there till af- 
 ter the birth. In the mean time, fhe was 
 anxious that this expedition mould be con- 
 cealed from the Duke, at leafl till ihe faw 
 if he would be prevailed with to fend her 
 any money ; therefore the letters were dated 
 at Rheims ; therefore Sir John Stewart, tho' 
 fond of his countrymen, abftained from feeing 
 them upon this occafion; therefore were they 
 fo fearful their being at Paris mould get air, 
 that they would not even truft Mr Johnilon. 
 As to the enlevements, as they arc not 
 brought home to Sir John Stewart, they are 
 nothing to the purpofe. It is laid, that Sir 
 John and Mrs Ilewit differ much in the ac- 
 count which they give of the nurfes ; 1 can 
 lay no ilrcfs upon that. I have had feveral 
 nurfes in my family; but I confefs I can give 
 little or no account of them, except indeed 
 f)f fome of them who are my penfioners, 
 ; verv little even of thefe,
 
 73 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 I own it appears fomewhat ftrange, that 
 Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, 
 though informed of the fufpicions which had 
 been raifed with regard to their children, 
 did not act the rational part, and take the 
 raoft proper methods to put the matter be- 
 yond doubt ; for although I have faid, that, 
 according to the found and fixed principles 
 of law, an imperfect proof will not deftroy 
 filiation, ftill I think that it is the duty of pa- 
 rents to remove any fufpicions. 
 
 But, my Lords, inflead of indulging in 
 theory, let us confider what is the conduct 
 of mankind in real life : No doubt, we are to 
 prefume they will act the moll rational part; 
 but do we find them always doing fo ? I am 
 afraid, my Lords, if no other conduct was to be 
 believed but what is rational, the actions of 
 mankind would be reduced within averyfmall 
 compafs. I can give a tolerable inftance from 
 the prefent cafe : Duke Hamilton was found by 
 this court to have no intereft at all in the Dou- 
 glas eftate ; one would have thought, that it 
 was the moll prudent Hep for him to have 
 appealed this quelcion, and get it afcertained, 
 whether he had a claim here, fo as to make 
 any thing of this fuit in cafe the defender 
 ihould lofe it. His tutors, however, thought 
 otherwifej and accordingly Duke Hamilton 
 
 has
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 79 
 
 has been laying out immenfe fums of money 
 upon this caufe, without knowing whether 
 he (hall ever get a (hilling by it ; for, if Mr 
 Douglas were out of the field, he lias the 
 fame plea to maintain with others wherein 
 lie was beat by Mr Douglas. I don't think 
 this was a prudent or proper ftep ; yet we 
 arc lure, from thefe volumes, that fo was 
 done. 
 
 Bi t thereis anotherpoint as to the conduce 
 of this caufe, which appears to me to ftrike 
 deep, and I have not fecn any attempt upon 
 the part of the purfucrs to explain or excufe 
 it: And I mult beg liberty to ftatc this more 
 fully, becaufe it has upon my mind the great- 
 eft weight, and makes me fay without limita- 
 tion, no regard is due to the proof brought 
 by the purfucrs. 
 
 Your Lordihips have it afcertained by- 
 proof, nay, admitted by the purfucrs, that 
 when they fir ft let out, and for a very long 
 time after, they affirmed, that Lady Jane could 
 not be delivered on the ioth July in the 
 houfe of Madame le Brun, becaufe flic and 
 Sir John were at that very lime in the houfe of 
 Michell ; for there did thc\ th.n fix the alibi, 
 which they would now make us believe was in 
 Godefroy's : And, how Was thin alibi to be pro- 
 
 ved 
 
 I ?
 
 80 THE SPEE C H O F 
 
 ved? by MichclPs book, which the purfuers a-^ 
 gents had carefully pcrufed. Very well: Inwhafe 
 manner was this proof to be laid before us ? 
 If the book had been as fet forth, to be fure, 
 by producing it before the commifiioner who 
 took the proof: But in place of that, very. 
 lingular fteps were taken ; lirft the purfuers 
 got the book locked up in the Tournelle, 
 whereby the defender, and all but themfelves, 
 were debarred accefs to it ; and then they pro- 
 duced one DuruiiTcau, a perfon with many 
 founding titles, fo to be fuppofed a gentle- 
 man of truth and honour, and he is made to 
 give account of this book, which, to be fure, 
 was then intended to be laid before this 
 Court, in place of the book itfelf. I will beg 
 leave to read his evidence to your Lordfhips ; 
 It is the only one I fhall read. He fays, 
 " That the faid Michell having put in the 
 " hands of the deponent his faid regifter of 
 " furniihed lodsfinsrs, which commenced in 
 " the month of October 1746, the depo- 
 " nent did prove the fiatc thereof, and then 
 " put it in the hands of the faid Moniieur 
 " Buchot, who took the charge of it all, a- 
 " greeable to the minute of proceedings 
 " which the deponent made out thereupon 
 " the 8th November 1762 ; which minute be- 
 
 " incr
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 81 
 
 " ing now fhown to him, he acknowledges 
 " that the whole of it is wrote by his hand, 
 " and figned by him, and the fame is now of 
 " new figned by the deponent, as relative to 
 " his depofition; and alfo by the commiflion- 
 " er. Depones, That the article concerning 
 " Monfieur Fluratl a Scotfman, and his fami- 
 " ly, entered the 8th July 1748, (the laid date 
 " of the day and year being in figures upon 
 " the faid regifter), did not appear to the de- 
 " ponent to be anyways fufpicious, fo much 
 " the rather that there was the vifa of the faid 
 " regifter before and after the article in que- 
 " ftion, by the infpecleur of the quarters 
 " charged with that department ; and that 
 " the leaf on which this article is wrote, as 
 * well as all the other leaves of faid regifter, 
 " were figned at the top of the firft page of 
 " each leaf by Maitre du Blon, one of the dc- 
 " poncnt's brethren, who figned the ordi- 
 " nance, which is at the beginning of the faid 
 " regifter. Interrogated for the defender, de- 
 " pones, That the deponent does not perfectly 
 " remember if the vifa which are put before and 
 " after this article, are of the lame month with 
 " the article ; but remembers there arc, upon 
 " the fame leaf on which this article is wrote, 
 " and fubfequent thereto, fome other articles 
 
 I, " wrote,
 
 82 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 " wrote, of which the deponent does not re- 
 " collect the number; neither does the depo- 
 u nent recoiled if the vifa of the infpecteur 
 *' does immediately follow the article of 
 " Monfieur Fluratl, or is put after one or fe« 
 " veral other articles ; but he is certain, that 
 " there is a vifa on the fame page on which the 
 " article in queftion is wrote. Depones, fo 
 " far as he can remember, That the article 
 " which goes before that of Monfieur Flu- 
 " rati, is of a date anterior to that of the Btb 
 " °f J u h' '• That the deponent remembers to 
 " have afked at Michell, Of whofe writing 
 u was the article of Monfieur Fluratl ? and 
 " that Michelle anfwered the deponent, That 
 V this article was neither of his writing nor 
 " that of his wife ; and that he prefumed, that 
 " it iv as of theperfcn ivho called himfelf Fluratl: 
 " That the book of furnifhed lodgings, which 
 " Michell brings to the deponent every 
 " month fince the deponent had the depart- 
 " ment of that quarter, that the deponent 
 " may infpeel: the fame, and make out from 
 " it the lift which he fends to the lieutenant- 
 " general of police, is poflerior to the year 
 " 1750: That the deponent never faw the book 
 " which the faid Michell had for the ufe of 
 " the commuTaire for the year 1748. De- 
 
 ** ponei=: ?
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 83 
 
 " pones, That the article concerning Fluratl 
 " appeared to the deponent to be or" a hand- 
 " writing diftinEl and different from all the ar- 
 " tides both upon that and the next page : 
 " That, fo far as he can remember, that ar- 
 " tide appeared to him to be of a writing 
 " very well formed, and that it was the bcit 
 " wrote of the articles on that page, or on 
 " the next." 
 
 Now, my Lords, here is fubftantial evidence 
 indeed for the purfuers, and fuch as would 
 have been decifive of the caufc, had we agreed 
 to judge upon inch evidence, which the 
 purfuers agents in France appear clearly to 
 have imagined we would do, elfe they 
 never would have adduced this witnefs to 
 fwear concerning this book. But afterwards, 
 beina; better instructed and informed, that 
 
 o 
 
 the court would not regard the evidence of 
 a witnefs, fwearing concerning the particu- 
 lars contained in a book, when the book it- 
 felf was kept out of the way by them ; and 
 fwearing, that MichelPs book would contra* 
 diet every thing Duruifleau had fiid, they 
 at once abandoned their plea of alibi at Mi- 
 chell's, and took up with Godefroy's; after 
 which Michel l's book is brought out to con- 
 tradict an allegation that it had been vitiated, 
 
 which
 
 84 T PI E SPEECH OF .■ 
 
 which it indeed contradicted ; but it opened 
 a mod ihameful icene of perjury in this Duruif- 
 feau. When his oath is compared with 
 the book, he fvyears, " That he ;s certain, that 
 " there is a vifa on the fame page on which the 
 " article in queftiun is wrote. So far as he 
 " can remember, that the article which goes 
 " before that of Monficur Fluratl is of a date 
 "anterior to that of the 8 th of July : That 
 " Michell faid, that this article was neither of 
 " his writing, nor that of his wife ; and that 
 " he prefumed that it was of the perfon who 
 " called himfelf Fluratl : That the book of 
 " furnithed lodgings, which Michell brings 
 " to the deponent eyery month, is pofte- 
 '•' rior to the year 1750: That the depo- 
 " nent never faw the book which Michell 
 " had for the ufe of the commiilaire for the 
 " 174B: That the article concerning Fluratl 
 " appeared to be of a hand- writing diftinctand 
 " different from all the articles both on that 
 " and the next page. It appeared to be of a 
 " writing very well formed, and that it was 
 " the beft wrote of the articles on that page 
 " or on the next." Every one of which are 
 crofs falsehoods. This, then, is an oath in- 
 tirely calculated to impofe upon your Lord- 
 fliips • therefore, my Lords, when I clearly de- 
 tect
 
 LORD AUCHINLECK. 85 
 
 tec! a witnefs for the purfuers, and one of 
 the moil refpe.ctable of them in point of rank, 
 brought foreward to fwear the grofleft falfe- 
 hoods,- What am I to think ? And can I de- 
 prive the defender of his name and his birth- 
 right upon the faith of a proof fo carried on ? 
 1 admit, that there is no fuch decifive evi- 
 dence againft the teftimony of Godefroy; 
 the realbn of which is, that he fwore from 
 blank books at the diftance of fifteen years ; 
 but had his books been regular, I verily be- 
 lieve the alibi at Godefroy 's would have 
 been found of a piece with that at Mich ell's. 
 
 As to La Marre's letters, one of my brethren 
 touched upon pi a fraudes being fometimes 
 made ufe of, as the monks long ago made ufc 
 of legends, to fupport a good caufe ; which, 
 to be furc, is not juftifiable, but yet won't 
 make truth falfehood. Take thefe letters in 
 the worft light you pleafe, they arc certainly 
 equalled on the part of the purfuers by this 
 oath of Duruifleau. 
 
 I had a great many other particulars to 
 have mentioned ; but the diftrefs I am under 
 from a fevcrc cold, has fcarce allowed me 
 breath to go fo far; fo muft break oil'. 
 
 Upon the whole, as the defender lias been 
 now nineteen years in poffdlion of his {late, 
 
 and
 
 96 THE SPEECH O F, Sec. 
 
 and fourteen of thefe before any challenge 
 was brought ; as his filiation by the acknow- 
 ledgement of parents is full and complete, and 
 is corroborated by the pofitive teftimonies 
 of unexceptionable witnefles; and as the 
 purfuers have taken moft unjuftifiable fteps 
 to bring evidence againil him, and to difable 
 him from making his additional evidence 
 ftili more complete, I am clearly of opinion 
 that he ought to be aflbiteied. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ «7 J 
 
 LORD COALSTON. 
 
 AS fo much has been wrote upon this fub- 
 jccf, it would be very improper for 
 me, in delivering my opinion, to run over the 
 whole of the arguments which have been 
 urged by both or either of the parties ; and 
 therefore, without entering minutely into 
 particulars, I ihall content myfelf with fta- 
 ting fhortly the chief grounds upon which 
 my opinion is founded ; and, though an im- 
 menfe load of proof has been brought on 
 both fides; yet it appears to me, that the im- 
 portant queftion now in iffue between thefe 
 parties, will fall ultimately to be determined 
 upon principles of law, which are of the 
 higheft importance to the whole fubje&s of 
 this kingdom. 
 
 By the laws of this country, in order to 
 entitle any man to be ferved heir to his prc- 
 decefibrs, it is notnccclTary for him to bring di- 
 rect evidence of his filiation, or of the parti- 
 cular circumflances attending his birth. If that 
 were the cafe, no fcrvice could ever proceed. 
 It is impoflible, in the nature of things, for 
 
 any
 
 B$ THE SPEECH OF 
 
 any man to prove, by direct evidence, that he 
 was begotten by his reputed father; and by the 
 death and abfence of witnefles, it is even in 
 moll cafes impoflible to prove, by direct evi- 
 dence, that he was born and brought forth by 
 his mother. I even will adventure to fay, that 
 of the numerous audience which now hears 
 me, there is not one of an hundred who can 
 prove the circumstances attending his own 
 birth; therefore, I hold it to be a fettled 
 point, upon which the whole property of this 
 kingdom depends, that, in order to entitle 
 one to be ferved heir to his predecefTor, no- 
 thing more is neceilary, but to prove, that 
 he, and thofe through whom he connects his 
 claim, have been acknowledged by their pa- 
 rents, or have been habit and repute the 
 children of fuch parents. 
 
 I do not mean to fay, that fuch proof may 
 not be defeated by contrary evidence. What 
 I mean is only this, that where a fervice hath 
 proceeded upon fuch grounds, it is held as 
 legal proof of the filiation, and muft ftand 
 good till fuch time as it is defeated by con- 
 trary evidence. 
 
 And therefore, to apply what has been 
 faid to the prefent cafe ; as the defender's 
 fervice contained clear evidence that he had 
 
 been
 
 LORD COALSTON. $ 9 
 
 been uniformly and confhntly acknowled- 
 ged by his parents ; and as the truth of his 
 birth was never doubted in France, the place 
 where he was born, nor even at home, was 
 there ever any thing like a general belief of 
 the reports which were thereafter induftri- 
 oufly propagated? So 1 cannot have the leait 
 doubt, that the burden of the proof lies on 
 the purfuers to prove their alledgeance, 
 that the defender is an impoftor, and not the 
 true fon of Lady Jane Douglas. 
 
 And as it can admit of no doubt, that the 
 burden of the proof lies on the purfuers ; fo 
 it is equally clear, that they cannot prevail 
 without bringing the cleareft and mofl con- 
 vincing proofs in fupport of their alledgeance. 
 
 In fhort, the proofs muft be fuch, and can- 
 not be lefs than would have been necefTary 
 to have convicted Sir John Stewart and Lady 
 Jane Douglas of the crimen fuppofitl partus ; it 
 being impoffible for the court ever to find, 
 that the defender is an impoftor, without 
 Erft fuppofing that his parents had been guil- 
 ty of that infamous crime. 
 
 If fuch proofs would have been neceflary, 
 though the defender had proved no more 
 but the acknowledgement of parents, much 
 
 M ftronijer
 
 <?o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 ftronger proofs muft be necefTary where the 
 defender has proved his filiation by pofitive 
 and direct evidence. 
 
 In the frft place, it is proved beyond dif- 
 pute, that Lady Jane Douglas, though ad- 
 X'anced in years, was yet in fuch a habit of 
 body as to be capable of having children, 
 both before and after the birth of the de- 
 fender ; which alone makes it highly impro- 
 bable, and indeed fcarceiy credible, that fhe 
 would be guilty of this impofture, whereof 
 the confequence might have been to exclude 
 her own children. 
 
 idly, It is proved, as ftrongly as the nature 
 of the thing can admit of, that Lady Jane 
 was pregnant during the ufual time before 
 the birth of the defender. This is proved by 
 the oaths of Mrs Hewit, Mrs Glafs, andalfo 
 by the accounts which EiTic Caw gave of the 
 matter extrajudicially before her death ; and 
 as thefe three perfons attended Lady Jane 
 during the whole period of her pregnancy, 
 and had conflant and immediate accefs to her 
 perfon at all times ; io the caufes of know- 
 ledge they have given, and the circumftances 
 they have depofed to, are fuch that they 
 could not poilibly be deceived : At the fame 
 time, their evidence is ftrongiy fupported, 
 
 not
 
 LORD COALSTON. 91 
 
 not only by the oath of Mrs Hepburn of 
 Keith, who has given a very ftrong caufa 
 fc'tmtia, but alfo by Mrs Greig, Mifs Prim- 
 rofe, the nuns in the convent at Aix-la-Cha- 
 pclle, and numbers of others who were in- 
 timately acquainted with, and had daily op- 
 portunities of feeing Lady Jane, and who 
 have all of them depofed to all the appear- 
 ances of pregnancy ; and the direct and po- 
 sitive evidence of thefe witneiies cannot be 
 invalidated by the negative teftimony of the 
 purfuers witneiies, who were abfolute ftran- 
 gers to Lady jane, and had only accefs to fee 
 her occasionally. I fhould have thought it 
 much more ftrange, if, at the diftancc of fe- 
 ventcen years, they had fworn to appearances 
 of pregnancy in a perfon whom they had 
 never feen before that time; therefore I mult 
 again repeat what I have already faid, that 
 the proof of the pregnancy is as ftrong as 
 can poMibly be brought in any cafe. And in- 
 deed this does not feem to be much difputcd 
 on the part of the purfuers : The only method 
 by which they attempt to evade the force of 
 this argument is, by laying that the appear- 
 ances of pregnancy might have been fictitious, 
 and that even Lady Jane herfelf, and all a- 
 bout her, might have been deceived. 
 
 Bur
 
 92 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 But I can by no means admit the vali- 
 dity of that anfwerj for, when the whole 
 fymptoms and appearances of pregnancy are 
 proved, the pregnancy mult be prefumed 
 real, unlefs the contrary is proved ; and there- 
 fore, as in this cafe the purfucrs have not 
 attempted to prove either that Lady Jane 
 was under any deception, or that fhe had 
 put on feigned appearances of pregnancy, 
 by all the rules of law, it mutt be prefumed, 
 that the appearances were the natural effects 
 of a real pregnancy, till fuch time as the 
 contrary is proved. 
 
 But, ^clly, As I am clear the "pregnancy 
 is proved, fo the defender has brought a 
 proof of the actual delivery, as ftrong as could 
 well be expected, and indeed, ftronger than 
 molt men could bring at fo great a diftance of 
 time. I admit, that this part of the proof 
 refts chiefly upon the evidence of Mrs Hewit 
 2nd Sir John Stewart. But then, it is material 
 to obferve, that they were the only per- 
 sons then in life who were prefent at the 
 birth : And this penuria teftium was owing to 
 the fault of the purfuers, in not bringing the 
 procefs recently, as it ought to have been. 
 At the fame time, the evidence of the deli- 
 very is ftrongly fupported, not only by the 
 
 entry
 
 LORD COALSTON. 93 
 
 entry in Lady Jane's pocket-book, which 
 proves the connection between them and Pierre 
 Ja Marr ; but alio, and more efpecially, by the 
 circumflantiatc evidence founded upon the. 
 evidence of Monfieur Menasjer and Madame 
 Gamier, whole oaths check in and tally io 
 exactly with the hiftory given by Mrs Hewit 
 .and Sir John, that it gives me full convic- 
 tion, that the foreign lady, mentioned in 
 
 p.fieur Menager's oath, was Lady jane 
 Douglas : that tiie defender was left in the 
 cuftody of his parents; and that his twin-bro-t 
 thcr Sholto is the very child who was de- 
 livered over by Pierre la Marr into the hands 
 of Madame Gamier, and who remained in 
 her cuftody till he was carried home by his 
 parents in the year 1749. 
 
 And, as the accidental manner in which 
 thefe two witneifes, Menager and Gamier, 
 were difcovered, adds greatly to the weight 
 of their evidence ; fo, when I conlider the 
 oaths of Meif. Morand and Moreau, joined 
 with Monfieur D'Anjou's account of his 
 converfations with Francois la Marr, I am 
 convinced in my own mind, that this part of 
 the evidence would have come out much 
 ftronger, if Mcif. Giles and Francois la Marr 
 Z;ad told cut all they knew of the matter; 
 
 and
 
 54 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 and I fhould have had a better opinion of the 
 conduct of the purfuers in this caufe, if their 
 operators in France had not fo induilrioufly 
 concealed from your Lordfliips what they 
 had learned from Menagcr, and Giies, and 
 Francois la Marr, at a very early period of 
 this caufe. 
 
 If there were any defect in the evidence as 
 to any of the particulars I have mentioned, 
 the different parts mutually fupport and add 
 weight to each other; for, as the delivery 
 could not have happened without iuppofing 
 a previous pregnancy and capacity of having 
 children ; fo, on the other hand, if the 
 pregnancy is once fuppofed, the delivery 
 muft neceftarily follow, and mutt be pre- 
 fumed, If Lady Jane was pregnant when 
 flie came to Paris, fhe muft have been deli- 
 vered ; and if fhe was delivered, it muft be 
 prefumed to have been of the defender, as 
 the purfuers have brought no contrary proof 
 concerning the birth. And as the circumftances 
 previous to the birth add great weight to the 
 proof of the actual delivery; fo it is further 
 aided by the evidence brought of circumftances 
 fubfequent, fuch as the reconvalefcence at 
 the houfe of Michell, and at Dammartin ; the 
 tender affection and concern which Lady 
 
 Jane
 
 LORD CO ALSTON. 95 
 
 Tanc uniformly mowed to thefe children, till 
 the time of her own death, which, in the o- 
 pinion and belief of the witneffes, was occa- 
 fioned by the diftrefs of mind me felt upon 
 the death of the youngefl child ; and as this 
 child is proved to have had a likenefs to his 
 mother fo finking, as to be taken notice of 
 aim oil by every perfon who faw them, this 
 is an additional circumftance, which ftrong- 
 ly corroborates the other proofs of the filia- 
 tion. 
 
 r l he purfuers have found it neceffary to ob- 
 
 jcft to the credibility of MrsHewit, Mrs Glafs, 
 Mrs Hepburn, and have indeed ufed great free- 
 •s with almoft all and each of the wit- 
 r.eiles adduced for proving the pregnancy 
 and delivery; but it appears to me, that this 
 bold attack is injurious to the witneffes, and 
 altogether unmerited. The characters of Mrs 
 Hewit and Mrs Glafs have been proved by 
 witneffes to be unexceptionable; and when 
 they were examined in prefence of the Court, 
 they emitted their depositions in fuch a man- 
 ner as rave me fnll conviction, that thev 
 were confeious of the truth of the facts to 
 which they were depclir.;;. And as nothing 
 h<:s been (aid to the general characters of the 
 ether v. itneffes, iu I cannot figure to m vie if 
 
 a:. t
 
 5>5 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 any rcafon or intereft which could induce 
 them to depart from the truth ; and though, 
 in relating fuch a multiplicity 6f fa&s, there 
 are fome trifling variations and miflakes; yet 
 this was natural, and could not but necelTarily 
 happen, when witnelles were depofing from 
 memory alone to fuch a multiplicity of facts 
 which had happened at the diftance of feven- 
 teen years. Thefe variations and miflakes, 
 which are only about accidental circum- 
 itanccs, are fo far from detracting from the 
 credit due to thefe witnefles, that, on the 
 contrary, with me, they add weight to their 
 teftimonies ; as it fhows, there was no com- 
 bination among them to depart from the 
 truth. 
 
 Upon the whole of this part of the argu- 
 ment, the proof of the defender's filiation 
 ftands fecnre upon three different grounds : 
 i/?, Ihe legal prefumption founded on the 
 acknowledgement of parents, joined with his 
 being generally habit and repute their fon ; 
 zdiy, The clear proof which has been brought 
 of Lady Jane's pregnancy, from which an 
 actual delivery muft be prefumed; and, $dly, 
 'I he direct proof of the actual delivery, as ad- 
 miniculated and fupported, not only by the 
 marking in Lady Jane's pocket-book, but 
 
 alf©
 
 LORD COALSTON. p7 
 
 alio by the oaths of Monficur Menager and 
 Madame Garnier, and the other witneffes who 
 concur with them. And, when to all this 
 I add the other circumftances fubfequent to 
 the birth which have been already mention- 
 ed, and more efpecially, that irreiiftible evi- 
 dence which arifes from the many letters 
 which palled between Sir John and Lady 
 Jane relative to thefe children, it appears to 
 me, that it is importable to bring a proof of 
 filiation itronger than what has been brought 
 in this cafe, 
 
 It remains only now to add a few words 
 on the nature and import of the proofs 
 brought by the purfuers. And here I begin, 
 with obferving, that they do not pretend to 
 have brought any direct evidence of the im- 
 pofture. It is only inferred from a variety 
 of circumftances, from which the impofture 
 is endeavoured to be eftablifhed; and although 
 I do admit, not only that all manner of crimes 
 may be proved by circumftances, but alfo, 
 that in fome cafes direct evidence may be 
 defeated by circumitantiate proofs; yet I 
 mull beg leave to lay it down as a principle, 
 in which the mod important interefts of man- 
 kind are concerned, that a direct proof of 
 conclufive facts, by credible witneffes, can 
 N never
 
 9 8 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 never be defeated by a proof of circumftan- 
 ces, which are neither incompatible with, nor 
 contradictory to the direct proofs. 
 
 If this important principle {hall ever be 
 fhaken, I do aver, that the moft innocent 
 perfon can have no fecurity for his life, his 
 liberty, or his property. 
 
 It is well known, for inftance, that the 
 crime of theft is feldom or never proved by 
 direct evidence ; but it is generally inferred 
 from circumftances ; fuch as, that the ftolen 
 goods were found in the cuftody of the pri- 
 foner ; that being in indigent circumftances, 
 he could give no rational account how he 
 came by them ; that he had prevaricated in 
 an extrajudicial examination; or that he had 
 attempted to fly from juftice. 
 
 These circumftances taken together are 
 always held funicient to infer the crime. But 
 this notwithftanding, if the prifoner fhall 
 prove, by credible witnefies, that the goods 
 had come into his poflefiion in any lawful 
 manner, all the circumftances of fufpicion I 
 have mentioned will go for nothing, and 
 would yield to the direct evidence brought 
 for the prifoner : For this plain reafon, that 
 a direct proof of conclufive facts by credible 
 witnefies cannot be defeated by a proof of 
 
 circumftances-
 
 LORD COALSTON. 99 
 
 circumftances, inconfiftent with the direct 
 
 proofs. 
 
 The application of this to the prefent cafe 
 
 is obvious. Here the defender has proved 
 his filiation, not only by the legal prefump- 
 tion founded upon the aknowledgement 
 of his parents, but alfo by the direct evidence 
 of credible witnefles, fwearing to conclufive 
 facts, which confifted with their own know- 
 ledge, with refpecl to which they could not 
 be deceived. Whereas, on the other hand, as 
 the pregnancy has been already eftablifhed, 
 as well as Lady Jane's capacity of having 
 children, it will be found, that the whole of 
 the circumftances proved, or attempted to be 
 proved by the purfuers, one only excepted, 
 are of fuch a nature, that they are neither in- 
 compatible with, nor contradictory to the 
 proofs brought by the defender. 
 
 The only circumftance which I admit to 
 be inconfiftent with the proof brought by the 
 defender, is the fuppofed alibi at the houfc of 
 Godcfroy on the ioth of July 1748. But as 
 this is utterly inconfiftent with the purfuers 
 original plan, by which they reftcd their 
 whole caufe on an allcd<rcd alibi at tnc houfe 
 
 o 
 
 of Michell on that very day ; fo it appears to 
 mc. that the proof now brought of an alibi 
 
 at
 
 ioo THESPEECHOF 
 
 at the houfc of Godefroy is utterly infufK- 
 cient ; it refts wliolely upon the oaths of an 
 innkeeper and his wife fwcaring, at the di- 
 ftance of 17 years, to fill up an entry in 
 their books, which is blank in the name, and 
 when, at the fame time, they have been obli- 
 ged to confefs, that they have no remem- 
 brance of the figure of the perfon to 
 whom this blank article is fuppofed to relate ; 
 and when they were alfo obliged to confefs, 
 that from memory alone they were not able 
 to fill up one other blank article in their 
 whole books. 
 
 For thefe reafons, and others, which have 
 been fully mentioned by my learned brother 
 who fpoke hit, I am of opinion, that no 
 conclufive argument can be drawn, either 
 from Godefroy's books or from his oath ; 
 at leaft, none fufficient to defeat the pofitive 
 and direct proofs brought by the defender. 
 
 The other circumflanccs proved, or at- 
 tempted to be proved by the purfuer, are no- 
 ways contradictory to the proofs brought by 
 the defender. 
 
 He is not obliged, efpecially at this di- 
 Itance of time, to account for every thing 
 that may appear lingular in the conduct 
 of his parents; fuch as their leaving Aix, 
 
 and
 
 LORD COALSTON. roi 
 
 and going to Paris ; their leaving the maids 
 atllheims ; their dating their letters at Rheims, 
 when they were truly wrote at Paris, and 
 their neglecting to provide nurfes before 
 the birth of the children. At the fame time, 
 in the memorial given in for the defender, 
 very probable reafons have been afligned for 
 all and each of thefe particulars, as well as 
 for their neglecting to take the moft proper 
 methods of afcertaining the birth and legiti- 
 macy of their children. 
 
 It is poflible, that Lady Jane had not been 
 fully informed of the malicious reports that 
 had been fprcad againft her own honour, and 
 the birth of her children ; and it is proved, that 
 fhe had been advifed, that thefe precautions 
 were unnccefTary; and that the burden of the 
 proof would lie on thofe who mould after- 
 wards difputc the birth of her children. At 
 the fame time, in fact, it appears, that flic was 
 actually in the courfc of providing fuch 
 proofs ; but was prevented from completing 
 them by her death, which happened after the 
 affidavits from Aix had been wrote for, and 
 before they arrived. 
 
 And thus it is impofiible for the defender 
 now to account for the mi flakes which Sir 
 John has fallen into in that part of his decla- 
 ration which relates to Pierre la Marr; yet I 
 
 don't
 
 102 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 don't fee how that can affect the prefent quc- 
 flion. The important point, that a Pierre la 
 Marr did ferve as accoucheur to Lady Jane 
 Douglas, does not reft upon the declaration 
 of Sir John Stewart, but is proved by the 
 oath of Mrs Hewit, and ftrongly corrobora- 
 ted, not only by the entry in Lady Jane's 
 pocket-book, but alfo by the oaths of Mon- 
 fieur Menager and Madame Gamier, and the 
 other witneffes who concur with them, which 
 have always carried full conviction to my 
 mind on this part of the evidence. 
 
 The like obfervations may ferve for an an- 
 fwer to another argument founded on the 
 four letters which were produced in the fer- 
 vice as from Pierre la Marr. The hiftory of 
 thefe letters, or with what view they were 
 wrote, is not fufhciently explained from any 
 thing of the proof. What appears to me the 
 moft probable, is the conjecture thrown out 
 by the defender's counfel, that Sir John ha- 
 ving miflaid the original letters, had made 
 out thefe copies from memory, and had fent 
 them to Lady Jane as the originals. But 
 whatever might have been the view of ma- 
 king out thefe copies, there is no evidence, 
 that they had ever been ufed, either by Sir 
 John or Lady Jane; and though they had, it 
 
 does
 
 LORD GO A LSTON. io$ 
 
 does not occur, that ever that could have 
 had any effect to defeat the clear and pofitive 
 evidence which has been adduced by the de- 
 fender. 
 
 And as to the two enlevements which 
 have been fo much infilled on, though the 
 witneflcs adduced by the purfuers, after the 
 inftruction they had received from the Moni- 
 toire, and by the memorials which had been 
 difperfed by the agents for the purfuers, have 
 {trained hard to give them a refemblance to 
 the ftory of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane 
 Douglas; yet, after all,, it appears that they 
 have failed, both as to the time and as to the 
 defcription of the perfons ; and, if the pur- 
 fuers had meant to found on that part of the 
 evidence, they mould have rendered it com- 
 pleat by confronting the witneflcs with Sir 
 John Stewart and Mrs llewit, which they 
 were called upon to do by the depolitions of 
 fomc of the witneflcs, who have deponed, 
 that they are fure they would Hill know the 
 perfons by whom thefe enlevements were 
 committed. 
 
 Upon the whole, therefore, of that part ol 
 the argument, the detached circumftances 
 founded on by the purfuers are not fuch as 
 to form a chain of evidence, inconfiftcnt with 
 
 the
 
 i©4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 the fuppofition of the defender's filiation. 
 The utmoft length they can be carried, is to be 
 confidered as grounds of fufpicion ; but as 
 none of thefe circumftances are either incom- 
 patible with, or contradictory to the pofitive 
 and direct proofs brought by the defender, 
 they can be of no avail in the prefent que- 
 stion. 
 
 If indeed I could bring myfelf to think, 
 without evidence, that the whole of the wit- 
 nefles who have fvvorn to the pregnancy and 
 birth, had knowingly perjured themfelves, I 
 fhould then be inclined to liften to the argu- 
 ments founded on the fufpicious circumftances 
 urged by the purfuers. But, as I fee no rea- 
 fon to fufpect the veracity of the defender's 
 witnefles, fo I cannot allow the direct and 
 pofitive evidence given by them to be defeat- 
 ed by a proof of circumftances which arc not 
 contradictory to what has been fworn to by 
 the defender's witnefles. 
 
 If fuch inconclufive proofs fhould be laid 
 hold of to defeat the legal prefumption found- 
 ed on the acknowledgement of parents, and, 
 which is ftill more, the direct and pofitive evi- 
 dence of filiation which has been here brought 
 by the defender, I will venture to fay, that 
 no man will be fecure in the enjoyment of 
 
 his
 
 LORD COALSTON. 105 
 
 his property ; for the innocent miftakes of 
 witneffes fwearing to remote facts, will al- 
 ways furnifh the ingenuity of counfel with 
 arguments fufficient to raife fufpicions againft 
 any man's birth, which, from the nature of 
 the thing, and penury of witneffes, muft be 
 always attended with fome degree of obfcu- 
 rity. 
 
 If any man who now hears me were called 
 upon without premonition, as Sir John Stew- 
 art was, to condcfcend upon the circum- 
 ftances of his own birth, or that of his chil- 
 dren ; let him be interrogated fpecially upon 
 the time when, and the place where the birth 
 happened, on the witneffes who were prefent, 
 and the midwife who performed the delivery, 
 upon the landlady of the houfe, and fcr- 
 vants of the family, and I will adventure to 
 fay, he will either be unable to condefcend at 
 all, or, if he does condefcend, he and the wit- 
 neffes will fall into miftakes, in which they 
 will contradict one another. If he attempts 
 to prove the pregnancy by witneffes, howe- 
 ver unexceptionable, he will be told that the 
 appearances of pregnancy are always fallaci- 
 ous ; other witneffes will be found ready to 
 fwear that they did not obfervc it, and the 
 ingenuity of counfel will be at no lofs to find 
 O other
 
 io6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 other grounds of fufpicion ; fuch as imprudent 
 journies, changing of fervants, neglecting to 
 provide nurfes, and other fuch circumftances 
 as have been laid hold of in this cafe. 
 
 If fuch fufpicions and conjectures fhall be 
 held fufiicient to prove a birth fuppofititious, 
 no man will have any fecurity, fo long as 
 there are witnefles in life who know any 
 thing concerning his birth. But happy it is, 
 that the property of mankind docs not ftand 
 on fo precarious a footing : They ftand fe- 
 curc upon that important principle of law, 
 That the legal prefumption, founded on the 
 acknowledgement of parents, efpecially where, 
 as in this cafe, it is corroborated by pofitive 
 and direct proofs of filiation, cannot be de- 
 feated, either by the innocent miftakes of 
 witnefTcs, or by a proof of inconclufive facts, 
 which are not inconfiflcnt with the legal pre- 
 fumption or direct proofs brought on the o- 
 thcr fide. 
 
 These are the reafons which induce me to 
 think, that the proofs brought by the purfu- 
 ers arc by no means fufricient to defeat the 
 legal prcfumptions joined to the pofitive and 
 direct proofs brought by the defender ; and 
 I am ilrongly confirmed in this opinion, 
 when I confidcr the improbability of the 
 
 whole
 
 LORD CO ALSTON. 107 
 
 whole of the hypothecs laid down by the 
 purfuers; That perfons of birth and character 
 ihould at once plunge themfelves into a crime 
 of fo infamous a nature, when, at the fame 
 rime, they behoved to fee with certainty, that 
 they could reap no benefit from it: That 
 Lady Jane mould have been guilty of this 
 impofture at a time when fhs was herfelf ca- 
 pable of having children : That me and Sir 
 John mould concur together in the abfurd 
 plan of giving out that they had two chil- 
 dren, when in fact they had only one: That 
 after they were poiiefied of one ifrong heal- 
 thy child, they mould be running through 
 the ftreets of Paris feeking a poor weakly 
 child ; and that, after all, by a miracle, they 
 mould find one who was the exprefs pichire 
 of Lady jane, and who anfwercd exactly to 
 the defcriptions they had uniformly given of 
 him in all their letters to their friends. Thcfe 
 circumflances, when taken together, and join- 
 ed with many others which might be men- 
 tioned, fuch as their loitering unneceflarily 
 at Paris (o long alter the crime h, R:y^c/ 1 'cu 
 to have been committed, and their afterwards 
 returning to Rhcims, the very Lut place they 
 had been in before they went to Paris, appear 
 to me fo highly improbable, that though no
 
 108 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 direct proofs had been brought by the de- 
 fender, I fhould have thought the whole of 
 the hypothecs laid down by the purfuers ut- 
 terly incredible. 
 
 Upon the whole, the queftion before the 
 Court is not, Which of thefe two parties has 
 the beft right to the eftate of Douglas ? even 
 that is a queftion of fome importance; but 
 the queftions before us are of a much more im- 
 l ortant and ferious nature. Th.zf.rft queftion 
 is, Whether the defender, the lineal heir and 
 rcprefentative of one of the firft families in 
 Europe, is to be not only forfeited of his e- 
 { ate, but deprived of that rank and condition 
 of life which he has been in pofleffion of fince 
 the time of his birth ? The next queftion ne- 
 celfary to be determined, is, Whether Mrs Hep- 
 burn of Keith, Mifs Primrofe, Mrs Hewit, 
 Mrs Glafs, Monfieur Menager, and Madame 
 Gamier, and the whole other witneiTes who 
 have fworn to the pregnancy and delivery of 
 Lady Jane, are to be held, in all time co- 
 ming, as infamous and perjured witneffes ? 
 And the laft queftion neceiTary to be deter- 
 mined, is, Whether Sir John, who had hither- 
 to maintained the character of a man of ho- 
 nour; and whether Lady Jane Douglas, 
 who is proved by the depofitions of all the 
 
 witneiTes,
 
 LORD CO ALSTON. 109 
 
 witnefTes, as well as by the more infallible e- 
 vidence of her own letters, to have been one 
 of the moft accomplished Ladies of the age 
 in which fhe lived, and, at the lame time, pof- 
 fefTed of fentiments of religion, honour, and 
 virtue, fuperior to what mod of the human 
 race are capable of: I fay, the queflion is, 
 Whether this Lady, poficfied of thefe high 
 qualities, fhall be declared, by this court, to 
 have been guilty of an infamous crime, for 
 which, if (lie had been brought to trial, fhe 
 would have been condemned to fulFer a ca- 
 pital punifhment? I do not know in what 
 light Lady Jane's letters may ftrike your 
 Lordihips; but, for my own part, I never can 
 read them without being fully fatisfied of 
 two things : i/?, That the perfon who wrote 
 thefe letters could not be guilty of the crime 
 that is here laid to the charge of Lady Jane 
 Douglas; and, idly, That the perfon who 
 wrote thefe letters mufl have been the mo- 
 ther of thefe children. 
 
 In fuch a cafe, where the characters of 
 parties, and of fuch parties, were fo deeply 
 concerned, it might have been expected, that 
 the purfuers would have taken no fteps which 
 were not ftriclly warranted by the laws of 
 
 their
 
 no T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 their country. But, inftead of this, it ap* 
 pears, that the moft unjuftifiable fteps have 
 been taken, and fuch as had never been at- 
 tempted in any former cafe. The publica- 
 tion of the Monitoire behoved neceffarily to 
 raife an undue imprefiion againft the defend- 
 er ; and the particular defcription which was 
 there given of times, places, and perfons, 
 was the very beft method that could be con- 
 trived for inftructing the witneffes ; as, on the 
 other hand, the mam procefs before the Tour- 
 nelle (which was carefully concealed from 
 this court at the time when Sir John Stewart's 
 declaration was taken) was the moft effec- 
 tual method of fhutting out all information 
 from the defender, and pf tying down the 
 witneffes, when they came afterwards to be 
 examined, to repeat the fame ftory ,they had 
 at firft told on an examination ex parte. 
 
 I cannot exprefs to your Lordfhips the 
 horror I felt in my own mind, when I firft 
 heard of thefe proceedings, and the indigna- 
 tion I had when I faw the interpofition of the 
 French King procured to garble a commiffion 
 aimed from this court. 
 
 These things appeared to me utterly in- 
 confiftent with the ideas I had hitherto 
 
 formed
 
 LORD COALSTON. i U 
 
 farmed of a fair and impartial trial. I then 
 thought, and I do ftill think, that the con- 
 duel of the purfuers deferred a moil fevere 
 animadverfion from this court; and though 
 your Lordfhips did not think proper to pro- 
 ceed to ftrong meafures in this caufe ; yet I 
 am hopeful, that the ftigma which has been 
 put upon thefe proceedings, firft by this court, 
 and afterwards by the Houfe of Lords, will 
 effectually deter others from falling into the 
 like irregular practices in time coming:. This 
 feafonable interpofition of both courts, will 
 probably fecurc others from fuffering by fuch 
 illegal proceedings. But that will not re- 
 pair the wronir done to the defender. I do 
 not chufe to repeat what has been already 
 faid by one of my brethren. But, when I 
 lee ionic of the witneiles adduced for the 
 purfuers proved to have been guilty of crrofs 
 and wilful perjury, and others of them con- 
 ceal:':;.;- upon oath facts highly material for 
 the defender, which they had freely fpoke 
 out in the previous examination by the pur- 
 fuers ; it throws a flur upon the whole of 
 the witneffes adduced by the purfuers, and 
 fhows, but too clearly, that the illegal pro- 
 ceedings of the purfuers, and the inferior 
 
 ;{<icnts
 
 U2 THESPEECHOF 
 
 agents employed by them, have had too 
 much influence in this cafe. 
 
 Upon the whole, I am clear, that the rea- 
 fonsof reduction are not proved; and there- 
 fore I am for affoilzieing the defender from 
 the reduction. 
 
 LORD'
 
 r 113 j 
 
 LORD BARJARG. 
 
 IN delivering my opinion in this caufe, it is 
 not neceffary to refume the whole facts, 
 nor proper to repeat the arguments fully and 
 elegantly fet forth in the memorials on both 
 fides. It is fufHcient to trace the exeat out- 
 lines of the caufe, and to mention the moll 
 material facts upon which the judgment mult 
 depend, with the evidence brought in fup- 
 port of them, and the confequences which 
 fecm to follow from that evidence. 
 
 This being an action for reducing the fer- 
 vice of the defender, as called by the laft 
 fettlement of the late Duke of Douglas to 
 fucceed to his eflate, under the character of 
 heir ivhatfoever of the late Marquis of Dou- 
 g-las : and it beins: admitted, that the late 
 Marquis left no furviving iflue but the late 
 Duke and his daughter Lady Jane, and that: 
 the Duke himfclf died without leaving any 
 liuic, the (inal determination of the caufe 
 muft turn upon the quefticn, Whether there 
 is new before the court proper and fatisiy- 
 
 P m<?.
 
 ii4 T II E S P E E C H O F 
 
 ing evidence, that the defender is the eldcft 
 or only fon of Lady Jane ? If he is, the fer- 
 vice will be fupported : If he is not, it will 
 fall to be reduced by the judgment. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine the evi- 
 dence, it is proper to take notice of a preli- 
 minary queftion much infilled upon by both 
 parties, viz. On whom the onus proband! lies 
 in this action ? I do not think that the argu- 
 ment held by either fide will apply to the 
 prefent cafe. 
 
 Few general rules will apply indifcrimi- 
 nately to every circumftantiate cafe. This 
 cafe is attended with very peculiar circum- 
 ftances, fomc of which I mall afterwards have 
 occafion to take notice of; therefore I do 
 not think it fuflicient, on the one hand, for 
 the defender to fay, he will Hand upon the 
 poffeflion of his ftatc and his filiation, fup- 
 ported by .the verdict of the inqucft in the 
 fervice, till they are difproved and removed 
 by a direct proof on the part of the purfuers : 
 Neither, on the other hand, do I think it fuf- 
 licient lor the purfuers to deny, that the de- 
 fender is the fon of Lady Jane Douglas, and 
 to ailed ere they are not bound to prove a ne- 
 gativc. I think it is incumbent on them to 
 point out the defects of the evidence already 
 
 pro-
 
 LORD B ARJ ART,. n 5 
 
 produced in the fervice, and to ailed ;e «nd 
 prove fads that are relevant to take off the 
 effect, of it ; and that the defender, on his 
 part, is bound to fupport the evidence al- 
 ready brought, and bring what further proof 
 is ncceffary to take off the force of the pur- 
 fuers alledgcances, fo far as they are proved ; 
 and that the court will judge according to 
 what appears to be the refult of the whole. 
 
 The iirft material fact contefted upon the 
 proof, is the pregnancy of Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas. 
 
 o 
 
 I think the appearances of pregnancy upon 
 Lady Jane, while at Aix-la-Chapelle and at 
 Leige, are as fully proved as the nature of the 
 thing will admit, by witneffes not fubject to 
 any degree of fufpicion, concurring with the 
 evidence ariling from the declaration of Sir 
 John Stewart, and the depofitions of Mrs 
 Hewit and Mrs Glafs. From the time of 
 leaving Leige till the period aligned for the 
 delivery, it is more feeble, fuch as would ad- 
 mit of great doubts, if it flood unfupported 
 
 . by the other evidence. But ?s> that may be 
 accounted for, from the indifference and in- 
 attention of ftrangers, during the fliort time 
 they had occafion to fee Lady Jane, and the 
 
 . little icafon they had to fulpeel her being in 
 
 that
 
 n£ THE SPEECH OF 
 
 that fituation, from the circumftance of her 
 travelling equipage, and not taking avow* 
 edly and conftantly the character of a mar- 
 ried woman ; I incline to think it not incon- 
 fiftent with the evidence of pregnancy at 
 Aix and Leige, and fo not to exclude the 
 poffibility of a delivery, if fupported by pro- 
 bable evidence. 
 
 But appearances of pregnancy, if no- 
 thing further is proved, afford only a pre- 
 emption, and not any real evidence of an 
 actual delivery. The poflibility and frequent 
 occurrences of deceptions, efpecially in an 
 advanced period of a woman's life, befides 
 the rifk or danger of a mifcarriage, to which 
 Lady Jane was certainly much expofed by 
 travelling, bad roads, erouded machines, 
 early hours, and other eircurnftances appear- 
 ing from the evidence, concur to make fome 
 evidence, at ieaft, of an actual delivery nccef- 
 fary on the part pf the defender in tins caufe. 
 
 It is remarkable, that neither £arty have 
 brought any evidence, but that of Sir John 
 Stewart, Mrs Hewit, and Mrs Glafs, of what 
 paffed during the nine days Lady Jane refted 
 at Sedan; and it is ftili more remarkable, that 
 Mrs Glafs's evidence, upon all her examina- 
 tions, concurs in proving Lady Jane to have 
 
 been
 
 LORD BARJARG. n 7 
 
 been ill, and in danger of a rnifcarriage at 
 llhetel, having made but one day's journey 
 from Sedan, though fne had no complaints 
 upon her arrival there, nor during her flay 
 at that phce. The whole evidence concurs 
 to mew, that, from that time foreward, Lady 
 jane had no uneafincfs or threatenings of a 
 delivery, until the time actually afiigned for 
 her being delivered of the twins ; all which 
 render it racft efTential to the decifion to at* 
 tend particularly to the evidence of the mofl 
 material fact to the iiTue of this caufe. 
 
 It depends upon evidence, which I incline 
 to divide into two claffes : i/?, The teftimo- 
 nies of Sir John Stewart and Mrs He wit, 
 with the letters produced for the defender, 
 either received from the accoucheur or wrote 
 to others by them and Lady jane on that 
 occafion : ido, The teftimonies of Menager 
 and Madam Gamier, relative to Lewis Pierre 
 Delamarre, with fuch evidence as has been 
 adduced concerning a Madame le Brun. I 
 mention only Menager and Gamier, without 
 the other witnefTes who concur with them 
 in many facts, for a reafon to be afterwards 
 aiTigned. It is with much regret that I am 
 obliged to acknowledge, that neither of their 
 ^cftimonies, taken feparatcly, appear to mc 
 
 Satisfying
 
 n8 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 faUsfying evidence of the delivery, and that, 
 taken jointly, they are inconfiitent with each 
 other. 
 
 Sir John Stew \rt's account of La Marr and 
 his letters muft certainly be given up ; and Mrs 
 Hewit's teflimony on that point itands very 
 much connected with it. Lady Jane too feems 
 to have had a reliance on that correfpondence. 
 But I fhall think it a favourable circumftance 
 for the defender, if the court are of opinion 
 that none of the jottings in the pocket-book 
 apply to any of the four letters produced ; 
 at the lame time, it is unlucky that no others 
 have been preferved, the rather that Mrs 
 Glafs has, in fome meafure, connected the 
 credibility of her teflimony with the receipt 
 of a letter from La Marr. 
 
 The evidence of Menager and Gamier, I 
 cannot difbelieve, in fo far as they prove the 
 exiftence of Lewis Pierre Delamarre, a fur- 
 geon, firft in the Hotel Dieu, afterwards 
 practifing in a low fphere, who was not at 
 Liege, or in the army, though Sir John fays 
 he knew him there, nor in Italy, where the 
 letter produced bears him to have been: 
 That he alfo delivered women who were de- 
 firous from neceflity to conceal their off- 
 fpring; and, in that train of bulinefs, may 
 
 probably
 
 LORD BAR J ARC. irj 
 
 probably have delivered both Grangers and 
 women of fafhion; or, at leaft, that he was 
 difpofed to boaft that he had done it, in or- 
 der to raife his reputation, and promote his 
 bufinefs. In all thefe facts, Menager and Gaf- 
 nierarc fupported by the teftimonies of Mr 
 Giles, and other witneftes, who I don't ob- 
 ferve fubjecl to any degree of fufpicion. But 
 it is remarkable, that thefe two witnefTes a- 
 lone concur in the circumftance of tivim, 
 which is the only one that applies the evi- 
 dence effectually to fuppo'rt the defender's 
 plea ; and that, without it, the other facts may- 
 be eafily fnppofed true, though La Marr 
 had not delivered Lady Jane Douglas. I am 
 unwilling to fuppofe, that this circumftance 
 was wilfully adjecled by thefe witneftes; but 
 at the diftance of time, it may be conceived 
 they may have talked themfelves or been 
 rcafoncd into a belief of a fingle word faid 
 by La Marre to them, which makes their e- 
 vidence of fo much more confcqucnce 
 in this caul'e. And, on this point, I can- 
 not help being fomewhat affected by a 
 circumftance much infifted upon, on behalf 
 of- the defender, viz. that there leans 
 feme reafon to think, that even Mr Giles, 
 when iii ft brought to fpeak on that fubject 
 
 extrajudicially,
 
 12© THE SPEECH OF 
 
 extrajudicially, feems to have been led by the 
 interrogatories to make an anfwer which made 
 the peribn who took it down in writing think 
 that La Marre had mentioned twins to him. 
 But when he came to be examined, in a folemn 
 judicial manner, and was aware of the con- 
 fequence of his being certain of La Marr's 
 having mentioned twins, he denies it, or e- 
 ven that he had faid fo. From Giles's cha- 
 racter, I cannot difcredit his evidence upon 
 ©ath, nor avoid giving it the preference, in 
 fo far as it mull be contraflied, either with 
 Menager or Gamier, or with a report, tho' 
 in writing, by a third party of what he faid 
 extrajudicially. With this I mult join, that 
 it is clear from the proof, La Marre had been 
 turned out of the Hotel Dieu, at the in- 
 flance of this fame man Mr Giles, long be- 
 fore Lady Jane's arrival at Paris ; and it is 
 not eafy to believe, that, after Mr Giles was 
 advanced to a higher ftation in the houfe, he 
 would be frequenting the collations in the 
 chambre de gardes of the young furgeons of 
 inferior rank, efpecially when La Marre was 
 of the party, as he had particular reafon to 
 difclaim his conversation, and the company 
 he kept there, while in the houfe. I think 
 there is alfo fome reafon to believe, that Me-
 
 LORD BAR J ARC 121 
 
 nager was himfclf with the army, at the pe- 
 riod afiigned for Lady Jane's delivery. So 
 that Menager's, fo far as it relates to La 
 Mane's account of a delivery, muft refer to 
 a different delivery at an earlier period. All 
 which leaves me unfatisfied with the evidence 
 with refpecl to Louis Pierre Delamarre. 
 
 It is next material to confider the evi- 
 dence with refpecl to Madame le Brun, her 
 houfe and family; which to me is not more 
 fatisfactory than that concerning La Marr. 
 
 Abstracting from the evidence of Sir 
 John and Mrs Hewit, any evidence we have 
 of a Madame le Brun, tends to make her a 
 iick nurfe employed by Louis Pierre Dela- 
 marre, with whom Ihe and her daughter feem 
 to have been particularly connected, and to have 
 met generally at the Hotel Dieu, while he 
 was attendant there. The credibility then of 
 this branch of the evidence feems to be fubjecl 
 to moft of the objections that are urged a- 
 Gjainft. what is (aid by Menager with refpecl 
 to Louis Pierre Delamarre ; with this addition, 
 that allowing it to be free of thefe objections, 
 it docs not appear that fhe had fuch a houfe 
 as could accommodate the company, or, as 
 Sir John and Mrs Hewit fay, Lady Jane was 
 O delivered
 
 liz THE SPEECH OF 
 
 delivered in ; nor is there any other evidence 
 that ihe was delivered in her houfe. 
 
 I muft therefore conclude, upon the whole 
 evidence on this point, that it does not at all 
 afford me fatisfying proof that Lady Jane 
 was delivered by Pierre la Marr, or in the 
 houfe of Madame 1c Brun. 
 
 With the defect of evidence on the part 
 of the defender, I find myfelf obliged to joia 
 the evidence on the part of the purfuers, 
 That Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit, 
 were at Godefroy's inn at the time afligned 
 for the delivery at Le Brun's. I cannot help 
 being deeply affected by the evidence of 
 Godefroy and his wife, fupported by evidence 
 arifing from their books, which is not, in my 
 opinion, removed by the objections ftated on 
 the part of the defender. At iirft fight I was 
 much moved with the irregular appearance of 
 thefe books; but the morel have attended to 
 them, with the objections and anfwers, I have 
 been the more inclined to think they fupport 
 the oath of Godefroy and his wife, and prove 
 Sir John and Lady Jane to have been at their 
 houfe till the 14th of July inclufive. 
 
 I muft admit, that from the nature of this 
 evidence, and the whole circurnftances taken 
 together, it does not exclude a mere poffibi- 
 
 lity
 
 LORD BARjARG. 123 
 
 5ity that the fact may have been otherways . 
 But, as in every part of human life, we arc 
 obliged to act upon probabilities, and fekiom 
 or never can command real certainty; fo in 
 our tluty as judges and jurymen, we muft 
 proceed upon the mod probable evidence, 
 and cannot reject it upon a mere poflibility of 
 the fact being otherways. And this argu- 
 ment appears to me to be unanfwerable, if 
 the intereft of Sir John and Lady Jane were 
 ■only at (take; as the cloud which now hangs 
 ■over and obfeurcs our eyes might have beep, 
 prevented or withdrawn by them ; how far 
 it is equally applicable againft the defender, 
 1 Hull afterwards have occalion to examine. 
 And, if it is i'o, the purfucrs rauft be allowed 
 to avail themfelves of the circumftances pro- 
 ved upon their part, that there were two 
 children carried oft from their parents, at fuel* 
 time, and under fuch circumftances, as ill it 
 molt furprifingly with the appearance of the 
 defender and his brother, with Sir John and 
 Lady Jan< 
 
 I do not think this part of the purfucrs e- 
 
 'idence altogether free of exceptions; nor do 
 
 I think it fuflicient to bring thefe enlevements 
 
 directly to vSir John Stewart and Lady Jane , 
 
 but, from the joint evidence <jt the whole, I 
 
 <hmk
 
 124 THE- SPEECH OF 
 
 think it proved, that the two children were 
 taken under fuch circumfiances, and at fuch 
 times, as might apply to and fill up thefe 
 very thinks in the defender's evidence with 
 facts which Aipport the purfuers plea, if 
 the identity of the perfons had been fixed, 
 which was a thing next to impoflible as the 
 fcene lies, and little lefs than a miracle could 
 have brought it about. One obfervation I 
 muft beg leave to add on the part of the de- 
 fender's evidence, and {hall be happy to ftand 
 convicted, if I am wrong; it is Mrs Hewit's let- 
 ters to the two maids from Paris, which fell to 
 have been wrote frankly and fimply, without 
 any degree of affectation, or more than a nar- 
 rative of the moft material facts ; yet many 
 of the material facts are omitted, fuch as 
 would have contributed to give light to the 
 caufe, and they feem to be crouded with a 
 great variety of lefs material, though very 
 probable circumftanccs, fevcral of which ap- 
 pear from other parts of the proof not to be 
 founded in truth : This weakens the credibi- 
 lity of the whole, as it fhows invention was 
 at work. 
 
 In fine, upon a general view of the whole 
 facts brought in evidence, it does not appear 
 to me, that there is any proof of Lady jane's 
 
 delivery ;
 
 L O R D B A R J A 11 G. 125 
 
 delivery ; but, on the contrary, a ftrong pre- 
 emptive evidence, that me was not, and 
 could not be delivered at the time, in the 
 place, or by the perfon condefcended on by- 
 Sir John and Mrs Hewit ; in which event the 
 fervice cannot be fupported. 
 
 The great doubt that has occurred to me 
 in forming this opinion, arifcs from what I 
 have already mentioned, viz. that, though the 
 evidence may be fufficient to affect the intereil 
 of Sir John or Lady Jane, who muft have had 
 it in their power to have removed the weight of 
 many of the objections to the defender's plea, if 
 fuch objections are not founded in truth, and as 
 they themfelves have given rife to all the dark- 
 nefs that now hangs over thiscaufe, by a moil 
 unaccountable conduct, and took no effectual 
 meafures to remedy this mifconduct, when the 
 conferences began to appear, and were re- 
 prcfeiited to them by others ; whether the 
 force of this evidence, or rather the defects of 
 it, fhould have the fame weight againft the 
 defender, who is a third party, blamelefs of 
 all the guilt or mifconduct that can be aliedged 
 againft Sir John or Lady Jane, and as much at 
 a lofs to difcover the truth or the evidence 
 of it as the purfuers, and at the fame time, 
 in poflelhon of a ftate by his fdiation and 
 
 tin-
 
 ii6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 the acknowledgement of parents, which the 
 action tends to deprive him of, and as the evi- 
 dence does admit of a poflibility of his being 
 Lady Jane's fon ; whether or not he is intitled 
 to avail himfelf of that to fecure him in the 
 pofieflion of his eftate, and the confequences. 
 But, imo, If a poflibility only had been 
 founded on at the fervice, it furely would 
 not have procured a verdict of the inqueft 
 in his favour, independent of habit and re- 
 pute, ido, Habit and repute in this cafe ap- 
 pear from the proof not to have been uni- 
 form or uninterrupted, fo as to give a full 
 pofleflion of a ftate which was controvert- 
 ed even by the Duke of Douglas to the laft 
 period of his life. And, ^tio, It can only a- 
 rife in this cafe from the acknowledgement 
 of the parents, attended with all the cir- 
 cumftances now brought out in evidence, 
 which taken together do not allow it to 
 have the full effect attributed in ordinary 
 cafes, where a public and regular marriage, 
 open cohabitation, and acknowledgement of 
 man and wife, refidence in the midft of rela- 
 tions and thofe who are fuppofed to attend 
 to what pafles in the family, and may have 
 an intereft to difcover any falfehood : A preg- 
 nancy and a delivery under fuch circum- 
 
 ftances,
 
 LORD BAR J All G. 127 
 
 fiances, under the hands of known and ordi- 
 nary operators, where nothing wrong ha* 
 been fufpected or alledged at the time, every- 
 thing muft be prefumed and held to be right 
 in all time coming, till the contrary be made 
 evidently appear. In fuch a cafe, habit and 
 repute, and the acknowledgement of parents 
 muft have full weight ; the peace and f ecurity 
 of fociety depend upon it. 
 
 But lam afraid the principle will not ap- 
 ply to this cafe, and that the intcreft of the 
 defender cannot be diftinguifhed from that of 
 Lady Jane and Sir John; on that footing, if 
 his plea hangs only on the credibility of their 
 acknowledgement of him, it muft be affected 
 by whatever impeaches their credit, or de- 
 ftroys the belief of the innocency of their 
 ecu duel:. 
 
 The defender infilled much, that there 
 were no motives for Lady Jane and Sir John** 
 committing this crime ; that, on the contra- 
 ry, they had rather motives not to commit 
 it. And, idly, That Lady Jane's affections 
 and conftant attention to the children appear- 
 ed in the ftrongeft manner from her letters. 
 
 With refpect to the motives, thefe can on- 
 ly be gueffed at, even when the characters and 
 difpolitions of the parties are known. It is al- 
 
 moft
 
 128 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 moft impoflible that motives can be proved. 
 The characters of mankind are extremely dif- 
 ficult to be known : They are very feldom 
 agreed upon, but are different with different 
 people. 
 
 However, frugality or forefight don't ap- 
 pear, either in the characters of Sir John or 
 Lady Jane ; otherways the engaging with a 
 family and a lady of quality, whom Sir John 
 muff have known did not live w T ithin her 
 own income, was as improper for himfelf, 
 and for her too, as the taking the additional 
 burden of two children. 
 
 Again, with refpect to Lady Jane Douglas, 
 her being cruelly plunged at once into the 
 complicated diftrefs, arifmg from their joint 
 iituation, appears to have been the caufe of 
 her death. 
 
 We muft not therefore expect proper mo- 
 tives of conduct from perfons of all charac- 
 ters. 
 
 There are unaccountable things in moft 
 characters, and it is impoiTible to affign pro- 
 per motives for every action. For inftance, 
 in a poltfcript to one of Lady Jane's letters 
 to Sir John, me inquires, if he had got Mrs 
 Hewit's fpectacles fet in filver, although it 
 appears from the letter itfelf, that they were 
 
 at
 
 LORD BARJARG. 129 
 
 at that time in want of money. This, tho' 
 a trifling incident, ferves to mew how diffi- 
 cult it is to affign motives for an action. 
 
 As to Lady Jane's letters, fo full of affec- 
 tion and attention to the children, I do not 
 think it is diilicult to account for them : 
 They were fuitable to her ordinary charac- 
 ter : She was furely under an obligation to 
 provide for thofe whom me had taken from 
 their parents, and who had no other but her 
 to depend upon : She mull have been under 
 a ftrons: fenfe of the iituation fhe had brought 
 them into, and duty concurred with humani- 
 ty to make her treat the defender as her fon, 
 though he truly was not fo. 
 
 I am flrongly imprciled with that humani- 
 ty, that would make every feeling heart de- 
 ihe to find evidence that the defender was her 
 fon ; therefore it is with the greateft regret 
 that I muft conclude, that I cannot find that 
 evidence ; but muft give my opinion for iuf' 
 taininsc the reafons of reduction. 
 
 II L O 11 D
 
 ISO 
 
 LORD ALE MOORE. 
 
 AFTER all the pains I have bellowed uport 
 this caufe, I have no difficulty to give 
 my opinion in conformity with that laft gi- 
 ven, and in conformity with that firft of all 
 given from the chair. As to the opinions 
 yefterday delivered upon the other fide of 
 the queition, the regard they deferve made 
 me again examine the grounds of that opi- 
 nion I am now to give ; and, after viewing 
 their arguments in all their force, I found 
 my fentimertts rather confirmed than fhaken : 
 Yet, in forming this opinion, I confefs I met 
 with fome difficulty arifing from the art and 
 ingenuity of the defender's counfel. They 
 at iirft puzzled me ; in one page, fetting out 
 with a fuppofition ; in the next, fwelling it to 
 a probability; in the third, eftablifhing it as a 
 demonftration. But I cannot approve of 
 them, when I fee them treating too fuperci- 
 lioufly every argument produced on the part 
 of the purfuers j and, inflead of attacking 
 the whole of the purfuers proof as a, long cir- 
 
 cum-
 
 L O K D ALEMOORE. 131 
 
 cumftantiate train of evidence, of which eve- 
 ry link hangs upon another, centering in one 
 point, they have endeavoured to fliake the force 
 of this combined evidence, by taking every 
 circumftance feparately; and after attempting 
 to fhew, that not any of them fingly amount- 
 ed to a conciufive proof, they linim every 
 feparate attack with an exclamation : " Yet 
 " this is the flrength of the purfuers caufe." 
 
 But it is not in this manner the evidence is 
 to be taken to pieces ; it is the great lines and 
 their combinations by which we are to judge; 
 and however much I was ilartled by the in- 
 genuity of the defender's counfel, yet as of- 
 ten as I took in view the connected chain of 
 evidence, as often did I return to the opinion 
 I am now to deliver. 
 
 Some points of law have been attempted 
 to be brought into this caufe ; but to little 
 purpofe. This is not a caufe which falls to 
 be decided upon fubtile points of law ; it is 
 a jury-caufe ; a fact to be proved or difproved, 
 of which every perfon as well as a lawyer, 
 all who now hear me, all who can attend 
 to the proofs, are equally capable of judging, 
 and will judge of thofe that judge it. 
 
 Great weight has been laid upon the de- 
 fender's fervicc, and the poUeflion he attain- 
 ed
 
 132 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 cd in coniequence of it. I do not arraign the 
 verdict or that jury that ferved him heir. 
 They judged upon the evidence that was then 
 before them ; and, had I been one of them, 
 I Ihould probably have been of their opinion. 
 
 The defender bar, rcapt all the advanta- 
 ges of that fervice: He obtained his charter 
 and feiiine ; he got into poiTefiion of this 
 great eflate ; by which, and by the alTiftance 
 oi a generous Lady, he has been enabled to 
 employ every mean of defence. I am glad 
 he got poiTefiion of the ellatc; for I mould 
 have been very uneafy under the neceility of 
 judging in this important and complicated 
 came, had not the defender contended upon 
 equal terms of alTiuence Avith his competitors. 
 
 But what can that fervice avail now in the 
 prefent circumftances, when the immediate 
 tendency of this action is to bring it under your 
 Lordfhips review, in order to its being reduced, 
 and fet aiide, if contradicted, or not fuflicient- 
 ly fupported by the whole evidence now be- 
 fore us ? When the decrees of inferior courts 
 are brought under reduction before this court, 
 the deci/ions of the inferior judges are of no 
 weight in themfelves j your Lordfhips deter- 
 mine in them as if they were original ac- 
 tions. The fame thing holds in the reduction 
 
 of
 
 LORD ALE MO ORE. 133 
 
 of fervices, with this difference only, that in 
 regard the proceedings in fervices are gene- 
 rally had without contradiction, and are 
 founded upon the flighteft proofs, they are, 
 of all inferior decrees, the mod eafily reduced. 
 Services were, in former times, brought un- 
 der reduction before what was called a grand 
 jury, confifting of forty-five jurors. Thefs 
 grand juries have, for a long time, been laid 
 a fide ; and this court came in place of the 
 grand jury, and muft proceed upon the fame 
 principles with all other juries. A fervice 
 may be challenged, either upon the infufli- 
 ciency of the proof originally brought, or 
 upon new proof brought before the court, in 
 order to invalidate and fet afidc the former 
 proof. In all fuch cafes, your Lordfhips are 
 in ufe to determine upon the fact, upon 
 a complex view of the whole evidence, rely- 
 ing upon your own judgment, without payine 
 any deference to the opinion of the former 
 jury, who may have proceeded upon evidence 
 incomplete, partial, or corrupted. And thus 
 lately, in the cafe of Tullyallan, your 1 ord- 
 fhips reduced a fervice upon new proofs 
 brought before this court, which you found 
 to be more pregnant than the proof which 
 
 had
 
 134 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 had been brought in the fervice ; and there- 
 fore fet afide the fervice. 
 
 No fmall weight has likewife been laid upon 
 the defender's filiation, or the acknowledge- 
 ment of his parents of him as their fon, and 
 it has been faid, that fuch acknowledgement 
 is all that any of us have for our birthright. 
 I mall admit the force of this argument to it's 
 juft extent. It is a prefumption in favour 
 of the child fo acknowledged. But all law. 
 yers have agreed, that it is no more than a 
 prefumption, liable to be fet afide by contrary 
 proofs, or even by ftronger preemptions. 
 And I muft be allowed to obferve, that the 
 acknowledgement of our parents is not the 
 only thing we have to fupport our birthright. 
 There is generally a ftrong concomitant cir- 
 cumftancc goes along with it, which gives 
 complete force to the acknowledgement ; 
 that is, a proper "and well founded habit 
 and repute, an uniform acknowledgement, 
 not only by parents, but by the relations 
 of the family, their connections, and the 
 uncontradicted voice of the neighbour- 
 hood and country. This defender indeed 
 has the acknowledgement of his parents; 
 but he is deftitute of that general fame, that 
 uncontradicted opinion of his country, which 
 
 trives the due force and effect to fuch ac- 
 ta 
 
 knowledaremenfe,
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 13s 
 
 knowledgement. It is evident from the proof, 
 that the fufpicions of his birth were coeval 
 with the accounts of it. I ihall not here 
 ftate the proof at large upon this point ; but 
 ihall only touch upon fuch circumftances, 
 which, as proceeding from the defender's 
 firft and beft friends, muft appear moft fatis- 
 factory. 
 
 Ui'on Lady Jane Douglas's death, this de- 
 fender, when an infant, and left deftitute by 
 all his relations, was moft generoufly and cha- 
 ritably taken under the protection of Lady 
 Schaw, who indeed acted the part of a mo- 
 ther to him. Eut was Lady Schaw, notwith- 
 standing her gencrolity to the defender, free 
 from fufpicions as to his birth ? No : She 
 never could banifh from her mind the doubts 
 and fcruples which had naturally arifen in 
 the breafts of many upon this event : She 
 deiires her grandchild, Mrs Napier, to con- 
 verfe with Sir John Stewart, and procure 
 from him what information flic could q;et, 
 that they might unravel this dark ftory. Mrs Na- 
 pier accordingly applies to Sir John. lie, at 
 li 1 ft lecmed to have adopted Lady Jane's plan, 
 oi avoiding ail explanation of particulars, and 
 pretended, that he was an old man, had gone 
 through many adventures and misfortunes, 
 
 and
 
 I3<S THE SPEEC H O F 
 
 and had changed fo many houfes, that he 
 coiild not fay in what houfc Lady Jane had 
 been delivered ; but, when hard preffed, he 
 was at length prevailed upon to give a note 
 in writing of the particulars ; and this feems 
 to have been the very firft time that he gave 
 any particular account of that tranfaction. 
 But did he then mention thehoufe of Madame 
 le Brun as the piacc of delivery ? No, he aflert- 
 cd pofitively, that it was in the houle of Mi- 
 chell. 
 
 Upon obtaining this note from Sir John, 
 Lady Schaw defired Mrs Napier to write 
 to France to inquire into the truth of Sir 
 John's flory. She accordingly wrote to Lady 
 Frances Stewart to defire Sir James Stewart 
 to inquire into the particulars ; at the fame 
 time, begging Lady Frances not to talk too 
 much of attempting this proof, left a failure of 
 fuccefs J/jould make things lefs clear than they are. 
 Does this ihow a conviction in Lady Schaw 
 or Mrs Napier of the truth of the defender's 
 birth ? Is it not rather a demonftration, that 
 they entertained doubts and fufpicions of the 
 whole flory ? 
 
 How does Sir James Stewart exprefs him- 
 felf upon this occalion ? He writes to Prin- 
 cipal Gordon at Paris, and fends him Sir 
 
 John\
 
 LORD ALE MO ORE. 137 
 
 John's note as a clue to unravel the dark ftory of 
 the birth of Lady Jane Douglas's children. Prin- 
 cipal Gordon makes the ref'earches, finds out 
 the houfe of .Michell, and writes back, that 
 he had got no fatisfaction ; and that his in- 
 quiries rather contradicted Sir James Stew- 
 art's information. 
 
 Does not Lord Cathcart, the grandfon of 
 Lady Schaw, depofe, " 1 hat he believed the 
 " doubts which had been entertained of the 
 " reality of Lady Jane's delivery proceeded 
 " from the myjlery and concealment which at~ 
 " tended it" 
 
 In what cafe did ever fuch fufpicions at- 
 tend a real birth ? 
 
 The filiation therefore of thf dp f ;-• \p.r ; n 
 this cafe, can amount to no rr.c ■ 
 fumption of the flighteft kind, tl r;J 
 obftrucl us in the leaft from giving due at- 
 tention to the full circumflantial evidence, 
 confifting of all the facts and circumRa.'iccs 
 which may have any connection with this aifair. 
 It is my duty then as a judge, to weigh the 
 whole evidence on either fide, and to form 
 my opinion according as the one or other 
 fcale of evidence mall preponderate. 
 
 In this view, I fhall endeavour brief!;- to 
 S ftate
 
 138 THESPEECHO? 
 
 flate the foundation and principal circum- 
 llances on which my opinion is formed. 
 
 I fhall not follow Lady Jane in the courfe 
 of her journey through Holland and Germa- 
 ny, but fhall take her up at Rheims, and con- 
 fid er the transactions from that period in the 
 moil favourable light for the defender, that 
 is, from the accounts given by Sir John Stew- 
 art and Mrs Hewit; and I cannot help think- 
 ing, that the ftory told is fo fufpicious, and 
 fo hard to be reconciled with the common 
 fenfe and experience of mankind, that it is 
 fufficient of itfelf to difprove the reality of 
 Lady Jane's delivery at Paris, even without 
 the aid of the proof brought by the purfuers,, 
 But when to the incredibility of that tale fhall 
 be added, the connected chain of circumftan- 
 tial evidence brought by the purfuers, total- 
 ly fubverfive of it, I can no longer hefitate, 
 but muft yield to the conviction that the 
 whole was an impoflure. 
 
 Lady Jane, after having affumed the ap- 
 pearance of pregnancy at Aix-la-Chappelie, 
 Liege, and other places, (this pregnancy I fhall 
 take particular notice of afterwards), at laft ar- 
 rives, in the eighth month of her pregnancy, 
 at Rheims, one of the moft populous towns 
 of France, where there is an univerfity, and 
 
 many
 
 LORD ALE MO ORE. i 39 
 
 many fkilful accoucheurs and mid-wives. 
 There could fcarcely be a place more proper 
 than this for Lady Jane's waiting the expect- 
 ed event, where fhe had an opportunity of 
 getting the ableft afliftance, befides the comr 
 pany and attention of feveral of her country- 
 men there, to whom fhe daily appeared, and 
 had made herfelf very acceptable : Notwith- 
 ftanding of thefe advantages, Lady Jane, after 
 loitering away a whole month at Rheims, at 
 laft, when the critical period was to have been 
 very near, fets out for Paris in the common 
 diligence, attended only by Sir John Stewart 
 and Mrs Hewit, leaving behind her the two 
 
 
 
 fervant maids, whom fhe could not be a mo- 
 ment without from the time of her leaving 
 Britain till then. 
 
 Is it poflible to give any fatisfactory reafoais 
 for fuch ftrange proceedings, or to reconcile 
 them with common prudence and attention? 
 But, as in every other impoflure, fo in this, 
 a tale mufl be told, and motives mufl be af- 
 figned to fatisfy the curiofity of inquirers. 
 It has been pretended, that Lady Jane left 
 Rheims, becaule fhe had been informed, in a 
 ftrange manner, by a Lady who came to her 
 the morning after fhe arrived there, that 
 there was no proper afiiftance to be had in 
 
 that
 
 i 4 o THE SPEECH. OF 
 
 that place ; and that flic herfelf had fuffered 
 in child-bed upon that account : And the 
 reafon afligned for Lady Jane's not taking 
 her maids with her was, that they had 
 not, at that time, money to defray their ex- 
 pences. 
 
 The futility of thefe pretenfions rauil ap- 
 pear at firft fight : Who can believe there 
 was not able affiftance to be had at Rheims r 
 The greatnefs of the place, as well as the 
 proofs before us, demonftrate the contrary. 
 The Lady who has been pretended to have 
 given the terrifying advice, could, from the 
 circumftances, be no other than Mrs Aiit 
 drieux ; and yet it is in proof, that though 
 that Lady had had many children, £he had 
 never fullered in child-bed. 
 
 As to leaving the maids behind for want 
 of money : What mighty fum, pray, would 
 it have coft to have carried thefe maids in 
 the diligence to Paris ? No more than ten or 
 twelve millings ; and the expence of keep- 
 ing them in family at Paris muft have been 
 lefs than that of boarding them at Rheims. 
 
 But this excufe of want of money is not 
 only infufficient in itfelf, but clearly proved 
 to be falfe ; for Sir John Stewart had then in 
 his pocket a good bill for about two thoufand 
 
 livres,
 
 LORD ALE MO ORE. i 4 x 
 
 Jivres, which he could have taken money 
 for either at Rheims or at Paris, and which 
 he actually received payment of a few days 
 after his arrival at Paris. 
 
 The motives alledged for Lady Jane's 
 leaving llheims having been fhewn to have 
 been falfe and affected ; one mult naturally 
 fufpect that fame defign or fraud was here 
 carrying on, which mull be concealed from 
 the public eye : Every circumftance contra- 
 dicts a real pregnancy and expectation of de- 
 livery ; every circumftance coincides with a 
 pretended one. 
 
 Had Lady Jane been really pregnant of a 
 child of fo many hopes and expectations, it 
 is impoflible that ihe, or any r woman of com- 
 mon prudence, or even inftinct, could have 
 acted in the manner me did. Had Rheims 
 been the place of her deftination, fhe would 
 not have left it, without any neeeiTity, juft 
 upon the eve of her delivery. Was Paris the 
 place intended where to depofite her preci- 
 ous burden ? Would fhe have wantonly loi- 
 tered at llheims for more than a month, and 
 till within a very few days of her time, and 
 then, in thefc critical moments, undertaken 
 a journey of three days to Paris of the mod 
 imminent hazard to hcrfelf and the child, 
 
 in
 
 i 4 2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 in a common jolting carriage, expofed to the 
 view and to the caprices of a variety of un- 
 known fcllow-pauengers, confined to hours 
 and flages, and, what is of all moft aftonifh- 
 ing, unattended by thefe maids, who, during 
 her whole three years refidence abroad, ex- 
 cept at this particular juncture, appeared to 
 have been fo neceffary to her as to have been 
 in a manner part of herfelf ? 
 
 On the other hand, if a pretended birth 
 was in view, a long refidence at the place 
 where the fcene of delivery was to be laid 
 was dangerous, and might have expofed her 
 to the knowledge and inquiries of her coun- 
 trymen, or even to be marked and attended 
 to by flrangers : Therefore it was not pro- 
 per to go to Paris till within a few days of 
 the delivery ; neither had fhe any thing to 
 fear from the inconveniencies of a long jour- 
 ney in a ftage-machine : And as fecrecy and 
 concealment were eflential, the attendance of 
 her maids muft, upon this particular occa- 
 fion, have been troublefome and dangerous. 
 Mrs He wit, her old confident, was alone iuf- 
 ficient to carry on and bear witnefs of this 
 fcene of delivery. 
 
 In this unaccountable manner does Lady 
 Jane leave Rheimsj and on the 2d of July, 
 
 upon
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 143 
 
 upon the eve of her delivery, fet out for Pa- 
 ris, for a three days journey, in a common 
 •voiture, with a variety of unknown paften- 
 gers, and without any perfon of experience 
 to affift her, in cafe of thefe accidents which 
 might naturally be fufpected. Thefe pafTen- 
 gers all noted Lady Jane, but could not re- 
 collect the fmalleft appearance of pregnancy 
 in her during that long journey. Upon the 
 4th of July, Lady Jane, Sir John Stewart, and 
 Mrs Hewit arrive at Paris, and put up at the 
 Hotel de Chalons kept by Monlieur Gode- 
 froy, a man of character and agent for the 
 city of Rheims, to whom they carried a let- 
 ter of recommendation from Mr Maillefer 
 fyndic at Rheims. 
 
 Let us now take a view of their tranfac- 
 tions at Paris, ftill ftating them in the light 
 moft favourable to the defender, from the 
 evidence of Sir John Stewart and Mrs Hewit. 
 They ftaid in Moniieur Godefroy's till the 
 8th of July ; they then removed to the houfe 
 of Madame le Brun, where, upon the 10th 
 of July, Lady Jane was delivered of two boys 
 by the afliftance of Pierre la Marr, a Walloon 
 furgcon, and in prefence of Madame le Brun, 
 her daughter, and the maid of the houfe; that 
 
 the
 
 144 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 ths eldcft was a fine healthy boy; but as 
 Lady Jane did not chui'e to befpeak a nurfe, left" 
 ihe fhould not have a living child, he was un- 
 lucky in his nurfes, having, in a few days, had 
 four or five of them, (for by the inconfiftent 
 accounts given by Sir John and Mrs Hewiti 
 it is not eafy to fay how many he had) : That 
 Sholto the youngeft boy was extremely weak, 
 and not expected to live ; for which reafon, 
 after being ondoyed by Pierre la Marr, he was 
 relinquifhed to his care to be fent to the 
 country, or where he pleafed ; who accordingly 
 fent him off three or four leagues from Paris i 
 That Lady Jane had a furprifing recovery, in- 
 fomuch, that Le Bran's houfe being infefted 
 with bugs, ihe was, in 8 or 10 days, fo well as 
 to be removed from Le Bran's to the Hotel 
 d' Anjou kept by Madame Michell : That flie 
 did not carry the eldeft boy to Micheli's with 
 them, but went next day, and brought him 
 with his nurfe, towhofe care they had intrufl- 
 ed him for two or three days upon account of 
 their removing from Le Brun's : That at Mi- 
 cheli's, this nurfe likewife was found to be 
 without milk; whereupon Madame Michell got 
 Madame la Favre to nurfe the boy, who kept 
 him till he was carried from Dammartin : That 
 Lady Jane ftaid in Micheli's till the end of July ; 
 
 but
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 145 
 
 but was fo tender and delicate, that flie never 
 ftirred abroad : That flie then went to Dam- 
 martin, a village about 7 leagues from Paris, 
 for better air, till the 14th Auguft, when Sir 
 John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit returned 
 to Rheims, carrying the eldeft boy with them, 
 but leaving the fecond, who continued fo 
 weak, that they durft not tranfport him : That 
 during all this flay in and about Paris, nei- 
 ther Lady Jane nor Sir John faw any of their 
 countrymen, feveral of whom were then 
 in Paris, not even Mrs Hewit's relation Mr 
 johnftone, who had been their fellow-travel- 
 ler and conftant companion in Holland, and 
 then refided at Paris : That Lady Jane never, 
 or but once, faw Pierre la Marr before he 
 brought her to bed, and but once after that : 
 That Lady Jane never faw Sholto all the time 
 fie was about Paris, nor till (lie returned thi- 
 ther in November 1749. 
 
 Such is the hiftory of this great event gi- 
 ven by Sir John Stewart and Mrs Hewit ; and 
 it is believed, the like of it will not be found 
 amongft the annals of mankind. Let us take 
 a view of this ftory. Sir John Stewart ap- 
 plies to Mr Maillcfcr, a man of confequence 
 at Rheims, for his letter of recommendation 
 to Mr Godefroy at Paris. What would have 
 
 T been
 
 1+6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 been the natural purport of this application, 
 hud the pregnancy been fo palpable at RheiniSj 
 as has been pretended, or had a real delivery 
 been expected at Paris ? Why certainly, that, 
 as Lady Jane was going to Paris in order to 
 procure the belt afliftance in her delivery, Mr 
 Godefroy and his wife would be as fervice- 
 able to her as poflible on that important oc- 
 cafion. How inconfiftent with this is Mr 
 Maillefer's letter produced by Mr Godefroy ? 
 It bears no more, than that, as Sir John and La- 
 dy Jane were to lodge at his hotel, and propofed 
 to make fome purchafes at Paris, Mr Godefroy 
 and his wife would give them their afliftance in 
 fuch purchafes. Thus was Lady Jane's fitua* 
 tion concealed, not only from Mr Maillefer, 
 but likeways from Mr and Mrs Godefroy, 
 who, notwithstanding the feveral days refi- 
 dence of Lady Jane in their houfe, never had 
 the fmalleft idea of her being with child. No 
 inquiries made from them, as to accoucheurs, 
 nurfes, or proper accommodation for Lady 
 Jane's delivery; though it is plain, from their 
 own ftory, that they had no opportunity of 
 getting any information in thefe particulars 
 from other hands. Can any thing be more 
 extraordinary I 
 
 H
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 147 
 
 In this fituation, they pretend they left 
 Godefroy's upon the 3th of July, and went 
 to Madame le Brun's, where Lady jane was 
 delivered on the 10th, and where they (laid till 
 the 1 8th or 19th, when they removed to Ma- 
 dame Michell's. Here comes the critical pe- 
 riod of this extraordinary hiftory. This is 
 the fcene, where your Lordfhips, and all man- 
 kind will expect, nay, demand the cleareft 
 light, and mod fatisfying evidence. The 
 nature of the thine: will make vou expect 
 it : The importance cf the event will make 
 you demand it. OF all the incidents in the 
 lives of the three actors, none could be fo in- 
 teresting, none could be fo full of circum- 
 ftances capable of making the deepeft impref- 
 iion, and which muft have been rivetted on 
 tlieir memories till their lateft breath. In 
 inch a cafe, who will not expect a ready and 
 fatisfactory anfwer to thefc fimple qucftions ? 
 Where is the houfe of Le Brun ? What was 
 the landlady? What is become of her and 
 her daughter? Who was the famous accou- 
 cheur of Paris, who delivered Lady Jane, 
 and for whofe afiiftancc (lie undertook io pe- 
 rilous a journey from Rhcims to Paris ? What 
 were the names of the various nuries the el- 
 
 deft
 
 148 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 deft boy had before he went to Michell's ? 
 Whither was the poor weak boy Shojto car- 
 ried the moment he was born ? How ama- 
 zing then muft it be, that, in none of thefe 
 particulars, can your Lordfhips, through this 
 voluminous proof, receive the leaft fatisfac- 
 tion ; and that, inftead of the funihine which 
 was expected to enlighten this fcene, nothing 
 but darknefs refts upon it ! Madame le Brun, 
 her houfe, her daughter, her maid, all have 
 efcaped the molt painful refearches of both 
 parties, aflifted by the accurate police-books of 
 the city of Paris. Ail is vanimed like an in- 
 chantment in a romance. The fact is, no 
 fuch houfe ever exifted, where Lady Jane 
 could be delivered, which is the only poflible 
 reafon that can be given why Lady Jane, 
 who has been traced in every place where flie 
 refided, during her three years travels abroad, 
 has here left no track behind. 
 
 As to the accoucheur, it is agreed, no ac- 
 coucheur of any character or reputation was 
 ever thought of on this occalion. In what a 
 ridiculous light docs this fingle circumftance 
 put Lady Jane's pretence of hurrying to Pa- 
 ris to get the ableft affiftance ? But who was 
 the accoucheur ? for one of feme fort or o- 
 
 ther
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 149 
 
 ther was neceffary to fill up the drama. 
 Why Pierre la Marr, fays Sir John Stewart j 
 Pierre la Marr, fays Mrs Hewit. What was 
 this Pierre la Marr, and whence came he? " I 
 " know nothing of the matter," fays Mrs 
 Hewit. " I never faw him till he came to de- 
 " liver Lady Jane. Sir John Stewart befpoke 
 " him." But, fays Sir John, " I will .tell you 
 " who this Pierre la Marr was. In the year 
 " 1721, I was made acquainted with him at 
 " Liege, by one Colonel Fontaine, who told 
 " me La Marr was a Walloon, and furgeon to 
 " a regiment lying at Liege, and that he 
 " dealt a little in midwifery. This La Marr 
 " I never fmce faw or heard of till at this 
 " time I met him one day by accident walk- 
 " ing in the Thuilleries ; and immediately it 
 " recurred to me, that this old acquaintance 
 " would be a very proper hand to deliver Lady 
 " Jane." Well, where did La Marr lodge in 
 Paris ? he would certainly give you a direc- 
 tion. " No : He would not let me know : 
 " That he could not do it fafely, as he only 
 " came occafionally to Paris upon an affaire 
 " epineufe; but that I might meet him every 
 " day walking in the Thuilleries, or the 
 " Luxembourg." But what if Lady Jane had 
 been feized in the night-time ? how could 
 
 you
 
 r 5 o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 you have got La Marr ? " O ! in that cafe, I 
 * mu ft have cajled another." But how did 
 you get La Marr, when Lady Jane was ta- 
 ken ill ? " He happened to call that morning, 
 " and finding her out of order, he remained 
 " till fhe was delivered." This is the account 
 given of the accoucheur, and of the delivery 
 of Lady Jane Douglas ; and the only account 
 of it that can be admitted to the end of time ; 
 becaufe it is judicially given by the only per* 
 fon that could know any thing of the matter, 
 and by the perfon whom the defender muft 
 call his father • 
 
 The whole of this tale of Lady Jane's de- 
 livery is fo abfurd and incredible, that it 
 would be lofing time to review the feveral 
 circumftances of it in detail. I defire no 
 more than that any man, who can for a mo- 
 ment diveft himfelf of prejudice and prepof- 
 feffion, will recollect this ftory, and fay, if 
 he can conceive motives or circumftances 
 which could compel Lady Jane to fubmit to 
 fuch a fcene of danger, diftrefs, and mifcry, 
 as if fhe had been abandoned by mankind, 
 or caft upon a defert coaft. Did not, in this 
 conjuncture, her age, her expectations, every 
 consideration that was dear to her, call upon 
 
 her
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 151 
 
 her to take all the aid and all the comforts 
 which her .condition required ? There was 
 no thin «t to prevent her from enjoying every 
 poflible conveniency : She had no occafion 
 for concealment, after her appearances of 
 pregnancy had been publilhed in fo many 
 places : Money fhe did not want : Friends 
 Hie had abundance of in Paris. Beiides, in 
 what court of Europe could Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas, in fuch circumftances, have been defti- 
 tutc, not only of refources, but of the nobieft 
 fupport ? Who then can believe that Lady 
 Jane was here occupied about a real delivery i? 
 It is impoffible to give credit to it : As for 
 myfelf, who can boaft of no infpiration, nor 
 pretend to any fupernatural lights, but muft 
 judge by the common feelings of humanity, I 
 muil conclude, that this birth had not the 
 lead foundation in truth ; that it is all a 
 fiction and an impofture. 
 
 I mail now follow Lady June to the houfe 
 of Michcll, where fiie emerged from her ob- 
 fcurity, and where her conduct was expofed 
 to the light, and is proved by all the people 
 in that houie. Sir John, Lady jane, and Mrs 
 llev.it came there upon the i^ih or 19th of 
 July, no more than eight or nine days after 
 her delivery- for this weighty rcafon, that
 
 i 5 2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Le Brun's was infefted with bugs, but with- 
 out any cliild or nurfe. They went away 
 next day to fetch the child, and returned 
 with him and his nurfe; the child having 
 been for two or three days intrufted out of 
 their fight to the care of the nurfe. 
 
 Thus we fee Lady Jane abandon her young- 
 eft boy the minute he came into the world, 
 in a weak dying condition, to the charge of, 
 God knows whom, this notable Pierre la 
 Marr j and her eldefl boy foon thereafter fent 
 away from her for fome days under the care 
 of his nurfe. And for what reafon ? Becaufe 
 they were to remove to the houfe of Michell, 
 as if it was fo difficult a matter to remove 
 a child and his cradle with themfelves, who 
 had fo little other basrsrage. And what was 
 this nurfe they put fuch confidence in ? The 
 moft low, poor, miferable wretch that can 
 be figured, without milk, without cloaths, 
 and branded with the Kind's mark as a thief. 
 What tender-hearted mother will fay, that 
 thefe were the real children of Lady Jane 
 Douglas ? 
 
 There is little occafion to take further 
 notice of Lady Jane during her flay at Mi- 
 chell's and afterwards at Dammartin, except 
 as to that aflertion of Sir John and Mrs 
 
 Hcwit,
 
 LORD ALE MO ORE. 153 
 
 Hewit, that Lady Jane, who recovered fo fur- 
 prifmgly as to be able in eight days to re- 
 move from Le Brim's to Michell's, continued 
 fo tender and delicate at Michell's that flie 
 never ftirred out while there. This is flatly 
 contradicted by fevcral perfons in Michell's 
 houie, who depofe to Lady Jane's having one 
 day made a tour through the femares of Pa- 
 lis j and to her having gone another day as 
 far as Verfailles, walked in the gardens there, 
 and returned to Paris. I mould be willing 
 to let this pafs for a miftake, were not I foon 
 to difcover a reafon for the affertion. 
 
 I come now to a circumftance, which has 
 from the firft made a deep impreffion upon 
 my mind, and I am affraid cannot eafily be 
 effaced. T he conduct of Sir John, Lady Jane, 
 and Mrs lie wit, with refpecr. to the youngeft 
 boy : We have fecn him given up from his 
 mother's womb to La Marr to be fent to the 
 country. Let us for once fuppofe his weakly 
 condition might have required this facrifice ; 
 but how is it poftible to account for the be- 
 haviour of Lady Jane, whole affection to thefe 
 children has been fo much boaffed of, to this 
 poor forlorn infant, after he was difpofed of, 
 or rather c::poied, in fuch a manner. He 
 was given up to La Marr, whom they did 
 TF not
 
 154 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 not know where to find or inquire after. 
 La Marr again fent him to fome nurfe in the 
 country ; but who me was and where they 
 lived, they knew not. And what is of all 
 moft amazing, neither did Lady Jane, Sir 
 John, or Mrs Hewit go to fee or inquire af- 
 ter this child during all their ftay at Paris and 
 Dammartin : So that Lady Jane returned to 
 Rheims, without ever calling her eyes upon 
 this poor child, whofe weak and deplorable 
 condition would have redoubled the affec- 
 tion of any mother. I here appeal to the 
 feelings of nature and humanity, if any mo- 
 ther could behave fo to her own child ? It 
 is impoflible that Lady Jane Douglas could 
 have been fuch a monfter. And there is 
 but one poffible way of accounting for her 
 indifference, which is, that fhe had then no 
 child to fee. 
 
 It was to palliate this conduct of Lady 
 Jane that Mrs Hewit depofed, that Lady Jane 
 was not able to go abroad whilft fhe ftaid at 
 MichelPs : But the clear proof of her expe- 
 dition to Verfailles, and her furvey of Paris, 
 confute this affertion ; and above all, her 
 journey to Dammartin mews her ability to 
 Jiave paid a vifit to her child, if fhe had one. 
 
 I
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. i 55 
 
 I {hall juft mention one or two circum- 
 itances more in the conduct of Lady Jane, 
 which appear irreconcileable with a real de- 
 livery. 
 
 It is proved and admitted, that, from the 
 loth of July, the day of the birth, to the 22d 
 of that month, there were no letters wrote, 
 nor any notification given to any perfon 
 whatever of the great event of the delivery. 
 This was the moft important juncture in La- 
 dy Jane's life, and in a manner the criiis of 
 her fortune. The fir ft fentiments of the heart 
 would have been to proclaim it to all her 
 friends and all her acquaintance. How is 
 it poflible then to give a rcafon for conceal- 
 1112: this wonderful turn of good fortune for 
 twelve days ? This could not pofiibly have 
 happened in the cafe of a real delivery. Upon 
 the 2 2d of July indeed, there are no lefs than 
 fix letters wrote to different pcrions impart- 
 ing the glad tidings. Eat there is a ftrange 
 fatality in the defender's caufe, that fcarce a 
 circumftarice of it appears without Tome blots 
 of fufpicion. Who would not expect that all 
 thefe letters would be dated from Paris ? yet, 
 ftrange to tell, they are every one of them 
 dated from liheims, and calculated to make 
 the world believe, that Lady Jane was deli- 
 vered
 
 i$6 THE SPEECH O tf 
 
 vered at Rheims. And they had that effecT:. 
 In a plain honcft tranfa&ion, what could be 
 the ufe or the intention of fuch dark myfle- 
 rious proceedings ? 
 
 Of a piece with the former is the concealed 
 manner in which Sir John and Lady Jane li- 
 ved at Paris. They did not difcover them- 
 felves to any of their countrymen there, 
 though fome of them were of their moft in- 
 timate acquaintance. This proceeding was 
 fo contrary to their natural difpofitions, and 
 to their practice in all the other places of 
 their travels, that it cannot fail to raifc fufpi- 
 cions of their defigns at that period. 
 
 Thus I have taken a review of Lady Jane's 
 tranfactions from her arrival at Rheims in 
 May, and during her refidence at Paris, and 
 till her return to Rheims about the middle 
 of Auguft 1748, as they have been fet forth 
 by the moft unexceptionable witnefles for the 
 defender, Sir John Stewart and Mrs Hewit, 
 and I muft acknowledge, that the ftory, even 
 as told by them, can, by the common rules 
 of judging of evidence, gain no credit from 
 me. I have tried every circumftance ; but 
 every circumftance is full of fufpicion. The 
 ground is every where fo hollow and un- 
 
 found,
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 157 
 
 found, that I cannot find a place whereon to 
 reft a foot. So that, upon the defender's 
 own plea, I fhould have little hesitation to 
 give judgment againft him. 
 
 But, when to this is added the pofitive 
 proofs brought by the purfuers, conviction 
 becomes compleat. The firft of thefe I fhall 
 mention, is, the evidence arifmg from the 
 houf "hold-books of Godefroy, fupported by 
 the clear and pofitive testimonies of Gode- 
 froy and his wife. It is an agreed point, 
 that Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit, ar- 
 rived at Godefroy's upon the 4th of July. 
 Accordingly, we find in Godefroy's houfe- 
 hold-book, an article inferted of that date, 
 which can be applied only to Sir John and 
 thefe two ladies. This account is regularly 
 and daily continued from the 4th to the 13th 
 of July inclufive : Whence it is clear, that 
 this company muft have remained conftantly 
 in Godefroy's houfe till the 14th of July. 
 This book being written evidence, honeftly 
 and fairly made out when the transactions 
 happened, can be liable to no fufpkion, and 
 cannot lie. And, in confirmation or the book, 
 we have the pofitive evidence of Godefroy 
 and his wife, depoling to their remembrance 
 of bir John and the two ladies, to the accu- 
 racy
 
 153 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 racy of his books, and to many other corro* 
 borating circumftanccs. 
 
 This pointed and poiitive evidence at once 
 contradicts and deitroys the tale told by Sir 
 John and Mrs Hewit, of their removal from 
 Godefroy's to Lc Brun's upon the 8 th of July, 
 and of Lady Jane's delivery there upon the 
 10th. It has been before obferved, how fu- 
 fpicious that ftory was in itfelf, and that no 
 fuch houfe as Le Brun's could be inveftigated. 
 Here we have a direct proof of its falfehood* 
 Lady Jane was not at Le Brun's upon the 
 ioth of July; fhe then rehded at Godefroy's; 
 and as it is certain there was no delivery, nor 
 appearance, nor hint of it at Godefroy's, the 
 confequence is unavoidable, that Lady Jane 
 could not poffibly be delivered upon the ioth 
 of July; which at once unhinges the whole 
 ftory of the birth. 
 
 The defender's counfel have done great 
 honour to this weighty evidence of Gode- 
 froy's books, and plainly difcovered the pref- 
 fure they felt from it, by exerting all their in- 
 genuity in cavilling at the depofitions of 
 Godefroy and his wife, and in attempting to 
 difcover miftakes and inaccuracies in their 
 books. But, notwithstanding all their efforts, 
 the testimonies of Godefroy and his wife, 
 
 fupportcd
 
 LOUD ALE MO ORE. 159 
 
 fupported by their books, and their books 
 lupported by their teftimonies, mufl remain 
 a piece of evidence too folid to be deftroyed 
 or fhaken by the flimfy attacks of over-nice 
 ind unfatisfactory criticifrn. The characters of 
 Codefroy and his wife have always been fair 
 and unimpeached. Why then are they to be 
 iufpected of falfehood ? And the houihold- 
 book, upon which the defender's counfel 
 made a fcparate and diftinct attack, did, by 
 the accurate inveftigation which that attack 
 provoked the purfuers to make, ihine out in 
 a light more fatisfactory and more authentic 
 than could at firft have been expected. What 
 folid reafoh then can be given for with- 
 holding credit from the evidence of Gode- 
 troy and his books ; efpecially, as they eftablifli 
 fa els which are not contradicted by any con- 
 trary evidence ? Had the defender brought 
 any probable evidence that Lady Jane remo- 
 ved from Godefroy's upon the 8th of July, 
 and had been delivered in Le Brun's upon the 
 10th, there might have been room for canvaf- 
 fing and weighing the oppohng evidence. 
 But, when no fuch contradictory proof is 
 brought, and where there is no trace of a 
 Le Brun's where Lady Jane could be deliver- 
 ed, Why mould I refute my aflcnt to the e- 
 
 vid '.nr ( t
 
 160 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 vidence of Godcfroy ? Here I have, for obvi- 
 ous reafons, thrown aiide the ftory told by 
 Sir John and Mrs Hewit. It is a period 
 wherein they ought naturally to have been 
 fupported by the ftrongeft collateral evi- 
 dence ; and yet, in this period, they are de- 
 ilitute of all aid and afliftance, and reft fole- 
 ly upon their ipfe dixit. To thofe who can be 
 fatisfied with that fort of evidence, this muft 
 indeed appear a clear caufe for the defender. 
 There ftill remains a period of four or five 
 days from the 14th of July, when they left 
 Godefroy's, till the 18th or 19th, when they 
 came to refide at Michell's, wherein Lady- 
 Jane has not been traced. It is evident, how- 
 ever, from the nature of the thing, that in 
 that fliort fpace, {lie could not have had a de- 
 livery, and have been fo well recovered as 
 fhe appeared to be when fhe came to Mi- 
 chell's. What was the occupation of Sir John 
 and Lady Jane during this dark period, muft 
 be extracted from the nature of the thine, 
 and from the proof. Every fact and circum- 
 itance has mowed the impoffibility of a real 
 delivery • and therefore that fuppofition muft 
 be laid out of the queftion. Let us next try 
 how far the circumftances of this period will 
 correfpond with an impofture, and a plan of 
 
 introducing*
 
 LOUD ALE MO ORE. 161 
 
 introducing fuppoiititious children. In this 
 view it was impoffible that Lady Jane could 
 think of removing from Godefroy's, where 
 there was no appearance of either pregnancy 
 or delivery, directly to Michell's, where flie 
 aflumed the character of a Lady juft recover- 
 ed from child-bed, and the mother of a child 
 iome weeks old. This would have hazarded 
 a direct and immediate detection. Some 
 time, therefore, behoved to interveen, and 
 iome dark and fecret place mud be fallen up- 
 on to bailie all inquiries, before ihe could ven- 
 ture to appear in Michell's in the condition 
 foe did. 
 
 Ir has been aiked, How lady Jane 
 could, in this fhort time, pick up the child 
 that me. brought to Michell's ? 1 mould not 
 think myielf bound to give a pofitive an- 
 fwer to this qucftion; becaufcit is enough to 
 me, that I am fatisficd the child was not the 
 child of Lady Jane. But even here the proof 
 Ins not kft us in the dark ; for it clearly 
 points out, not only that a child might have 
 been procured in that time, but that a child, 
 tv way corresponding to the child of La- 
 dy jane, actually was picked up in that very 
 period. 1 will not trouble your Lordfhips 
 with a minute inveiiigation of the proofs re- 
 
 X latinii
 
 162 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 lating to the enlevement of Mignon's child. 
 It is clear beyond difputc, that at this very 
 time, the infant fon of Mignon, of three 
 weeks old, was, under fair pretences, carried 
 off from his parents by a gentleman and a la- 
 dy, foreigners ; the gentleman, by the defcrip- 
 tion of the witneffcs, not a little refembling 
 Sir John Stewart. Here then is proved the 
 poffibility of a child's being picked up in the 
 time when Sir John and Lady Jane were in 
 hiding ; not to fay the probability of this be- 
 ing the very child which Lady Jane put upon 
 the world as her own. 
 
 How like to a child picked up in this man- 
 ner was the child which Lady Jane brought to 
 Michcli's ? It had the appearance of a child 
 three weeks old, and was attended by a drab 
 haftily picked off the ftrcets, to ferve a fud- 
 den emergency, who acted the part of a 
 nurfe, but without thateffential requifite, milk 
 in her breads. Mrs Hewit, indeed, has at- 
 tempted to excufe this extraordinary appear- 
 ance of the nurfe, by faying, that Lady Jane 
 would not befpeak a nurfe before her delive- 
 ry, left flic fhould have a dead child ; and that 
 the child was at lira: unlucky in his nurfes. 
 But this is too thin a difguife. What mo- 
 ther was ever fure fhe was to bring forth a 
 
 living
 
 LORD ALE MO ORE. 16$ 
 
 living child ? and yet, What mother ev^r ne- 
 glected to provide a nurfe ? Belides, if Lad/ 
 Jane was not certain of bringing forth a 
 living child, Why did fhe provide child- 
 bed linen at Rheims, and yet neglect to pro- 
 vide a nuife at Paris? Thefe things do not 
 agree. And furely, it was a hard fate, if 
 in ten days, they could not find out a bet- 
 ter nurfe for the child than that one who Slit 
 made her appearance at Michell's. Madame 
 Michell, in an hour's time, found out Ma- 
 dame Favre, an excellent nurfe. 
 
 The enlevement of Mignon's child leads 
 one to puriiie the hiftory of Sholto, the fe- 
 cond fon. I have already taken notice of 
 Lady jane's neglect, or rather defertion of him 
 from the moment of his birth, when he was 
 inven over to La Marr in a dyins: condition. 
 As flic returned to Rheims without feeing or 
 inquiring after him ; fo fhe continued at 
 Rheims above a year longer without ?ettinor 
 any intelligence of him; for, all the pretend- 
 ed correfpondence with La Marr about him 
 is clearly difproved by the palpable forgery 
 and falfehood of thefe letters from La Marr. It 
 ' s impoilible to pcrfuadc any one endowed with 
 the fmalleft fliare of tJie common fenliments 
 of humanity, that Lady Jane could thus a- 
 liandon her real ofisprimr. How me came u
 
 i6 4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 laft to get poilcflion of a fecond boy, may be 
 gathered from licr fecond remarkable jour- 
 ny to Paris in November 1749, and from the 
 incidents of that period as they appear in e- 
 vidence. 
 
 In November 1749, the three confederates, 
 Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit, give out, 
 that they were to go to Paris to bring home 
 Sholto. There was no hazard in this avowal. 
 For, if they found a boy proper for their pur- 
 pofe, it was well. If not, the death of Shol- 
 to, an event for which all their friends were 
 prepared, by the conftant reprefentation they 
 gave of his weak puny condition, would ha\ e 
 made every thing eafy. They got the ufe of 
 Mr Rutlidge's carriage to perform this jour- 
 ney. But in this expedition, as in the for- 
 mer, every thing muit be dark, myfterious, 
 and concealed. Their coachman muft not 
 know where they put up in Paris ; that might 
 be a mean of tracing them. Therefore they 
 itopt at an inn, without the barrier of Paris, 
 left their carriage there, with an injunction to 
 the coachman, to wait till they mould return 
 and take him up; and they went into town in 
 a hackney-coach. Here they remained for 
 eight or nine days; and having got their 
 
 child,
 
 LOUD ALEMOOKE. 16$ 
 
 child, as they fay; but whether from La Marr 
 or the nurfe, Sir John and Mrs liewit are 
 not at one ; they, without feeing or inquir- 
 ing after any of their acquaintance, take up 
 their carriage where they left it, and return 
 to Rheims exulting in their fuccefs. Such 
 is their ftory. But how is it fupported ? J lift 
 in the fame manner, and not a whit better, 
 than the great event of the delivery at Lc 
 Brim's. Nothii:*;' but their own afiertion. 
 'When one defires the fatisfaction of fome col- 
 lateral circumftanccs, and inquires what part 
 of Paris, what hotel did they put up at ? or 
 what fort, and how many were the people in 
 thehoufe? he meets with the fame negative 
 anfwer as formerly: They know nothing at 
 all of the matter. Every tiling of that kind 
 has cfcaped their memory. 
 
 Will not all this myftcry and intention 
 to ihut out the light, naturally incline one to 
 call his eyes on fome other tranfactions of this 
 period that have been discovered ? Who can 
 abilain from reflecting upon the enlevement 
 of Saury's child, which is proved to have 
 happened juft about the rime of this journey 
 to Paris ? The perfons who carried off this 
 child, were a gentleman anil two ladies, fo- 
 reigners, as in the cafe of Mignon. They in- 
 quired
 
 166 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 quired for a young male-child; and after view- 
 ing feveral, at 1 aft made choice of a boy 18 
 months old, and of a delicate make. The di- 
 verfity of fizc and ftrcngth of children at that 
 age, would calily make fuch a child pafs for 
 one of 16 months, and thus coincide with the 
 delivery in July 1748. They got pofleflion 
 of the child by charitable pretences, but car- 
 ried him off next day, without the know- 
 ledge of his parents; and he was never more 
 henrd of. 
 
 The coincidence of thefe two enlevements 
 with the hiitory of Lady Jane's two fons, 
 the one an infant of three weeks old, car- 
 riey off in July 1748, the other a boy of 
 eighteen months, carried off" in November 
 1749, and the rarity of fuch accidents at Pa- 
 ris; (for, by the defender's attempt to prove 
 the contrary, it is manifeft, that no fuch en- 
 levements had happened at Paris for many 
 years before and lince that time) ; mull appear 
 very extraordinary, not to fay miraculous, e- 
 ven to thofe who are inclined to give credit to 
 Sir John and Mrs Hewit's account. But what 
 effect: muft it have upon thofe who fee fo ma- 
 ny ' ther grounds of fufpicion ? 
 
 TiiF. lall piece of poutive evidence upon 
 the part of the punuers wiuch i fliail take 
 
 notice
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. 167 
 
 notice of, is the forged letters from La 
 Marr : Thefe letters were indeed iirft pro- 
 duced in the fervice as evidence for the de- 
 fender. They were found in Lady Jane's 
 ftrong box after her death, and acknowled- 
 ged by Sir John. But, upon the palpable dif- 
 covery that was made of their falfehood and 
 forgery, the defender faw it was full time to 
 delert them. This very circumflance brings 
 them over to the other fide as a part of the 
 pofitive evidence of the purfuers. For fure- 
 ly nothing can tend more to the detection of 
 an impofture, than to mow, that the fupports 
 upon which it chiefly depended, are falfe and 
 fabricated. It is impoflible to paliate fo clear 
 a proof of deceit under the Gentle name of 
 a pa (runs, I deteft all fraud as impious 
 And wicked; nor can I ealily be convinced of 
 the truth and !. . ~eft y .f a caufe where fuch 
 impoiitions becom necelfary to its gaining 
 credit. 
 
 Thus have 1 ftated the circumftances upon 
 which I have chiefly fixed my opinion. It 
 would be improper for . ie to enu.uch fur- 
 ther upon your time, by (.iking particular 
 notice oi all the arguments that have been 
 urged tor the defender. 1 {hail beg icave j..ft 
 
 to touch a few of then). 
 
 Much
 
 i63 THE SPEECHO F 
 
 Much have I heard of the Louis Pierre Dc- 
 lamarre, whom the defender would now fct 
 up as the accoucheur of Lady Jane, in oppofi- 
 tion to the Pier la Marr, fo ftronp;ly afferted, 
 and fo particularly defcribed by Sir John 
 Stewart; and that upon no better authority 
 than the itory told by Menager, a perfon of 
 no name or reputation. The incredibility 
 and inconclufivenefs of that evidence has al- 
 ready been pointed out from the chair. One 
 thins; is manifeft, that Mena^er's account is a 
 direct pointed contradiction of all the cir- 
 cumftantial hiflory given by Sir John Stew- 
 art of his Pier la Marr. I cannot help deplo- 
 ring the hard fate of the defender, who is 
 reduced to the cruel dilemma of taking re- 
 fuge under fuch an evidence as that of Me- 
 nacer, at the expence of declaring to the 
 world, that his father, in this material cir- 
 cumftancc of his own birth, deferves no faith 
 or credit. This is a defperate fituation in- 
 deed! 
 
 I did not cxpeel to hear fo much weight 
 laid upon the pregnancy of Lady Jane. It 
 lias been pufhed fo far, as to be held a con- 
 clufive evidence of tlie delivery. I will not 
 enter upon the proofs of this pregnancy, nor 
 difnute, that Lady Jane appeared to many 
 
 as
 
 LORD ALEMOORE. i6 9 
 
 as a woman in that condition; only I muft 
 obfcrve, that in this, as in all other parts 
 of their evidence, Mrs Hewit and Ifobel 
 Walker have (hot beyond the mark; and by 
 fwearing, that Lady jane was fo extremely 
 bulky and unweildy, have expofed themfelves 
 to be contradicted by all the other obfervers. 
 How eafy was it, and how little artifice did 
 it require in Lady Jane, after me had decla- 
 red her marriage, and after the fignificant 
 whifpering of her maids to every body they 
 met, to perfuade thofe that faw her in fo- 
 reign parts, that fhe was with child. They 
 could have no fufpicions; efpecially, as fhe 
 was always taken, by her looks, to be ten 
 years younger than fhe really was. But I 
 muft reject the confequence that has been 
 drawn from thefe appearances. It is faid, 
 that, as the pregnancy is proved, the delivery 
 muft be prefumed as a neceflary confequence. 
 I cannot affent to this. Had the proportion 
 been inverted, and if it could have been faid, 
 that the delivery had been proved, therefore 
 an antecedent pregnancy muft be prefumed, 
 1 could have underftood it. And indeed, had 
 they proved a delivery, I would have fuppo- 
 fed the pregnancy without evidence. But 
 the other argument 1 think a falfe one; be- 
 "V caufc
 
 170 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 caufe thofe Ikilled in the profeflion of phyfic 
 have declared, that all the fymptoms of preg- 
 nancy are fallible, and that there is no other 
 criterion of a real pregnancy, but a fubfequent 
 delivery. Where is that proof of a preg- 
 nancy in this cafe ? Beiides, does not common 
 experience, hiftory, and our law-books, in- 
 form us, how eafy and how frequent the fi- 
 mulation of pregnancy has been ? As a real 
 delivery is ever ufhered in by a preceeding 
 pregnancy, fo a feigned delivery muft ac- 
 quire credit from a fimulated pregnancy. 
 Fiction muft always hide itfelf under natural 
 appearances. In the feveral inftances laid be- 
 fore us of the crime of fuppofitio partus, the 
 appearance of pregnancy was ftill affirmed 
 to give credit to the delivery. And who will 
 fuppofe, that Lady Jane was lefs acute than 
 the ladies of high rank who have trode be<- 
 fore her in the fame path ? 
 
 Terrors have been hung out, and imagi- 
 nary dangers to the ftatc and birthright of 
 the people, have been painted as refulting 
 from the purfuers fuccefs in this caufe. But 
 thefe are merely the offspring of fancy and 
 invention. It is morally impoffible, that, in 
 a true honeft birth, fuch a total want of un- 
 fufpecled pofitive evidence to fupport the birth 
 
 fhould
 
 LORD A LEMO ORE. 171 
 
 fhould coincide with fo many proofs and cir- 
 cumftances to contradict it, as occurs in the 
 caufe before us. Innocence, therefore, has 
 nothing to fear. The guilty indeed may be 
 alarmed. But it is for that purpofe, that 
 crimes are inveftigatcd and punifhed. 
 
 The affection which Lady Jane fo remark- 
 ably difplayed towards thefe children, after 
 her return to Britain, has been made a to- 
 pic of declamation. But, for my part, I can- 
 not difcover what other conduct Hie could 
 confiftently have held, fuppofing the chil- 
 dren were fictitious. I can eafily account for 
 this fliew of affection, whether it is confider- 
 ed as natural or artificial. On the one hand, 
 {lie had abfolutely and irrecoverably deprived 
 tliefe children of the tender care and flip- 
 port of their real parents, and muil have been 
 confeious, that, by her unjuftifiable act, they 
 became totally dependent upon her. And, 
 as under her eye, they would begin to lifp 
 the tender words of pappa and mamma, and 
 would touch her heart with all the tender 
 endearments and affection of true children, 
 Lady jane muft have been devoid of all ge- 
 nerous and tender feelings, had not a recipro- 
 cal affection been kindled in her breaft to- 
 wards thefe poor innocents. Daily expe- 
 rience
 
 tfi THE SPEECH OF 
 
 rience difcovers equal degrees of parental af- 
 fection ftirred up in the hearts of nurfes, and 
 of fuch as have had the care and tuition of the 
 children of others from their early years. 
 I fhould not much wonder, therefore, if La- 
 dy Jane's love of thefc children had been ge- 
 nuine and unaffected. On the other hand, 
 if ihe did not really feel thefe emotions which 
 were fo natural, her behaviour muft, in every 
 refpect, have been the fame as if fhe had felt 
 them. This, after the fteps me had taken, 
 became not a matter of choice, but of neceflity \ 
 having once declared to the world, that thefe 
 were her children, there were veftigia nulla retror- 
 /urn-, fhe behoved to carry on the difguife what- 
 ever it might coft. She could not remit her at- 
 tention in any one article, without an evident 
 rilk of detection, of infamy to herfelf while 
 alive, and of reproach to her memory after 
 death. All this, Lady Jane was too wife 
 not to forefee, and too able not to act her part 
 to perfection. 
 
 The characters of Lady Jane and Sir John 
 have been much infifted on. Their charac- 
 ters ! But they are both dead. They have 
 been joined together as equal in this refpect, 
 and lihall not feparate them. No body who 
 
 knew
 
 tORDALEMOORE. 173 
 
 knew them intimately, can be at any lofs to 
 pay the regard due to this circumftance. 
 
 I cannot conclude, notwithftanding all 
 I have faid, without teftifying the warmth of 
 my feeling for the young gentleman the de- 
 fender. He is brought into a moft unhappy 
 lituation, not from any fault of his own, but 
 by the folly and imprudence (Jf others. I re- 
 rejoice at the good fortune he has had in the 
 patronage of fome eminent and worthy per- 
 fons. I hope, whatever may be the event of this 
 caufe, his merit will fecure thefe, and increafe 
 their number. But fuch tender fentiments 
 rauft have no effect with me in the character 
 in which I now fpeak. In duty to myfelf, to 
 juftice, and to my country, I muft give my 
 judgment according to the dictates of my 
 heart ; and I am of opinion, that the reafons 
 for fetting afide the fervice of the defender are 
 founded in law, and fufliciently proved. 
 
 LORD
 
 C 174 i 
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 
 
 MY fentiments in this caufe fo perfectly 
 coincide with thofe of my brother 
 who has juft now given his opinion, that I 
 might well excufe myfelf from faying any 
 thing more, than barely to declare my affent 
 to the conclufion, by giving my vote for fuf- 
 taining the reafons of reduction. But as 
 this caufe is of great importance to the par- 
 ties concerned, and has excited the attention 
 of the public in an uncommon degree, I 
 think it incumbent upon me to give the rea- 
 fons of the opinion 1 have formed, upon the 
 moft attentive confideration of the proof I 
 was capable of. I do ' not however, think 
 it neceffary to take up the time of the court 
 with entering minutely into the proof; but 
 fliall confine myfelf to fuch particulars as ap- 
 pear to me to be the moil material, and 
 which chiefly induce me to be of opinion 
 for the purfuers. 
 
 The queftion in iffue is not a point of 
 law, but a fact, viz. Is the defender the fon of 
 Lady Jane Douglas, or, is he not ? This fact 
 
 is
 
 THE SPEECH O F, &c. 175 
 
 is matter of proof; and it is upon the proof 
 of it now before us that we are to deter- 
 mine. It requires little fkill in law to judge 
 in this caufe: Any man of underftanding and 
 of an unprejudiced mind, is capable of giving 
 as juft a decihon as the moll experienced law- 
 yer. Had this proof now before us been ad- 
 duced at the fervice of the defender, the ju- 
 ry then impannelled muft have decided up- 
 on it. We now, in the reduction of the fer- 
 vice, are to determine as the great jury of the 
 nation. 
 
 It is fcarce neccflary to fay any thing up- 
 on the queftion, cui incumbit probatio f for, as 
 it was incumbent on the purfuers to prove 
 their condefcendcnce, a proof was alio necef- 
 fary on the part of the defender. He might 
 indeed have rcftcd his plea upon the proof 
 brought in the fervice; at the fame time, he 
 was at liberty to bring further proof in fup- 
 port of his claim. Accordingly, a proof has 
 been adduced by both parties, the import of 
 which falls now to be confidered. 
 
 It is admitted, that the acknowledgement 
 of parents, and even habit and repute are not 
 probatio probata', they are only prafumptiones ju- 
 ris y not juris ct de jure. They may be redar- 
 gued by contrary evidence. 
 
 As
 
 n6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 As this is the firft thing that occurs in con- 
 fidering the proof, I muft beg leave to fay a 
 few words upon what I take to be the im- 
 port and meaning of habit and repute, in que- 
 ftions of filiation. As to the acknowledge- 
 ment of the parents, and what effect it may 
 have in the prefent queftion, that will fall to 
 be taken notice of afterwards, when we come 
 to confider the accounts given by them of the 
 defender's birth. 
 
 In common cafes, where a proof of filia- 
 tion or propinquity is neceflary, as it is on 
 the brieve of mortanceftry, parole-evidence 
 of habit and repute is accounted fufficient ; and 
 juftly fo ; for it may be, and fometimes is, the 
 only proof that can be brought. But then, 
 What do the witnefles depofe to ? It is to pu- 
 blic notoriety, to univerfal, uncontradicted, 
 and common fame. If there is no public no- 
 toriety of the claimant's birth, no communis 
 et confentiens fama, there can be no proof of 
 habit and repute. I have fliid, that in com- 
 mon cafes, a proof of habit and repute is juftly 
 deemed fufficient ; for, when a birth happens 
 in a family, it is not concealed and made a fe- 
 cret of; on the contrary, it is immediately 
 notified to the relations and friends of the 
 parents ; the child is prefented to and acknow- 
 ledged
 
 LOUD ELIOCK. I?7 
 
 ledged by them; and upon their teftimony 
 und public obfervation habit and repute is 
 founded. But when a child is produced to the 
 world, of whofe birth there is no public noto- 
 riety, where there is no communis et confentiens 
 jama, there can be no proof of habit and repute. 
 If a queftion of filiation arifes in fuch a cafe, 
 it muft depend entirely upon the truth or 
 falfehood of the account given by the fup- 
 pofed parents, or by thofe who produce the 
 child, how it is to be decided. The acknow- 
 ledgement of the parents is not of itfelf fuffi- 
 cient; for, as by their refufal to own a child 
 really theirs, they cannot deprive him of his 
 birth-right, neither can a falfe acknowledge- 
 ment confer a right where there is none by 
 birth. 
 
 The agents for the defender feem to have 
 been fenlible of this ; for at his fervice they 
 did not, as in common cafes, reft their proof 
 upon habit and repute, but brought a variety of 
 other evidence, both parole and written, to 
 i upport his claim. 
 
 The defender was produced to the world 
 by Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas as 
 their fen ; but, as he is acknowledged to have 
 been born under Inch circumflanccs, that no 
 friend, no relation, no acquaintance, indeed, 
 
 Z that
 
 178 THE- SPEECH OF 
 
 that no perfon whatever, fo far as can be dis- 
 covered, (Mrs Hewit only excepted), was privy 
 to, orhadaccefstoknow any thing of the birth* 
 there couldbeno notoriety, no communis et con- 
 Jenticns fama: His filiation depends entirely up* 
 on the accounts given by his fuppofed parents. 
 Several witneffes indeed have depofed, 
 that the defender was habit and repute the 
 fon of Lady Jane Douglas; and that they, the 
 witneffes, believed him to be fo. But it is e- 
 vident, that their tefcimonies reft entirely 
 upon the accounts given by Sir John and La- 
 dy Jane. On the other fide, it is in proof by 
 many credible witneffes, that the defender 
 was not univerfally acknowledged to be the 
 fon of Lady Jane Douglas : That, fo far from 
 there being a communis et confentiens fama of 
 the truth of his birth, there were doubts and 
 fufpicions entertained concerning it, which 
 were almoft coeval with himfelf : That thefe 
 doubts and fufpicions were early imparted to 
 Sir John and Lady Jane; and in particular, 
 there is clear evidence, that the Duke of 
 Douglas, till upon the eve of his death, ne- 
 ver acknowledged the defender as his li- 
 fter's fo r i ; nor did he ever admit him into his 
 prefence. 
 
 hi
 
 LORD ELIOCK. i 79 
 
 In considering this caufe, therefore, I think 
 lhat habit and repute is out of the quefiion ; 
 fhe defender was not poilefled of fuch habit 
 and repute as could fupport his filiation, with- 
 out farther evidence. 
 
 A variety of proof has accordingly been 
 brought by the defender, in order to mow, 
 uno, That Lady Jane Douglas, though in the 
 fiftieth year of her age, was capable of having 
 children ; %do, That fhe was actually preg- 
 nant previous to the time affigned for her 
 delivery ; and, %tio, That fhe was actually de- 
 livered of the defender and his twin-brother 
 upon the icth day of July 1748. 
 
 As to the fu-ft of thefe articles, I mall fay 
 very little ; as, indeed, I can hardly think 
 it a matter of proof. Though it be not im- 
 poflible, that a woman at the age of fifty 
 piay bear a child ; yet, in the common courfe 
 of nature, it is very unufual, confequently 
 highly improbable : And I cannot afl'ent to 
 the proportion, that if fiic was capable of 
 having children ; ergo, why not have them ? 
 A pofle ad ejfe non valet cov.fenucniia. At any 
 rate, the extreme rarity of fuch an event 
 happening would naturally put a woman, 
 who found herfelf in thole circumftances, 
 upen her guard, and induce her to behave 
 
 in
 
 180 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 in fuch a manner as to obviate every pofFi* 
 bility of a doubt ; whereas, in this cafe, the 
 behaviour of Lady Jane was quite the reverfe, 
 full of myftery and concealment. 
 
 Great weight has been laid upon the fe- 
 cond article of the defender's proof, that 
 Lady Jane was pregnant previous to the time 
 afligned for her delivery ; from which it is 
 inferred, that fhe muft either have born a 
 child or mifcarried, which lail is not pretend* 
 ed to have happened. 
 
 Several witneffes have depofed, that Lady 
 Jane had to them the appearance of being 
 with child ; and that they believed her to be 
 fo. Mrs Walker and Mrs Hewit, in parti- 
 cular, have fworn pointedly to this ; the one 
 has faid, that, in the feventh month, Hie was 
 fo unwieldy that {he could not go to bed 
 without afliftancc ; and that fhe never faw a 
 woman with child bigger : The other fays, 
 that Lady Jane, in the eighth month, was 10 
 remarkably big, that every body thought her 
 with twins. That this defcription muft be 
 highly exaggerated, is evident from the ac- 
 counts given by other witneffes, who had 
 occafion to fee Lady Jane at the time, and 
 exprefsly depofe, they took no notice of her 
 pregnancy, till they were told of it. Ihe 
 
 two
 
 LORD ELIOCK. i3r 
 
 two landladies where (he lodged, Madame 
 Schoil, and Madame Gillefen, likewife Lady 
 Wilton, are of this number : at the fame 
 time, all the witnefTes agree as to the very un- 
 ufual drefs which Lady Jane conftantly wore, 
 even in her room. 
 
 If the inference made by the defender ne- 
 ceflarily followed from this proof of preg- 
 nancy, there could be nothing more to fay; 
 lie muft prevail. But, in my opinion, the 
 confequence does not neceilarily follow : If a 
 woman has born a child, there muft have 
 been an antecedent pregnancy ; but before 
 die truth of the converfe of this proportion 
 can be admitted, it is abfolutely ncceffary to 
 maintain, that every appearance of pregnan- 
 cy, or what a witnefs takes to be fo, is real, 
 and that the perfon who has fuch appear- 
 ance is truly with child. That, I believe, will 
 not be laid ; even where there is no deceit, 
 a woman may have every appearance, nay, 
 moil of the fymptoms ufually attending a real 
 pregnancy, and yet not be with child. It is 
 well known, that many, even the mo ft ex- 
 perienced perfons, have been deceived in this 
 refpect. The amount therefore of all this 
 proof of Lady Jane's pregnancy, is no more 
 than the opinion of the witneifes, who only 
 
 depofc
 
 i«2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 depofe to appearances, which, whether real 
 or affected, they had no accefs to know. As 
 to the evidence of Mrs Hewit and Mrs Wal- 
 j ker, I own I can give no credit to their tefli- 
 mony in this matter, as it will appear, in 
 confidering the reft of the proof, that they 
 deferve none in any other article. 
 
 As, therefore, the whole of this proof of 
 Lady Jane's pregnancy (fuppofe even Mrs 
 Hewit and Mrs Walker to be credible witnef- 
 fes) amounts to no more than opinion ; when 
 the conduct and behaviour of Lady Jane is 
 confidered, there can remain little doubt, 
 indeed, 'here remains none with me, that 
 there was no real pregnancy in the cafe. Her 
 conduct and behaviour were utterly incon- 
 fiftent with her being actually with child. In 
 February 1748, when fhe mull have been far 
 advanced in the fifth month, fhe, had not the 
 appearance of being with child ; fo far from 
 that, fhe then denied her marriage to Lady 
 Katherine Wemyfs, and complained of the 
 report as an injury; and Lady Katherine, 
 who had accefs to fee and converfe with 
 Jier every day, believed her. If we look 
 into Mrs Walker's oath, where fhe depo- 
 fes to the converfation fhe had with Mrs 
 Tewis, prior to this period, Lady Jane 
 
 rouft
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 183 
 
 Siuft have known, that fhe was then with 
 child ; and, if thefe converfations were true, 
 it is incredible, that Lady Jane could have 
 behaved in the manner fhe did to Lady Ka- 
 therine Wemyfs. 
 
 In the month of April, when the marriage 
 was made known to the Duke of Douglas, a 1 
 that it was likely to prove fruitful, What 
 was Lady Jane's conduct then ? She is did to 
 have been fickly and ailing, when fhe found 
 hcrfelf to be with child. Did fhe confult 
 with any phyfician, furgeon, or midwife ? 
 Were any preparations made for her deliver} ? 
 l-'o : Mrs Tevv is indeed, who feems to have 
 lc-n : .h in Lsdy Jane's cc :'i.!ence, is ad- 
 vife i w ' • ar-.'i, : • her mca an applica- 
 tion '.-: n; ror the ufe of 
 the c.Ji'j or tne neighbourhood, 
 where it \vas tlio. ihe might lie in more 
 commodioufiy thnn at -Vix-ia-Chanpelie. But, 
 inftead or wr'ring for his anfwer, they leave 
 Aix-la-Cl appelle in an abrupt manner, and 
 ii t out on a long and tedious journey. Is 
 this a conduct that any woman in the eighth 
 menth of her pregnancy would have had ? 
 L^idy Jane, if fhe did not chufe to lie in at 
 Aix -h-Chappclle, had the offer o^ the caflle 
 »f lic.lbi'r, where fhe could be well accom- 
 modated,
 
 1 84 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 modated, and where flic could be vifited by 
 her friends and acquaintance. If flie was 
 to move, therefore, to any other place* it 
 was natural to think fhe would come to Bri- 
 tain. At any rate, as we have it from 
 herfclf, that her view in marrying was to 
 give an heir to the noble family of Douglas, 
 •ihe ought not to have retired to a corner to 
 be delivered. She knew, that fhe did not 
 Hand on good terms with her brother, and 
 that every imprudent Hep £he could take 
 might be interpreted to her difadvantage. 
 But every confideration, both of convenience, 
 fafety, and prudence, is neglected; and a 
 journey to Rhcims undertaken. The rea- 
 fons given for this are, the cxpencc of Aix, 
 on account of the congrefs, and that there 
 was no proper help to be had there. Neither 
 of which reafons are true ; for there were fc- 
 veral ikilfull perfons to be had there; and, 
 if Aix was become more expenfive (though 
 the landlady fwears fhe did not raife the rent 
 of her lodgings on account of the congrefs, 
 which was begun long before this period), 
 ihe miffht have lain in at Bedbur at no ex- 
 pence ; befides, the journey was an unnecef- 
 fary expence, more than the addition of ftay- 
 insr at Aix could be. As for the reafons gi- 
 
 ven
 
 LOUD ELIOCK. 185 
 
 vcn by Lady Jane to her friends here in Bri- 
 tain, that me intended to go to Geneva or 
 Switzerland on account of religion, and for 
 cheapnefs; thefe are affected indeed, and feem 
 calculated to make them believe {lie was ta- 
 ken Ihort at Rheims contrary to expectation. 
 I cannot help here obferving, that the zeal Lady 
 Jaiieexprefles fortheprotefiant religion has an 
 odd appearance, when contrafted with the o- 
 ther parts of her conduct, both while at Aix- 
 la-Chappelle, and at Rheims. 
 
 What happened on the journey is of little 
 moment, tho' there are feveral inconfiftencies 
 in the account given of it; and the (lory told 
 by Mrs Walker of Lady Jane's illnefs, and 
 being likely to mifcarry at Rhetel, I think dif- 
 proved by the oath of the gentleman who 
 travelled with them from ChaJeville. 
 
 It is in proof that they arrived at Rheims 
 on the fixth or feventh June; they ftay 
 there near a month moft unneceTarily, if they 
 intended to proceed further. And, upon the 
 2d of July, when within eight days of her 
 delivery, does Lady Jane Douglas fet out in 
 the ftagc-coach for Paris, Sir John and Mrs 
 llewit in company, leaving the two maids at 
 Rheims. Lady Jane, when in health, had 
 kept two maids to attend about her perfon ; 
 A a flic 
 
 J-
 
 i&6 Til E SPEECH OF 
 
 flic had carried tlicm with her in all her jour- 
 nics at a confiderable expence ; yet now, 
 when their attendance was more neceflary 
 than ever, at a time when every woman 
 wiflies to have fome known females about her, 
 tliis lady, who, according to Mrs Hewit and 
 Mrs Walker's evidence, was fo big, that me 
 could hardly ftir, and could not fo much as 
 go to bed without afliftance, after fitting 
 up all night, walks on foot at two o'clock in 
 the morning to the ftage-coach, and goes to 
 Paris without any fcrvant or attendant. 
 
 When I confider the whole of this behavi- 
 our of Lady Jane, it appears to me not only 
 inconfiflent with, and contradictory to the 
 idea of her being pregnant,- but ftrongly in- 
 dicates a deceit and a concealment of what 
 flie was going about. No perfon of common 
 underftanding, and Lady Jane did not want 
 that, could have behaved in this manner, had 
 there been a real pregnancy ; but it is juft 
 fuch conduct as might be expected, if unfair 
 things were meant, 
 
 This conduct, however, is endeavoured to 
 be accounted for. The reafon given for lea- 
 ving llheims is, that, two or three days after 
 their arrival there, Lady Jane, in a converfa- 
 tion with Mrs Andrieux, about what afliftance 
 
 fiie
 
 LORD E L I O C K. 187 
 
 fne could have in the place, was told by her 
 that thev were ignorant as brutes in that re- 
 fpect ; " and that fhe, Mrs Andrieux, had had 
 " one child, in the birth whereof, by their un- 
 " fkilfulnefs, (lie had contracted a difeafe, which 
 '•' had rendered her incapable of having more 
 " children." Mrs Hewit depones, She was pre- 
 fent at the converfation, and fays, " That fhe 
 " has been informed that Mrs Andrieux did die 
 " of that difeafe." Ifonel Walker fwears to the 
 fame, and fays, flu hid it from Madame An- 
 drieux, after Lady Jane's departure for Paris. 
 Is this account in itfelf credible ? it certainly 
 docs not agree with what Lady jane told to 
 the Countcfs of Stair. But, had the ftory 
 been true, v, hy ftay for near a month after 
 at Ilheims ? But the whole is proved to be 
 ialfe. There could have been proper afiiftance 
 got at Kheims ; and the ftory of Madame 
 Andrieux is difproved by the oath of her fon. 
 But if it was proper to leave llheims, why 
 not take the maids along with them to attend 
 Ladv lane? The rcafon for not doincr fo, is 
 ■ ..id to be want of money. Sir John, Mrs 
 ] lewit, and Ifobel walker concur in this, 
 v they were reduced to a (ingle Iouis 
 when they arrived at Paris. Had this 
 been really the cafe, as they mull have ex- 
 pected to get money at Paris, it was no 
 
 rcafon
 
 188 T II E SPEECH O F 
 
 reafon for leaving the maids; the louis d'or 
 would have done more than defray the expencc 
 of their pafiage, and their maintenance at Paris, 
 where their help would be wanted, would 
 have coft little more than it did at Rheims. 
 But this flory of want of money is alfo a 
 falfehood : It is in proof, that Sir John had 
 then in his pocket a letter of credit on Paris 
 for near 2000 livres, which he could have ta- 
 ken up at Rheims, had he pleafed. In fact, 
 he received it at Paris two days after his ar- 
 rival there. But, to make the ftory go the 
 better down, another falfehood is added, 
 That they expected money on coming to Pa- 
 ris ; but being difappointed, Sir John applied 
 to a banker for an advance upon Lady Jane's 
 penfion, that would become due at Lammas ; 
 but being refufed, he was obliged to write to 
 Mr Andrieux for a credit for L. 30, which he 
 fent him : That the money was paid upon the 
 very day Lady Jane was brought to bed; and 
 then, as all was over, it was needlefs to fend 
 for the maids. This is a very pointed ftory, 
 folemnly declared by Sir John, and (worn to by 
 Mrs lie wit and Mrs Walker. They all agree 
 in the circumftance of the time of payment, 
 and give that as the reafon why the maids were 
 not fent for. Ifobel Walker fwears, that Mrs 
 Hewit wrote her this at the time ; yet it is a 
 
 falfehood,
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 189 
 
 falfehood, and a falfehood which muft have 
 coniiited with their knowledge. Ifobel Wal- 
 ker fwears to a converfation me had with 
 Madame Andrieux on the fubject, which is 
 inconfiftent with Mrs llewit's letter fhe fays 
 (lie received ; it is impoffible to account ior 
 this by a non raemini. We have here three 
 perfons fwearing pointedly to a fact which is 
 not true. From the manner in which they 
 tell the ftory, it feems to have been meant as 
 a circumftancc to fimport the account given 
 of the birth. The letter of credit was not 
 lent from Kheims. by Mr Andrieux till the 
 24th, and the money was paid at Paris on the 
 26th July. 
 
 From the whole, I conclude, that it is not 
 only not probable that Lady Jane was preg- 
 nant, but likewife her conduct renders it in- 
 credible. What faith can be given to wit- 
 ncfles who, whenever they come to dcpofe 
 to facts which can be difprovcd, are found to 
 have {'worn to falfehoods, and which it muft 
 have confifted with their knowledge were 
 fuch ? 
 
 As therefore habit and repute is out of 
 the queftion in this cafe, and the proof 
 brought of Lady Jane's pregnancy is not 
 fuiheient (to fay no more of it) to cfta- 
 
 blifh
 
 i po T H E S P E E C II OF 
 
 blifli the defender's birth, his filiation muft 
 depend upon what happened at Paris, where 
 Lady Jane arrived on the 4th July 1748, and 
 is faid to have been delivered of twins upon 
 the 10th of that month. — Let us examine 
 how that matter ftands. 
 
 As there are no perfons known who could 
 give any account of this delivery, but Lady 
 Jane herfelf, Sir John, and Mrs Hewit, re- 
 courfe muft be had to them for it ; and they 
 all three concur in placing it upon the 10th 
 of July. 
 
 Lady Jane was dead before this procefs 
 was brought ; but it docs not appear that e- 
 ver 111?, even in her lifetime, though often 
 fpoke to on the fubjeel, entered into particu- 
 lars with any body; fhc contented herfelf with 
 general declarations ; even within a few days 
 of her death, when talked to by Mrs Greig, 
 who waited upon her, of the propriety of ha- 
 ving; fome evidence of the defender's birth, flic 
 rcfted upon this, that 'if any body doubted of the 
 birth, they muft difprove it. It is in proof, that 
 the doubts and fufpicions entertained of the 
 birth of the defender, were early known to 
 Lady Jane, and me had fuffercd much on 
 that account : It was eafy for her to have 
 procured authentic certificates of her delive- 
 ry.
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 191 
 
 ry, if real : She was called upon to do fo by e- 
 very tie that could influence a parent ; yet Hie 
 never endeavoured to procure fuch certificates ; 
 even upon death-bed fhe leaves her child to de- 
 fend his birth upon a point of law. Does this 
 convey the idea of affection to her children? 
 Would any mother have behaved in that 
 manner ? Is fuch conduct, confident with hu- 
 man nature ? 
 
 The reafon commonly given by Lady Jane 
 for this her conduct was, that it was doubt- 
 ing her honour. If her honour was doubt- 
 ed, it was incumbent upon her to clear it ; 
 and it was eafy for her to do fo, had her de- 
 livery been real. 
 
 Yet we fee, that Lady Jane and Sir John 
 were not quite fo eafy and unconcerned on 
 tin's head as they pretended to be: "We fee 
 them, in the year 17^0, very anxious to pro- 
 cure evidence that might be of ufe to their 
 children. They write to Madame Tcwis, de- 
 firing certificates of Lady Jane's pregnancy 
 when at Aix-la-Chappelle, which they got; 
 l:ut which never made their appearance till 
 this procefs. 
 
 It appears alfo, that they were at much 
 pains to d if prove a letter raid to have been 
 wrote by Count Douglas to the Duke of Dou- 
 glas, though fuch letter never exiflcd. When 
 
 Grindlay,
 
 192 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Grindlay, their landlord at London, repre- 
 fcnted the propriety of getting certificates of 
 the birth, Lady Jane's anfwer was, She had not 
 
 money to go or fend to France for them. Thefe 
 certificates, if they could have been had at 
 all, might have been procured with as little 
 trouble, and at as little expence, as was be- 
 ftowed upon difproving the letter of Count 
 Douglas. In fhort, Lady Jane feems never to 
 have given any pe'rfon fhe convcrfed with fix- 
 tisfaction on this fubject. 
 
 In all her letters, flic obferves the fame 
 conduct; fhe always keeps to generals. She 
 contents hcrfclf with faying, fhe was deliver- 
 ed on the ioth July 1748. But neither place 
 nor witnefles, nay, not even the town, is men- 
 tioned; infomuch that their moft intimate 
 acquaintances, to whom the account of her de- 
 livery was recently communicated, did not 
 know the birth was at Paris. Sir William 
 Stuart, and Mr Johnftone, though both at Pa- 
 ris at the time, believed, till long after, that 
 it had been at Ilheims. In her letter to the 
 Duke of Douglas flic keeps in the fame gene- 
 rals; fhe mentions the date without any 
 more, and her letter is dated from Rheims, 
 though wrote from Dammartin. The people 
 at Ilheims alone knew the fcene of action 
 
 was
 
 LORD ELIOCK. r<n 
 
 was at Paris ; from them it could not be con- 
 cealed. But no perfon there was intercfted to 
 make any particular inquiries. It is remark- 
 able, that even in her pocket-book, where 
 many very immaterial events and tr.ilmg 
 particulars are carefully entered, the birth or 
 her children, (.he mod mterefring incident oc 
 her hie, i, fet down in the fame general 
 terms, " Archibald and Sholto were born 
 icth July 1748," without one word of addi- 
 tion. 
 
 Mrs Hewit, in her accounts of Lady 
 Jane's delivery, appears to have been as gene- 
 ral. In her letter to the maids of the 22a 
 July, me mentions indeed a Dodo); but 
 names him not, but no other perfon, no 
 houfe or ftreet where they lodged, no landla- 
 dy as preient. Mrs Walker fays, that, upon 
 liking Mrs ll_wit the name of the hreet af- 
 ter their return to Rhcims, me could not tell, 
 as not underflanding French. In her oath in 
 the fervice, flic remembered the name of 
 man-midwife was fomcthin'>" The La Marr. 
 the name of the landlady me could not re- 
 member; but, on her {ccond examination., Le 
 lirun and Michelle being named, by the Lord 
 Prefid.-nt, me then could not only recoiled, 
 but tliflinguifh them exactly. But it is re- 
 B b mu ■
 
 194 THE S P E E C II OF 
 
 markabK that in the fcroll or copy of the 
 letter to the Duke of Douglas which was 
 found after her death, and is of her own 
 hand-writing, and which is wrote of purpofe 
 to vindicate Lady Jane's character, and to 
 convince him of the reality of her delivery, 
 fhe tells his Grace, that Lady Jane was deli- 
 vered in Michell's, and that fhe was ready to 
 fwear to it. At the fervice Mrs Hewit de- 
 pofed, that after the i oth day they were ob- 
 liged to carry Lady Jane to other lodgings 
 on account of bugs. In her letter to the 
 maids of the 2 2d July, when Ihe could not 
 be miftaken, fhe writes, that Lady Jane could 
 not be kept in bed after the ninth day, by 
 reafon of the violent heat ; but does not men- 
 tion any change of lodgings. And, in her 
 letter to Mr Llarper, which was wrote up- 
 on perufal of the fervice, fhe fays, they 
 changed lodgings after the fixth day. This 
 is a flrange correction ; and ye* 1 , fhe is very 
 pofitive in it, though it contradicts her letter 
 to the maids. In this letter too, fhe mentions 
 Le Brun's twice, though, on her fecond exa- 
 mination, fome months afterwards, flic could 
 not recollect any French name. Had there 
 been only one true tale to be told, fuch dif- 
 ferent accounts could not have been given. 
 
 Sir
 
 LOUD E L I O C K. i 9 $ 
 
 Sir John's accounts of the birth, in all his 
 letters, and in his converfation, fo far as ap- 
 pears, were of a piece with thofe given by- 
 Lady Jane and Mrs Hewit. The day is men- 
 tioned, ioth July 1748, but not a word more ; 
 no houfe, no ftrect, no witnelles, no accou- 
 cheur, no, not {o much as the town. On the 
 contrary, his letters, though wrote at Paris, 
 are all dated from Rheims. The firft time it 
 appears that he ever mentioned any particu- 
 lars was, when pufhed by Mrs Napier in 
 the year 1756; I fay pufhed, for he fecms to 
 have been unwilling to enter into particulars. 
 Then it was he gave her the note in which the 
 houfe, witncfTes, and accoucheur are named. 
 But what houfe ? Michell's ! The ufe Mrs 
 Napier made of this noter and the refult of 
 the inquiries made in confcqucnce, appear 
 from her oath, and from the letters of Lady 
 Frances Stewart, and principal Cordon. They 
 gave no fatisfaction ; there had been no de- 
 livery at Michell's. In Mrs Napier's fecond 
 converfation with Sir John, (which I think is 
 plain from her oath, and from the other cir- 
 cumftances which are in proof, mu ft have 
 been after me had received Lady Frances 
 Stewart's letter), inftcad of Michell's, he 
 fubftituted Lc Brun's, as the houfe where La- 
 
 dv
 
 296 T 1IESPEECHGF 
 
 dy Jane was delivered. And this is the firft 
 time that the name of Lc Brim i'eems ever 
 to have been mentioned. It is to be found in 
 no pocket-book, in no letter; no witnefs that 
 has been examined fays, that ever the name 
 of ! e Brun was heard of before this period. 
 And here I nvuft obferve, that, in my opi- 
 nion, the note exhibited by Mr Charles 
 Brown could not be among thofe got from 
 Mr Orr. Thus did Sir John vary his tale 
 very eflentially in the fpace of a few months, 
 in the very way Mrs Hewit did ; for I think 
 it appears, from the letter itfclf, wrote by- 
 Mrs Hewit to the Duke of Douglas, that it 
 muft have been wrote about the time of Mrs 
 Napier's inquiries ; for it plainly alludes to 
 Stockbrigs, and mentions him as dead. He 
 died in July 1755. 
 
 The next account given by Sir John, is in 
 his judicial declaration. It was folemnly e~ 
 mitted, in prefence of your Lordlhips. He 
 was not hurried or teized in any fhape ; he 
 was defired to give, and did give, deliberate 
 anfwers to every queftion ; he was defired to 
 recollect himfelf, and to amend any thing in 
 which he might fufpeer, he was raiilaken ; 
 and, in fact, he did, upon recollection, make 
 feveral amendments. In that declaration, he 
 
 gives
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 197 
 
 gives a circumftantial account of the delivery, 
 of the feveral changes of lodgings, of the 
 witnclics prefent at the birth, viz. Madame 
 le Brun, and her daughter; and particularly, 
 gives the hiilory of Pierre la Marr, the accou- 
 cheur, of his correfpondence with him while 
 he had the child Sholto under his care, and of 
 the letters* produced at the fcrvice, faid to be 
 from La Marr. 
 
 The account given by Sir John of this La 
 nlnrr is pretty lingular, lie was, it feems, an 
 old acquaintance, whom Sir John had known 
 at Liege in 172 1 ;. he was a Walloon, had 
 be .1 furcreon to a regiment, and was a fkill- 
 ful accoucheur. This man Sir John, who, 
 as he has faid, was fo anxious to have the 
 heft help for Lady Jane at her lying in, that 
 he made a journey from Kheims to Paris in 
 order to befpeak an accoucheur, before he 
 would carry her thither; this man, Pierre 
 la Marr, did Sir John meet by accident; and 
 recollecting that he was a fkillful accoucheur, 
 engaged him to bring Lady Jane to bed. Up- 
 on which lie returned to Kheims, and carried 
 Ladv jane to Paris, ITow came this mati 
 to be at Paris ? V\ as he eft Pliihed there as an 
 accoucheur? No: lie was at Paris fur tine 
 fij/dirj cp'nicuf'. Where did he refuie in Paris ? 
 
 1 T ^ 
 
 I. ,
 
 198 T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 He rcfufed to tell his lodgings, becanfe he 
 ■\vas there fur unc affaire epineufe. Where was 
 he to be found, when he fhould be wanted? 
 He was to be found at particular hours in 
 certain walks of the Thuilleries, or the 
 Luxembourg. Did Lady Jane ever fee him 
 before fhe was delivered ? Yes, fays Sir John, 
 I introduced him to her after our arrival. 
 Did Mrs Hewit fee him at that time ? I can- 
 not fay ; probably fhe might, as fhe was al- 
 ways with Lady Jane. Suppofe Lady Jane 
 had been taken ill in the night, How was La 
 Marr to be found r in that cafe, I muft have 
 called another. In what manner was he 
 called to Lady Jane ? She was taken ill in the 
 forenoon of the iothjulyj La Marr happen- 
 ed to call by accident that morning, and fo 
 brought her to bed. What fays Mrs Hewit to 
 all this? Had fhe any converfation with Lady 
 Jane about the accoucheur before the deli- 
 very ? No : Did fhe ever fee La Marr ? Ne* 
 ver till he came to bring Lady Jane to bed. 
 How came ' he then to attend ? Upon Lady 
 Jane's being taken ill, Sir John went out at 
 ten o'clock, and brought him with him. 
 
 This ftory is very circumftantial, very 
 pointed, Eut is it probable ? is it credible ? 
 I cannot believe it ; becaufe it cannot be true. 
 
 It
 
 LO RD ELIOCK. i 99 
 
 m lt is founded upon a manifeft falfehood, a falfe- 
 hood that is admitted, viz. upon the ftory of 
 Sir John's journey from Hheims to Paris to be- 
 fpeak an accoucheur. He made no fuch jour- 
 iicy ; he flaid at Hheims till the 2d July, 
 when they all fet out for Paris together. In- 
 deed, fuch journey would have been abfurd, 
 as it is well known, a fkilfull accoucheur can 
 be procured at Pari:? at any time, and upon 
 the fhorteft notice. 
 
 Tn 1 s and many other particulars in Sir 
 John's declaration are endeavoured to be ac- 
 counted for by a nm memini. Sir John, it is 
 laid, was old and infirm, his memory failed, 
 no wonder then he lliould miftake at fuch a 
 diftance of time. But failure of memory can- 
 not apologize for Sir John. It is pofliblc 
 that the particular circumftances attending a 
 fact, or even the tact itfelf, may be forgot; 
 but want of memory will not make one tell 
 a ftory that never happened, and recount a 
 fable ; that mull proceed from another caufe. 
 But, was Sir John's memory failed ? It did 
 not appear upon his examination that it was. 
 He was indeed fomewhat deaf; and for that 
 reafon, the fevcral qucftions were given him 
 in writing, one by one, that lie might con- 
 Jjdcr them, and give a deliberate anfwerj 
 
 which.
 
 200 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 which, as I faid before, he did do, without 
 hurry or confufion. Beiides, it appears from 
 the two letters he wrote foon after this pe- 
 riod, the one to Mr Maillefer at Rheims, the 
 other to Mr Clinton, that his memory was 
 good, indeed lingular! y f o ; he even recol- 
 lects Madame Guy, the hatter's wife who exe- 
 cuted their commiflions at Paris. His call- 
 ing for La Marr's letters the day after which 
 he had been interrogated upon them, and 
 correcting what he had formerly faid, with 
 regard to which of them were originals and 
 which copies ; his fixing upon the letter of 
 1752 as genuine, and being pofitive, that it 
 was of La Marr's hand- writing, is a very 
 good proof of his attention to what he was 
 about. Can it be fuppofed, that Sir John 
 Stewart, who was fo much interefted in 
 the queftion, who had been twice interro- 
 gated by Mrs Napier upon the fubject, who, 
 when the Duchefs of Douglas had defired 
 an account of the matter from him, had 
 wrote her accordingly, who was prefent 
 at the defender's fervice, and probably was 
 confulted with about it, and who was in habits 
 with, and in ufe to vifit Mrs Hewit ; can it 
 be fuppofed, is it credible, that his memory 
 could be fo much failed as to forget the nioft 
 
 capital
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 20 1 
 
 Capital circumftances of fo very interefting 
 and, at the lame time, fo fimple a fact, as the 
 delivery of his wife and the birth of his chil- 
 dren ? To make up for the defect, he has for- 
 ged a ftory in fupport of it. His letter to the 
 Duchefs of Douglas mows, that he had no true 
 account to give : He contents himfelf with 
 appealing to perfons, and defiring her to 
 make inquiries, which never could remove 
 the fufpicions. Lady Jane's pregnancy at 
 Aix-la-Chapclle is what he infifls upon ; and 
 he goes fo far as to name Lord Blantyre as a 
 witnefs, though, it is certain, that his Lord- 
 fhip had not feen Lady Jane from July 1747 
 till September 1748. 
 
 But the journey to Paris and the ftory 
 of La Marr is not the only falfchood in Sir 
 John's declaration. The letters faid to be 
 from La Marr are another, and of a deeper 
 dye; they are a downright forgery: Truth 
 can only be told one way, and requires nei- 
 ther falfchood nor forgery for its fupport. 
 
 It was urged in the pleadings for the de- 
 fender, that fuppofmg Sir John to have been 
 guilty of falfehood, and fuppofing La Marr's 
 letters to be forged by Sir John, the defen- 
 der could not thereby be affected ; he could 
 net r cr any crime of Sir John be forfeited 
 
 C c of
 
 202 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 of his birth-right. But the learned counfef 
 did not advert, that the only foundation of 
 the defender's claim is the acknowledgement 
 of his parents, and the account they have gi- 
 ven of his birth. Sir John avers that the de- 
 fender is his fon, and that he was born in 
 fuch and fuch circumitance3; that averment 
 is founded upon falfehood, and endeavour- 
 ed to be fupported by forgery. The eonfe- 
 quence is evident. 
 
 Sir John, Mrs Hewk, Mrs Walker, all 
 concur in faying, that La Marr correfponded 
 with Sir John by letters ; that while they 
 were at Rheims, he wrote regularly once or 
 or twice a-week ; and yet, of all the letters 
 thus wrote, not one has made its appearance; 
 in place of the whole, we have got four fa- 
 bricated ones. Another remarkable circum- 
 ftance attending thefe forged letters is, that 
 they were in Lady Jane's cuftody at her death; 
 they were found in her trunk, left with 
 George Lindcfay, and produced by him upon 
 oath at the fervice. She therefore mufl have 
 known of the forgery : What convinces me 
 of this is Lady Jane's convcrfation with 
 Mrs Menzics, when {he told her fhe had 
 proof of the birth of her children, by letters 
 
 from
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 203 
 
 from the phyfician, in her pocket. This con- 
 verfation happened fome little time before 
 Lady June went to Douglas. Join to this 
 Lady Jane's letter to the Duke from Dou- 
 glas-mill, in which fhe has this remarkable 
 exprefiion, That if be would fee her but for a 
 few moments, if jhe did not convince him of her in- 
 ?iocence, fhe would fuffer any punifljment. What 
 did fhe mean ? Mow could fhe convince him 
 in a few moments ? She muft therefore have 
 had evidence to produce. By Grindlay's 
 oath and other evidence, it is plain, fhe 
 had no atteftations or certificates of the 
 birth of her children. She told Mrs Men- 
 kes {lie had letters from the phyfician ; 
 thefe forced letters are found in hex 
 cuftody. Thefe muft therefore have been the 
 evidence fhe intended to fhew to the Duke. 
 What tends to confirm this is the account 
 g iven by Mrs Walker of the letter received 
 by Sir John from La Marr in 1752. Sir John 
 fays, this letter was in anfwer to one lie had 
 wrote La Man-, defiring him to give an ac- 
 count of the birth of the children. Mr 1 : 
 Walker depofes, lhc heard it icad, butknowi 
 not how, or by whom it v. as deb . ered. But 
 Mrs Hepburn depofes, that, in a converfa- 
 linn with Mrs Walker ir the vivi ting- room, 
 
 Wfn;
 
 2o 4 THESPEECHOF 
 
 before they were called in to be examined at 
 the fervicc, Mrs Walker told her, that fhe hcr- 
 felf delivered the letter to Sir John : That he 
 read it, faid it was a letter from La Marr ; and 
 "damned him ; and faid, What ! was he proving 
 to him that he had brought Lady Jane to bed? 
 and threw the letter in the lire : That Lady 
 Jane immediately matched it out, wiped it, 
 and put it in her pocket j faid to Sir John, 
 why was he angry at the man? the letter 
 might be of ufe fome time." 
 
 I {hall not take notice of the other circum- 
 ftances attending Lady Jane's delivery, as gi- 
 ven by Sir John and by Mrs Hewit in their 
 letters and depositions. We have feen how 
 they varied in their accounts, and in what 
 manner they agreed in changing the fcene of 
 action from MicheJPs to Le Brim's. The 
 accounts given by them of the nurfes are 
 contradictory and irreconcileable. A tale is 
 told by Sir John to fupport his ftory, and 
 falfe letters produced to confirm it. Even as 
 to the day of delivery, the ioth July 1748, 
 which is the only thing they have not va- 
 ried in, in order to prove that, they in- 
 vent a circumflance which is not true, viz. 
 the receipt of the money fent by Mr An- 
 dricux on that very day- and Mrs Walker 
 
 like wife
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 20$ 
 
 likewife depofes to this circumflance and to 
 her having received a letter from Mrs Hewit, 
 informing her of it at the time ; though it is 
 plain, from looking into the letters from Mrs 
 Hewit to Mrs Walker, that no fuch letter 
 could ever have been wrote. If to all this 
 we add the behaviour of Lady Jane, Sir 
 John, and Mrs Hewit at the time, it is im- 
 poillblc for me to give credit to the ftory of 
 the defender's birth. I am convinced, that the 
 whole is a concerted tale, and an impofture. 
 Could Mrs Hewit have wrote a letter to the 
 maids on the nth July, and not only not 
 mention Lady Jane's delivery the day before, 
 but tell them flie was very well ? Would Sir 
 John, on the 10th, have fat down quietly to 
 write five or fix letters, had Lady Jane, as they 
 fay, been ill all the night preceeding? and would 
 flic have been employed in jotting down 
 Inch an infignificant incident in her pocket- 
 book ? It il> faid, that Mrs Hewit's letter was 
 really wrote on the 10th in the morning, and 
 Sir John's letters on the 9th ; but Mrs Hewit's 
 correction of the date is exceedingly fufni- 
 cious; cfpecially as we lee Sir John making 
 1 hmilar correction of the date of his letter 
 to Lord Crawford, by faying, In my ijfi of the 
 ;,/;; and plainly referring to that of the 10th: 
 
 That
 
 ro6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 That Sir John's letters were wrote on the 
 loth, is evident from one of them; viz, 
 that to Mrs Hepburn ; for, in his next to 
 her, he fays, Lady Jane was delivered, &c. on 
 the evening of the lafl day I wrote you, Suppofing 
 Lady Jane to have been delivered on the 10th, 
 is it probable that no intimation of it mould be 
 given to any pcrfon, nor one lecter wrote to 
 a friend or acquaintance, till the 2 2d? Sir 
 John could not have concealed fo joyful an 
 event for twelve days. 
 
 It was faid for the defender, that however 
 Sir John and Mrs Hewit may differ in trivial 
 circumflances, they agree in the capital arti- 
 cle ; and their differing in fome collateral cir- 
 cumftances is of no moment : Memory is 
 fallible. 
 
 This plea is not available here. It is true, 
 they agree in the capital article, that Lady 
 Jane was brought to bed on the icth of Ju- 
 ly 1748 ; but in every circumftance attending 
 it they have varied and difagreed. Is it a cir- 
 cumftance of no moment in what place Lady 
 Tane lay in, and who were prefent at the 
 birth ? In thefe they have varied and fhifted 
 the fcene. From the beginning, there was 
 an apparent concealment. Sir John had many 
 acquaintances at Paris at the time : and yet 
 
 he
 
 LORD ELI O CK. 207 
 
 lie had no communication with any of them. 
 He kept his being there a fecret from all his 
 friends with whom he correfponded ; all his 
 letters are uniformly dated from Rheims, 
 though written at Paris. 
 
 Since the houfe of Madame leBrun has been 
 fixed upon as the place where Lady Jane was 
 delivered, and ihe and her daughter have 
 been named as witneffes to the birth, it was 
 natural to inquire where Le Brun's houfe was, 
 and wint fort of people me and her daugh- 
 ter were. MkhelPs houfe is well known 
 and was facta found out ; but whereabouts 
 wai Le Brun's fituate ? Truly Mrs Hewit 
 knows not ; becaufe ihe could not remember 
 French names ; and Sir John can tell no more, 
 t' ...: 'hat it was in the Fauxbourg St Ger- 
 m "ti >n the Ic*- hand as you go from the 
 i ?-u . ■(•' by t\ Rue de !a Comedie to the 
 l.-'.v : \Tg. This is a very general defcrip- 
 ■'■.■ *, r. ; ;t looks fomewhat odd, that Sir 
 Joii . who cou'd very well recoiled: the 
 names of the tavern and coiTee-houfcs he fre- 
 quented at Paris, and the fituation of them, 
 fhould totally for ,,,-t the houfe where his la- 
 dy was brought to bed: The event wis in- 
 tcrcfiincrto Mm: , ": Tad come to Paris for that 
 
 O 
 
 purpofe; the landlady and her daughter were 
 
 whin lies
 
 co8 THE SPEEC H'O 1? 
 
 witnefies to the birth; he remained, it is fakf, 
 ten days in the houfe after ; and yet he not only 
 forgets where the houfe was, but totally for- 
 gets the names of the perfons. We have feen at 
 what time, and in what manner he recollect- 
 ed the name of Madame le Brun. But who 
 is this Madame le Brun ? As Sir John, Lady 
 Jane, and Mrs He wit lodged in her houfe, 
 and as there were other lodgers befides, fhe 
 mull have been fubjecl to the police ; the of- 
 ficers muft have vifited her houfe ; flie muft 
 have been liable to the capitation-tax. The 
 Whole quarter of the town named by Sir 
 John has been carefully fcarched; no Madame 
 le Brun is there to be found; no fuch woman 
 in the books of police ; no fuch perfon in the 
 capitation-rolls. Had fuch a perfon as de- 
 fcribcct by Sir John and MrsHewit exifted, fhe 
 muft have been found out, efpecially by the 
 capitation-rolls, which fecm to be accurately 
 kept, and are made up every four months. 
 It is faid that Madame lc Brun was a garde 
 malade ; that fuch people are not fubjecl to 
 the police ; and that befides, fome perfons, 
 iuch as Swifs, are exempted from the capita- 
 tion, and many perfons efcape notice. But 
 this Madame le Brun the garde malade will 
 never anfwer. Thefe garde malades are perfons 
 
 who
 
 L O H D E L I O C K. 20? 
 
 who perhaps have a fingie chamber where 
 low women, fuch as the wifes of footmen, 
 or poor mechanics, can be accommodated; and 
 fo far as I can learn, no perfon of any condi- 
 # tion ever went to fuch a place to lie in, but 
 when there was reafon for concealment. Lady 
 fane Douglas lure had no reafon to lie in pri- 
 vately and conceal her delivery. But, by Sir 
 John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit lodging in 
 the houfe, by there being other lodgers befides 
 them, by Madame le E run's keeping a fer- 
 vant or fervants, which they fay fie did, 
 flic mufr have both been fubjecr. to the po- 
 lice, and liable to the capitation ; coufequent- 
 ly mud have been found out. The few in- 
 ftanccs brought of fome low people who e- 
 fcaped the capitation by fraud, fliow the ac- 
 cmacy and exactnefs of the rolls. The fraud 
 was foon detected. 
 
 From the whole of the proof on this head, 
 I muft conclude, that the Madame 1c Brun 
 mentioned by Sir John and Mrs Hewit never 
 cxifted; confequently that Lady Jane was not 
 brought to bed in the houfe of a Le Brun. 
 
 Tn \t no perfon anfwering to thedefcriotion 
 given of Pier la Mai r by Sir John Stewart lias 
 been difcovcred, is certain and acknowledged: 
 and indeed, it was impofftble there fhould ; 
 
 1) d for
 
 2i9 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 for I take Pier la Marr to be entirely fuch an- 
 other imaginary perfon as Madame le Brum 
 Had Sir John's journey from Rheims to 
 Paris been true, and had he met with fuch 
 a man as this Pier la Marr, is it poflible to 
 conceive, that Sir John could have propofed, 
 or that Lady Jane could have agreed, to com- 
 mit herfelf to the care of fuch a perfon ? Or, 
 if {he had, Can it be believed fhe would have 
 iritruftcd one of the children to the care of a 
 perfon who was a ftranger in France, who 
 was only occaiionally at Paris upon fome 
 particular affair, and would probably return 
 to his own home fo foon as that was over ? 
 It is not only improbable, but may be deem- 
 ed impoflible : No perfon endowed with the 
 fmallelt degree of underftanding, could have 
 acted fuch a part. 
 
 This Pier la Marr, therefore, is given up 
 by the defender, and another fubft.ituted in 
 his place, who may be fuppofed to have deli- 
 vered Lady Jane in 1748. One MonfieurMe- 
 nager a furgeon has been examined upon 
 this head, and much weight is laid upon his 
 oath. ! hat there was a furgeon at Paris in 
 the year 1748 of the name of Louis Pierre 
 Debmarre, is proved ; but that this perfon 
 fliould have been the accoucheur who deli- 
 vered
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 211 
 
 vered Lady Jane, cannot be. The La Marr 
 who attended Lady Jane was a Walloon. He 
 had been furgeon to a regiment before 172 1, 
 and was then a noted accoucheur. This 
 French La Marr was born at Mont reuil fur rvr 
 in Piccardy in 171 1, had ferved in a barbers 
 fhop in Paris in the 1734, was afterwards an 
 attendant at the Hotel Dieu for fome years, 
 and an acquaintance of Monfieur Menager, 
 and never was either fursreon to a resn- 
 
 o o 
 
 ment, nor out of France. The ftory told 
 by Monfieur Menager, and now adopted by 
 the defender, is, that in the year 1747 or 
 1748, La Marr imparted to Menager, that lie 
 was en^aored to brin£ to bed a foreign Ladv, 
 who had come from beyond fea, and who 
 was advanced in years : That La Marr defired 
 his, Menagcr's afliftance; which, however, he 
 did not give : That La Marr afterwards told 
 him, that the Lady was delivered of twins, 
 one of whom, being weakly, was commit- 
 ted to his care, and of whom lie had the 
 charge for fcveral months : That La .Marr told 
 the ftory in the chambre da garde a F Hotel DLu, 
 in prcfence of Monfieur Gilles, Monlieur 
 Mele, and others: He fays la Marr was con- 
 nected with a Madamele Brim, who kept one 
 of his depots, of which he had feverai : That he 
 did not know where Madame lc lirun lived, 
 
 but
 
 2 12 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 but judged it was in the S>uart\er de St Andre 
 des arts, becaufe hefatvLaMarr often turn- 
 ing to that hand. La Marr told him par- 
 ticularly, that he had been befpoke for bring- 
 ing that foreign Lady to bed before her arri- 
 val at Pans. The other gentlemen have been 
 examined: They agree that La Marr told 
 them that he had brought to bed a Lady who 
 came to Paris to lie in privately ; That the 
 converfation happened in the chambre dc 
 gad:, where La Marr then attended. Now, 
 it is certain, that La Marr was difmifled from 
 the Hotel Dieu in the year 1 746, or begin- 
 ning of 1747; and the gentlemen then pre- 
 ient never faw him there afterwards ; there- 
 fore this accouchement performed by La 
 Marr cannot apply to Lady Jane Douglas. 
 None of thefe gentlemen knew any thing of 
 La Marr s connection with a Madame le Brun, 
 nor of the other particulars mentioned by 
 Menager. It is plain to me, from the whole 
 oath of Menager, that he has cither been in- 
 ftructed, or has wantonly volunteered, by ad- 
 ding circumflances to the fimple fiery told 
 by La Man in 1746, to accommodate his oath 
 to Sir John Stewart's declaration. In point 
 of time, the ftory told by La Marr cannot a- 
 gree to Lady Jane ; neither can it agree to 
 
 her,
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 213 
 
 her, that La Marr was befpokc before flic 
 came to Paris ; for, though oir John has laid 
 fo, yet that is now given up ; and the (lory 
 of Madame le Brim, and her living in the 
 S^uarthr cL' Si Andre des arts, is artful enough, 
 as that is the Quarter of the Fauxbour? St 
 Germain which is upon the left hand go- 
 ing hum the Pvit-neuf by the Rue dc la Co- 
 vicii e. 
 
 This Louis Pierre Delamarre, therefore, 
 could not have been the accoucheur of Lady 
 Jane Douglas; and I think the oath of Mr 
 Menager does no credit to the caufe. Had 
 there been a furgeon alive at Paris in 1 750, 
 who delivered Lady Jane, (and this La Marr 
 was ;.live at that time), and a landlady who was 
 witness, would not Sir John and Lad yjane have 
 applied to them for certificates of the delivery 
 properly authenticated, inftead of writing to 
 Mrs Lewis at Aix-la-Chappelle for atten- 
 tions of Lady Jane's pregnancy, which could 
 fignii'y nothing? 1 hey feem then to have 
 been anxious to fecure the birth of their 
 children from being challenged. It would 
 have coft no more trouble to have procured 
 unqiicftioti ible evidence, if the fact was true, 
 than it did to procure Mrs Lewis's declaration. 
 Had the proof brought on both iides reft- 
 
 ed
 
 214 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 cd here, I fliould, for the reafons I have gi- 
 ven, been of opinion for the purfuers. On 
 the part of the defender, there is nothing to 
 fupport his filiation, but a tale big with ab- 
 furdity and contradiction. The behaviour 
 of his fuppofed parents inconfiitent with his 
 being truly their child, their averment 
 founded on falfehood, and fupported by for- 
 gery : I fay, had no further evidence been 
 brought in this caufe, I mull have been of o- 
 pinion for reducing the fervice. But, when 
 we conlider the pofitive proof that is brought 
 of the place where Lady Jane and Sir John 
 refided at the time afligned for the delivery, 
 all dubiety muft vaniih. Sir John and Mrs 
 Hewit have faid, that Lady Jane was brought 
 to bed in the houfe of Madame le Brun on 
 the ioth July 1748. But neither of them 
 can tell where that houfe was. On the con- 
 trary, there is the flrongeft evidence that the 
 nature of the thing can admit of, that no fuch 
 houfe, and no fuch landlady exiiled. It i$ 
 proved and admitted, that, on coming to Pa- 
 ris, they lodged at the Hotel de Chalons till 
 the feventh or eighth of July. Mr Godefroy 
 and Mrs Godefroy who kept that hotel, have 
 fworn pofitively, that they intended indeed 
 to have moved on the 8th ; but that, on pre- 
 tence
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 215 
 
 tence of the other lodgings not being ready, 
 they continued to lodge at his houfe till the 
 14th. Godefroy has exhibited his accompt- 
 book, in which the accompt of their expence 
 during their ftay in his houfe is ingrofied ; 
 and to that accompt, as relative to Sir John 
 and his company, he and his wifedepofe. Lady 
 fane brought forth no child during her ftay in 
 the hotel de Chalons: She refided there from 
 the 4th to the 14th of July 17 48. This evi- 
 dence, therefore, is exclufive of the poffibi- 
 lity of the defender's birth on the 10th July 
 in the houfe of Madame lc Brun. 
 
 It has been objected, on the part of the 
 defender, to this evidence of Godefroy's, 
 \mo, That it is net credible, that Godefroy and 
 his wife, who have kept a public-houfe fo much 
 frequented, could, after fo many years, recol- 
 lect the time Sir John and Lady Jane ftaid 
 with him in 1748; ido, The accompt being 
 blank iti the title, cannot be applied to Sir 
 John Stewart, but may relate to any body elfe. 
 ;/;9, At any rr.tc, it cannot afford a fuilicient 
 caufc of knowledge; for, as there are many 
 cr accompts in the book blank in the 
 name, and Godefroy (iocs not remember to 
 whom f hey relate, he is not to be believed, when 
 he applies this account to Sir John Stewart. 
 
 Is
 
 2irf THE SPEECH OF 
 
 In my humble opinion, there is nothing id 
 thefe objections : For, in the Jirft place, it is 
 not more incredible, that Godefroy mould 
 recollect the particulars he fvvcars to, than 
 that the other witnefles who have been exa- 
 mined in this caufe lliould do (o ; many of 
 whom have depofed to facts and to converfa- 
 tions, which were as liable to be forgotten 
 as this. It is certain, that Godefroy recollect- 
 ed Sir John particularly. He remembered, 
 that he had been recommended to him by 
 Mr Maillefer at Rheims ; and, though the 
 letter he received on that occafion was then 
 fallen by, it has been fmce recovered and 
 produced, and vouches for his memory. In 
 the next pl.ice, as to the particular time of Sir 
 John's being at Godefroy's houfe, he does not 
 fwear altogether from memory : His anfwer 
 to the oueftion is : It will appear from my 
 book at what time he entered, and when he 
 Went away ; and the book is produced. It 
 does not much import, that the title of the ac- 
 compt is blank ; had the name of Sir John 
 been there (as probably it would have been, 
 if Mr Maillefer had mentioned the name in his 
 letter), there could have been no doubt ; and 
 I do not think it an extraordinary effort of 
 memory, that Godefroy, who lodged fuch a 
 
 company
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 217 
 
 company of ftrangers, recommended in a 
 particular manner to him, mould recollecf, 
 that fnch an accompt related to thefe pcrfons ; 
 efpecially as Sir John returned alone to 
 his houfe fome little time after, and ftaid 
 four days; and the accompt for that time 
 with Sir John's name ingrolled, is in the op- 
 polite page of the book to the accompt in 
 queftion. Belides, it is not poflible to ex- 
 plain how, or from what circumftances, a 
 perfon may recoiled a fact. We fee here, 
 that Godefroy had confiderable aids to his 
 memory; and there is not one iinglc circum- 
 ftancc in the proof which contradicts what 
 he has depofed, excepting Sir John's decla- 
 ration and Mrs 1 lev. it's oath. But neither 
 of them pretends to know where the houfe 
 was, in which they fay they lodged on the 
 roth [illy. As to Godefroy's not being able 
 readily to fay, to whom the other blank ac- 
 compts in his books did apply; I do not think 
 this an objection of any moment to his evi- 
 dence. It may be, that lie would have re- 
 collected, had there been fiuh 1peci.il circum- 
 ftances to recall things to his memory as 
 there was in this cafe. But whether he 
 couid or not, it will not follow, that there- 
 fore he has {'worn faliely as to Sir John 
 K e Stewart.
 
 2i8 THE SPEECHOF 
 
 Stewart. Had there been in proof any forC 
 of evidence - that Sir John was in ano- 
 ther place at the time, and, if it had been 
 doubtful which to give credit to, the im- 
 port of the evidence on either fide would 
 fall to be confidered and compared to- 
 gether. But, when it cannot be mown, that 
 Sir John was in any other houfe, to dif- 
 credit the evidence of Godefroy, who aflerts 
 he was in his, upon fuch an objection as this, 
 that it is not probable he could remember 
 the fact, becaufe he may have forgotten o- 
 ther fa&s which have no relation to it, is 
 out of all fight. Godefroy and his wife are 
 proved to be perfons of good fame ; they 
 feem alfo to be in affluent circumftances for 
 people of their ftation; and it does not oc- 
 cur what poffible temptation they could have 
 to fwear to a falfehood. Godefroy told the 
 flory the fame way from the beginning, and 
 to every one who made inquiry at him. We 
 have the teflimony of Madame Guy for this, 
 who being employed for the defender went 
 to his houfe to interrogate him, when he 
 fhowed her his book, and pointed out the ac- 
 compt therein, as relative to Sir John Stew- 
 art. In a word, it appears to me, that Gode- 
 froy and his wife are candid and credible wit- 
 
 nefles ;
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 219 
 
 neffes ; they have depofed to a fact which they 
 had accefs to know. There is not a fyllable 
 of evidence in the whole proof (except the 
 tale told by Sir John and Mrs Hewit) which 
 is inconfiftent with or contradicts what they 
 fay ; and I can fee no reafon why they ought 
 not to be believed. This then to rne is de- 
 cifive of the caufe ; for, if Lady Jane was not 
 delivered on the 10th July 1748 in the houfe 
 of Madame le Brun, as it appears fhe was not \ 
 becaufc on that day, and for feveral days be- 
 fore and after, flie was not at Le Bran's, but 
 at Godefroy's, where me was not delivered 
 of any child ; it follows, as a neceilary confe- 
 quence, that the defender is not her fon. 
 
 There are many other particulars in the 
 proof which I do not think neceilary to fay 
 much upon j I mail only mention fume of 
 them. 
 
 It is faid, that the fufpicions of the reality 
 of the defender's birth were raifed and pro- 
 pagated by the friends of the family of Ha- 
 milton : That the reality of the birth was 
 never doubted of abroad by any body ; and 
 that it is not probable Sir John and Lady Jane 
 would have carried a child, procured in the 
 way it is faid the defender was, to Rheims, 
 where there was fuch danger of detection. 
 
 As
 
 220 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 As to the fufpicions entertained in this 
 country, it does not appear to me that there 
 is any proof from what they arofe, or who 
 propagated them ; nor do I think it of any 
 importance to inquire from whom they pro- 
 ceeded : Certain it is, that they were early 
 entertained, and that Lady Jane and Sir John 
 were informed of them in a few weeks after 
 the birth was notified in Britain. It does 
 not indeed appear, that any fufpicions were 
 entertained at Rheims : Sir John and Lady 
 Jane were ftrangers there ; no body was in- 
 terefted to inquire ; and it would not readi- 
 ly occur to doubt of a thing one had no con- 
 cern about. As to the danger of detection, 
 there was, no doubt, a rilk ; but that rifk was 
 not great, as matters were managed ; for it 
 does not appear that more particulars were 
 mentioned at Rheims, fo as to lead to a dif- 
 covery, than were communicated to friends 
 in Britain to whom the event was notified, 
 if the people at Rheims believed the birth to 
 have happened at Paris, at the fame time 
 that their acquaintance at Paris, as well as 
 their friends in Britain, were kept in the dark 
 as to that particular. 
 
 It is faid, that there dees not appear any- 
 motive that could induce Sir John and Lady 
 
 Jane
 
 LORD ELIOCK, 221 
 
 Jane to commit the crime they arc charged 
 with, and that their character puts them a- 
 bove all fufpicion of being guilty of fo wicked 
 an action ; beiides, they were in fuch ftraits 
 for money, that it cannot be fuppofed they 
 would take the charge of two children, not 
 their own, when they could hardly fubfift 
 thcmfelves. 
 
 In my opinion, character has little to do 
 in the matter, where the queftion is, Whe- 
 ther a fact be true or falfe ? And as little is it 
 neceflary to afiign motives which might in- 
 duce a party to act. If a crime is charged 
 and proved, it is no defence to fay, that the 
 party had fuch a character, and the motives 
 arc not afHgned : The truth of the fact char- 
 ged muft Hand upon the evidence brought, 
 whatever may have been the character of the 
 part}' ;;ccufed. In the prefent cafe, I think: 
 the fact proved ; though, if character were to 
 be taken into confideration, I do not think 
 that oi the parties concerned appears in the 
 molt amiable bght. I do not mean the opi- 
 nions o[ iur.chy of the witneffes, that tiiey 
 tnovrht fcj j.iio io, 1 fpeak of the conduct 
 • • .'.La L j i - : t is proved. As to motives, 
 ■'■', ■ - '■ not i. (.•■-. ii!„ j \ to ..fiigr] them: 
 ( :r '.i; iiU] : fill Ic ; In aide b I
 
 222 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 impoflible to dive into the minds and 
 thoughts of men, which are fo various that 
 the fame reafon will frequently move differ- 
 ent men to act quite different and contrary- 
 parts : But, from the proof before us, there ap- 
 pears to have been fome motives which might 
 influence Sir John and Lady Jane : They feem 
 both to have had an expenfive turn; and, as 
 they fell upon many expedients to get money, 
 it is more than probable, their ftrong motive 
 was to procure a fettlement from the Duke 
 cf Douglas. We do not fee any application 
 made to him till the marriage was notified, 
 with a hint that it was likely to prove fruit- 
 ful. Lady Jane till then feems to have been 
 fatisfied with the L. 300 a-year, which her 
 brother allowed her, and which was regu- 
 larly paid. But, after that time, he is ap- 
 plied to for a fettlement, and their friends 
 are earneftly follicited to fupport the appli- 
 cation. By the letters to Lord Milton, it 
 appears, that if fair means did not prevail, 
 there were others fuggefted which might be 
 fufficient to induce his Grace to comply. 
 And if this was a motive, as it feems to have 
 been, it affords at the fame time an anfwer 
 to the argument ufed for the defender, arifing 
 
 from
 
 LORD ELIOCK, 225 
 
 from the expence of keeping fuppofititious 
 children when they were in fuch ftraitened 
 circumftances. 
 
 There is great weight laid upon the affec- 
 tion Ihown by Lady Jane to the children; 
 which, befides being depofed to by feveral 
 witneffes, appears from the letters which 
 palled between her and Sir John while at 
 
 London. 
 
 It is indeed in proof, that Lady Jane mow- 
 ed much affection to the children; and in thefc 
 letters her expreflions are full of tendernefs. 
 But her actions contradict her exprefllons. 
 Lady Jane's behaviour with regard to the 
 youngelt child is fuch as a tender parent 
 could never have had. This child is repre- 
 fented as fo very weak at his coming in- 
 to the world, that it was neceffary for the 
 accoucheur to befprinkle him ; a thing that 
 is never done but in the mod extreme necef- 
 fity, and mod eminent danger of death : Yet 
 this very weakly child, who, it was thought, 
 could not live if nor lent immediately to 
 the country, was never once inquired after 
 by Lady Jane: She never law him till he 
 was fixtecn months old : This furely was not 
 the part of a tender mother. '1 hat flic knew 
 ot hi j weakly condition, appears from her let- 
 ter
 
 224 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 ter of the 6th Auguft to her brother. If fhe 
 could not go to ice the child herfelf while at 
 Paris, Sir John or Mrs Hewit might have 
 gone to inquire after him : It is not pre- 
 tended Mrs Hcwit ever went ; and I think 
 it pretty evident that Sir John was as great 
 a ftranger ; for had he been in ufe to vifit the 
 child, he mufthave known where he was kept, 
 and could have found out the place without 
 the afliftance of LaMarr ; which, however, he 
 fays he could not do. It is pretended they of- 
 ten heard of him by means of La Marr: Had 
 that been fo, it might fatisfy them perhaps, 
 while at a diftance ; but will not account for 
 the neglect and indifference mown during 
 their ftay at Paris. There is a circumftance 
 which here occurs, and which mould have 
 been mentioned before, viz. the name of Shot- 
 to given at this time to the child : No name 
 is ever given at an endoyment, and it is only in 
 the letter of 6th Auguft, that Lady Jane de- 
 fires her brothers leave to name the one child 
 Archibald, the other Sholto, which is evidence, 
 that neither of them had at that time any name. 
 And this fcrves alfo to prove the forgery of 
 La Marr's letter of 1752, in which he names 
 the voungeft child Sholto-Tho?nas, though he 
 was not baptifed by that name till after they 
 
 had
 
 LORD ELI O C K. 225 
 
 had been fome time in England in 1750. 
 This behaviour of Lady Jane convinces me, 
 that there was more of affectation than reali- 
 ty in her exprcflions of tendernefs. Bcfides, 
 ic was natural for her to be on her guard, and 
 to behave in fuch a manner as not to betray 
 the fecret : Affection alio micfht qtow from 
 habit ; and it has a very fingular appearance, 
 that fuch a number of thefe infignificant let- 
 ters as have been produced mould have been 
 preferved, and yet not one of the many let- 
 ters laid to be wrote by the accoucheur 
 mould make its appearance. But what fatis- 
 ties me perfectly on this head, is the whole 
 of her conduce from firft to Life. It was in 
 her power, ir flic was really the mother of 
 thefe children, to have removed every doubt 
 and fufpicion as to their birth ; it was her du- 
 ty to have done fo ; flic never did it, or took 
 any effectual ftep to do it. The procuring of 
 one authentic certificate of the both, would 
 have mown more love and affection to her 
 ; iiildrcn, than hundreds of letters wrote to Sir 
 John, containing the tenderer! exprcflions. 
 
 A: ••;-;■. :, „ having fiid fo much, and deliver- 
 ed my opinion upon the point in iffuc, I 
 mould not think it neccfiary to add any thing 
 more, w:tc it not that a proof has been endea- 
 V f voured
 
 2z6 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 voured to be brought of the way and manner 
 in which thefe children were procured. Had 
 nothing of this kind been done or attempt- 
 ed to be done, it would not influence the que- 
 flion, nor alter my opinion. I think it pro- 
 ved, that the defender neither is, nor pombly 
 could be the ion of Lady Jane Douglas; 
 whofe child he is, or in what manner he was 
 adopted by her and Sir John Stewart, is of 
 little moment. It was, however, the duty of 
 the purfuers to bring a proof of that, if in 
 their power, though matters might have been 
 fo managed as to render it impoffible to do 
 fo. As to the proof brought, whatever ex- 
 ception may be taken to the depofitions of 
 the Mignons in other refpeeb, I think there 
 is undoubted evidence, that Mignon's child 
 was carried off by ftrangers in July 1748, and 
 before die 2 2d day of that month : That thefe 
 ftrangers were a man and a woman, who pre- 
 tended they wanted the child only for a few 
 weeks, to mow to a Lady newly delivered, 
 but whofe child had died. It is alfo un- 
 doubted, that Sanry's child was carried off in 
 November 1749 by ftrangers alfo, a man and 
 two women, who lodged at the Croix de Fer % 
 and who faid they were Irlandois, It is very 
 lingular, chat, both thefe enlevements mould 
 
 happen
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 227 
 
 happen at the precife time when Sir John and 
 Lady Jane were at Paris, and fhould be at- 
 tended with fuch circiimftances as muft create 
 the moft violent fufpicion, that they were 
 the perfons who carried off the children. As 
 to Mignon's child, the circumftance of the 
 child's drefs, depofed to by Migrion, and con- 
 firmed by Madame Favre the nurfe, is re- 
 markable. It is alio remarkable, that Sir 
 John and Lad}' Jane came to Michell's with- 
 out any child ; that the next day, when all 
 the three went to bring the child, they 
 brought it home and a nurfe along with it; 
 but fuch a nurfe as no child, even of the 
 poorcft perfon, ever was intruftcd to, a poor 
 beggarly thief, picked up in the ftreets, who 
 had no milk in her breafts. The account gi- 
 ven by Mrs lie wit of this matter is, that 
 Madame le Brun had recommended a nurfe 
 who ftaid with them in her home while they 
 continued to lodge there, but who was per- 
 mitted to carry the child to her own houfc 
 when they removed to Michell's : That Sir 
 John afterwards going to fee the child, found 
 the nurfe drunk, and thereupon fent the 
 coacli for Mrs Hewit, who went and brought 
 him home : That they got a milk-woman in 
 rhe neighbourhood to give him fuck, till 
 
 Sir
 
 228 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Sir John found a nurfc fomewhere in the 
 fuburbs ; but flic proving a bad one, and 
 having no milk in her breads, was difmilTed, 
 and the milk-woman again employed. This 
 ftory, told by Mrs Ilewit, is incompatible 
 with, and contradictory to what happened at 
 Michell's, as depofed to by Madame Michell, 
 Madame Blainville, Madame Favre. Bclides, 
 the ftory is inconfiftent ; for, had the child been 
 left with the nurfe they had while at Madame 
 le Brun's, he could not have been famifhed for 
 want of nouriflimcnt ; fhe had fuckled him, 
 by their account, at leaft for ten days, and 
 though me had been fo abandoned as to be 
 drunk, yet fire had milk to give the child. 
 But it is in proof, that the child, when 
 brought to Michell's, was in a pityful condi- 
 tion, quite famiflicd, and the nurfe they 
 brought with them had no milk. This 
 therefore could not be the nurfe formerly 
 employed; and that they brought a nurie 
 with the child, is certain. Now, fuppofing 
 the child thus brought to Michell's to be the 
 child procured from Mignon, and who muil 
 have been fecrctcd a day or two, he would 
 naturally be in the condition defcribed, almoft 
 dying of hunger, which Lady jane's child 
 could not have been, as he was, till that mo- 
 ment.
 
 LORD ELIO CK. 229 
 
 ment, with a nurfe who had fuckled him for 
 ten days without any complaint. Beildes, 
 the child brought was three weeks old at 
 Icaft, as depofed by Madame Favre. All 
 thefe circumftanccs are well accounted for 
 .on tiie fuppofition of this being the child got 
 irom JMigncn ; but will not apply to a child 
 born by Lady Jane on the tenth of July, 
 i!:c time alio acrrees with the reft of the 
 
 o 
 
 proof; the enlevement happened exactly at the 
 time when Lady Jane, Sir John, and Mrs 
 Hcwit, were fecreted after they left Gode- 
 Iroy's on the 14 th, and when none of them 
 can give any account of themfelves, or fay 
 where they lodged. It is alfo very remark- 
 able, that no notification was given of the 
 delivery of Lady Jane, (though faid to have 
 happened on the 10th), till the 2 2d July, 
 which was after they had brought the child, 
 in the manner we have fecn, to MichelPs. 
 
 As to Sanry's child, there was an actual 
 theft ; and the time when it happened is pret- 
 ty nearly afcertained to be when Sir John 
 and Lady Jane were at Paris in November 
 l~-y). Sir John, when interrogated, can give 
 no account where he put up during their 
 Kay at Paris at that time; and the incident of 
 L !y Jane's headach, when they had let out 
 
 tc
 
 2 5 o THE SPEECHOF 
 
 to fetch their child, and of her and Mrs 
 Hewit's being fet down at a houfe they knew 
 nothing about, till Sir John and La Man- 
 brought the child, is fomewhat Angular. 
 However, this is the ftory told; but then, 
 Sir John and Mrs Hewit do not quite agree 
 in their accounts. Sir John fays, he intend- 
 ed to ftay only one night at Paris : That the 
 firft thing he did, was to inquire for La Marr, 
 as without him he could not have found the 
 child ; and that La Marr came to them either 
 that night or next morning. Mrs Hewit 
 lays, fhe is pofitive La Marr did not come 
 till the laft day of their ftay at Paris. Sir 
 John and La Marr brought the nurfe and 
 child to the houfe where they had left Lady 
 Jane and Mrs Hewit ; and the nurfe being 
 paid by Sir John, fays Mrs Hewit, by La 
 Marr, fays Sir John, they fet out for Rheims 
 next morning. The whole of this ftory is 
 mod improbable, and, like the reft, the par- 
 ties do not agree in their accounts. There is 
 a total failure of memory as to thofe cir- 
 cumftances from which the truth or falfe- 
 hood of it could be afcertained ; and from 
 the whole of the proof on this head, it is 
 apparent, that this journey to Paris in 1749, 
 is attended with the fame marks of myftery 
 
 and
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 231 
 
 and concealment, that runs through the 
 whole of their behaviour. 
 
 However, in order to fupport their ac- 
 count, there is adduced a witnefs, Madame 
 Gamier, who is faid to have been the perfon 
 who nuned bholto. But, upon comparing 
 her oath with thofe of the other witnefies, 
 and with the hiftory of Lady jane's delivery, 
 it plainly appears to be fuch an oath for pro- 
 vin"- the nuriins; of SholtOjasMcna^er's is for 
 proving Louis Pierre Delamarre to have been 
 the accoucheur of Lady Jane : That this Ma- 
 dame Gamier had a child committed to her 
 to be nuHed in 1748, may very well be belie- 
 ved; indeed, there is evidence of it; but that 
 this child could be one born of Lady Jane 
 Doucrlas on the 10th lulv 1748, and lent ci- 
 ther that day or next morning to her, is im- 
 poflible. Every circumflance contradicts the 
 fuppoilcion; although there are feveral par- 
 ticulars fworn to make it quadrate: Madame 
 Gamier got this child when her fon Jerome 
 was fix months old ; me nurfed him on Je- 
 rome's milk, and kept him eighteen months. 
 Jerome is proved to luvc been born in March 
 ; ; ,1) : me, therefore, did not receive her foflcr- 
 
 chi'd ti 1 ! tl'c month of September 1748, and 
 kept him Uii i'ebruary or Mardi 1750. And 
 
 tins)
 
 rt 1 -> 
 
 T II E S P E E C II O V 
 
 this agrees with the manner flic fays the child 
 was brought to her, which was in a coach, and 
 with torch-light, about nine o'clock at night. 
 This might very well be in the month of 
 September ; but there was no neceflity for 
 torch-light on the ftreets of Paris, in the 
 beginning of July. Befides, her account of 
 taking the child from her does not agree 
 with that given by Sir John and Mrs Hewit. 
 I mall not go through the particulars of 
 the proof- of thefeenlevemensj they arc well 
 known to all of your Lorclfhips : The de- 
 fcription given ot the perfons is not fuch as 
 of necelTary confequence to bring them home 
 to Sir John Stewart ; but, from every circum- 
 ftancc attending them, and from the whole 
 of the evidence, I incline to believe, that he 
 was the perfon, though I do not found my 
 opinion in the caufe upon that : My opinion 
 goes upon the improbability of Lady Jane's 
 having been really with child ; her whole 
 conduct and behaviour contradicts the fuppo- 
 fition ; on the care taken by her and Sir 
 John to withdraw from their acquaintance, 
 nay, even from their fervants, and not only 
 to fecrete and hide themfelvcs, but to con- 
 ceal every thing moft material to be known 
 even from their neareft friends ; on the in- 
 
 conliflcncies.
 
 LORD ELIOCK. 233 
 
 confiflencies, contradictions, and falfehoods 
 in the accounts given by Sir John and Mrs 
 Hewit, fupported by Mrs Walker, upon their 
 neglecting to get proper certificates of the 
 birth, which it imported them much to get, 
 and which, we lee, they were, in 1750, de- 
 firous to procure ; and, inftead of fuch, produ- 
 cing and uling falfe and forged letters to iup- 
 ply the deficiency ; and, laftly, upon the pofitive 
 proof of Lady Jane and Sir John's being at 
 Godfrey's on the day afiigned for the birth, 
 which is exclufive of the poflibility of her 
 being delivered of any child on the 10th July 
 1 748. It is upon thefe grounds, that I am 
 of opinion for reducing the iervice. 
 
 Gg LOUD
 
 C 254 ] 
 
 LORD STONE FIELD. 
 
 N this cafe, I have had great difficulty. 
 The bulk of the proofs, the prolixity of 
 the pleadings, and the difFufencfs of the me- 
 morials, though artfully and ably wrote, 
 rendered it not an eafy talk for me to col- 
 lect the material parts of the evidence, and 
 to bring it to a point. I was almoft loft in 
 a labyrinth of proofs and arguments : But, 
 on reconfidering it within thefe few days, 
 with a view to advifmg the caufe, I have 
 formed the lame opinion with that firft de- 
 livered, and with thofe delivered yefterday. 
 
 In the entry, I will take notice of one or 
 two articles that have been brought into this 
 queftion ; but which, I apprehend, do not be- 
 long to it. 
 
 I little expected to have heard any clamour 
 again raifed againft the Tournclle procefs, 
 after the full and fatisfactory account given 
 of the nature of thefe proceedings in the 
 purfuers memorial ; much lefs did I expect 
 to hear it compared to forgery and the deep- 
 est cf crimes. The extravagance of this idea 
 
 is
 
 THE SPEECH O F, &c 235 
 
 is a fuflicient refutation of it. It always ap- 
 peared to me a regular and competent pro- 
 cefs. 
 
 Neither did it occur to me that the con- 
 duel of the caufe could be blended with the 
 merits of it. The conduct of a caufe may- 
 be wrong, and the caufe itfelf may be right. 
 Agents may have acted improperly: Let them 
 account for their conduct ; but I do not fee 
 how their conduct can affect the parties. 
 This court will never forfeit a party of his 
 right on account of the niifconduct of his a- 
 gent. But, in the management of this caufe, I 
 fee nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the 
 agents on either fide : On the contrary, the 
 conduct of the agent on the part of the pur- 
 fuers appears to me to have been ib fair, fo 
 candid, I had almofl laid fo impartial, that it 
 does honour to himfelf and to his profefiion. 
 But thefe matters I only touch upon, they 
 being foreign to the prefent qucilion. 
 
 Both parties feem to have pleaded the 
 points of law in this caufe too high ; which, 
 from their anxiety, is very natural, and what 
 indeed very frequently happens. The pur- 
 fuers argue, that a fervicc is of no avail when 
 a reduction of it is brought : The defender, 
 on the other hand, maintains, that it is a 
 
 ] 1 irrier
 
 236 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 barrier aimoft nnfnrmountable, pro veritate 
 habetur, and that it requires the ftrongeft, di- 
 rect, and pofitive evidence to reduce it. I 
 fubferibe to neither of thefe opinions. Ser- 
 vices are generally founded on circumftantial 
 and prefumptive evidence : As oppplition is 
 feldoni made to them, they are often carried 
 on in a flovenly manner, and generally are 
 expedited without much inquiry or attention ; 
 for thefe reafons they are, as Lord Stair e^ 
 preffes it, eafily reduced. 
 
 In order to reduce a fervice, it is only ne- 
 ceflary to bring ftronger evidence than that 
 adduced in the fervice : But a fervice is ftill 
 of fome avail ; for it throws the onus probandi 
 upon the purfuer of the reduction ; and it 
 remains unfhaken until he has brought fuch 
 ftronger evidence in oppofition to it. Thjs 
 evidence mull not preponderate a little over 
 the evidence brought in the fervice, but it mult 
 do it conftderably ; it mufl carry conviction 
 along with it, that the fervice was erroneous, 
 either from want of evidence, or as proceed- 
 ing upon falfe evidence. 
 
 When the purfuer of the reduction has 
 thus brought ftronger evidence in oppofition 
 to the fervice, the onus probandi is transferred 
 to the other fide. Jt is then incumbent on 
 
 the
 
 LORD STONEFIELD. 237 
 
 the defender to bring further evidence in fup- 
 port of his fervice; and this the defender has 
 in fact admitted in this cafe; for he has 
 brought additional evidence, and much 
 ftronger evidence than any adduced in the 
 fervice. He has produced a train of private 
 correfpondence betwixt Lady Jane and Sir 
 John, which have great weight in this caufe. 
 
 The in it point to be confidered is the proof 
 of Lady Jane's pregnancy. The appearan- 
 ces of pregnancy arc very ftrongly proved 
 by a number of perfons of character; but 
 the contradictory evidence that is brought 
 renders this circumftance fomewhat doubtful. 
 
 Lady Jane is reprefented by fome of the 
 witnefles fo big, fo unwieldy, at Aix-la-Chap- 
 pclle, at Liege, at Rheims, and other places, 
 that it could not efcape the notice of any 
 perfon who had eyes : Yet, by the evidence 
 of other witnefles equally credible, it appears 
 not to have been obferved at all by fome, and 
 to have been but flightly remarked by others; 
 particularly, in the laft flages of the allcdged 
 pregnancy, when it ought to have been moft 
 obferved, had it been real : Thus at Rheims, 
 and at Paris, and on the road, there is fearce 
 any evidence of its having been obfer- 
 ywd. 
 
 Some
 
 238 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Some circumftances in the conduct of La- 
 dy Jane about this period, render her preg- 
 nancy much fufpected. We find her, when 
 it is faid flie was four months gone with 
 child, denying her marriage to her friend and 
 acquaintance, Lady Katharine Wcmyfs ; yet, 
 about the fame time, expoling her preg- 
 nancy to nuns and ftrangers. We find her 
 leaving Aix-la-Chapelle, when near her fup- 
 pofed time of delivery, without any caufe ; 
 when, on the contrary, me had great reafon 
 to have remained in that part of the coun- 
 try, till after her delivery, as then me was on 
 the eve of procuring an oiler of the Count 
 Salm's country-houfe to ly in at, which me 
 had folicited, and which was a fituation to be 
 wiflied for by her for her delivery, in her 
 then circumftances. There {he might have 
 been delivered in quietnefs and fafcty, by able 
 afiiftance from Aix-la-Chapelle or Liege, at 
 no expence for lodging, and at a fmall one 
 in other refpccls. Thus fhe might have avoid- 
 ed the great expence, the trouble and danger 
 to her, if pregnant, of a long and tedious 
 journey. Vve find her concealing her inten- 
 tion of going to Paris, although her fuppoied 
 errand thither was the pride of her heart. 
 Wc fmd her travelling a long journey in ve- 
 ry
 
 LORD STONEFIELD, 23J 
 
 ry uneafy machines, at late and early hours, 
 and even on one occafion fitting up all night, 
 when ill? fcarcely had any time to reckon. 
 V/el- herjourneying, notwithstanding of her 
 al'edged illncfs at Sedan or Rhetelle, at fuch 
 r*te, that Mrs Hewit was afraid flie 
 would have been delivered. We find her 
 leaving: her maid fervants behind at Rheims 
 on a falfe pretence of want of money, at a 
 time when their attendance on Lady Jane 
 would have been moft ufeful and neccflary, 
 if there had been a real pregnancy. It is 
 pretended, that fhe went to Paris in queft of 
 able amiiance to her in-lying ; yet fhe leaves 
 Liege and other places where good afiiftancc 
 was to be had. Lor this purpofe, fhe made a 
 very long journey; but it is not pretended, 
 that any perfon of character was employed 
 as an accoucheur. It is averred, that a low, 
 unknown accoucheur was employed, and 
 who was picked up very accidentally. Thefe 
 inconiiitencies ot conduct, and contradictions 
 in the evidence, rather denote a feigned than 
 a real pregnane}". Lut the evidence of preg- 
 nancy amounts only to a proof of the ap- 
 pearances of pregnancy. Such appearances 
 are often fallacious, equivocal, and never 
 o rlain, particularly in a perfon of Lady 
 
 Jane's
 
 240 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Jane's age. Women have been frequently 
 deceived about their own pregnancy; much 
 more eafily then may others be deceived bv 
 fuch appearances. This evidence, therefore, 
 of a pregnancy is not conclufive. Appear- 
 ances arc never depended upon, in order to 
 prove a real pregnancy ; for that purpofe, a 
 further, and very particular inveftigation 
 is always infifted upon, when there is any 
 doubt of a pregnancy, and when fuch in- 
 vert isration can be made. 
 
 o 
 
 On the other hand, the evidence brought 
 on the part of the purfuers again ft Lady 
 Jane's pregnancy, is only negative, and there- 
 fore not conclufive ; but indeed, fuch muft 
 neceflarily be the nature of this evidence. It 
 is almoft impofiible to prove, that a woman 
 was not pregnant at any paft period, when 
 fhc aflerts that fhe was then with child. The 
 queftion, therefore, whether Lady Jane was 
 really pregnant or not, muft depend upon 
 the next capital point in the caufe, viz. the 
 proof of her delivery. 
 
 The accounts given of the circumftances 
 attending the delivery by Sir John and Mrs 
 Hewit, the only witneffes to it, are full of 
 inconfiftencies and contradictions ; and there- 
 fore not to be credited ; And the other evi- 
 dence
 
 LORD STONE FIELD. 241 
 
 dence on this point tends to difprove it. 
 There is no evidence, except in their own fa- 
 mily, that they gave out at llheims that La- 
 dy June went to Paris in order to be deliver- 
 ed. On the contrary, when Sir John applied 
 to Monfieur Maillefer for a recommendation 
 to an Hotel at Paris, the pretence aiTumed 
 was, to wake purrhajfes, not that Lady Jane 
 had occasion for an accoucheur. Even her 
 pregnancy was not known to Monfieur Maille- 
 fer. At Godefroy's, to whom they were re- 
 commended as perfons intending to make fame 
 furchaffes, her prennancy was not obferved ; 
 and it does not appear, that at Qodefroy's 
 they mentioned this purpofe of their coming 
 to Paris, her being to lie in. As they had no ac- 
 quaintance at Paris, or, which amounts to 
 the lame thing, as they did not defire to fee 
 any of their acquaintance there, it is almoft 
 incredible that they mould not have men- 
 tioned this purpofe to fome of the people of 
 the Hotel. In fuch a fituation, they certainly 
 would have applied to fome of Godefroy's peo- 
 ple for aid in finding out proper lodgings for 
 Lady Jane to lie in at, and an able accoucheur. 
 But their leaving Godefroy's without making 
 any fuch inquiries, and without anyot thd peo- 
 ple of the houfc obferving Lady jane's pregnan- 
 H h cv.
 
 242 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 cy, is a circumftance ftrange and unaccount- 
 able, on the fuppofition of a real pregnancy. 
 We have no evidence of what palled from 
 the time of their leaving Godefroy's, till they 
 make their appearance again a few days after at 
 Michell's, except the account given by Sir John 
 and Mrs Hewit ; and it cannot be difcovered 
 where they were, or what was tranfacted in 
 this period. No Madame le Brun has been 
 found out, nor any of the witnefles who are 
 faid to have been prefent at the delivery, 
 notwithstanding that the utmoft fearch has 
 been made for them ; and notwithstanding 
 the accuracy of the books of police, by which 
 probably they would have been found out, 
 had any fuch perfons exifted. The account 
 given by Sir John and Mrs Hewit, of the 
 tranfactions of this period, are contradictory 
 and unaccountable. Lady jane never men- 
 tioned the place of the birth, or the name of 
 the accoucheur. Sir John did not mention 
 them till prclled to it by Mrs Napier, then 
 he named Michell's as the place of the birth, 
 and Mrs Hewit fcems to have concurred with 
 him in mentioning Michell's to have been the 
 place of the birth : Afterwards, they both con- 
 cur in fixing the delivery to Le Brun's. The 
 reafons for this variation in their accounts are 
 obvious on the fuppofition of an impofture ; 
 
 Mrs
 
 LORD ST ONE FIELD. 243 
 
 Mrs Hevvit wrote to the maids from Paris, 
 that there was no keeping Lady Jane in bed 
 after the ninth day from the time of delive- 
 ry. In the fervice, the depofed, that they left 
 Le Brim's on the tenth day ; and a few 
 months after, upon full and mature recollec- 
 tion, me corrected that part of her oath in a 
 letter to Mr Harper the clergyman, and de- 
 clared, that they left Lc Brim's on the fixth 
 day after the delivery : That a woman of a- 
 ny condition fhouid go abroad the fixth day, 
 or even the tenth day, after her delivery, is 
 very improbable ; but that a perfon of Lady 
 jane's high rank, and of fo delicate a frame, 
 ihould move from her lodgings fo foon, is 
 ftill more extraordinary. 
 
 It cannot be credited, when they were at 
 10 much expence, and fo much trouble to 
 have Lady Jane properly taken care of at her 
 in-lying, that fhe would have put up with 
 fuch an Hotel as Le Brun's is reprefented,to 
 have been ; a depot fit only for the accom- 
 modation of maid-fervants, and the loweil of 
 the people. 
 
 It is in proof, that at Michcll's they ap- 
 peared without any child, and next morning 
 they all three went out in a coach. Lady 
 Jane, who is faid have been brought to bed 
 
 only
 
 -44 THE S P E E C H O F 
 
 only fix days before, as well as Sir John and 
 Mrs Hewit, giving out that they were going 
 to St Germains, to bring home a child they 
 had there at nurfe : That they returned next 
 day, bringing a child along with them, in cir- 
 cumftances in no refpect correfponding to the 
 child of fo affectionate a mother as Lady jane 
 is reprefented to have been. The child ap- 
 pears to have been quite ilarved for want of 
 food, and attended by a nurfe picked up in 
 the ftreets of Paris, who had no milk, and 
 who was branded for a thief. They had no 
 occalion to pick up a nurfe in a hurry, as it 
 is faid that Lady Jane went to her full time ; 
 and that there was no difficulty in procuring 
 a good nurfe at Paris, is evident ; for, in half 
 an hour MichelPs people procured a very 
 good one, Madame Favre. Thefe circum- 
 flances, with the contradictions and t incon- 
 fiftencies I have mentioned, anounce a feign- 
 ed delivery, not a real one ; a child procured 
 by ftealth, not the child of Lady Jane j and 
 a nurfe picked up in the hurry of an enleve- 
 ment, not one diligently and cautioufly cho* 
 fen to fuckle the heir of Douglas. 
 
 Their conduct towards the children tend 
 to confirm this conjecture. A day or two af- 
 ter Madame Favre was procured, flic was al- 
 lowed
 
 L O 11 D STONEFIEL D. 245 
 
 lowed to cany the child to her own houfe, 
 where he remained for eight and forty hours, 
 without Sir John, I.ady June, or Mrs Hewit's 
 jroin^r to fee him, or even knowing where he 
 
 DO ° 
 
 was. This is extremely improbable on the fup- 
 pofition, that this child was really Lady Jane's. 
 The other child, it is alledged, was com- 
 mitted to the care of a La Marr, and remain- 
 ed in the neighbourhood of Paris for eigh- 
 teen months at nurfe, with a woman they 
 had not feen ; during which time, neither 
 Lady jane, Sir John, nor Mrs Ilewit went to 
 fee him, although they continued at Paris, 
 and in the neighbourhood of it, for more 
 than a month after the pretended delivery, 
 and an hour's drive was fufficicnt for that pur- 
 pofe ; nor does it appear, that they knew 
 where he was ; neither did any of their ac- 
 quaintance, of whom they had many at Pa- 
 ris, go to fee the child during all that time; 
 none of them had a direction, by which they 
 could find him out; not even the Chevalier 
 Jol -.{Ion,. Mrs Hewit's coufm, and who was 
 ar intimate acquaintance of l.ady Jane and 
 iS.r John. iluie ciraimuances lead one to 
 U.'i-,ve that thrre was no child of theirs at 
 "■■- :u thw iidghLCLil.ccd of Paris. 
 
 The
 
 24$ THE SPEECHOF 
 
 The account given by Sir John of Li 
 Marr, is full of falfehoods, improbabilities, 
 and contradictions. Sir John's La Marr ap- 
 pears to be quite a different perfon from 
 Louis Pier Uelamarre, whom the defender 
 now endeavours to fubftitute in place of 
 Pier la Marr, The one is reprefented as an 
 old man, the other is proved to have been a 
 young man in the 1748. The one is repre- 
 fented as a ftranger at Paris j the other is 
 proved to have been a refidenter there. The 
 one is a Walloon j the other a Frenchman. 
 Then it is proved, he was befpoke for the de- 
 livery, before their coming to Paris, and that 
 he was not befpoke j that they had his ad- 
 drefs, and that they had it not. How is it 
 poflible to find out truth, or to have any de- 
 pendence on fuch contradictory evidence ? 
 
 Neither does Menager's evidence feem 
 to aid the defender. He has probably taken 
 the name of La Marr from the proceedings 
 in this procefs, and applied to it the account 
 he gives of Louis Pierre Delamarre : He has 
 adapted the circumftances of an in-lying in 
 the 1747 to this pretended one in the 1748. 
 He has likewife borrowed the name of Le 
 Brun from this procefs. He fays he was ac- 
 quainted with her, but can give no account 
 
 of
 
 LORD STONEFIELD. 247 
 
 of her. The fame obfervations may be made 
 on the evidence of Madame Gamier. She 
 too has borrowed the name of Pierre la Marr 
 from this procefs, and applied it to Louis 
 Pierre Delamarre. She has adopted the ftory 
 of the nurfingr of Sholto to the circumftances 
 of her nurfinsr fome other child. The time 
 of the year in which the child was brought 
 to her, and the age of the child, don't cor- 
 refpond with the account given of Sholto: 
 And though flic lays, fhe law La Marr once 
 every month while the child remained with 
 her ; yet fhe cannot defcribe his perfon. 
 
 Their concealment at Paris, even from the 
 moft intimate of their acquaintance, particu- 
 larly from Chevalier Johnfton, is a very fuf- 
 picious circumftance. Their dating their let- 
 ters from Kheims, while they remained at 
 Paris, is another ftrange circumftance. Their 
 writing fix letters on the 10th of July, with- 
 out making mention of the delivery, or that 
 Lady Jane had been ill the preceeding night, 
 arc not properly accounted for on the fup- 
 polition of a real delivery. Their poltno- 
 ning to notify the birth for twelve days after 
 it is faid to have happened, to any of their 
 friends or relations, is a circumftance not 
 cafily accounted for on the defender's i'v.p- 
 
 pofiuon.
 
 248 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 pofition of real birth. It is believed, this 
 never happened to any lady of rank greatly 
 inferior to that of Lady Jane. 
 
 Their having too many fervants every 
 where elfc, and none at all at Paris; their 
 being very lavifli at Uheims on occafion of 
 the baptifm, and very ceconomical on both 
 their journies to Paris, are circumfiance* 
 which tend to the fame conclufion. 
 
 Although Godefroy's books, iiipported 
 by the evidence of himfelf, his wife, and Ma- 
 dame Guy, would not alone be conclusive e- 
 vidence in this caufe; yet, when joined to the 
 reft of the proof, they do, in my opinion, 
 carry conviction along with them, that Sir 
 John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit were at 
 Godefroy's Hotel from the fourth to the 
 fourteenth of July 1 748. 
 
 Both enlevements feem to me to be fully 
 proved. But the defcriptions given of Sir 
 John and the ladies, are too vague and un- 
 certain to bring them home to them ; how- 
 ever, they are of fome weight, as they ap- 
 pear to be the only enlevements that have 
 been perpetrated at Paris for many years 
 back, and to have happened in the years, the 
 months of thofe years, and at the time when 
 Sir Jane, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit were in 
 
 Paris.
 
 LORD STONEFIELD. 249 
 
 Paris. Then the ages of the children cor- 
 refpond to that of Lady Jane's alledged chil- 
 dren. This coincidence of circumftances is 
 very furprifing. The faint refemblance that 
 appears betwixt the fwaddling cloaths ofMi- 
 gnon's child and the defender, is likewife of 
 ibme weierht. 
 
 The after conduct of Sir John and Lady 
 Jane tend greatly to iupport the luppofition 
 of a fraud in this cafe. In a few weeks after 
 the alledged birth of the children, they were 
 acquainted of the iuipicions that were railed 
 of thefe children being fuppofititious, and 
 they fecm to have been fenfible of the pro- 
 priety of removing thefe fufpicions, though 
 they took no fteps in order to do it, except 
 fiicli as rather tended to confirm thofe fufpi- 
 cions. By return of poll, they might have 
 had authentic certificates of the birth of the 
 children from La Marr and the people who 
 were prefent at the deliver) : But this tiiey 
 did not attempt. In place of which, Lady 
 Jane applied to Pdadame 'lewis at Aix-la- 
 Chappdlc, in order to procure proofs of 
 ll'.e ippearanccs of pregnancy, the moil fal- 
 lible evit:ence they could have brought ; ;.nd 
 the m ■: : lo, tint it is in evidence, that La- 
 dy fane was not fuppofed to have been a- 
 
 I i bov •
 
 25o T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 bove two months gone with child, when flie* 
 changed her lodgings from Mrs Tewis's 
 houie. Had there been a real pregnancy, 
 fh'onger evidence might have been expected 
 from the houfes in which Lady Jane had lod- 
 ged in after periods, of her alledged pregnan- 
 cy, at Aix-la-Chappelle, Liege, Rheims, and 
 Paris. Her neglecting to apply where better 
 evidence might be had, prefumes a diffidence 
 oi the fuccefs of any fuch application. Their 
 neglecting to procure authentic documents 
 of the delivery at Paris, prefumes much more 
 flron^ly, that fuch documents could not be 
 obtained : Their being fenfible of this defect, 
 and their endeavouring to fupply it by for- 
 gincr lexers and certificate.^ of the delivery 
 from La Marr, is convincing evidence, that 
 a real certificate could not be procured. 
 Forgery and falfehood is never uled to fup- 
 port truth : It can fUnd on its own legs with- 
 out any fuch aid. 
 
 The whole evidence connected together, 
 joined to the failure of proof on the part of 
 the defender, brings conviction to me, tiiat 
 there was no pregnancy in this cafe, no de- 
 livery, no Le Brun, no La Marr, and no child 
 of Lady Jane's at the Hauteborne. 
 
 The
 
 L O R D S T ONEFIE L D. 25 1 
 
 The ftrongeft circumflances in favour of 
 the defender, are the letters from Lady jane 
 to Sir John. They indeed contain convincing 
 teftimonies of the mo ft fmcere affection on 
 the part of Lady Jane to the children; but 
 they do not amount to a proof of the de- 
 fender and his fuppofed brother's being her 
 children. It lias been often obferved in the 
 cafes of adoption and of nurfes, that women 
 acquire, from the acquaintance and endear- 
 ments of children, an affection for thofe of 
 other women, equal to maternal affection. 
 Lady Jane had adopted thefe children. It: 
 was natural for her to conceive a great affec- 
 tion for them ; and flic was bound by e very- 
 tie of honour, of fafcty to herielf, and hu- 
 manity to the children, to fupport the cha- 
 racter file had aflumcd. 
 
 A paiiage was, the other day, read from 
 the lnftitutions of Lord Stair, in which it 
 is laid down as law, that the declaration of 
 a father, averting that a child is not his, whom 
 he has treated as fuch for foine years, is not 
 credited ; although it is contrary to humani- 
 ty to fuppofe, that a parent could be led to 
 make fuch an allertion, it the child was real- 
 ly his. If the law gives no weight to the de- 
 claration of a parent in fuch a cafe, what 
 
 weight
 
 252 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 weight ought we to give, in oppofition to the 
 ilrong proofs already mentioned, to the de- 
 clarations of the parents, in the prefent cafe, 
 in favour of the defender, when they were 
 bound by every tie of honour, of fafety to 
 themfelvcs, and humanity to him, to make 
 fuch declarations, even although he was not 
 their fon ? 
 
 After having faid fo much, it is unnc- 
 ceffary for me to idd, that I am of opinion 
 for fuftaining the reafons of reduction. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ -53 3 
 
 LORD P I T F O U R. 
 
 ' 2 'HE caufe now under your Lordfhips 
 -*• deliberation is of grc.it importance, 
 
 not only with refpect to the extent of the 
 fubjeel in qucftion, but alio in point of pre- 
 cedent. It affects one of the moft valuable 
 privileges of mankind, birthright, the foun- 
 dation of every other privilege, of all the 
 comfort that can be had in family, friends, 
 relations, or fociety ; of the poffefllon of e- 
 itates, honours, offices of dignity and truft j 
 and, indeed, of every ether happinefs that 
 can be enjoyed in this life. It is not to be 
 expected, that the law would neglect to guard 
 this valuable privilege, fo as it miirht not be 
 liable, on every occafion, to be rendered un- 
 certain and the poilefior unfecure. The act 
 of delivery is often tranfient, and over in a 
 moment. Witneflcs are f'eldom called, and 
 fomctimes cannot be had. For the moft 
 part, there are but few; fo their evidence 
 inuit be in hazard ox cvanifhing in a very little 
 time. 
 
 Tins
 
 254 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 This evidence therefore could not be re* 
 quired by the law, to f ecu re the fubjecr. in 
 the moil valuable of their privileges, on which 
 all others depend. The law has provided 
 another fecurity ; the pojfejjio flatus is what 
 every one has reafon to rely upon, and to reft 
 iecure, that the law will protect him in it, 
 and will not allow him to be turned out of 
 it, unlefs the clcareft evidence is brought, 
 that originally it was founded on falfehood 
 and impofturc. 
 
 It has been made a fubjecr. of difpute, 
 upon what this pojjejj'io flatus is founded ? For 
 my part, I can ice no other foundation for 
 it, but the acknowledgement of parents, fup- 
 ported by the fama confentiens, or habit and 
 repute of the place of the birth, where- ever 
 it happens. If a child is born in a foreign 
 country, and conftantly acknowledged by 
 the parents as their child, and this not con- 
 tradicted, but uniformly admitted by every 
 one in the country where he was born, this 
 muft, in the nature of the thing, be fuiTicient 
 to eftabiifh the prefumption of filiation. It 
 is certain, that, of all crimes, the fuppofit'w 
 partus is the moft difficult to be perpetrated, 
 and the moft eafy to be difcovcred j where- 
 ever it is attempted, it cannot fail that fomc 
 
 circunv
 
 LORD PITFOUll. 255 
 
 circumftanceS will occur to create a fufpicion 
 in the country where it happens ; and where 
 no veftige of fufpicion occurs, the child muft: 
 be held to be in pofieflion of the flatus in 
 which he has been placed by his parents. 
 
 'f 'he pojjlffio flatus is by itfelf fufficient to 
 relieve the pofleiTor from bringing any 
 evidence that may have perifhed by length 
 of time, 'lhe evidence of fo tranfient an act 
 is, from the nature of things, liable to decay 
 as time advances, by the death of witneffes, 
 failure of memories, and other accidents : 
 But as it decays, the prefumption of law, 
 founded on the length of pofieflion unchal- 
 lenged, does gradually increafe to fupply its 
 place, and to protect the poileflor from fuf- 
 fcring by fuch unavoidable misfortunes. Did 
 not the Lw fiand i'o, no man could be fe- 
 ci!-: again ft challenges brought to drip him 
 of every thing that is valuable in life, 
 at a time when, from the courfe of nature, 
 the pcfitive evidence of the fact muft be 
 frone. 
 
 O 
 
 To apply this to the prefent cafe, great 
 pains have been taken to inquire at every cue 
 v. ho was in France at the time of this birth, 
 and to learn the general IJijr which was 
 had in that country, no lef; than twentv 
 
 VitncliCi
 
 «$6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 witncflcs have been examined, who all de- 
 clare that they never heard it doubted in 
 that country. Nor have the purfucrs, in all 
 
 their laborious refearches, been able to difco- 
 ver any one witnefs who could aver the 
 contrary. 
 
 Notice has been taken of rumours raifed 
 in this country to the prejudice of the de- 
 fender and his brother, very early after 
 their birth ; and indeed, if thefe rumours 
 had been founded on any information from 
 France, they might merit attention. But 
 that is not allcdged; they are founded on pre- 
 tences, which now clearly appear to have been 
 falfe and groundlefs ; as particularly, a forged 
 letter put into the hands of the Duke of 
 Douglas, as having been wrote by one Count 
 Douglas in France, ailed Gjinsj the children to 
 be fuppofititious ; and a difcovery faid to have 
 been made by the Countefs of Stair to the 
 fame purpofe. But thtfe have been both 
 reruted, and are now given up as falfe. The 
 letter was difcovcred by Count Douglas, the 
 fippofed author; and Lady Stair did, in the 
 mod folcmn manner, deny the afperiions im- 
 puted to Ivt, with great indignation againft 
 thoi'e who had railed them. 
 
 Another
 
 L O H D P I T F O U U. 
 
 o / 
 
 A v 
 
 
 ; nroundlefs imprcfli m ftirred up 
 
 ! ■• i '■••; • means was founded on the age 
 of Lad\ fane Douglas, as if (lie could not be 
 c m"'!; of children, after {lie had entered in- 
 t,, :. ■■: Ihficth year. But this has now, it is 
 l,di ee I, IV) wei hi wiih any body. It is u- 
 ucrfdb , that as lon^* as the curfus ;n-jn- 
 
 : continues, every woman is capable of 
 h.'X'ii"! ; children. It is not the precue year 
 of the ;ie;e, but the habit of the body, that 
 determines that capacity. Two or three 
 years, whether before or after fifty, makes 
 no cbflerence, if the c:irf:;s continue; and it 
 ... ; proved, th.it they continued with 
 Lady Jane in a ree^uLr maimer, not only 
 do v. ill . ins y v. !. sell pre : led this 
 
 bii I'h, 1 . ::rs e lct it, and 
 
 that iii. ei.ibl, and mif- 
 
 carried, d.n ., :ims, a I er 
 
 the defender' 
 
 It is evident av. t i t full rum mr;, 
 
 ; and i lie iu- 
 
 Ibunded on. fan 
 
 formations la ■ • 
 
 ;e;ive the Duk*. i 
 
 • m !f- !<u :r, can . 
 
 .:!!(! r pule, v. hici: v. .:, 
 
 ti y wiie: e the c; . 
 
 1 nmour* would 
 
 i i m ■ 
 
 ', to 
 
 .■•,.»! id • tip; fhon 
 
 ••.■■■) n : ■ : abit 
 
 l :Ufl- 
 
 .•/ ^ [\.\y ', v, h; ii .\ 

 
 25 8 THE SPEEC II O F 
 
 powerful family has a view to the fucceffion, tc? 
 which the child, by his birth, has a preferable 
 title. Such rumours never gained any credit, 
 except with the Duke, who was fome time de- 
 ceived by thofe who had ncareft accefs to him. 
 They were clefpifed by every one who had 
 no intereft to promote them ; and according- 
 ly, after the Duke had been moved by falfe 
 fusnreftions to withdraw his filler's annuity, 
 his Majefty was gracioufly pleafed to inter- 
 pofe, as the common father of his people, 
 and to bellow upon her that relief for the 
 fupport of herfelf and children, which her 
 brother had been milled to deny her. . Will 
 it be laid, that the children, to whom his Ma- 
 jefty mowed fuch paternal goodnefs in pro- 
 viding for their education, as defcemfed of 
 a noble family, were habit and repute in the 
 country as importers, and held to have no 
 connection with that family, whofe merit 
 recommended them to his royal protection ? 
 
 And furely, it cannot be competent to the 
 purfuers to controvert this ■pojfffia flatus in 
 the defender, after they have neglected for 
 fo loner a time to brincr any action to inter- 
 rupt it. Had they believed there was any 
 truth in fuch rumours, it was certainly com- 
 petent to them to have brought evidence 
 
 thereof
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 259 
 
 thereof as icon as they got information; 
 ana that even without the late Duke's con- 
 currence. But no fuch thing was attempted, 
 as they appeared to deierve no credit. The 
 defender was left in quiet pofTeffion of his 
 flatus for a long track of years, until at lait 
 they thought lit to raiie the procefs now de- 
 pending. 
 
 The defender, during all this time, had 
 no remedy hut to continue in the pollefllon 
 of his birthright, which remained for fo 
 many years unchallenged; he could brinq* 
 no action to declare his birth, ouch action 
 is not known in law; nor was ever railed in 
 any cafe, fo far as lean difcover. It does not 
 appear, what parties could be called in fuch 
 action, fo as to make tiic decree an ef- 
 fectual res judicata, lie has no remedy but 
 to remain in polFeflion of theflatus in which 
 lie was born, until a challenge is brought. 
 
 Thk purfuers have brought their challenge 
 
 it inch a diftance of time, as it mult be pre- 
 
 fumed, that the half of mankind are gone 
 
 vlio were alive at tf.e time of his birth, and 
 
 ; > whom the ck* umftrmccs could be known. 
 
 The defender, at this diftaat period, is called 
 
 upon to prove, and to explain every cireum- 
 
 cc relating to his birth, and to the wlioic 
 
 conduct
 
 i6; t ii i: s v i* e c ii o v 
 
 conduct of }iis parents, ;nul their friends and 
 attendants, boJi antecedent and fublemaciit 
 thereto; a; I the ilrefs of the purfners ar- 
 gument fcems to be laid on this, that he has 
 not fully explained eve: y one ol thofe cir- 
 cumhanccs, and that they have hcen able by 
 ilrcngth of imagination, and force of ingc- 
 jiuitv, exerted to a higher degree than was» 
 ever before known in any cafe, to figure cir- 
 cumftances to create fome i'ufpicion as to the 
 conduct of his parents, which he has not 
 brought evidence to remove. If this man- 
 ner of arguing is allowed, it is not cafy to 
 lay who (hall be fecure againft a challenge 
 brought at a diftant time. It fuppofes the 
 law to arm itfclf againit the birthright 
 of the fubjecf., and to render the rights 
 that ought to be held moft facred, the 
 moil precarious and uncertain. This may 
 affect, not only the prefent generation, but 
 alfo poftcrity yet unborn, who will regrete 
 the conduct of the judges that have firft re- 
 ived the barriers, by which their moft va- 
 Imiblc privik;;;es were iecured. It is in vain, 
 Li.it. i 1 .) miiwh care is taken :z\ fecuring the li- 
 bert\ and property of the fubject, if that 
 which is the foundation of every other right 
 
 they
 
 L O 11 D P I T F O U R. 261 
 
 they can enjoy, is to be thrown altogether 
 loofe and uncertain. 
 
 It has been laid, tlrat the purfucrs argu- 
 ment will not affect man} of the prcient ge- 
 :. ition : thev are crenerallv born in this 
 counti"', and their birth is ib well eirablifhed 
 by the aclviiowleugcme; t of all tlicir rela- 
 tions and connections, that they can be in 
 little hazard from fueh inquiries. 
 
 But as it is not eafy lo loreiee what hazard 
 may ariic, even to thoi'e who think them- 
 felves fecure, if full icooe is criven to imajn- 
 nation, and cor.j :clures and fufpicions are to 
 be fubftituted in place of evidence; fo it is 
 to be hoped, wc will never confine our con- 
 cern to omielves only and the contempora- 
 ries whom ..'.' know. How many Britifh 
 fubjecls .11 e r.ow in fueh a iitnation, that their 
 children mim be born in diftant counti 
 very remote from great ilritain : His M. ; jc- 
 ftv's dominions are now happily extended o- 
 ver a lai :;■ part of the globe: Many tliou- 
 fands of Brituh iambics .ire i< Lti d in the co- 
 lonies in Am rice, Alia, a;, 1 Aiiica, ;md ma- 
 ny } < >nr.g< r ions of g< 1 iiies are 1 
 reibrti:\g thither in pm in it oi tiieii :<;:.:::... 
 The) m, rry and iettle there, a id roliow out 
 {heir Lini'l-rvinents with ihut cec »nomy, 
 
 mo
 
 z6i T II E SPEECH OF 
 
 moving from place to place as their circum- 
 flances and occupations may require. Thefc in- 
 habitants in the colonies are dailv increafine - in 
 numbers, and may, incourfe of time, be nearly 
 equal to thofc in the mother-country. They 
 are no more careful than others to call wit- 
 ncfles to the birth of their children ; nor, if 
 they did, could they be able to preferve them 
 in life for any track of time. Their children 
 depend upon the general fecurity which the 
 law has given to all mankind, that they are 
 intitled to poffefs the ftate in which they 
 are placed by their parents, and acknowled- 
 ged by the voice of the country where they 
 were born. 
 
 If the birth of mch a child mould be chal- 
 lenged after he comes to man's age, upon the 
 the devolution, perhaps, of an opulent fuc- 
 ccfiion, would he be obliged to anfwer fuch 
 queftions as have been put to this defender, 
 with refpect to the houfe where he was born, 
 ihe perfons prefent, the vifits that were paid 
 to his mother, every ftep me moved during 
 her pregnancy, and after the delivery ? Or, 
 would he be obliged to account for every part 
 of her conduct, why flic (laid fo long in one 
 or in another place ; why flic told a thing 
 :o one perion and not to another, &c. or, 
 
 would
 
 LORD PITFOUR. z6« 
 
 would his failure in giving evidence of any 
 of thofe circumftances which happened be- 
 fore he was born, be urged as an objec- 
 tion againft the birth ? Or, would any llrefs 
 be laid upon rumours which had been raifed 
 in Britain, polllbly by the friends and de- 
 pendents of a family who was next in fuc- 
 ccflion to the cftate, and anxioufly wifhed to 
 have him removed from the competition, 
 even if the origin of thefe rumours could 
 not be traced : far lefs when they are traced, 
 and appear to be founded on falfe allegations 
 and falfe fuppofltions, void of any founda- 
 tion in rcafon or in truth ? 
 
 If fuch proceedings were to be allowed, 
 the half of the fubjects might foon be render- 
 ed infecure of their birthright. But. as they 
 have never been allowed in the laws of any- 
 other country, it is hoped they (hall not be 
 introduced with us; but the legal fecurity of 
 the moft valuable privileges ili.dl be tranimit- 
 ted to future generations, as compleat as it 
 has been enjoyed in iornicr times. 
 
 In the argument upon the proof in this 
 cafe, the natural order feems to me to have 
 been inverted. Without attending to the 
 unqucftionable evidence of the pregnancy, 
 care has been taken, in the firft place, to m li- 
 ft ei
 
 264 T II E S P E E C II OF 
 
 ft it up every diliiculty which imagination 
 could fugged as to the circumitances attend- 
 ing tlie delivery ; or which, by the death of 
 witneiles, it is impofilblc, at this diftance of 
 time, that one half can be proved: And then 
 the pregnancy has been (lightly palled over as 
 a point immaterial and infuflicicnt to over- 
 balance the fufpkions moved to the delivery. 
 But in order to a fair invefcigation of the cafe, 
 I apprehend we ought to take the fact as it 
 Hands; and firft inquire whether there is a 
 full and convincing proof of the prepaiancv, 
 and then confider the evidence of the deli- 
 very, which is naturally connected with it. 
 
 As to the pregnancy, I muft bid adieu to 
 all judgment of evidence, if there is not an 
 irrefragable proof brought of it in this cafe. 
 It is not by one or two witneiles only, which 
 might have been fuillcient po<l tantum femporis, 
 bur a connected proof by no lefs than nine- 
 teen fevcral witneiles who depofe to the ma- 
 ny evidences of pregnancy they obferved 
 during Lady Jane's abode at Aix-la Chap- 
 peile, at Leige, at Uhcims, and the feve- 
 lal places through which fhe palled during* 
 that period. They are perfbns of credit, and 
 intirely diiinterelted in this caufe. They 
 could not, if they had inclined, have con- 
 
 confpircd
 
 LORD PIT FOUR. 265 
 
 confpired to invent the different gradual ap- 
 pearances which they relate in the feveral 
 places and periods of the pregnancy, fo as to 
 he confiftent with one another; and therefore 
 it is impoflible to avoid giving credit to what 
 they depofe. 
 
 And as to the poflibility of the witnefles 
 being deceived by appearances, ^/Vy?, I thin k 
 it is hardly poflible, that lb many different 
 witnefles could have all concurred in a de- 
 ception, as no the various appearance of the 
 pregnancy throughout the different ft.iges of 
 it. Next, There is one appearance in which 
 there could be no deception, viz. the mo- 
 : of the child felt in the belly, which has 
 been depofed to by Mrs Giai's, and is proved 
 to have been alio attefted by Madame Tewis 
 a': Aix-la-Chappellc, and by Efly Caw, one of 
 Ladv fane's chamber-maids. As tiieie two 
 latt witnefles died before the commencement 
 of this action, I have no doubt, that the evi- 
 dence that is given of whit they declared 
 while in life will be held as good evidence : 
 it i: ; the bell that can be had, and it is owing to 
 the purfuers that there can be no better. A -l 
 a, 10 Mrs Cilafs, to me, flic appears to have 
 civen the ftron^eit evidence of diltinctnels 
 and intc'-ritv that ever I oblerved in Liny wit- 
 
 L 1 nefs :
 
 166 THESPEECHOF 
 
 ncfs : She has been four times examined irt 
 this queiuon; iirft before the jury in the fer- 
 vicc, thereafter twice before commiflioners 
 appointed by your Lordihips, at the fuit of 
 either party; and, laft of all, in the beginning 
 of this feflion. As it appeared to the court, 
 that her evidence was very material, it was 
 propofed from the bench, that fhe fhould 
 be examined in prefence, that your Lordihips 
 might have an opportunity to judge of the 
 manner in which fhe emitted her teftimony. 
 The examination continued for two days, 
 when fhe was obliged to anfwer an immenfe 
 number of queftions put to her by the pur- 
 fuers, not with a view to difcover more of the 
 truth, but to lead her, if poflible, to contra- 
 dict fome parts of the evidence fhe had for- 
 me rly given. She anfwered every one of 
 tliera in fo fatisfying a manner, as gave me the 
 ful left conviction that every thing fhe has 
 depofed is moil ftrictly agreeable to truth. 
 
 As the proof of the pregnancy feems to 
 be irrefiftible ; fo it appeared in the fame 
 hVht to Mr Andrew Stuart, the purfiiers 
 a: cnt, who acknowledged to Mr Murray at 
 1 aris, in prelence of Sir "William Stewart, 
 " r i hat he had all the proofs in the world of 
 
 " Lady
 
 LORD PIT FOUR. 267 
 
 ct Lady Jane's pregnancy, but none of her 
 " delivery." 
 
 It has been faid, that though the proof of 
 the pregnancy is very ftrong, yet it is not 
 abfolutely complete; and therefore ought 
 not to be fuftained in this cafe. But this is 
 directly contrary to the rules of law already 
 laid down. If the evidence brought of the 
 pregnancy is as ftrong as could be expected 
 at this diftance of time, were it not half io 
 ftrong as it is, the law will hold it as com- 
 plete. The law fupplics the defect of evi- 
 dence from the length of poffefTion of the 
 flatus, where the challenge is long delayed, 
 elfe no mortal could have any fecurity againfl 
 fuch challenges. 
 
 In the prefent cafe, it appears to me impof- 
 /ible for any one, who reads the proof, to en- 
 tertain a doubt of the pregnancy. I muft 
 believe, that when Lady Jane uudertoi 
 journey from Rhcims to Paris, 1 flic was big- 
 bellied, fo heavy loaden, that people who i'.iw 
 her coming up and down flairs could net 
 fail to obferve it without being told, as ap- 
 pears from the proof; and the qucftion is, 
 What was her errand to Paris ? Is fhe g*>ing 
 to buy children from the poor people there i* 
 Or is flic going to lay down her burden ? 
 
 Lvcrv
 
 c6S THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Ev TV one will make the anfwer for himfclf. 
 Eoi nn part, I am of opinion, that the evi- 
 dence of the pregnancy, when it is fo con- 
 vincing, is of ltfelf, pofl tantum temporis, a pre- 
 fumpuv e c\iacnce of the delivery, as it is 
 not pretemted that any mifcarriage happened. 
 V hen a pregnancy is carried to the iaft ftage, 
 it rauft refill t cither in a mifcarriage or in a 
 ( ciivery, if the mother does not die before 
 the time ; and therefore I cannot have any 
 doubt, that if Sir John and Mrs Hewit had 
 been gone before the action commenced, as 
 well as the other witnefTes to the delivery, 
 the purfaers action mu ft have been difmifled 
 upon the proof that has been brought of the 
 pregnancy. The pofitive proof by witnefTes 
 - ( 1 ncceffarily fail and decreafe by length of 
 time ; and the law would be deficient, if it 
 did nor interpofe by fortifying the prefump- 
 tini which naturally arifes from the beft 
 ]-■■ ,:,[ that can be had at the time when the 
 cl i'lenge is brought. 
 
 r . ■ :icre Sir John Stewart and Mrs Hewit 
 were both alive, and have been examined 
 by the purfuers in this caufe, and they have 
 c' en the moft diftincf teflimony of Lady 
 Jane's delivery in the houfe of Madame le 
 Brun at Paris, upon the ioth of July 1748. 
 
 They
 
 LOUD PITFGUR. i6 9 
 
 They have firmly perfifted in giving the 
 fame account upon oath after various exami- 
 nations, which they have undergone at the 
 fuit of the purfucrs. Mrs Glafs concurs with 
 them in every relative circumftancc that 
 could ecu nil with her knowledge. The oaths 
 ,n by them are con firmed by letters writ- 
 ten by Mrs Hewit to Mrs Glafs and Effy Caw, 
 whom Lady jane had left at Rhcims, fomc 
 of which are produced and others depofed to. 
 Thofe letters could not be contrived for the 
 purpofe : They were not defigned to be feen; 
 nor could it be forefeen at fo diftant a period 
 that they would tally with the proof now 
 adduced. 
 
 What is now oppofed to this evidence? 
 It is faid, that Sir John was the contriver of 
 the fraud, and that Mrs Hewit and Mrs Glafs 
 were fie ii cri minis ; and that they differ in the 
 accounts they give of the fact ; and therefore 
 none of them are to be believed. 
 
 Tjif. mil objection founded on their accef- 
 uon to the {uyy< fed crime rcfolves into a fctU 
 tio princifii. If Pierre La Marrre and Madame 
 le Brun had been alive, and addu cd to give 
 evidence, tiic fame objection would have met 
 them as well as every other witnefs who 
 had been pivfent at the birth; fo it refoives 
 
 in
 
 2 7 o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 into this, that wherever a birth is challenged, 
 jio witnefs prefent can be admitted, becaufe 
 prefuraed to be all focii crhninis. The purfu- 
 er is intitled to difqualify them merely by 
 his own averment. 
 
 With refpect to the difcrepancics alledged 
 betwixt Sir John and Mrs Hewit, &c. they 
 appear to be no other than what miift arife 
 from the natural failure of memory after a 
 diilance of time. To complain of fuch dis- 
 crepancies, is to complain that the memory 
 of man is formed as it is ; that imprefiions 
 decay after a lapfe of time, and that in circum- 
 flances immaterial, they decay very faft, as 
 they are little attended to, and take no deep 
 root in the memory ; and as this happens in 
 every age, fo it is much more remarkable in 
 the advanced ftages of life to which Sir John 
 and Mrs Hewit had attained before they were 
 examined. It would be next to a miracle, if 
 pcrfons of that age fliould concur exactly in 
 the minute defcription of every little circum- 
 flance that had occurred fixteen or twenty 
 years before. It could not happen without 
 a previous concert ; and therefore, in my ap- 
 prehenfion, fuch difcrepancics do not den> 
 gate, but rather confirm the truth of what 
 they depofe. 
 
 Am
 
 LORD PI TF OUR. 271 
 
 Ak additional evidence alfo occurs from 
 the death-bed declarations of Sir John Stewart 
 and Lady Jane, who, with her dying breath, 
 commended her fon to the Providence of 
 God, and declared her firm belief that he 
 would take care of him. This kind of evi- 
 dence is of little weight with many ; but I 
 own, it has always appeared to me in a differ' 
 ent light. Notwithstanding the progrefs of 
 infidelity in this age, I take it to be more fu- 
 perficial than real with refpecl to the difbelicf 
 of a future flate. I believe there are few fo 
 hardened in their difbelicf, as to confiirn their 
 bodies to the prave in a thorough fecuritv of 
 their future annihilation ; or, at the lafl pe- 
 riod of their exiftence, when every other be- 
 ng is cvanifhed from their view, to dare to 
 bicUpheme their Creator, the fole arbiter of 
 their future happinefs cr mifcry, as they are 
 plunging into the dark abyfs of eternity. 
 Thefe tilings furpafs my belief, even where 
 infidelity takes place. 
 
 Ik t, in the prefent cafe, it Is not Pledged 
 that Sir John ever fhowed any ,;pea a..Le of 
 infidelity or difiv .rd to religi / .id ih 
 
 r< peel to lads' ;.:ne, few inft. ees nave oc- 
 curred, where inch cvi !ence .iath !:e n gi\cn 
 of a Lieiiuine and deci> rooted ';.c. , as fe iv 
 
 where
 
 ; 7 2 T II E SPEECH OF 
 
 where it hath been fo much put to the trial. 
 A Lady of her high rank and education re- 
 duced by misfortunes to a ftate of the utmoit 
 poverty and deftitution, in want of bread to 
 feed her children in the pooreft manner, 
 loaded with contempt and neglect, cart off 
 by her brother and all her friends, and her 
 hufband unable, by his (ituation, to give her 
 any afliftance ; yet, in this difmal ftate, me 
 never lofes a fight of the goodnefs of divine 
 Providence, andanacquicfcence in his difpofal, 
 which flic believes to be the wifeft and the 
 bed. This appears from all her letters that 
 have been recovered, which breathe nothing 
 
 o 
 
 but a firm reliance on God, and refignation 
 to his will. A piety that ftands the tell of 
 fuch affliction, cannot be fufpecled of difcaiife; 
 nor can I believe that a perfon habitually im- 
 preiTed with thefe fentiments, would, after 
 the mod; folemn approach to God that reli- 
 gion admits of, and when placed in the im- 
 mediate view of death, which followed in 
 a few days after, would at that awful period, 
 aver a falfehood in his prefence, and in her 
 laft moments call upon his Providence to 
 give fuccefs to her unpardonable crime, and 
 to perpetuate the confequences of her (ruilt 
 to ftare her in the face to all eternity. 
 
 If
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 273 
 
 If any one can believe thefe things, they 
 Tnay ; I muft own they are to me inconcei- 
 vable ; nor can I avoid, tor the lame reafon, 
 laying ftrefs upon Mrs Hewit's teftimony ; me 
 is proved to have been a perfon of ftrict reli- 
 gion and piety. She lived long in great bodi- 
 ly diftrefs, and under a near profpect of death. 
 She underwent feveral examinations, and al- 
 ways crave the lame account of this birth, and 
 adhered to it down to the Lift moments of 
 her life. It docs not appear to me that flie 
 has declared any thing that is falfe ; though 
 fhe may have fallen into many inaccuracies 
 in the great number ot queftions that were 
 put to her ; which is no matter of furprife, 
 coniiderins: her trreat aoe and infirmities, and 
 the diftance of time that has elapfed from 
 the period at which the facts happened. 
 
 T n;-; re is another chain of evidence that 
 muft weigh even with thole who do not rely 
 much upon the check arifing from the impref- 
 iions of a future Hate. A long feries or let- 
 ters which have been recovered, from Lady 
 jane to Sir John, to the number oi' fifty five/i, 
 and excerpts from above a hundred more, 
 with fundry aniwers lent to her by Sir John, 
 in which every ientimcnt of their hearts is 
 difcovcred to one another, in times oi great 
 M m yu\ city
 
 274 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 poverty and affliction, which was chiefly ow- 
 ing to the exiftencc of thefe children, by 
 which her brother was irritated to withdraw 
 her annuity, and flie had no fund left to af- 
 ford them neceflary fubfiftence. Had all this 
 diftrefs been originally owing to their own 
 crime, it is hardly poflible that fome glimmer- 
 ing of the truth {hould not have cfcaped 
 throughout fo long a correfpondence, which 
 was not expected to be feen by any other 
 eyes but their own ; yet not the fmalleft 
 veflige of that kind appears: No repining 
 word againft any thing in their paft conduct, 
 as the occalion of their diftrefs : No com- 
 plaint of the demands arifing from the ex- 
 pence of the children j but, on the contrary, 
 their whole concern taken up about them a- 
 lone. Every thing that befals them carefully 
 communicated by Lady Jane to Sir John, 
 with all the affection of a moft tender parent. 
 When any thing ails them, me is robbed of 
 her reft and eafe. Her life is bound up in 
 them ; and accordingly, upon the death of 
 the youngeft, fhe loft her fpirit, broke her 
 heart, and died foon after. 
 
 If we could fee into the fecret thoughts of 
 mens hearts, and difcover their inmoft recef- 
 fes, no doubt could remain as to their mo- 
 tives.
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 275 
 
 tives. Nothing can come nearer to this than 
 the difcovery that has been made : Every let- 
 ter that paffed between them, which they be- 
 lieved were never to be feen, and every 
 word that parTed between Lady Jane and her 
 waiting maid, with whom fhe lived in the 
 moft entire confidence. This appears from 
 Mrs Glafs's oath when examined in your 
 Lordihips prefence. A queflion was put to 
 her from the bench for that purpofe, and me 
 depofed, that (he never heard Lady Jane, Sir 
 John, nor Mrs Hewit, repine at the expences 
 occaiioned by the children ; nor heard any 
 expreflion drop from any of them, nor faw 
 any thing in their conduct, that led her to fu- 
 fpect the truth of the birth. The retrain t 
 which the purfuers muil fuppofe, to make 
 this uniformity of conduct during a courfe of 
 years agree with their hypothecs, is incon- 
 fiftent with nature. This is a real evidence 
 againft their plan, which I am not able to 
 refill. 
 
 It has been faid, that the whole account 
 c;iven by Sir John of Pierre la Marrc, is now 
 given up by the defender. Sir John faid he 
 was a Walloon furgeon, whom he had feen at 
 Liege in the year 1 72 r, and was introduced to 
 him by Colonel Fontaine ; but the La Marre 
 
 now
 
 s;6 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 now difcovcrcd was a furgcon in Paris, and 
 Mas no Walloon, but a Frenchman ; nor 
 could he have been introduced to Sir John 
 at Liege in 1721, as he was then but ten years 
 old. 
 
 But the only miftakc into which Sir John 
 fecms to have fallen in this account is with 
 refpect to the year in which he was firft made 
 acquainted with La Marre ; which certainly 
 could not be the year 1721, but muft have 
 been at fomc later period, when Sir John hap- 
 pened to be abroad. This was a natural mif- 
 take for an old man to fall into, who had 
 been frequently abroad, and did not diftin- 
 guifli exactly the ieveral periods of time 
 when he met with one company or another. 
 But there is no reafon to doubt, that Sir 
 John has been in the right in the other parti- 
 culars; that he has been introduced to La 
 Marre by Colonel Fontaine, though in a la- 
 ter year than 1721. We fee by La Marr's 
 books, that there was a connection betwixt 
 him and Colonel Fontaine, which makes this 
 account very probable ; and the purfuers 
 themfelvcs fall into a miftakc, when they 
 blame Sir John for calling La Marre a Wal- 
 loon, lie was born at Montreuil fur Mer\ 
 which, though locally in Piccardy, lies upon 
 
 the
 
 LORD PIT FOUR. 277 
 
 the borders of Artois, one of the Walloon pro- 
 vinces ; and, as Walloons are 10 named from 
 their language, it was as natural to call him a 
 Walloon, as to call one a Yorkfhireman, who 
 had been born on the northfide of the River 
 Tees, which feparates that county from 
 Durham. 
 
 The onlv error, therefore, in Sir John's 
 account of La Marre lies in the time of his 
 firll acquaintance with him ; which was no 
 extraordinary thins: in a man of Great age, 
 who had been fo often abroad, and, being 
 called upon in a hurry to anfwer in court, a 
 vaft number of questions, without any previous 
 notice, might eafily miftake one year for ano- 
 ther. It does not appear to me, that this error 
 can have any effect upon the caufe ; as there is 
 iuil evidence brought who this La Marre was, 
 and of the oa imation lie then cxcrcifcd in 
 Paris. It is of no moment to the queflion, 
 in iflue, whether Sir John became firft ac- 
 quainted with him in the year 1721, or in . 
 any later year. 
 
 And the evidence, on this head, appears to 
 me lo connected as to give lull conviction, 
 a:;.! it 111 the more, that a great part of it 
 came to the knowledge of the defender's 
 doeis by mere accident, when they had no 
 
 view
 
 27 8 THE SPEECHOF 
 
 view of making fuch inquiry. In a con- 
 verfation betwixt the Prince of Turcnne 
 and a French phyfician, the Prince told 
 him, that his furgeon Mr Menager was ac- 
 quainted with this affair. Mr Menager be- 
 ing called upon, gives a full account of La 
 Marre, with whom he had been particularly 
 acquainted for a great many years : That he 
 was much employed as an accoucheur in Pa- 
 ris, though not privileged, which was pro- 
 bably the occafion of his keeping his lod- 
 gings fecret, as mentioned by Sir John ; and 
 particularly depofes, that about fixteen or 
 feventeen years before his examination in 
 1764, La Marre had told him, that he had de- 
 livered a ftranger Lady of quality of an ad- 
 vanced age of two male-twins, one of whom 
 was very delicate, and entrufted to his care: 
 That the Lady had come from Rheims to Pa- 
 ris; and this was her firft delivery : That La 
 Marre had a connection with Madame le Brun, 
 who kept one of the lying-in-houfes, to 
 which he recommended thofe under his care : 
 That this happened in the months of June or 
 July ; and it muft have been in the year 
 1748. It could not be in the year 1747 ; be- 
 caufe Mr Menager was then along with the 
 army. 
 
 This
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 27? 
 
 This is confirmed by Madame Granette, 
 La Marre's fifter-in-law, and by Mr Simoneau, 
 and by Mr Giles, another furgeon to whom 
 La Marre had alfo communicated this affair. 
 Giles gave precifely the fame account of it 
 with Menager, in his firft converfation with 
 MefTrs Morand and Moreau : He told diftinct- 
 ly of the lady's being delivered of twins in 
 the houfe of Madame le Brun ; and that La 
 Marre had the care of one of them, who was 
 at Menilmontain ; and this declaration was 
 taken down in writing at his fight. 
 
 But, before he was examined by the com- 
 miflioners, his memory appears to have fail- 
 ed as to fome of the particulars, though he 
 found Jiimfelf frill obliged to recollect the 
 general ilory of La Marre's having told him, 
 that lie had brought to bed a foreign lady 
 of diftinclion, of whofe child he had Hie 
 charge, and reckoned, if it lived, it would be 
 worth a great deal to him. 
 
 The like accident appears alfo to have hap- 
 pened to Francois La Marre, the brother of 
 Pierre the accoucheur. When Le was firft 
 (lueftioned upon this affair, he told the pur- 
 iucrs doers, as well as the defender's, that 
 J lis brother was acquainted with a Madame 
 1c Brun, who lived in the Fauxbourg, St 
 
 Germ a iii :
 
 c8o Til E S P E E C II O F 
 
 Germain ; but lie afterwards thought fit to 
 retract this upon his examination. Some 
 influence would appear to have had* the fame 
 effect on the memories of thole witneifes, 
 that was afcribed by the ancient poets to the 
 river Lethe. 
 
 Other evidence, however, remains that 
 cannot be brought to diffemble or falfify ; 
 an article written by Lady Jane's own hand, 
 in her pocket-book, bearing that Sir John 
 had wrote to Monfieur la Marre in Septem- 
 ber 1749; and letters that were found in 
 La Marre's cuitody after his death, mention- 
 ins: the name of Stewart, which were burnt 
 by his widow, as appears from a proces verbal 
 produced by the purfuers. This pocket- 
 book and letters could not be framed with 
 a view to afTift the defender's plea, and ftrong- 
 ly concur to fupport the connection depofed 
 to by the above witneifes. 
 
 And this connection feems to be put out of 
 doubt, by the difcovery which has been made 
 of Madame Gamier, the nurfe of Sholto, 
 which alfo came out in an accidental manner. 
 The account fhe gives upon oath agrees in 
 lo many circumftances with the cafe before 
 us, that it feems impoiTible there can be any 
 miftake in it : She fays, fiie received a new- 
 born
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 281 
 
 born child from Pierre la Marre ; and that he 
 paid her the monthly allowance agreed for re- 
 gularly as it fell due : That me nurfcd the child 
 in the years 1748 and 1749: That it was a fo- 
 reign child, and one of two twins, both males: 
 That the linens and laces were made after the 
 Englifh fa (hi on : That the child was viiited by 
 two gentlemen, one of whom fpoke with a fo- 
 reign accent, and was fuppofed to be the father: 
 That the child was remarkably puny and 
 weak when firft brought to her, but grew 
 flronger bv degrees under her care : That 
 when he was taken away, fhe was told he 
 was to be carried to a diilance. 
 
 These facts are alfo confirmed by the tefli- 
 mony of Madame Boucaut, who fwears that 
 the child appeared to be newl r born when 
 brought to be nurfed, and that it was very 
 puny and delicate, of which La Marre told her 
 the rcafon, viz. that it was a twin : She alfo 
 gives a defcription of one of the gentlemen 
 who came to viiit the child, very like to Sir 
 John Stewart; and. {h? declares, that Madame 
 (Marnier nurfed the child for fixteen or fe- 
 Ventecn months. 
 
 Thksk things rive me full conviction, that 
 La Marre was the accoucheur, and that Gar-* 
 nicrwas the nurie ot Sholto. It is all the 
 
 N evidence
 
 182 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 evidence that can be had at this diftant period; 
 of time, to which the purfuers have thought 
 fit to delay their challenge ; and it would 
 have been no furprife if there had not been 
 fo much. I am not moved by the minute dis- 
 crepancies which have been fuggefted by the 
 ingenuity of the purfaers counfel, betwixt 
 the circitmflanccs told by Menager and Giles, 
 after lie had refolved to vary his £rft decla- 
 ration ; or, by Sir John and Mrs Hewit, fuch 
 as, with refpect to the precife diilance be- 
 twixt Garnier's houfe and Paris ; whether me 
 was previoufly befpoke by La Marre before 
 the child was given to the nurfe or not; whe- 
 ther licr hufband was a quarrier or a farmer, 
 &c. Thefe, and many other critical obferva- 
 tions, with the anfwers to them, have been 
 over and over again laid before your Lord- 
 fhips ; and to me they prove nothing but 
 what I always knew, that when an inquiry 
 into facts is delayed to a diftant time, the me- 
 mories of witnefies, if houeft, and not in con- 
 cert, never fail to differ in minute circum- 
 ftances, which make no imprefiioii ; and any 
 darknefs arifing from fuch difcrepancies muft 
 be conftruefced againft the party who has de- 
 layed to bring the challenge, and not againft 
 the defender, whofc birth-right has, for all 
 
 that
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 2 8j 
 
 that time, remained unquarrelled, and might 
 have found evidence to remove and explain 
 the difficulties, if the challenge had been 
 brought in due time. 
 
 It is eafy for me to conceive, that perfons 
 advanced to the Lift period of life, as Sir John 
 Stewart and Mrs He wit were, would find their 
 memories deficient in many circumftances. 
 But it is net eafy to conceive, that fuch a coin- 
 cidence of circumftances fhould occur, as have 
 appeared from the oaths of Monfieur Menager 
 and Madame Gamier, and the other witnef- 
 fes who concur with them, unlefs the accou- 
 cheur of Lady Jane and the nurf'e of Sholto 
 Lad been truly the very perfons defcribed by 
 Sir John and Mrs Hcwit. 
 
 Tup purfuers have broached a very extra- 
 ordinary fcheme in order to deftroy the evi- 
 dence of Madame Gamier: They will not 
 allow that Sholto was in the pofTeflion of 
 Sir John or Lady Jane, until he was 
 bought from Sanry in November 1749. 
 This fchemc appears to me to be abfolutc- 
 inercdible. Had a fuppofuitio partus 
 been intended, and one child been actually 
 bought in July i;/p>, as the purfuers fup- 
 pof', v. hit could tempt them to give 
 ll:ev !:aJ got two children, when
 
 23 4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 they had neither got nor knew of the fecond 
 for lixtcen months after ? Yet, we fee Lady 
 Jane immediately wrote of the birth of her 
 two fons to all her friends, to Lady Charles 
 Ker, to Lady Mary Hamilton, to Mrs Hep- 
 burn, to Madame Tewis, and to Mr Patrick 
 Haldane. I am not able to perfuade myfelf 
 that this could have happened, if Sholto had 
 not then been actually exifting and in her 
 hands at the time ; or, that me would have 
 defired Lady Wigton to viiit the child in her 
 way to Paris, and fend her a particular ac- 
 count of his health, when no fuch child was 
 in being. 
 
 A ftrong objection has been laid upon Le 
 Brim's houfe, that it has not been pointed 
 out by the defender. I fee no confequence 
 from this. There may have been hundreds of 
 widows living in Paris in the year 1748, whofe 
 houfes could not be pointed out at this day. It 
 is agreed, that Sir John and his whole company 
 ftaid for nine days at Sedan in their way from 
 Leige to Rheims ; and though Sedan is but 
 a fmall place im refpect of Paris, y r et it has 
 not been in the power of either party, by all 
 their inquiries, to difcover the landlady with 
 whom they lodged there, nor any perfon who 
 had feen her. 
 
 And
 
 LORD P I T F O U R. 285 
 
 And as to what the purfviers undertook to 
 prove, that there was no perfon of the name 
 of Madame le Brim living in the Fauxbourg 
 St Germain in the year 1 748 : They have appa- 
 rently failed in it; for, by the proof it appears, 
 (hat there were no lefs than lour or live Madame 
 le Bruns who lived there in the year 1 748 ; al- 
 though none of them are now to be found, 
 nor any of them inferted in the police-books. 
 This is full evidence, that, in fuch a diftance 
 of time numbers of people, who actually had 
 their refidencc at Paris, may difappear, fo as 
 no accounts can be had of them ; nor is there 
 any myftcry in the thing. What number of 
 widows who lived in the year 17^8, arc, 
 iince that time, either dead or removed to o- 
 ther places ? and is it a wonder, that ail their 
 friends and acquaintances cannot now be 
 difcovcred, fo as to find out the accounts 
 they have given of their feveral lodgers? Or 
 can it be pleaded, as luilicient evidence, that 
 one did not lodge there, becaule fuch diico- 
 very lias not be, n made? This would be 
 plainly to invert the rule of law, and to ob- 
 lige the defender, who has been fo long in 
 pnflcflion of hi., itate, under the higheit pe- 
 I:.. *o Lt1'i a proof \n hicn has r.ow become 
 
 impracticable
 
 i$6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 impracticable through the delay of the party 
 who is infilling to diveft him of his birth-right. 
 As to Godcfroy's books, I can never think 
 that a blank article can be proof of any thing, 
 without further fupport ; and that which is 
 offered in this cafe from the oaths of Gode- 
 froy and his wife, who have adventured to 
 fill up this article from memory, at the de- 
 fiance of feventeen years, has no weight with 
 me ; as I do not think fuch particularizing 
 falls within the compafs of any one's memo- 
 ry, far lefs of two innkeepers, who, as they 
 acknowledge, have, during all that time, 
 been in conftant occupation by new returns 
 of company in the way of their bufinefs, in 
 fo much, that all the rooms of their houfe, 
 which contained no lefs than nineteen beds, 
 were generally full, from the beginning of 
 the year to the end of it. Such extraordi- 
 nary recollection I cannot lay any itrefs up^ 
 on ; efpecially as it happened ex foft facto be- 
 yond what occurred to them on their firft 
 examination; and, when I confider the de- 
 pendence fuch innkeepers are under to the 
 officers of police employed by the purfuers, 
 who have it in their power, on fo many oc- 
 cafions to ruin them, this tale, which is 
 contradicted by the other evidence, appears 
 
 to
 
 LORD PITFOUR. 287 
 
 to me in no ftronger light, than a ftory told 
 by a Have at the inftigation of his mafcer. 
 
 And as to the two enlevements alledged 
 of the children of Mignon and Sanry, I take 
 the Mignons to be clearly perjured. And 
 the flory told by the Sanrys, to be difproved 
 by the Curee cle St Laurent's letter to the 
 lieutenant of police, and the record entered 
 in the police-books in confequence thereof; 
 from which it appears, that this enlevement 
 did not happen till the end of December 
 1749, a month after Sir John and his family 
 had left Paris, and fet out for England ; fo 
 that they could have no concern with it. 
 
 Upon the whole, I cannot have any doubt 
 that the defender is the fon of Lady Jane 
 Douglas; and I mould be forry to fee a pre- 
 cedent cftablifhed bv this court, that mi^ht 
 tend to make the fecurity of the birth-right 
 ef the fubjecl. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ 288 ] 
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 
 
 THIS is certainly a very extraordinary 
 cafe; it is a very companionate cafe, in 
 my opinion, and a very lingular cafe, in this 
 refpecl, that the purfuer, I mean the prin- 
 cipal purfuer Duke Hamilton, has nothing 
 to gain, and the defender has every thing 
 to lofe. 
 
 I confefs, I entertained an opinion, that 
 the grounds of law and juilice, upon which 
 this great queftion ought to be determined, 
 were fo clear and certain, that there would 
 hardly be any room for difference in opinion, 
 as to thefe points, among the judges of this 
 fupreme court : But in this, I now appre- 
 hend, I may have been miftaken ;. becaufe 
 your Lordfhips have already delivered dif- 
 ferent opinions as to the principles of law and 
 juilice on which this important deciiion ought 
 to be founded. 
 
 I am fenlible, that one in my fituation has 
 reafon to be jealous and diftruftful of his 
 own picpoilefiions. I have laboured to form an 
 impartial opinion, and to guard myfelf againft 
 
 all
 
 THE SPEECH OF, Sic. 289 
 
 all prepoffeflions, I am clear, for the fatisfac- 
 tion of my own mind at leaft, to declare, 
 that the opinion I am now to deliver would 
 have been my opinion, if this caie, with all 
 its circumftances, had been lent from Japan, 
 or any remote nation upon earth, to be judged 
 and determined here; and, without any fur- 
 ther preamble or going about the bum, I de- 
 clare my opinion for the defender in this 
 caufe. 
 
 I am not to beat the wide and almoit 
 bouncilefs field of evidence and argument 
 contained in the bulky volumes before us ; 
 I propofe only to hate iuch circuuiilances as 
 appear to me to be material on either fide, 
 and iuch arguments as have determined my 
 own opinion. 
 
 Bj:fore 1 proceed to touch the proofs, I 
 v.iil take the liberty to oiler fomc few pre- 
 liminary obfervations, which feem to me of 
 fjreat importance in judging "Jus caufe, and 
 in balancing this evidence. 
 
 I muft freely fay, that I think it is a capi- 
 tal error to hold, that, in judging this cauie, 
 there are no principles of law, no rules of 
 evidence to guide or direct us : That it is a 
 mere cpieftion oi iac'i, and we mult deter- 
 mine according to our levcral apprehcnfions 
 O o of
 
 29o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 of the moft probable or convincing evidence 
 on cither fide. In all queflions of fact, espe- 
 cially in a queftion of this nature concerning 
 birth- right, there are certain principles of law, 
 certain rules of evidence, which have been 
 adopted and digefted by wife and impartial 
 lawyers for the general fecurity of mankind. 
 Thefe we arc bound to regard, and to apply 
 with our beft judgment to every particular 
 cafe ; otherwife the rights of men in fociety 
 will become uncertain ; the power' of judges 
 will be arbitrary ; a door will be open to par- 
 tial decifions in the greatert as well as in the 
 leaft intcrefting queftions,and fancy or prepof- 
 feffion may eafily get the better of judicial 
 rectitude. If this doctrine mall prevail, that 
 we are not to regard any principles of law, 
 or rules of evidence, in the determination 
 of fuch a caufe, it is in vain that men who 
 arc railed to be fupreme judges, have been 
 trained with labour and expence to the eru- 
 dition of law, that they have been taught the 
 various principles and rules which mud re- 
 gulate different cafes for the general good, 
 the fafcty and peace of nations and families 
 combined in fociety. At this rate, it is in 
 vain that great lawyers and judges have 
 comuofed volumes, or that we have fludicd 
 
 thofc
 
 LORD G AllDENSTO U N. i 9 i 
 
 thofc volumes oil the nature and rules of 
 evidence ; for one great chapter m every 
 book, cr fyftcm of law, is upon this fubjecl 
 of evidence de prcbationlbus. Knowledge in 
 the principles of law is peculiarly neceffary 
 to determine queiHons of birth-right ; and 
 for this rcafon, it is eftabbfhed in the confti- 
 tution of this country, that though in ordi- 
 nary cafes ferviccs arc conducted before juries, 
 and the riirht of birth is determined by their 
 verdict; yet in diilicult or uncommon cafes 
 tlicfc ferviccs proceed under the direction of 
 this court; and in all cafes of birth-right, the 
 verdict, of the jury is fubject to review, and 
 may be fet afidc bv the judgment of this fu- 
 prcme court of law. 
 
 I therefore hold it as a facre.i part of my 
 duty, in forming a judgment of this grc.i. 
 qucftion, to borrow lhmt, as far as I can. 
 from the principles of law formed by wife 
 men, and received by civilized nations, with 
 no partial view to particular cafe ;, but with 
 a general view to the crood and fafetv of all 
 men in fociety : And as the foundation oi my 
 opinion in the prcfent cue, upon many gi 
 authorities which 1 have read, ami which 
 have been partly quoted to us, 1 lay down 
 this proportion, and hold as undoubted, I hat 
 
 v acre
 
 2 9 2 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 where a perfon has been acknowledged and 
 entertained as the lawful child of certain pa- 
 rents, from infancy to a ftate of manhood, 
 where lie has always paffed by their name, 
 •and has been treated by the fociety where he 
 refides in that character, he cannot be depri- 
 ved of the birth-right which he derives from 
 this trad situs, as the lawyers term it, without 
 the moft clear and conclufive evidence that 
 he is not the child of the perfons who have fo 
 entertained and brought him up, but that he is 
 tne child of a different father, or of different 
 parents. I agree to what was argued by one 
 or your Loix.lhips, that the defender's fervice 
 makes no odds in this cafe ; that we lit hen; 
 as a grand jury, to review the fentence of 
 the former jury ; and that we mull judge and 
 determine this queftion on the fame princi- 
 ples, and in the lame manner as if it had 
 originally come before us. But I do hold 
 thin to be a fundamental principle of a right 
 judgement in the cafe, That the defender can- 
 not be deprived of ins birth-right, cftablifhed 
 by acknowledgement of parents and long 
 poilcfilon, without the moft clear and conclu- 
 live prools. There mult be no uncertainty, 
 room for computation of chances, with 
 winch the purlucrs have entertained us; it 
 
 mud
 
 L O II D G ARDENSTO U N. 293 
 
 muft not be a dark cafe; it muft be a clear 
 cafe. 
 
 Tins proportion, which appears to me of 
 great importance in the prefent cafe, and in 
 all qucftions of this nature, fecms to be 
 founded equally on the plain principles of 
 .humanity, of expediency, and upon the ge- 
 neral principles of law and of juftice, as well 
 lib the particular and direct authorities of law- 
 yer;, which I will not repeat from the de- 
 fendei "s information. 
 
 That it is founded on the principles of 
 humanity, every human breaft muft feel, 
 when the prefent cafe is confidered. It is no 
 misfortune to be born in meannefs or pover- 
 ty of circumftances ; the world is all before 
 inch men, where to buftle and advance them- 
 felvcs; and in my mind, he is more an object 
 oi envy, he enjoys life better, who raifes himfelf 
 h) gradual and uncertain ftcps, hewlio advan- 
 ce.-; himfelf toeminencc or affluence by his own 
 induftry, merit, or good fortune, than he who 
 poilelles wealth or rank in the world by mere 
 prerogative of birth. But the cafe before us is 
 very diilerent from either or tliefe. Nothing 
 in the hiftory of mankind, or even in the fic- 
 1 ions of romance, can morcftrongly mo\ ecom- 
 iion than to fee an innocent chilJj trained 
 
 up
 
 t<>4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 up from infancy to manhood as the right 
 heir of a noble family and a princely fortune, 
 to fee him ftripped of thefe honours and of 
 thcfe rights without any fault or blame, to fee 
 him railed on the pinacles of life, and flung 
 like a criminal, upon the hard level of the 
 earth. This affords an object tragical indeed! 
 And I may venture to fay, that were the 
 proofs ever fo clear, certain, and conclufive, 
 juftice cannot inflict a harder flroke, nor can 
 judges, compelled by irrefiftible necefilty of 
 juftice, give the blow without feeling the 
 fevcreft pangs of forrow. 
 
 That the proofs in fuch cafes muft be 
 clear, certain, and conclufive, is alio found- 
 ed in the principles of expediency: But as 
 this has already been well explained by fome 
 of your Lorcifhips, I will not enlarge upon this 
 point. It is manifeft, public utility evidently 
 requires, that judges adhere facredly to this 
 principle ; the quiet of families, the peace and 
 iecurity of crowns and kingdoms, are inter- 
 ested in it. 
 
 idly, This principle is laid down by the 
 greateft lawyers in all nations, and is fhongly 
 founded in juftice. All found lawyers agree 
 in this rule of evidence, that grofs frauds, c- 
 fncciallv if charged acnunft pcrfons of c;ood 
 
 fame
 
 LORD GARDE NSTOUN. 295 
 
 fame or diftinction, can only be proved inJi- 
 diciis ir.dubitatis ct luce clarioribus. I cannot 
 find Englifh words ftrong enough to exprefs 
 the force of this maxim. If this rule of c- 
 vidence holds in defence of a party charged 
 as guilty of any grofs fraud, hew much more 
 mult it hold, where the parly againft whom 
 the challenge is brought is undoubtedly inno- 
 cent, and againft whom there can be no fuf- 
 picion of guilt. No lawyer ever difputed, 
 I am confident none of your Lordfhips en- 
 tertain a doubt, that this rule of evi- 
 dence holds univcrfally in another queftion 
 of birth-right, which more frequently occurs 
 in the world ; I mean, in the qucftion of 
 banardy. Though a man fliould difown the 
 child of his wife ; yet he is held to be the 
 legal father, unlets the molt clear, certain, 
 and conclusive evidence can be brought, that 
 the child was begotten by a different father; 
 in {holt, the moll convincing proofs to the 
 minds of private men, who judge not by the 
 principle or law, but by their own notions, 
 of what may men probably he the matter of 
 i'.i. ■;, will not ferve. There inuft be an abfolute 
 and natural impof 11 ility, that the huibaud 
 i- the hither, otl'trways he b \\CA to be the 
 father, and the child"':: birth-iigi.t vj iecure up-
 
 i<)6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 on the fame principles of law, expediency, 
 and humanity, which I now maintain. It 
 feems, therefore, to be a rule of law, de- 
 monstrably certain, the obfervance of it, 
 is of the utmoft importance to mankind, That 
 he who challenges a birth-right, which has been 
 acknowledged by parents, and poiTelled for 
 any considerable time by the child, mud prove 
 his challenge by unexceptionable, clear, and 
 conclufive evidence. The onus probandi not 
 only lies upon him, but the nature of his e- 
 vidence mult admit of no ambiguity or un- 
 certainty. The laws of this, and all civilized 
 nations, founded on wife and general views, 
 for the quiet and fecurity of families and 
 individuals, give much ftronger and greater 
 effects to innocent poiTellion, even of the 
 rights of other men. Undifturbcd poneiTion 
 for forty years, by the laws of this country, 
 will transfer the right of any man's land-e- 
 ftatc to the poilefibr. The various fhort pre- 
 fcriptions of three, live, ten, and twenty 
 years, are founded on the fame principles. 
 T.'.nafidc pofiefHon gives a man abfolute right 
 td the rents and profits which he reaps from 
 another man's property during that pofTelrlon; 
 and by the laws in France, in the cafe now 
 under confederation, of an allcdged fuppofi- 
 
 tion
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 297 
 
 tion of birth, a man's birth-right cannot be 
 challenged after twenty years poifeffion, tho* 
 it could be disproved Ly the molt clear 
 and conclufive evidence. It has been ar- 
 gued indeed, and feme of your Lordfhips 
 ieem to regard the argument, that, in this 
 cafe, the poifemon has been interrupted. But 
 how has it been interrupted ? By furmifes, 
 doubts, and fufpicions artfully railed. The 
 origin of thefe fufpicions has been traced by 
 the cleareft evidence. I do not underftand 
 this fort of interruption ; as a judge, I can- 
 not regard it ; 1 think it can have no effect in 
 law. God forbid, that the rights of poffef- 
 fion, undifturbed by any legal act, mould 
 be affected by intereftcd or malicious fufpi- 
 cions, or by mere furmifes of any kind! If 
 this fort of interruption hold in the prefent 
 cafe, it muft alfo hold in the other {pedes of 
 controverted births, which I have mention- 
 ed in the cafe of baftirdy. There is no fen- 
 fible diftinction between thofe cafes, no folid 
 ground to vary the principles on which they 
 are to be decided. Since the beginning of 
 - wicked world, it has often happened, 
 that the real, the natural father, and the le- 
 gal father, are two very different pcrfons. 
 The one mav have ! ,0 n a Kincc, the <>' ! '• a 
 V p prieft;
 
 298 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 prieft ; the one may have been a lord, the 
 other a fqnire of very humble note. It has 
 much oftcner happened, that mifguided jea- 
 loufy, or malicious fcandal, has blotted the 
 fame of innocent ladies. But without reafon- 
 ing upon this matter, would any court of 
 juflice, or mall we allow parties to rake up 
 furmifes and doubts, the talk of idle men at 
 their cups, or of women at their tea-tables, 
 to take away or diminifli the legal effect of 
 public pofieflion, or the acknowledgement of 
 parents in fuch cafes ? 
 
 Having thus explained my thoughts at 
 fome length, upon this important propor- 
 tion, concerning the nature of legal and fuf- 
 ficient proofs in fuch cafes; I have only two 
 other preliminary obfervations to offer, which 
 I fhall touch with greater brevity. 
 
 My fecond proportion I lay down, without 
 argument, as it feems to be felf-evident and 
 inconteftable. It is this, That as this chal- 
 lenge of birth-right was not recently offer- 
 ed, but is now attempted at the diftance of 
 fo many years, common juftice will not per- 
 mit that the defender fuffer any difadvan- 
 ta e by this delay. Every dark or uncertain 
 chcumftance muft be favourably interpreted 
 for him; and moft particularly, we muft 
 
 hold*
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 299 
 
 hold, that the evidence of what perfons, who 
 are now dead, reported when alive, ihall be 
 regarded as living evidence; and, under this 
 proposition, I hold, that Pvladamc Tewis, Ef- 
 £y Caw, and Pierre la Marre, are to be regard- 
 ed as living witneffes, in fo far as there is 
 credible teflimony of what they faid when 
 alive, touching the pregnancy or birth in 
 
 queftion. 
 
 I have a third preliminary obfervation to 
 offer, which alfo feems to me of great im- 
 portance in forming a right judgement of 
 this caufe. I fee nothing done on the part 
 of the defender, no illegal or improper ftep 
 taken to hurt his defence, or leflen the credit 
 of his evidence: But, on the other hand, I 
 fee a moil weighty and folid objection which 
 reaches a great part of the proofs for the pur- 
 fuers. In fhort, the Tournelle procefs, and 
 the Monitoire, were, in my opinion, moil im- 
 proper and illegal proceedings. But, before 
 I go any farther in my obfervations upon 
 this matter, I muft avow, that I feel myfelf 
 under the ftrongcfl calls of truth and candour 
 to declare, that I do not blame Mr Andrew 
 Stuart for thefe proceedings. I am con- 
 vinced that he acted from principles of in- 
 tegrity and good intention. I do regard and 
 
 efteciH
 
 5oo THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 efteem him as a man of honour. But what 
 could he do in fuch circumftances as he was 
 engaged in ? Employed by Duke Hamilton's 
 tutors, he went over to Paris, an utter 
 irranger, and uninftrucled in one word of 
 their language ; though being of quick parts, 
 he foon acquired it. He was not then in a 
 fituation to pan meafures, or to profecute 
 inquiries by his own direction ; and was 
 therefore obliged to commit the whole ma- 
 nagement to French agents and lawyers. To 
 magnify their merit, and from manifeft views 
 or proiit to themfelves, among other unjufti- 
 iiable meaiures, they advifed and carried on 
 this Tournelle procefs, which can be confi- 
 dered in no other light than as an undue 
 practice on the witneiTes. In this country, a 
 fimilar management would deftroy the cre- 
 dit of any witneiTes, and draw the fevereft 
 cenfures on the authors of it. This private 
 and partial examination of material witnefles 
 upon oath, by the agents of one party, bc=» 
 fore a fair and judicia. examination by both 
 parties could be obtained, was a manifeft 
 mal-praciice, and more prejudicial to a fair 
 difcovery of truth than fuch a private exa- 
 mination in this country could have been ; 
 becaufe their oaths fo illegally taken, and 
 
 under
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 301 
 
 under fucli an unfair examination, were con- 
 fidered in France as judicial oaths and legal 
 evidence, which could not be cancelled. 
 This was an indirect practice, which is always 
 worfe and more dangerous than direct wrong. 
 The pretence was, to try and punifh Sir John 
 Stewart and Mrs Hewit. A pretence mani- 
 feflly falfe and affected. The real intention 
 could not, in the nature of things, be any 
 thing elfe but to tie the witneffes by oaths to 
 a tale which had been drawn from them un- 
 der private and partial examination, by in- 
 terefted agents of One party. It is impofliblc 
 to juftify this proceeding, on pretence, that 
 this was a fair trial and examination accor- 
 ding to the laws and conftitution of France, 
 rhc laws of Trance, nor of any other nation 
 would not have permitted fucli a fictitious 
 trial, if the civil queilion had depended at 
 the fame time before their iovercign courts. 
 The trial was not a fair public trial; it 
 was a contrivance of pi 1 vale agents, to an- 
 fwer mo ft unlawful purpofes. In this light 
 were thefe proceedings confulcrcd in this 
 court, and in the hut re fort. When my i'en- 
 timents are cxprefied by abler or wifer men 
 than myfclf, I chufe rather to life their words 
 than my own. 1 remember well a ftrong and 
 
 fiGrnificant
 
 3 o2 THESPEECHOF 
 
 fignificant expreflion from the chair, when 
 thofe proceedings were long ago under con- 
 fideration, " That this Tournelle procefs 
 " would hang like a milftone about thenecks 
 " of the purfuers." And, without pretend- 
 ing to the fpirit of prophecy, I do verily be- 
 lieve that it will ultimately prove fo. I mall 
 never forget what was faid by two great per- 
 fons upon this fubject in a higher court. I 
 well remember thefe remarkable words : " In 
 " vain are judges wife and upright, if the 
 *' channels of juftice are corrupted." The 
 channels of juftice were corrupted by thefe 
 indirect. Tournelle proceedings. The follow- 
 ing words dwell upon my memory diftinctly 
 to this day : " I am loath to treat with any 
 " difrefpect the laws or conftitutions of fo- 
 " reign nations ; but this I will fay, that if 
 " there was a bridge from Calais to Dover for 
 " the Tournelle to walk over, I would fly to 
 ■" the ultima thuk. n 
 
 The he never was fuch a Monitoire feen 
 in France, except in the infamous cafe of Ca- 
 las, which proved fatal to an innocent fami- 
 ly. In this cafe, it was plainly calculated to 
 inftruct. low witneffes what evidence would 
 ferve, by minute and unneceflary defcriptions 
 of pcrfons, places, and circumftances, and to 
 
 inflame
 
 LORD G A R D E N S T O U N. 303 
 
 inflame the minds of all people, by declama- 
 tory ftyle and falfe averments, that the crime 
 of fuppofition was already clearly proved. 
 
 Having premifed thefe general obferva- 
 tions, which appear to me of great import- 
 ance in forming a right judgement of this 
 caufc, I mall now proceed to offer my 
 thoughts upon what feems moft material in 
 the evidence adduced by either party, and 
 that with all poflible brevity. 
 
 From the proportion which I have avert- 
 ed, and I think clearly proved, concerning 
 the rule of evidence in fuch cafes, I infer, 
 that the proper ftate of the queftion is, If in 
 this cafe there is a clear and conclufive proof 
 of the fuppofition ; can I lay my hand on my 
 heart, and pronounce that the proofs are 
 clear, certain, and conclufive ? I declare I can- 
 not : On the contrary, I think the proofs are 
 very ftrong on the part of the defender, and 
 very fufficient to maintain his right. 
 
 The evidence adduced to prove the de- 
 fender's filiation, if we allow it to be a cre- 
 dible evidence, is as flronir and fufficient as 
 can be expected in any fuch cafe, where the 
 lady is brought to bed in a foreign country, 
 and the inquiry is made at fo late a period. 
 I mail full ftate a fummary of this evidence ; 
 
 I
 
 3 o 4 T H E S P E E C II O F 
 
 I mall then offer fome obfervations on the 
 force, connection, and credioility of it; and, 
 laft'y, I Hull deliver my thoughts on the ob- 
 j • dons to it, founded on the contrary evi- 
 dence. 
 
 It is clearly proved, that Lady Jane, tho* 
 advanced in years, was in that condition 
 which infallibly denotes a capacity to have 
 children. It is impoiTible there can be a 
 more direct and poiitive proof of pregnancy, 
 not by external appearances only, which muft 
 attend a real pregnancy, though, no doubt, 
 they may be artificial and eafily counterfeit- 
 ed; but this pregnancy is directly proved by 
 inflection, examination, and feeling of the 
 perfon. The actual delivery is proved by- 
 two direct witnefTes called by the purfuers 
 themfelves. Their evidence is confirmed by 
 ftrong collateral circumflances, depofed to by 
 Doctor Menager, by the nurfe Gamier, by 
 Madame La Marre's filter, and by the books 
 of La Marre, which prove an intercourfe be- 
 tween him and Madame le Brun. As the 
 gradual progrefs of the pregnancy is proved, 
 io is the gradual convalefcence after the pe- 
 riod of delivery. It is proved, that Lady 
 Jane and Sir John entertained and brought 
 up thefe children as their lawful children, 
 
 and
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 305 
 
 and that they treated them, on all occafions, 
 with the mofl paffionate and unaffected foiid- 
 nefs. It is proved, (a circumftance of irrefiftible 
 force), that in their private correfpondence 
 for a courfe of years, they both expreffed the 
 moil uniform, the moil warm' and tender 
 concern for thefe children as their lawful 
 children. It is proved, that the youngeil of 
 thefe children was the very picture of Lady 
 Jane : That flic broke her heart with grief 
 when he died : That, in her laft moments, 
 ihe poured forth the moll fervent wifhes a. id 
 prayers of a fond mother, and of a pious per- 
 ion, for the defender, as her only furviving 
 child ; and that Sir John, in his laft moments, 
 folemnly declared and affirmed the truth of 
 the birth. 
 
 I mall now oiler fome obfervations on the 
 material parts of this evidence. 
 
 Mrs He wit's direct evidence of the preg- 
 nancy is confirmed by other witneffes, of 
 whole credibility there is no jufl fufpicion. 
 The two maid-fervants aflirm the pregnancy 
 as a matter of fact, upon tlic tcftimony of 
 their light and feeling. It is proved, that 
 they were the pcrfons who put her to bed 
 and attended her at her riling out of it. 
 Ifabcl Walker, a perfon of unblcmiflicd cha- 
 (.) (j racier,
 
 zo6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 meter, fwears, upon repeated examinations, 
 that lhc faw her breafts and belly very big : 
 That ihc fhifted her and drefled her : That 
 fhe found her with live child. It is proved, 
 that Eny Caw gave accounts to the fame 
 purpoie when alive ; and her evidence is the 
 more credible, as fhe quitted Lady Jane's fer- 
 vice from ibme difpleaiure. Other credible 
 perions concur in giving direct evidence of 
 the pregnancy without the lead ambiguity. 
 Such are the teftimoniesofMadameTewis,M.rs 
 Hepburn, Madame Obain, Mifs Primrofe, and 
 the Abbe Hibert. I can have no doubt, that 
 pregnancy, like any other matter of fact, 
 may be proved, to a moral certainty, and by 
 evidence which will be a juft and legal ground 
 of belief. This I hold upon the authority 
 cf our law and of our practice. We have 
 fcen various inftances of fuch proofs in cafes 
 of women condemned. The inflection and 
 report of fkilful perfons is credited by the 
 judges. It is the ground upon which they 
 refpite execution ; and I never heard of anv 
 inftance where fuch reports have been found 
 to proceed on a miitake. The fame proof 
 was allowed and received in the civil law; as 
 we find in the title de infpkiendo ventre. An 
 infpection was appointed, and the eftatc, in 
 
 the
 
 LORD GARDENSTOU N. 307 
 
 the mean time, was put under administration 
 for the benefit of the heir in utero. If then 
 this nutter is capable of a proof, it feems 
 impoffible, that there can be a more natural 
 or credible evidence of pregnancy in the cir- 
 cumftaaccs of fuch a cafe. When a lady is 
 travelling in a foreign country, her preg- 
 nancy may be obferved or overlooked by 
 mere ftrangers. By them it may be forgot- 
 ten, or faintly remembered, after i<> great a 
 diflance of time : But her attendants, her 
 domeitics, her friends, either occafionaily 
 contracted or by older connection and inti- 
 macy, perfons who knew the importance of 
 the birth, would naturally make the clofeft ob- 
 fervations, and hold it in remembrance. Such 
 is the nature of the evidence in this cafe; and 
 furely it is a credible evidence. 
 
 The pregnancy being thus eftablilhcd, gives 
 iorcc and credit to the proof of actual birth. 
 I muft transfer it to that article, and hold it 
 as a concurring evidence of the actual birth. 
 The ftrongefl of all natural and rational pre- 
 emptions is, that a woman who is certainly 
 with child mud certainly be delivered, if 
 there is no pretence of a mifrarriagc ; and 
 there is none in this cafe. 
 
 Tin-
 
 3 o8 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 The ;i ;1 'U;]1 birth is direclly proved by Sir 
 J -hn Stewart and Mrs Hewit, witneffes called 
 by the purfucrs themselves. 
 
 Tins direct evidence is confirmed by a 
 feries of correfponding circumftances, depofed 
 to by the moft credible witneffes, or attefted 
 by writings which are admitted to be ge- 
 nuine. 
 
 Dr. Menager is a moft unexceptionable 
 witnefs. lie is a gentleman of fair reputa- 
 tion; he made the firft difcovery to Mr An- 
 drew Stuart himfelf ; and, upon different oc- 
 cafions, mentioned the material circumftances 
 to which he has depofed, before he had any 
 intercourfe or converfation with the mana- 
 nagers and agents for the defender. His evi- 
 dence is ftriking. He was intimately ac- 
 quainted with La Marre ; fays he was a man- 
 midwife of good fkill and practice : That La 
 Marre fevcral times mentioned to him as a 
 lingular cafe, the delivery of a foreign Lady 
 in Aic 1740 at Paris: That the Lady was ad- 
 vance 1 in years: That fhe came Lift from 
 Kheims: That fhe was brought to bed of 
 twins: That he expected fome time or other 
 to have better payment than he had received: 
 That one of the children was delicate, and 
 was lent to nurfe in the country, near Paris, 
 
 and
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 309 
 
 and under his charge. This evidence con* 
 curs, in every material circumftance, with the 
 
 account given by Sir John; and as the in- 
 quiry is brought, at fo remote a period of 
 tune, and after La Marrc's death, I think 
 it ftrongly confirms the truth of Sir John's 
 ftory. 
 
 Th e nurfc Garnicr's evidence is alfo ftrong- 
 iy correfponding. She rays, that about the 
 time which anfwers to Lady Jane's delivery, a 
 twin-child was brought to her to be nurfed : 
 
 o 
 
 That he was a delicate child : That a ftranger, 
 whom fhe believed to be the father, made vi- 
 fits to him ; and that this child was left under 
 the care and charge of La Marre. At this 
 time, (he lived in a village near Paris. By Sir 
 John's account, the youngeft child Sholto, be- 
 imr in a delicate and damrerous hate of health, 
 was fent to a nurfc who lived in a village 
 near Paris, and was left under the care of La 
 Marre : That fuch a child, anfwering to the 
 clefcription of Sholto, was kept and nurfed 
 by Gamier at this very period, refts not up- 
 on her evidence alone ; it is confirmed by the 
 teftimony of her neighbours. If this child 
 was not Sholto, the youngeft twin, it is a 
 tiling altogether incredible, that the purfucrs, 
 with all the aids of their police, their Tour- 
 
 nel! -
 
 jio THESPEECHOF 
 
 nclle proceedings, and their Monitoire, would 
 have failed to difcover the true hiftory of 
 this child, and to make it appear, that he was 
 the child of fome other perfoa. 
 
 The evidence of Madame la Marre's filler, 
 confirms the credibility of this evidence, that 
 the child nurfed by Gamier was the youngeft 
 twinSholto; and La Marre's books prove, 
 that he was in the intercourfe of buiinefs 
 with a woman of the name of Lc Brun, in 
 whole houle the birth happened. 
 
 But the ftrongeft of all circumfhnccs to 
 confirm the truth and reality of tne birth, as 
 depofed to by Sir John and Mrs He wit, are 
 thefc : The {hiking likenefs of Sholto to 
 Lady Jane ; the affectionate behaviour of 
 the parents on all occafions ; their pri- 
 vate correfpondence, and their dying words. 
 
 Is it credible, that fo many undeniable cir- 
 cumftances tending to prove the truth of this 
 direct evidence mould concur to fupport a 
 falfehood . p Can we believe, that they picked 
 up in the ftreets of Paris, a child who anfwer- 
 ed exactly to the defcription which they had 
 always given of the youngeft child left near 
 Paris; and that this child mould, in the opi- 
 nion of every perfon who faw him, prove to 
 
 be
 
 LORD GARDENS TO UN. 311 
 
 be the very picture of Lady Jane ? During the 
 whole courfe of their lives, from the time 
 they brought thefe children to Britain, they 
 were the objects of their care, and their only 
 cor.folation in various misfortunes and diftref- 
 fcs. It is proved, that on every occafion, Sir 
 John acted as a moil affectionate father, Lady 
 Jane as an afiiduous and pafiionately fond mo- 
 ther. It is hard tobclievr, that they could have 
 kept on the rnafk fo conflantly. They fay 
 indeed, that Lady Jane could diffemble and 
 play the hypocrite. If we were even to al- 
 low that thefe public teftimonies of affection 
 might hive been artificial and affected j yet, 
 it fecms impomble to believe that this diffi- 
 mulation was carried on in a correp>omience be- 
 /■::*. iv. LbciH as f.cnt as conv-:yf:ihon ilf-lf. (Ian I 
 believe that Lady jane played the hypocrite, 
 when flu hick.- her heart for the loi's of her 
 child Sholto ? it is impoffiblc to read the de- 
 i riuliun which Mrs M'Crabbie <nves of her 
 affection upon the news of Sholto's death, and 
 to doubt that ihe acted and behaved in the 
 true and real character of a di : " (mother. 1 
 Lnow what hypocrisy is : It is a public pio- 
 i' iTion of piety or innocence, to cover pri- 
 ■ \ iilainy or vice, or difcredlt the impu- 
 tations of them. Lut that a confederate in :i 
 
 criminal
 
 3 i2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 criminal courfe of life mould, in her moll: 
 private communications with the very affo- 
 ciatc of her crimes, breathe i'uch conftant 
 flrains of truth and innocence, mch conti- 
 nued expreflions of love and maternal fond- 
 nefs for thefe children, is a thing unprece- 
 dented ; a thing out of all nature and credi- 
 bility. Nor can any one who knew Lady 
 Jane perfonally, or by character, believe, that 
 me could affront Heaven in her laft moments 
 by falfe and dhTembled fondneis to the fur- 
 viving child, or by hypocritical prayers in the 
 character of a true mother. There have in- 
 deed been inftances of real criminals who 
 have falfely profeffed innocence to the laft 
 moments of a public execution, from various 
 motives that might be accounted for. But 
 the circumftances in which Lady Jane died 
 were very different. In her own chamber, ia 
 the private bed of death, (he was difcovered 
 by furprife in the laft acts of devotion ; and 
 her prayers were directed to Heaven alone, to 
 fave and protect her only furviving child. 
 Even fettinsr aficle fentiments of religion, na- 
 tare will not fuller us to believe that tins 
 was hypocrify. 
 
 Thus we have a ftrong connected chain of 
 direct and circumftantial evidence to fupport 
 
 the
 
 LORD G A R D E N S T O U N. 313 
 
 the defender's filiation, and maintain his de- 
 fence. I mall now coniidcr the raoft materi- 
 al circumfcances and articles of proof, from 
 which the purfuers are obliged to maintain 
 a very bold and ftrange proportion, that all 
 this evidence on the part of the defender is 
 falfe and incredible. 
 
 Upon this head, I do agree to an obferva- 
 tion made by fume of your Lordfliips, that 
 in confidering the force of a circumftantial c- 
 vidence, we are to connect the whole cir- 
 enmftanecs and weisrh them together. But 
 ffood fenfe directs, and the nature of things 
 requires, that we firft confider well the cir- 
 cumftances feparately, before we can put them 
 into the balance, or connect them with propri- 
 ety; other wife we fliall be in great danger of 
 misjudging, of allowing weight to evidence 
 which is of no moment, or, perhaps, throwing 
 pieces of evidence into the wrong fcale. In 
 fumming numbers, we mult not fet down a H- 
 gure where a cypher fhouid be. In wcicdiinG: 
 evidence, wemuft not put a circumflance into 
 the chain or to the balance, which, fairly and 
 folidly confidcred, is in its nature light, un- 
 certain, or of no confideration. In fhort, we 
 mu ft fairly eftimate every particular before 
 we give it a place in the total evidence ; and 
 we mull be particularly cautious, left fufpi- 
 11 r ». ion ;
 
 S i 4 THE SPEE C II O F 
 
 cions miflead us to put a falfc conftruction up- 
 on circumftances. Like the jaundiced eye, fu« 
 fpicion difcolours the natural complection of 
 circumftances, and we mull guard againft it in 
 judging. 
 
 I have laboured to form an impartial judge- 
 ment of the circumftances urged by the pur- 
 fueis in this caufe, and 1 muft fairly and ho- 
 ne illy confefs, that there are fome of thefe 
 circumftances, which, in my judgement, have 
 no folid weight ; and there arc other circum- 
 ftances which I cannot treat as trivial or of 
 no moment. I do not lit here to plead caufes, 
 but to form a lincere opinion, to the beft of 
 my judgement, on all matters before us, and 
 to deliver that opinion with freedom, and 
 without refpecf. to perfons or parties. I flia.ll 
 therefore freely and plainly endeavour to flate 
 thefe two clafTes of circumftances, as they 
 truly appear in my judgement. 
 
 The fir ft, and I think the moil material ar- 
 ticle of the purfueiG proof, is the evidence of 
 Godefroy's books, as confirmed by himfelf 
 and his wife. If we give credit to this ar- 
 ticle, it proves at once, that the whole ftory 
 of a real pregnancy and of a birth was falfc. 
 Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit concur, 
 from firft to laft, in affirming, that fhe was 
 
 brought
 
 LORD G A R D E N S T O XT N. 315 
 
 brought to bed on the 10th of July in the 
 houfe of Madame le Brun ; but if Godefroy's 
 books deferve credit, the fact is, that they all 
 continued to refide in the houfe of Godefroy 
 down to the i;th of July. 
 
 I own I can give no credit to this piece of 
 evidence. In my ccnfcience, I believe it is 
 fali'e or erroneous, when I confider the weight 
 of evidence in the balance againft it: And I 
 will give reafons which are fully fatisfaciory to 
 my mind for rejecting this piece of evidence al- 
 together. In the frfl place, with regard to this 
 fpecies of evidence, the nature of it is not very 
 promising ; nor does it feem to claim the in- 
 fallibility which the purfuers afcribe to it. A 
 tavern-reckoning at the diftance of near 20 
 years, ex traded from books which are clearly 
 proved to be full of razurcs, inaccuracies, 
 blanks, and confufions. It was material for a 
 juit defence and fair trial of this great qucfti- 
 on, that thefc books, on which the purfuers 
 found, as containing conclulivc evidence of 
 the impofturc, mould have been produced in 
 court for our infpection. But we owe this 
 defect, among many others, to the memorable 
 Tourncllc procefs. Thefc books are confined to 
 thc.Tourncilc, and muft forever remain there. 
 'I heir founding on Godcfroy's books as evi- 
 dence,
 
 3 i<5 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 den co, brings to my remembrance what late- 
 ly happened : The executors of the noted 
 Mother Douglas brought an action againft fe- 
 vcr.il gentlemen of diftinclion, for payment of , 
 tavcrn-bilis contracted in her houfe. We are 
 not to prefume that thefe gentlemen fre- 
 quented fnch a houfe as Mother Douglas's : But 
 even fuppofing that they took a fancy to go 
 there, we are not to imagine that they would 
 have come off without difchararins: their rec- 
 koning. Secondly, The whole evidence for the 
 defender, which appears to me very ftrong, as 
 I have already fbted it, muft fall a facrifice 
 to this fingle article, if it is true ; a degree 
 of credit I can never beftow on thefe 
 books, nor on the teflimonies of Monfieur 
 Godefroy and his wife. Thirdly, MichelTs 
 book, his Ihre de logeurs, is allowed by the pur- 
 fucrs tkemfelves to be erroneous, though he 
 and his wife fwear as pofitively to the verity 
 of it as Godefroy and his wife have done to 
 their book. MichclFs book, as attefted by • 
 the evidence of himfelf and his wife, bears 
 the entry of Sir John and his family, at their 
 houfe on the 8th of July, and that they con- 
 tinued in their houfe till their departure from 
 Paris. I could never conceive how the pur- 
 fucrs fhould perfuade us, that we muft afcribe 
 
 infallibility
 
 LORD GARDENSTOU ^ T . 317 
 
 Infallibility to Godefroy's livre de depenfe, and 
 yet be fatisfied, that the books of Michell, 
 equally attefted, are erroneous. It is clear 
 to me, that of the two books, Michell's livre 
 de hveiirs has the beft claim to credit; for 
 this obvious reafon, that, in the bill or 
 reckoning of meat and drink furniflied to 
 urangcrs for a few days, the dates arc of no 
 moment. If the 'articles arc rightly ftated, 
 neither the land-lord nor guefts have any in- 
 tcreft to advert, if the dates arc Hated at all, 
 or if they arc accurately itated. But Mi- 
 chell's was a lodging- houfe ; and as the pay- 
 ment of loda'inor is meafured by the time, 
 
 DO J * 
 
 the date in that book is effential. And in- 
 deed, 1 cannot help observing, as a thing ve- 
 rv lingular in the conduct of the purfuers 
 agents, that, for fomc time, they perlifted 
 in maintaining, that jVIichcll's books Mere 
 the mod credible, and ailinncd upon their 
 authority, that Sir John and his family re- 
 mained in Michell's houfe from the 8th of 
 July, to their departure from Paris, which 
 t'.c; held to be cor.ciuiivc evidence, that I . uly 
 J me could not be brought to bed in the houfe 
 of i.e i-rnu upon tl;e iCi ol July. lint 
 now : : :v-, chufc to ab.mdon MieheiTs book-, 
 and ai:Li'L the inialkbiii.y or Godefroy's, :n; 
 
 it
 
 318 Til E S PE E CH O F 
 
 if they were at liberty to dictate what proofs 
 they would have lis to believe. This is 
 really a ftrangc fort of reafoning, not unlike 
 the old tricking play of odds I win, evens you 
 Irjc. idly, The teftimony of both thefe wit- 
 neffes is tainted by the Tournelle proceedings. 
 It is ({iiitc incredible, that Godefroy fhould 
 have remembered fo many particulars as he 
 mentions, without aid or inftruction ; and I 
 can pay no regard to Madame Godcfroy's tefti- 
 mony for two reafons : ift, She perfevered 
 long, and even in her examination before 
 the Tournelle, in a moft credible anfwer to 
 all inquiries concerning this matter : That at 
 fo dillant a period, and after fuch a variety of 
 intercourfes in her public way, me could re- 
 collect nothing particular concerning thefe 
 flrangers. In fo far, therefore, as I find that 
 on the great day of evidence, when flic 
 comes to depofe as a witnefs in this caufe, 
 ihe all at once concurs with her husband in 
 many particulars, to confirm the prodigious 
 memory of her husband : I muft fairly con- 
 clude, that her teftimony deferves no regard. 
 idly, Madame Godefroy is fo far candid as to 
 confefs, that the blank article in their books 
 is applied to Sir John Stewart and his family 
 ly mere conjecture. She owns, that, when 
 
 ihe
 
 L O 11 D G A R DENSTO U N. 319 
 
 ihe applies a blank article in their livre ck 
 depenfe to a perion, whom ilie finds about; 
 the fame time in their Livre de /' infpetteur, it 
 is a mere conjecture and uncertainty ; which 
 is lufiicient to discredit the evidence of her 
 husband altogether, who preiumes to {wear 
 poiitively to this application. And this un- 
 certainty of Madame Godcfroy takes, from 
 this boafted piece of evidence, the cilentiai 
 characterillic of proper or legal evidence, 
 which requires certainty, and admits of no 
 conjecture, or even probability. Lajlly, There 
 is another circumftance which takes away 
 all credit from Godefroy's teftimony in this 
 matter ; he boldly and poiitively fwears, that 
 a blank account in his books, of articles fur- 
 nifhed to a company down to the 13th of 
 July, is applicable to Sir John Stewart and 
 his family, and to no other perfons. Yet this 
 is the finglc inftance of a blank article in the 
 whole book which he can fill up in this man- 
 ner, on fair trial, with the aflhiancc of his 
 livre de /' infpcclcur, 
 
 I have dwelt upon this piece of evidence, 
 bccaule it is the finglc article in the whole 
 mafs of proofs which has any appearance of 
 being conclufivc. The reft are detached cir- 
 cumftanccs of fufpicion, rather than evi- 
 dence ;
 
 3:0 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 donee; and thefc I come now to confidcr 
 and treat with greater brevity. 
 
 The objection of Lady Jane's age is intire- 
 ly removed by elear evidence, that flic was 
 in that condition which undoubtedly denotes 
 a capacity of having children. The doctors 
 do not differ on this point ; they all agree, 
 that women having thefe marks are undoubt- 
 edly in a capacity of having children, with- 
 out diftinction of age. 1 can therefore jure 
 as well believe, that a woman in this condi* 
 tion at fifty may have children, as that a wo- 
 man at twenty-five may have children. The 
 Horn an law fays, Malitia f applet at at on. If 
 the natural marks of ability in either lex are 
 apparent, the age is no objection ; but per- 
 fons either under or paft the ufual age may 
 have children. 
 
 The circumftance that Lady jane conceal- 
 ed her marriage for fome time lias been put 
 in the fcale againft the defender ; I think 
 without reafon. To conceal the marriage as 
 long as pofiible, was a prudent and rational 
 conduct, from a fear of offending the Duke 
 andlofmg herpenfion ; airapprchcnficn which 
 the event proved to be well grounded ; for 
 the Duke did rccai the penlion foon after he 
 got intelligence of the marriage. 
 
 It
 
 LOUD GAIIDENSTOUN. 321 
 
 It has always appeared to me inconcei- 
 vable, that Lady Jane's endeavours to conceal 
 t:i : pregnancy, by wearing a hoop and looie 
 dreis, mould be ufed as an argument againft 
 the reality of the pregnancy. This endea- 
 vour was a natural confequence of her ua- 
 wiilingnefs to difcover the marriage as long 
 as flu couid poflibly conceal it from the 
 knowledge of her brother. The popular opi- 
 nion, perhnps witli rcafon, is, that hoops 
 were firft introduced to hide unlicenfed preg- 
 nancies : That a woman, who wanted to pafs 
 a falie pregnancy on the world, mould ufe 
 the ftratagem of a woman who wants to con- 
 ceal a real pregnancy, is quite incredible and 
 unprecedented ; for, in the numerous cafes 
 filiated, there is no inftance of this. And 
 indeed, this feems to be one of th ,r e circum- 
 itances which is mifplaced by the purfuers, 
 and ought to be put in the balance of the 
 defender's evidence ; for this endeavour to 
 conceal the appearances of pregnancy is natu- 
 rally an argument that Lady Jane was con- 
 fcious of a real pregnancy. 
 
 Tjik journey to Paris is fully explained, 
 
 and rationally accounted for. It was proper 
 
 to leave Aix-la-Chappele, as the great rcfort 
 
 S f oi
 
 322 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 of the fcafon approached. That they did 
 not wait for the pcrmiflion, which had been 
 applied for, to lie in at a neighbouring great 
 houfe, was certainly prudent, left it had not 
 been obtained, or had come too late ; as the 
 owner lived at Vienna, and the application 
 was not propofed in proper time. Chevalier 
 Douglas advifed them to go to Paris. His 
 advice was good, and thought fo at that 
 time : It was followed with all proper cau- 
 tion. They made fliort journies, and long 
 refls : They {laid at Liege, I think, for live 
 days; at Sedan for nine days, and at Rheims 
 for a whole month. 
 
 That Lady Jane never called for amftance 
 of perfons of profiled fkiii, either at Aix 
 or on the rout to Paris, is a circumftance 
 which docs not move me in the leaft. How 
 few of our Scots ladies, even in opulent cir- 
 cumftanccs, call for afliftance, if they hold 
 out well to the lu.it ? Some very fine Englifli 
 ladies, who are delicate, and always in a 
 fright, mull have the doctor with them eve- 
 ry hour of the day : They may think this 
 circumftance odd; but, I am fare, our Scots 
 ladies will not. 
 
 The objection, that Madame Ic Brun, in 
 whofc houfe Lady Jane is laid to have been 
 
 delivered,
 
 L O R D G A 11 DENSTOU N. r- ? 
 
 vlclivcrcd, has never been difcovered, feems 
 to me of no great moment. That La Marre 
 was connected with a woman of that name 
 is proved from his books. It is no matter of 
 wonder that file cannot be found in fo large 
 a city at this remote period; cfpeeiaily as it is 
 proved, that no aid for this difcovcry could 
 be had from the records : for by the re mla- 
 lions ill e could neither be found in the po- 
 lice nor in the capitation-roils. This is not 
 the finale inftance of perfons who cannot 
 now be difcovered, though they undoubted- 
 ly exiited at that period of time. It is no 
 more a matter of wonder or of evidence on 
 either fide, that Madame le Brun cannot now 
 be found, than it is matter of wonder or of 
 evidence that no trace can be found of the 
 nude who iirft brought the child to Michell's. 
 The coachman cannot be found who drove 
 iway the child of Mignon. The purfucrs 
 thcmnVives now admit:, and fay it appears from 
 i lie evidence, that Sir John and his family 
 were lodged in ionic houfe dilierent either 
 Iroiu iroy's or ".licheH's, for at lealt !nc 
 
 _-; yet, with ail the aids ol" police, Tour- 
 . and Monitoire, they have never difco- 
 vered any oth'U - lee': .vhcre they lodged; 
 
 fo
 
 324 THE SPEEC II O F 
 
 i'o that, if they were not in the houfe of Ma- 
 chine le Brun, foi any thing that appears 
 from the evidence, they were no where : A 
 conclnfion which naturally and neceffarily 
 drives us to believe the evidence of Sir John 
 and Mrs He wit, that they really were in the 
 houfe of Madame le Brun, though this per- 
 ion cannot now be found out. 
 
 Many other circumftanccs have been urged 
 againft the defender as matters of evidence, 
 which appear to me perfectly innocent and 
 infignifkant. The queftion was afked, Why 
 did they leave llheims and go to Paris ? But 
 this is really a very ambiguous circumflance. 
 If they had ftaid at Rheims, the queftion might 
 then have been afked, Why did they not pro- 
 ceed to Paris, where the bed afilftancc could 
 have been had in cafe of danger in the delive- 
 ry ? It was afked, Why was fo obfeure a man 
 as La Marre employed in the important office 
 of Lady Jane's delivery ? I anfwer, That La 
 Marre was a very reputable man in his pro- 
 feflion : And it appears from the evidence of 
 Me; a cr, that his aflifiance too was befpoke in 
 cafe of need, The queftion was allied, Why 
 did they fend away one of the children ? Why 
 did they not carry both of them to the houfe 
 of Michell r The anfwer is quite fimple and fa- 
 
 tisfactorv,
 
 LOUD GARDE NSTOU N. 325 
 
 tisfactory, That the youngcft child, being from 
 his birth very delicate and weak, was fent 
 to the country by the advice of the accou- 
 cheur. It was laid, Wiry did not Lady Jane, 
 who is pointed out in the evidence as a mofl 
 tender and affectionate mother, go to vifit 
 her poor ilckly child Sholto during all the 
 time of her flay at Paris ? 1 anfwer, It can 
 hardly be doubted that flic did make vifits to 
 this child ; tho' circumftances of this nature 
 may not be clearly proved at this time of 
 day : Nor do I remember that this queftion 
 was put to any of the witneffes. 
 
 1 now come to mention, in very few words, 
 another clafs of circumftances, which I cannot 
 conhder as altogether liorlit or trivial, and 
 wliich are not fo well accounted for. I have 
 never heard a <rood or fatisfactorvrcafon civen 
 why the Lrvant-maids were left at Rheims. 
 It feems ftrangc that the child Sholto was left 
 io forelorn at Paris, recommended to no per- 
 fbn of their acquaintance, excepting La Marrc; 
 and yet Sir John fays he had no certain di- 
 rection to find him. In ordinary cafes, in- 
 deed, it is no in ui find thing that children at 
 r.uri'e are only i'een by parents and phylicians, 
 or ciomefiieks, till they are brouglit home: 
 Hut iii the circumflances of tliefe parties, in a 
 
 forei-.VR
 
 3 :6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 foreign country, ana removed at the diftance 
 of llheims from Paris, it was certainly natu- 
 ral that they mould defire friends on the fpot 
 to look alter the child. I cannot help flill 
 thinking it is a itrange circumftance, not well 
 accounted for, that, when Lady Jane was in- 
 formed of fufpicions ftirring concerning the 
 birth of thefc children, flic carried her in- 
 quiries no further than Aix-la-Chappelle, at a 
 time when the matter was recent, and fatis- 
 facfory atteftations might have been got 
 from Paris. Sir John's account of La Marre 
 is certainly odd ; but I cannot confider the 
 particular of La Marre's letters in the fame 
 very unfavourable light as fome of your Lord- 
 fhips have placed them. 1 cannot fay, that 
 in my fenfe of this matter, there is a mani- 
 feft forgery of thefe letters. When Sir John 
 was examined, thefe letters were produced to 
 him; he readily, and in a very natural man- 
 ner, as I remember, faid, Thefe arc not the ori- 
 ginal letters of La Marre ; they are copies 
 which were taken at my defire by fome per- 
 fon at London : Upon further consideration, 
 Indeed, he faid, that he thought one or two 
 of them might be originals ; but he did not 
 lay this positively : It is, therefore, a very pof- 
 iible thing, that Sir John Stewart having been 
 
 imp or-
 
 LORD GAHDENSTOUN. 327 
 
 importuned by Lady Jane to fend La Marre's 
 le iters to her wlien in Scotland, Sir Jo3m, 
 who was one of the moft carelefs and irregular 
 men in the world, though a gentlemanny ho- 
 nourable man, may have miflaid or loft the 
 true letters, and made up thefe from memo- 
 ry or from copies, to quiet Lady Jane. This, 
 though fuppolition only, is as natural, and 
 more confident with the circumflances in e- 
 vidence, and I am furc it is more charitable, 
 than the fupv>o/>tion of an actual fonrery of 
 letters which never exiited ; for it is in evi- 
 dence, that Sir John did, upon various oc- 
 cafions, receive and read letters from La 
 Marre. 
 
 Though I allow that thofe circumftances 
 are perplexing and not fully accounted for; 
 yet, 1 mult fay, that there are two coniidcra- 
 tions, which, in my opinion, go far to re- 
 move the weight of them. \\\ the firfl place, 
 I confider the fmgularity and ftrangc inatten- 
 tion of Sir John's character. ( )ne of the wor- 
 th, iefi: men who ever gave evidence in any 
 cu;fe, I mean Mr Hepburn of Keith, has 
 in to Sir John's ch-.racLr, with, a truth 
 and }u:r:iic that mini tcuci: eery body, lie 
 fvcars to tlie probity and honour of Sir 
 John's character; ami adds, "He could re- 
 
 " member
 
 328 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 " member a joke well ; but in other matters 
 " he was apt to commit miftakes, and to 
 " fpeak raflily." Both this gentleman and his 
 lady Mrs Hepburn concur in telling parti- 
 cular inftances of Sir John's ftrange inatten- 
 tion and want of memory in things that were 
 not jocular. I mult confider Sir John's de- 
 claration and the other circumftances of evi- 
 dence, having at the fame time in my mind a 
 juft impreflion of his character; I muft alfo con- 
 iidcr, that Sir John was examined in an unufual 
 manner, when he was afflicted with the infirmi- 
 ties of age and difeafe, without any previous 
 condefcendence, upon a vaft variety of facls 
 which had happened at the diflance of many 
 years. Secondly, I am bound to confider, that as 
 this inquiry is brought at fo late a period, many 
 circumftances may now fecm flrange, which 
 would have been eafily explained and ac- 
 counted for, if this inquiry had been recently 
 brought ; and I am greatly moved with the 
 circumftance which was obferved by one of 
 your Lordfhips, concerning the man-fervant. 
 He was difmiiled by Sir John about the time 
 when they left Aix-la-Chappelle, and pro- 
 ceeded on their journey to Paris. This was 
 mentioned by the pnrfucrs as one circum- 
 ftance of fufpicion ; and had it not been ex- 
 plained,
 
 LORD GARDENSTOUN. 329 
 
 plained, I fhould certainly have confldered it 
 in that light: I fhould certainly have fct 
 it down in the clafs cf circumftances which 
 feem ftrange, and which 1 cannot ; cc runt for. 
 But by mere accident, the wife of this raan- 
 fervant was found out ; and it is now in proof, 
 that the fellow had been a defcrter from the 
 French fervice : That Sir John was unwilling 
 to part with him ; but, for the above reafon, 
 he would not venture to go into France with 
 him. 
 
 1 mall conclude with obferving, that the 
 defender's cafe will be Angularly hard in 
 two rcfpecls, if judgment go againft him : 
 1//, It cannot be laid, that he had a fair Bri- 
 riih trial tor his birth-right; for my part, I 
 cm never think, that he has had a fair trial 
 I cannot be fufpected to mean any reflection 
 on the proceedings of this court. In this 
 court, he has had a fair and indulgent trial, 
 from the flrfl great act of juftiee, by which 
 noffefiion of the eftate was awarded to him, 
 down to this day : But his trial has not been 
 fair, in refpect of the profecutors conduct. 
 ] confefs, it furprifed me to hear an obferva- 
 taon from one of your Lordfhips, that the 
 rcuUu't of the caufe has no concern with 
 'J' t the
 
 3S o T IIESP E E C II O F 
 
 the merits of it, and that the proceedings of 
 the Tournelle and of the iVionitoire are im- 
 properly brought under confederation when 
 we are to determine this great qucftion of 
 birth-right. The conduct of parties and their 
 agents muft always be confidercd in a quc- 
 ftion of fact, if any improper means have 
 been ufed to influence the evidence ; other- 
 wife bribery and downright corruption it- 
 felf would not fall under confideration when 
 we judge of a proof. In this cafe, the arbi- 
 trary engines of France have been ufed to in- 
 fluence and pervert evidence. Thefe engines 
 have been mifuied ; for, in France itfelf, fuch 
 a fictitious criminal trial could not have been 
 tolerated ; nor would they have fuffered fuch 
 a Monitoire to have been publifhed in any 
 caufe depending before the high courts of 
 Paris. The defender's cafe will be fingular- 
 ly hard in another refpeel, that there is no 
 inftance fimilar to this among: the various 
 cafes of fuppojitio partus which have been 
 quoted. In thefe cafes, for mo ft part, the 
 trial was recently brought. In all of them, 
 where conviction followed, the proof has been 
 direct, clear, and conclufive. In no one cafe 
 has it been found againft the defender, where 
 
 the
 
 LORD GARDENS TO UN. 331 
 
 the proofs were fuch as occur in this cafe : 
 That a child has been brought up from in- 
 fancy to manhood : That his birth has been 
 proved by direct teftimony of two witneffes, 
 confirmed by fuch a var.tty of concurring 
 circumftances ; confirmed by the cleared 
 proofs of pregnancy, by inflection of the 
 moft private correfpondence of the parents, 
 and by their dying declarations : I am there- 
 fore clear for repelling the reafons of reduc- 
 tion. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ 33* J 
 
 LORD KENNET. 
 
 N this caufe of great importance and ex- 
 pectation, it is reafonable, that each of the 
 lodges fliould deliver his opinion, with the 
 reafons upon which it is founded, for the fa- 
 tisfaction of the parties. But it is unnecef- 
 iary, and even improper in doing fo, to go 
 through the great mafs of proof, which lies 
 before your Lordfhips, or to take notice of 
 every argument which has been urged in the 
 caufe. The plan I have formed fcr myfelf is, 
 to deliver my opinion, and to mention the 
 chief points upon which it is founded. Se- 
 veral of thefe points have already been men- 
 tioned by your Lordfhips, who have fpoke 
 before me ; however, it will ftill be neceffa- 
 ry to take notice of them, as the grounds of 
 my opinion. But I mall do it as ihortly as 
 poflible ; becaufe I do not fpeak with a view 
 to perfuade any of your Lordfhips to em- 
 brace the opinion which I have formed; that 
 is a talk for which I do not think myfelf qua- 
 lified; and though I were, I would not un- 
 dertake
 
 THE SPEECHO F, &c. 333 
 
 dertake it ; becaufe it would be more agree- 
 able to me, if thofe who have formed a con- 
 trary opinion could convince me, that I ought 
 to alter mine, as it is for fuflaining the rea- 
 ibns of reduction. 
 
 The points of law which occur in this 
 caui'e, appear to me to be eafily determined. 
 Thcjirjl is, Upon whom does the onus proban- 
 da he ? As to this, when one claims to be 
 i'erved heir to his predeceflor, he mull prove 
 his propinquity; but, in order to eftablifh 
 this, no more is neceilary, than to prove the 
 acknowledgement of his parents, or that he 
 was habit and repute to be their foil, or ha- 
 bit and repute to be the heir of the pcrfon 
 to whom he claims to be i'erved. The de- 
 fender has already proved this in his icrvice, 
 and iias aiio t!u:ic 10 in tins proeeis of reduc- 
 tion. But tins is not a probaiio Probata. It 
 may be got the better of by contrary evidence; 
 and it lies upon the pcrfons who object to the 
 icrvice to bring this evidence. The crime of 
 partus fuppofitio is not a common one; but in- 
 stances or it have occurred ; and it would oc- 
 cur more frequently, if peribns acknowled- 
 ging one to be their ion, were fuilicicnt to 
 give him that character. It would, therefore, 
 be dangerous to focicty, it no contrary proof 
 
 could
 
 3 34 T H E S P E E CH OF 
 
 could be allowed of. And, if the acknow- 
 ledgement of parents, or of fuch as pretend 
 to be fo, eftablifhcs a pr&fumpt'io juris e't de jure, 
 that the perfon fo acknowledged is really 
 their fon, your Lordlhips, and the Houfe 
 of Peers have proceeded very improperly in 
 this caufe, by allowing the purfuers to prove, 
 that the defender was not the fon of Sir John 
 Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas. For why 
 did you put the parties to the trouble and 
 expencc of fo long a proof, if it can be of 
 no avail after it is brought ? The procefs 
 ousrht rather to have been difmifled at the 
 besrinninsr. But no lawyer ever maintained 
 fuch an abfurd proportion. For, as to this 
 point, the law Hands thus : That no perfon is 
 bound to bring a direct proof of his birth. It 
 is fufficient for him to prove the acknow- 
 ledgement of his parents, or the habit and 
 repute of his being their fon. This intitles 
 him to that character, until the contrary is 
 proved; and which may be proved by thofe 
 who have an intereft. When 1 eftablifh thefe 
 principles, T do not (as was hinted yefterday) 
 weaken the fecurity which men have for their 
 birth-rights, nor endanger the ilate of thofe 
 who have been born m America, or in the 
 mofl diftant parts of the globe. For they 
 
 arc
 
 LORD KEN NET. 335 
 
 are not obliged to bring a direct proof of 
 their birth; and thofe who object to it, muft 
 bring a clear and convincing proof of the 
 impofture. I do not mean fuch a proof as 
 convinces every one. It is feldom pofiible 
 to bring fuch a proof; but it muft appear 
 convincing to thofe who are for reducing a 
 lervice. 
 
 These obfervations remove the objections 
 which have been made againft the latenefs 
 of bringing the action. The defender does 
 not furler thereby ; becaufc he is not bound 
 to bring a direct proof of his birth, as I have 
 already laid ; and it commonly will be more 
 eal'y to detect a fraud, when the challenge is 
 recently brought, than at a diitant period. 
 Happy had it been for this defender, if the 
 purfuers had been more late in bringing their 
 action. For, if Sir John Stewart and Mrs I lewit 
 had been dead before the commencement 
 of it, the reafons of reduction would not this 
 day have appeared fo clearly proved. In palling, 
 it may be ohferved, that the purfuers had no 
 intercft to bring the action till after the 
 death of the late Duke of Doucrias : for, till 
 amort time before that period, ihe defender 
 was, by the Duke's fcttltments, excluded 
 from fuccceding to the eft/t - < ,' Dou ! ; ;
 
 33<$ THE SPEEC II O F 
 
 The next point to be confidered, is the 
 kind of evidence which is f'uflicicnt for re- 
 ducing a fervice ; and as to this, I am of o- 
 pinion, that direct evidence is not required; 
 but that a circumftantial proof is fufficient 
 for that purpofe. Lawyers who have wrote 
 upon this point of partus fuppofit'w, have ex- 
 prefsly faid fo; and we have daily infhnces 
 of men being tried for their lives, and con- 
 demned, on circumflantial evidence. Occult 
 crimes can feldom be brought to light any 
 other way ; and indeed, circumftantial proofs 
 are as convincing as direct proofs ; nay, often 
 more fo; for in the kit, there is more ha- 
 zard of witneffes confpiring to fwear to a 
 falfchood. But, in a circumftantial proof, 
 where there are a number of witneffes and 
 circumftances, having no immediate connec- 
 tion with each other; and yet, all thefe cir- 
 cumftances pointing .towards the fame cen- 
 ter ; thefe muft be fully as convincing, and 
 make as ftrong an imprellion upon the minds 
 of judges or juries, as any direct proofs 
 whatever; and, in judging of circumftantial 
 evidence, the whole circumftances ought to 
 be taken together ; for fome of them, which 
 may appear trivial by themfelves, may have 
 weight, when joined to others. 
 
 I
 
 LORD KEN NET. 337 
 
 I have confidered and reconfidered the evi- 
 dence now before us with all poflible atten- 
 tion. At the outfetting of the caufe 1 did be- 
 lieve that the defender was the fon of Lady 
 j me Douglas. 1 had a prejudice in his fa- 
 vour; but it was a lescal one. i was unwilling 
 to believe that perfons of Sir John and Lady 
 jane's rank could be capable of committing the 
 crime laid to their charge. In every cafe, the 
 prefumption is for innocence; I therefore ex- 
 amined the proof brought by the purfuers with 
 the utmoft jealoufy, and that brought by the 
 defender with the moft favourable eye ; and 
 if, after all, I had entertained any doubt in 
 my ov. n mind, if I had but fecn a probability 
 that the defender was the fon of thole who 
 :knowledgcd him lor their child, 1 would 
 have been tor aifoilzieing him from the re- 
 duction : For I hold it to Ik* a juil principle, 
 that ir is better that a fuppolititious child get 
 this cftate, than that the fon of Lady Jane 
 Douglas fhould be deprived of it. God for- 
 bid that this court mould di (inherit the i'en 
 of Lady Jane Douglas! God forbid that I 
 !h: uid have a hand in difinhcriting the f )n of 
 Lady Jane Douglas. But if it appears to me, 
 as it really does, that the ilefe:: r is nor her 
 fon, I cannot, from motives of companion, 
 U 11 {rive
 
 33 8 T II E S P E E C II O F 
 
 give him that cftate which belongs to o- 
 thers. 
 
 I come now to conlider the proof, and thejirfi 
 head of it is the proof of Lady Jane's pregnancy. 
 As to this, it is certainly proved, that me had the 
 appearances of pregnancy ; but all fuch, from 
 the nature of them, are fallacious. Women 
 have often been deceived with refpect to 
 them; and when an impofture is intended, 
 they muft be aii'umcd in fuch a way as to de- 
 ceive others. Common fenfe, as well as our 
 law-books, teach this. There is a title in the 
 ci \'i\ law, de ventre hifpiciendo, in which rules 
 are laid down for detecting; fuch frauds. The 
 appearances of pregnancy are fworn to by 
 many witneiies, who I imagine have fworn 
 truly. Bat why did they think that Lady Jane 
 was with child ? They have told us, becaufe 
 ihe was of a pale completion ; that fhe had 
 frequent reachings and vomings ; and on ac- 
 count of her bulk. As to the flrfc two, it is 
 proved, that fhe was naturally pale, and that 
 flu had difbrdcrs in her ftpmach. And as to the 
 iaft, fh.' behoved to aflame the appearance of 
 b ! k, in order to carry on a feigned pregnan- 
 cy cur William Stewart and his Lady, who 
 faw Lady Jane at Aix-la-CJhapnclic in 1747, fay, 
 that they then thought her with child, becaufe 
 
 flic
 
 LORD KEN NET. 339 
 
 ilie looked paie, and had frequent vomitings; 
 and yet k is admitted, that at this period, ihz 
 was not with child. 
 
 There are f'ome particulars fworn to by- 
 Mrs Ilewit and Tibby Walker, with regard to 
 the pregnancy, which ;u - e rather iufpicious. 
 They fay that Lad}' was fo unwieldy when at 
 Aix-la-Chappelle, that me behoved to be help- 
 ed into her bed, and to take the aiiillancc of a 
 ftool cr box, for that purpofe ; and yet after- 
 wards, when (he made her journey from thence 
 to Paris by lihcims, (he could get into the coach 
 without being lifted up, except only once at 
 her outfetting from llheims to i'aris, yet the 
 fteps of thofe machines are proved to be high- 
 er than her bed. Another Iufpicious circum- 
 ftance fwoin to by thefe witr.eflbs, is the 
 vail and remarkable bulk of Lady jane ; and 
 yet, icveral witiu-Ies fay, the}' did not disco- 
 ver, that ilie was with child. This might be 
 the cafe although {he really was ib; but is not 
 very coniiftent with the account of the extra- 
 ordinary bulb which thcie two witnciles lay 
 ihe had. 
 
 Mrs He v. it depofes, that during their ft ay 
 
 at llheims before tin delivery, Lv.ly fine fcl- 
 
 dom furred abroad, on accomr or her un- 
 
 ldincf>, and inor was on the flrect inn 
 
 on :e •
 
 34 o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 once ; and yet Abbe Hibcrt, who is by no 
 means a fufpicious witnefs aguinft the defend- 
 er, fwears, that lie was with Lady Jane e- 
 very day while fhe was at Rheims before her 
 going to Paris : That they daily walked out 
 together when the weather would permit, 
 and generally did f'q in a garden, the road to 
 which was through the ftreet. And Mr 
 Querengal depofes, That at that time he met 
 Lady Jane three or four times upon the ftreet. 
 And that fhe could not be fo unwieldy as 
 Mrs Hewit reprefented, appears from the oath 
 of the mantuamaker who took her mcafure 
 when at Rheims, and yet did not difcover 
 her being with child. Mrs Hewit has indeed 
 denied, that any gowns were made or altered 
 for Lady Jane when at Rheims, previous to 
 her going to Paris ; but this is dilproved by 
 Tibby Walker, as well as by the mantuama- 
 ker ; and Mrs Hewit's denying it, is a circum- 
 ftance againft the defender. 
 
 The appearances, however, of pregnancy, 
 is the ftrongeft part of the proof brought by 
 the defender. And I was once in hopes that 
 it might have been fuilicient for convincing 
 me to form an opinion in his favour, not- 
 withftanding the other circumftanccs proved 
 by the purfuers j becaufe it is not alledged 
 
 that
 
 LORD KENNET. 341 
 
 that Lady Jane had a falfc conception, or 
 was herfeif deceived ; but that the appear- 
 ances of pregnancy were afrumed in order to 
 impofe upon others. I therefore thought/that 
 it there was a convincing- proof of her ha- 
 ving a real big belly, it .might go far tq efta- 
 bliih a real pregnancy ; and coniequentiy, a real 
 delivery. For this purpofc, I carefully exa- 
 mined the evidence of thpfe witneil.es who 
 fay they had accefs to fee her without her 
 cloaths. The firft of thefe is Madame Tewis; 
 But, alas ! we have only her declaration, and 
 not her oath ; and though people ought to be 
 equally defirous to tell truth upon a declara- 
 tion as upon oath ; yet, experience mows us, 
 that this is not the common opinion of man- 
 kind ; and therefore, the folemnity of oaths 
 has been introduced by all nations, and in e- 
 vcry age of the world, in order to difeover 
 the truth. Befides, although Madame Tewis 
 had fworn what flic has only declared, I could 
 have paid little regard to her teftimony ; be- 
 caufe flic has laid tilings which are not cre- 
 dible. She is indeed more modeft when de- 
 claring before the notary ; but Sir George 
 Cohjiihoun and Captain Douglas fwear, that 
 ihc declared to then), fhe had olten yilited 
 f ady Jane in the morning before fhe got 
 
 out
 
 r 4 2 T II E SPEECH OF' 
 
 out of bed: That flic had frequently fat down 
 upon her bed-fide, put her. hand upon her 
 belly, and found the child or children mo- 
 ving. Now, it cannot be believed, that Lady 
 Jane would allow Madame Tcwis to ufc fetch 
 freedoms with her. And the landladies with 
 whom Lady Jane then lodged have fworn, 
 that Madame Tewis vilited her feldom ; and 
 that people did not get accefs to Lady jane 
 when in bed. The next witnefs upon this 
 point is Mrs Hepburn. I have no reafon to 
 fufpeci her evidence ; but flie did not fee e- 
 nough for afcertaining that Lady Jane was 
 truly with child. She came into her room 
 one morning at Leige, when Lady Jane was 
 putting on her cloaths, and though not then 
 dreffed, it would appear from Mrs Hepburn's 
 oath, that flie had on a fhort gown and petty- 
 coats ; at leaft, Mrs Hepburn makes her ob* 
 fcrvations from the iiz'e of Lady Jane's breafts, 
 and not of her belly ; and it furely cannot be 
 gathered with certainty from the appearance 
 of her breafts, that flie was with child. Up- 
 on this head I was willing to call in to my af- 
 fiftancc the evidence which we have of what 
 was reported by Lfify Caw, one of Lady Jane's 
 maids, who died before the commencement 
 cf this action. She laid, Hie believed that 
 
 Lad^ r
 
 L O R D KENNE T. 343 
 
 Lady Jane was with child ; but fhe has not 
 faid upon what tins belief was founded. And 
 it appears from the oath of 'I ibby Walker, 
 that F.ily Caw did not fee Lady jane without 
 her cloaths ; for fhe fwcars that flic hcrfelf 
 was the perfon who afiificd Lady jane to get 
 out of bed, and drehed her in tiie morning; 
 and that Lffy Caw only afiifted to drefs her 
 before dinner. 
 
 To:: whole oi' this matter then comes to 
 reft upon the evidence of Tibby Walker; and 
 I cannot look upon it as proved by this finale 
 witneis, especially as fhe is a very fufpicious 
 one, rind has fworn feveral things which are 
 not true; inch as toe great bulk and umvicldi- 
 nefs of 'Lady jane, her threatening to mif- 
 carry at uciel, and Lcin^j fo ill there, that flic 
 went immediate!;, to bet! upon her arrival at 
 the ion ; an ie, Tibby Walker, fat clofs 
 
 by her bed-fide all night; and yet it is proved, 
 that hothTTby W;dkcr an.' YJVy Caw fup- 
 : I fhat night in 'die fune room with the 
 company win) had travelled in the coach. She 
 i er-icd that the ;aoii:o:ii.;l; r took 1 .' , 
 o mealure .a iilu on.,, though fhe 
 t ioaLh '.vera aitere 1 for !:■ r there ; 
 '■ . :.. ;r, many lam/- o 
 
 1 1 . .... ( 1 li ie ie i. v . 1 i.tiu i'j 1..: i 
 
 mi 
 
 iS 
 
 ' ;; 
 
 e 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 1
 
 344 T H E S P E E CH OF 
 
 Marre, though it is proved they arc forged; 
 and flic has fworn, that the laft of them, 
 which is dated in the 1752, was received by 
 Sir John when flaying in Mr Murray's houfe 
 in London, though it is certain he left that 
 houfe in 1751 ; and what flic fwears with re- 
 fpect to the conversation betwixt Lady Jane 
 Douglas and the then Lord Advocate in 
 1752, is very fufpicious. Upon the whole, 
 therefore, there is no proof of pregnancy 
 fuiTicient for getting the better of the circum- 
 ftances which have been proved by the pur- 
 fucrs, in order to eftablifh the impofture : 
 But, on the contrary, fome of the proofs 
 with rejfpccr. to the pregnancy tend to cre- 
 ate fufpicions of its not being a real ©ne. 
 
 There arc fome fufpicious circumftance s 
 in proof previous to Lady Jane's going to 
 Paris; fuch as her different pretences for lea- 
 ving Aix-la-Chappel!e, different places of de- 
 ftination mentioned, when about to leave it, 
 and the falfe pretence for leaving llheims on 
 account of not having proper afiiilancc there 
 for her delivery; which I only juft mention, 
 becaufe they have already been taken notice 
 of by fome of your Lordfhips. But there is 
 one circumftance, which has not been men- 
 tioned.
 
 LORD KENNET, 345 
 
 tioned, and appears to mc of weight ; name- 
 ly, Th.it Madame lewis, when fiie believed 
 Lady Jane to be with child, propofed, by the 
 afiiftance of her couiin, to obtain leave for Lady 
 Jane to lie in at a country-houfe belonging to 
 the Counte de Salme ; for winch pmpofe, 
 a letter was wrote to the Count, then at 
 \'icnna. Had Lady Jane been truly with 
 child, tiiis was an excellent fcheme for her; 
 ihe thereby got free of the expence of living 
 at Aix'la-Chappellc, which was one of the 
 reafons for leaving it, and got free of the 
 expence of hired lodgings. But Lady Jane 
 did not think proper to flay until an anfwer 
 came to this letter. Had flic been in a hur- 
 rv to tret to the place where fiie was to be 
 delivered, it might have been a good reafon 
 for her not waiting an anfwer to the letter, 
 that Ihe was afraid to delay her journey un- 
 til near the time of her delivery. But we 
 do not iind, that this was the cafe; for fiie 
 puts oif fome time at Leige, on her way to 
 Hhcims, and flic ftaid a month at Rhcims be- 
 fore jetting out for iAuis. 1 do not fay, that 
 t he 1'^ (jicuinft.u c mucii l)y thcmfelves ; 
 
 but ' \ have w,.;,'.!, when added to o- 
 
 .< 1 
 
 Lu wjxg
 
 34$ TltE SPEECH OF 
 
 Leaving the maids at Rheims, when fhe 
 went to Paris to lie in, is a ftrong circum- 
 flance againft her ; as fhe had been at the 
 charge of having them about her in the fe- 
 veral places where fhe had formerly ftaid, 
 their affiftancc furely was more neceflary, 
 when fhc was to be brought to bed. It has 
 been faid, that this is a two-edged weapon, 
 and cuts both ways ; for, if Tibby Walker 
 was an accomplice, fhe ought to have been 
 taken to Paris, in order to have given evi- 
 dence of the birth. But, in the firft place, 
 fuppofing her an accomplice, it might have 
 been dangerous to have taken her to Paris, 
 left, upon an examination, and by crofs in- 
 terrogatories, fhe and Mrs Iiewit might have 
 contradicted one another. In the next place, 
 perhaps Tibby Walker was not then an ac- 
 complice ; they might be afraid at that time 
 to truft her with the whole of the fecrets ; 
 and perhaps fhe is not yet an accomplice, 
 though her affection for the defender (which 
 fervants naturally acquire for children in the 
 houfe with them) has led her to fwear feveral 
 things in his favour, which arc not agree- 
 able to the truth. The pretence for leaving 
 the maids at Rheims, viz. the want of mo- 
 is alio a ftroiig circumftance againft the 
 
 defender ;
 
 LORD K E N N E T. 347 
 
 defender; becaufe this pretence is a faifc one; 
 for it is in proof, by written evidence, that 
 Sir John had a credit upon Paris for near 
 2ooolivres, and received the money two days 
 after he arrived there. 
 
 Th e capital point is the delivery of Lady 
 Jane. The defender is not bound to prove 
 this ; but, if thofe who fiy they were his 
 parents, or Mrs Ilewit, who fays flic was 
 prefent at the birth, give contradictory or 
 incredible accounts of it ; or, if the accounts 
 given by them are partly difproved by cre- 
 dible witneifes, thefe things muft go a great 
 length for cftablifhing the proof of the im- 
 pofture. 
 
 It has been faid, that the delivery is proved 
 by two witnefles, viz. Sir John Stewart and 
 Mrs Ilewit. If thefe witneifes were altoge- 
 ther habile, their tcilimonies would go a great 
 length againft the circumftantial evidence 
 brought by the purfuers. But parents, or 
 thofe who fay they are fo, cannot be admit- 
 ted as evidence in inch cafes ; though, if they 
 give a probable account of the matters, it 
 will aid the defender ; if they do not, it muff. 
 have weight againh him. But their oaths on 
 that head cannot amount to a proof; other- 
 wife, it would be an cafy matter to impofc a lup- 
 
 pofititious
 
 348 T II E S P E E C H O F 
 
 pofititious child on the world; becauic they 
 would have no move to do, than to fwear 
 to what they had alledged. Bciidcs, even 
 fuppoflmr. that twenty witneffes had fworn 
 to the actual delivery, yet, if fliall be ihown, 
 by internal or external evidence, that thclb 
 witneffes have fworn falfely, the proof by 
 thefc witneffes may be got the better of. 
 This often happens in the courfe of judicial 
 proceedings ; your Lordiliips arc often obli- 
 ged to weigh evidence, when contradictory, 
 and to confidcr which preponderates. If, 
 therefore, the purfuers have proved, that 
 Lady Jane, Sir John, and Mrs Ilewit, have 
 given inconliftent, contradictory, and incre- 
 dible accounts of this aflair, and fuch as arc 
 in pure disproved by other evidence, it mull 
 zro far for eftablifhinsj the impoflure. 
 
 Lady Jane carefully avoided entering in- 
 to particulars concerning her delivery in the 
 many letters wrote by her upon the fubject, 
 and in the converfations fhe is proved to. 
 have had concerning it. This of itfelf is a 
 fufpicious circumftance. She never men- 
 tioned the houfe where, nor the man-mid- 
 wife by whom Ihe was delivered ; and men- 
 tioned no circumftanccs concerning the birth, 
 except once when preffed to it by Lady Stair: 
 
 on
 
 L ORD K E N N E T. 
 
 4? 
 
 on which occafion flic alhdged, that fae ! fl 
 Rheims, became flic; conk! not get proper a(- 
 iifcance tlierc; of which (he fays flie was in- 
 formed by a (trailer Lady, who called for 
 her to rue hei thai information the morniii'j; 
 after her arrival at that place. This ftory is 
 fo improbv.' :c that furprifiu^ a pcrfon oi 
 
 Lady Jane's imd rftaiidmj; fliouLi have told 
 it; and it appears from the proof, that pro- 
 per afiiftanee micrht have been trot there. 
 
 zoo 
 
 And as an excuie tor h-r not having any of 
 her country-folks in Paris prefent at her de- 
 livery, flic faid to Lady btair, tliat flie was 
 brought to bed bail an hour, or an hour and 
 a hair alter her arrival at Paris; thouirh it L 
 now admitted, that flie was hx days at Pa- 
 ris before bee delivery. It is true, this con- 
 veriation oi Lady jane's is only iworr. tu by 
 one witueh;. but iUrs i'nmroie, who fVcaia 
 to it is a leads' or luch undcritandinq;, ho- 
 nour, and integrity, that none can doubt vbae 
 flic fays. 
 
 S, a b-;:e .'•] s, that lie v.a. "> lo Paris in 
 
 fV.mrncr i 74'b pr :\ am ; to Lady J ac'., gmncr, 
 
 t . : That lie fund ll-vcra] day.-, in Mr Uode- 
 
 ! ai {} •- tea e, ! e'p( be Pier la 
 
 r '. ' V- i ' - . . : ; ' did 
 
 . . .. v : ~ . • .. '. oils I' 1
 
 35o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 u 
 Lady Jane's g ing there ; and it is admitted 
 
 he did not. Now, although there was no ne- 
 cefHty for going prcviouily to Paris to be- 
 fpeak an accoucheur, becaufe in fuch a town, 
 one could be found on a fhort warning ; yet, 
 when Sir John tells falfehoods when exa- 
 mined concerning the delivery, and the cir- 
 cumftanccs attending it, it creates a fufpi- 
 cion, that the whole tale told by him is falfe. 
 Mrs Hewit fays, that no nurfe was be- 
 fpoke previous to Lady Jane's delivery, 
 and that Lady Jane would not befpeak one, 
 becaufe fhe did not know if fhe would have a 
 living child. This is indeed fingular ; no la- 
 dy is certain that fhe will have a living 
 child, but all hope for one, and in that view 
 take care to provide a nurfe, even when 
 living in their own country amonglt friends 
 and acquaintance ; and it was much more 
 neceflary to do fo in a foreign country, and 
 at a place where one had no acquaintance. 
 An ingenious anfwer was fuggefted to this 
 by one of your Lcrdfhips who delivered his 
 opinion yefterday, viz. that Pier la Marre 
 had befpoke the nurfe, whofe name is 
 Gamier: That Mrs Hewit did not know 
 this ; and as two children were born, when 
 only one was expected, the weakeft child 
 
 was
 
 LORD K E N N E T. 351 
 
 was given to her, and another nurfe behoved 
 to be provided for the other child. But this 
 fuppofition is contradicted by the proof; for 
 Mrs Hewit, who was well acquainted with 
 all Lady Jane's tranfaclions, fwcars exprefsly, 
 " That Lady Jane would not allow any nurfe 
 " to be befpoke before her delivery, becaufc 
 " flic fait! fhe did not know if flic would 
 " bear a living child/' And Mrs Hewit, in 
 her letter to the maids, dated 2 2d July 1748, 
 giving them an account of the delivery, writes : 
 "The children are two lovely creatures, but 
 " the youngeft very fmall and weakly ; fo the 
 " Doctor beg'd he miffht be lent to the coun- 
 " try, as foon as poflible; your mailer and 1 had 
 " to £0 not a little way before we cot a nurfe 
 " that we would part with him to ; atlait, we got 
 " one of the cicaneft belt women you ever law, 
 " a farmer's wife." It was therefore Mrs Hewit 
 and Sir John, and not Pier la Marre, who 
 provided this nurfe forSholto; and 1 will by 
 and by fhew, that whether Sholto was Lady 
 Jane's ion or not, he was not the child nur- 
 led by Gamier. It is alio obfervable, that 
 .Sir John and Mrs licwit gave different ac- 
 counts of t lie defender's iuulcs ; and even in 
 Mrs He wit's letters to the maids wrote irom 
 Paris, the accounts fhe gives of thefe nurfes 
 
 do
 
 352 T II E S P E E C II OF 
 
 do not agree. Sometimes flie makes their 
 number amount to four, fometimes to five ; 
 fometimes they are all good ones, fometimes 
 not : I only mention thefe things as circum- 
 ftaiiccs, to (hew that fcarce in any one parti- 
 cular do we find Mrs Hcwit and Sir John 
 agreeing in one ftory. 
 
 Sir John Stewart, in his declaration, 
 fays that he did not know where to find Pier 
 la Marr, except in the Thuilleries or Luxem- 
 burg garden. This is truly incredible ; for what 
 was to be done if Lady Jane had taken her 
 pains in the night-time, or at a time of day 
 when La Marre was not in thefe places ? Sir 
 John indeed thinks proper, in the oath he 
 afterwards emitted, to correct what he had 
 formerly find, and alledge, that La Marre, on 
 feeing Lady Jane's condition, told him where 
 he lodged: But this correction cannot be cre- 
 dited ; for Sir John had formerly faid, that 
 if Lady Jane had taken her pains in the night- 
 time, he behoved to have fought for another 
 accoucheur, though he did not pretend to 
 know where any fuch was to be got. lie had 
 alfo faid, that he did not know how to di- 
 rect his letters for Pier la Marre when he wrote 
 to him from llheims; and therefore directed 
 a to the care of the pcftmafter. He alfo 
 
 faid,
 
 LORP KEN NET. 353 
 
 fiiid, tli.it on his return to Paris to fee Sholto, 
 he went to the Thuillcries in quell of Tier la 
 Marre ; becaufe flill he did not know where 
 he 1 ,! .~,:d. The pretence for La Marre's not 
 telling where he lodged is incredible. lie 
 fays it was becaufe he had come to paris about 
 a thorny affair. But why could he not trull 
 Sir John with the place where he lodged, fee- 
 ing Sir John pretends that he was intimately 
 acquainted with him in the 172 1 : Could he not 
 trull him lis well as cue poll- office people P Bc- 
 fides, La Marre does n ot appear to have kept 
 himfelf fecret while at Paris; for Sir John 
 fays he walked daily in the Luxembourg and 
 Thniileries, and alio appeared in the cofl'ee- 
 houfes. 
 
 Another circumftance is, that, according 
 to Airs Hewit's account, Lady Jane had no 
 fkk nurie. Tibby Walker indeed fays, that 
 Mrs llcwit wrote to her, there was a lick 
 nurie ; and gives this as a reafon why flic 
 needed r.ot be fent for to Paris. One of the 
 two muii.be v. in this particular. 
 
 .\ . , 1 . ; ■. very fufpi' ious circumilance is 
 
 , I'hat ./ . 1 .. ir.g to ' Irs llcwit, La Marre 
 
 ..... to ice Lady Jane after her delivery 
 
 '.•:(.'. r LI)is is confirmed by Michelfs 
 
 ) agree, that no accoucheur vilit- 
 
 Y v cd
 
 T II E S ? E E C II O F 
 
 cd her while in their houfe. This is indeed 
 very extraordinary. The moft eminent and 
 beft employed accoucheurs repeat their vifits 
 to ladies alter having delivered them ; and it 
 is not to be credited, that fuch an one as La 
 Marre would have taken fo little care of La- 
 dy Jane, had he really delivered her. This 
 circumftar.ee is the more extraordinary, that 
 j ier la Marre is faid to have had the charge, 
 of Sholto ; and fuppofmg* lie had taken no 
 care of Lady jane after her delivery, why 
 did he not come to tell her how the weak 
 tender child feholto was doing, either while 
 Hie rcfided at Paris or at Dammartin ? 
 
 With refpecl to :he place of delivery, 
 when Sir John was preffed by Mrs Napier to 
 give an account of it, he declined, faying he 
 had forgot the names of places ; at Iaft, when 
 hard pufhed by her, lie condefcended upon 
 Micheli's houfe as the place of delivery. 
 Mrs liewit, about the fame period, writes to 
 the Duke of Douglas, that Lady Jane was 
 brought to bed in I'-IichcU's. Now, though 
 i\V~ r'ewit might forget French names; yet, 
 1 ov came flie to condefcend upon a wromr 
 • •■: ce, and on one as the place of delivery 
 where it did not happen, and with which 
 ihe might Le wed acquainted, having ftaid 
 
 more
 
 LORD KENNET. , 55 
 
 more than a fortnight there? And when ex- 
 amined upon oath before your Lordfhips, flie 
 laid, that when places were mentioned to her 
 ihe might rememoer them. If i'o, how came 
 i'hj to fall into this millake with refpeel: t-> 
 the place or delivery ? And after it appeared 
 trom the inquiries made by Sir James Stew- 
 ■ 1a, in conic auerice of a letter from Mrs Na- 
 r, that Mieheli's was not the place of de- 
 livery, Le I>run's was pitched upon. 
 
 ANOTrfLR ihong circumilancc againll the 
 defender is, That both Sir John and Mrs 
 Hewit fay, that neither Lady Jane nor Mrs 
 Hewic ftirred abroad while the)' were at Pa- 
 il-., until the) went to Uammartin; and yet, 
 we have the melt certain proof, that they went 
 to Ycri :out the 26th or 271)1 July; 
 
 Madame Bhiinvillc, who went alongil with 
 them, ! It is confirmed by the 
 
 oaths of Madame ISiainvilie's laughter, Mon- 
 iieur and Mad.ai 1 bell, and Monfieur 
 
 Ereval, and Ly the fercants of Madame 
 ItOuivv's houfe, to whom Madame Bhiinville 
 ^okl (11 1 uCiore the commence- 
 
 ment of this a. ■ m ; 10 that, ii any fact can 
 . ed as pro .'/ i b lony of 
 
 N v. itnebes, thii i> !o. Th • derendei n as brought 
 noi to contrauud ihb.. but a certificate 
 
 1
 
 3j<5 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 from Madame Gourcy, in which flie writes, 
 that flic docs not believe Madame Blainville 
 obtained leave from her to poftpone her co- 
 ming home to her fcrvice for fome days. 
 But tliis extrajudicial declaration cannot con- 
 tradict the direct evidence. If Lady Jane 
 was really delivered of twins upon the 10th 
 July, it is not probable, that me could, ujori 
 the 26th or 27th of that month, take a jaunt 
 of piealurc to a place twelve miles diftant from 
 Paris, walk in the gardens there, and return 
 to Paris the fame day. But whatever be in 
 this, can it believed, that, if fhe had fo much 
 ftrcngth, flic would not have gone to fee her 
 child Sholto, who is reprefented then to have 
 been in a very low and weak ftatc, and rea- 
 ding near to Paris r One of your Lordfhips 
 yefterday obferved, that perhaps Lady Jane 
 did go to fee him, only that the queftion had 
 not been ahked at Mrs He wit. But this is a 
 miftake ; for fhe exprefsly depones, " That, 
 " when Lady Jane and the deponent were at 
 " the village near Paris, Sir John left it, and 
 " went to fee the boy Sholto (which, however, 
 " Sir John himfelf denies) ; but that Lady Jane 
 " never went to fee him, either from Paris, nor 
 " from this village, being weak." Mrs Hewit's 
 denying the jaunt to Verfailles, is alfo a cir- 
 
 cumftance
 
 LORD KENNET. 357 
 
 cumftance againft the defender. Want of 
 memory will not excufe this ; for, as it was 
 the only time me ever was at that place, fhe 
 behoved to remember it. 
 
 The next fufpicious circumftance is the 
 conduct of Lady Jane, Sir John, and Mrs 
 Hewit, when at Michell's. They do not men- 
 tion there, that they had been at Le Brim's, 
 nor do thu y mention La IMarre, or that Lady 
 Jane had 1), 1 nought to bed of twins : But 
 lay, they had a chihi in the country, of which 
 Lad\ Jme had lately keen delivered. V 
 did thev not brine*: the child alons; with them 
 in the couch, inftead of fending him to the 
 nui.e's houfc in Paris, which tliey lay they 
 did : \\ hy fay, that lie was lomewhcre a- 
 bout St Gcrmains, if he was in Paris ? And 
 it is obfcrvable, ihat, when they went irom 
 luicheirs to bring me child, they let out in 
 the morning, and did not return until the c- 
 vening of thac day, or morning of next day, 
 that it mi^ht be believed ihev had gone to 
 the country for him. Madame l*'avre, the 
 defender's nnrle, and Michell's people, all a- 
 grce, that the child which the) Lrou 
 home appeared older th 
 
 Anoj iii-.r extraordii / ur*' 'uitaivje is, 
 That according to Sir John ana .wis lb ... ;
 
 353 TH E S P E E C H OF 
 
 account of the matter, Sholto was left under 
 the care of La Marre, without their knowing 
 to what place he was lent, or the name of 
 his nurfe, even though they did not know 
 where La Marre himfclf lodged ; and they be- 
 hoved to find out La Marre, before they 
 could find the child. What if La Marre had 
 died* or had left Paris, where he only was 
 occafionally, according to Sir John's account? 
 By what means would they, in thefe cafes, 
 have found out their child? 
 
 Another remarkable circumftance is this, 
 That no body ever faw Sholto until he made 
 his appearance at Rheims, altho' Sir John had 
 acquaintance at Paris, and there was one Mr 
 Johnfton there, a coufin of Mrs Hewit, who 
 lay under obligations to Sir John and Lady 
 Jane; he was made acquainted by a letter from 
 Mrs Hewit of Lady Jane's delivery, after they 
 had returned to Rheims, and yet was not de- 
 fired to fee Sholto. Is it credible, that, if this 
 child had then been in the neighbourhood of 
 Paris, Mr Johnfton would not have been de- 
 sired to fee him, and to write how he was 
 thriving, and what care his nurfe took of 
 him? 
 
 Another extraordinary circumftance is, 
 ' ' it Sir John does not remember where he 
 
 lodged
 
 L O 11 D K E N N E T. 
 
 359 
 
 lodged when he returned with Lady Jane and 
 lurs lie wit to Paris in November 1749, in or- 
 der to ermg .Shoko from ier nurie; and they 
 hay three days at Parir. before ths-y either go 
 •-., the viilap-e to ice the child, or order him 
 to them. V\ ould a fond mother, who had 
 nut ieen her weal: child from the period of 
 
 > , ii ' . . i ',-■ <i.; -■■■ T\ T f> - 1 f- 
 
 .• j ull i.\, iictvC av-tCU 1U liiif> iililJi.LI . J.NO , It 
 
 mcrcdmle. 
 
 1 .h h enhance of tune, or had memories, 
 may account lor miftakin? or for^ettinsr iome 
 r>articuhrs, but cannot account for ib many 
 a; have been taken notice of; elpecially ar» 
 hey regarded an affair in which Sir 'iohn was 
 lo mucU ir.tcrcft.ed: 'When oucftioned by 
 Mrs iNaj hi', the difcancc of time was not fo 
 at. i h :d not the ho lour to ft among 
 your I ordlhiys v i;er- air John emitted his de- 
 claration, but I nave ilea: 1, ,' : perfua- 
 d .d rro.n your Lordfiiin , juilic c) that he w as 
 examined by your Lordfhips with great dcli- 
 !■•• rati'-.n ; tit;-.-; h ■ perufed hia : :*d tration f 
 
 ::u;e to tune, :. 
 
 And ti: i 
 
 i". r and Mr h 
 
 
 t IlinC'S Ui It 
 
 
 
 after b?«* 
 
 v. . - . . 
 ;:ot :n 
 
 1 .. 
 
 .., .'
 
 5 6o THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 to have a bad memory, only that flic could 
 not remember French names. On the con- 
 trary, when called upon in March 1765, in or- 
 der to be re-examined, (he fays, " That flie is 
 "in fuch actuation flic cannot tell what is 
 " right or wrong at prefent ; that it is hard 
 " thefe queftions nad not been afked two 
 " months ago, when fire could have given 
 " anfwers." 
 
 Another ltrono; circumflance asjainft the 
 defender is, That altho' Sir John and Lady 
 jane were early informed when abroad, by a 
 letter from Mr Colvill, of the fufpicions en- 
 tertained in Scotland concerning the truth of 
 the defender's birth ; yet they took no care to 
 remove thefe fufpicions, by procuring proper 
 attestations of it. They were again informed of 
 thefe fufpicions upon their arrival in England 
 about the end of the year 17^9 ; and yet they 
 took no proper methods for clearing the truth, 
 by procuring affidavits from La Marre and Le 
 Brim. This circumflance is the flronger, that 
 they did not altogether difregard thefe fufpi- 
 cions, but fent to Aix-la-Chappelle for decla- 
 rations with refpeer to the appearance of preg- 
 nancy; and yet they did not do what would 
 have been much more effectual : They did not 
 attempt to get any atteitations from I .a Marre, 
 
 Le
 
 LOUD KENNET. 
 
 361 
 
 Lc Brum, or others prefent at the delivery, 
 of the truth of it, though thefe mio-ht ca il- 
 ly have been obtained in the 1750, if Lady- 
 Jane had truly been delivered of twins. 
 
 It has been alledgcd, that Lady Jane would 
 not apply for fuch attentions, becaufe {he 
 took it aniil", that her honour fliould be called 
 in queftion ; and flic was advifed by the Lord 
 Advocate, that fuch atteftations were not ne- 
 ceflary, as thofe who objected to the truth of 
 the birth behoved to prove their ohjcclions. 
 But, 1//, Nobody of common prudence 
 would, on a pretence of honour, have 
 ne^ccted a thinar fo much for the advan- 
 tagc of their children. idly, It appear; 
 {he did apply for atteftations, though not to 
 the proper paribus, 3c//}', She did not get 
 the advice from the Lord Advocate till 1752; 
 10 that could not regulate her conduct in 
 1750; and it is not probable, that ever the 
 Lord Advocate give fuch an advice : lie was 
 a man of more undemanding: Bolides, the 
 matter might have been made caiy, without 
 fenJing to Paris for atteftations from La 
 Marre,ir birjohn had kept fume of the many 
 letters which, he fays, lie received from him 
 when at llheims, and which certainly he 
 would have clone, had he received any fuch; 
 '/ 7. cfpecially,
 
 62 T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 efpecially* when it is confidered that he was 
 made acquainted, when at Khcims,with the fu- 
 ipkions then entertained in Scotland againft 
 the truth oi' the birth. Many letters, of much 
 leis importance, have been preferved by Lady 
 Jane and Sir John ; add to this, that in place 
 of ffettimr -an atteflatiou from La Marre, or 
 producing real letters from him, four forged 
 letters as from him arc produced. Truth 
 does not Irand in need of fuch fupports, and 
 one who will be guilty of forging letters, 
 may alfo be fuppofed capable of forging chil- 
 dren ; at leaft, as none will commit a crime, 
 unleis he has fome reafon for fo doing, Sir 
 John would not have forged letters, if real 
 ones could have been procured. It it fliall 
 be faid, that Sir John could not get letters 
 nor attcftations from La Marre in 17^0 or 
 1752, becaufe La Marre was then in Italy for 
 his health, it muft then be admitted, that 
 Louis Pierre Delamarre, whom the de- 
 fender has now pitched upon as the accou- 
 cheur, was really not fo ; for it is proved, that 
 he never went to Italy, but relided at Paris 
 till his death, and that he was alive in the 1752. 
 It has been faid, that the letters in procefs 
 are not forged, but copies from originals : 
 Jvjt Sir John fays, that fome of them are 
 
 originals,
 
 LORD KENNET. 3S3 
 
 Originals, and fome of them only copies; and 
 that he fat bcfidc Mr Clinton while he copied 
 them, that he might make them as like to 
 the originals as poilibie ; for which purpofe 
 they were written upon French paper, folded 
 and fealed : Alio, if the letter in the 1752 
 be cither an original or a true copy from 
 one, Louis Pierre Deiamarre did not deliver 
 .Lady Jane ; for the writer of that letter fays 
 lie had been Italy. 
 
 Another circumfb.nce ae:ainii the dciend- 
 
 o 
 
 er is, that neither Madame lc Brim nor the 
 place in Paris where -file lived can now be 
 difcovered. The latenefs of bringing this 
 action may be fume excufe for this ; but it 
 is certainly a circumftance z^aiiift him, that, 
 from the books of police, there appears to 
 have been no pcrfon of that name who kept 
 furnifhed lod^insfs .it Paris in 1748. As to 
 
 O v. ^ 1 
 
 the fuppoiition of her being a guarde-n abide, 
 that is not confident with her having dif- 
 ferent lodgers in her houfe, winch Sir John 
 and Mrs Hcwit fay flic had ; nor is it pro- 
 bable, that Lady Jane would have put up in 
 the houie of a guarde-maladc for her in-lying. 
 To render this provable, it has been fa id, that 
 flic might do fo for cheapnefs : But though 
 : < is ;•':•. that .Sir folm was oil 11 ftraitened 
 
 f.,;
 
 3^4 T II E SPEECH O F 
 
 for money ; yet this did not arife from his 
 not receiving money, but from his not be- 
 ing an oeconomift. Lady Jane, at that time, 
 enjoyed lier penfion of L. 300 per annum trom 
 her brother j and Sir John alio occafionally 
 received money from other people. It is in 
 proof, that, on his arrival at Paris at this 
 time, he received about 2000 livres. AYhen 
 he was pofleffed of this money, he furely 
 Mould not, in order to fave it, place. Lady 
 Jane in an improper houfe. He treated Mon- 
 fieur Gucnet in the journey from Aix-la- 
 Ch.rppelle to liheims ; and when he was fo 
 open-handed, he would not omit taking pro- 
 pur care of Lady Jane, when he had money 
 to enable him to do it. 
 
 I do not think it conclufive againft the de- 
 fender, that Pier la Mar re cannot now be 
 found. He may have left Paris or died be- 
 twixt the time of Lady Jane's delivery and the 
 taking of the proof. 1 his is the fair argument 
 for the defender. He is not bound to pro- 
 duce him ; but I think the defender can draw 
 no afiiftancc to his caufe from the difcovery 
 of a Louis Pierre Dclamarrc ; for this man 
 can by no means anfwer the description 
 which Sir John gives of the Pier la Marre who 
 delivered Lady Jane. The La Marre whom 
 
 he
 
 L O R D KENNE T. 365 
 
 he dcfcribes was a Walloon. I am not fo well 
 acquainted with the geography or that coun- 
 try, as to fay how far one born in Montrcuil 
 may be coniidered as a Walloon ; but f'urcly 
 the other circumstances do not agree. The La 
 Marrc defcribed by Sir John was about 60 
 years of age in the 1748 : The other La Marrc 
 '.'.'as then but 37. The one was a furgeon to 
 a regiment with whom Sir John was made 
 acquainted through the means of Colon,! 
 Fontaine when at Leigc in 1721; and he was 
 then intimate with him. The other never 
 was a furgeon to a regiment, and in 172 1 was 
 only a boy of ten years of age. Sir John's 
 Pier la Marrc was only occaiionally at Paris 
 upon an affaire cfmeufe; the other had his 
 cor.ftant rclklencc there. The one afterwards 
 went to Italy for his health ; the other never 
 went there. Sir John's bad memory will not 
 account for thefe difercpancies : A bad me- 
 mory might make him forget facls, bat could 
 never malic him invent them. 
 
 T;;:.t this Louis Pi xre Dclamarrc dcliver- 
 1 d a foreign Lady at Paris, is proved bv fe- 
 eaal witncfi'cs ; but it appears from the pre:)!', 
 that Lady Jr.nc was not this foreign lady, 
 ailc the delivery happened previous to the 
 year 174/J. Mr Mcnagcr, wlio endeavours to 
 
 apply
 
 $66 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 apply this delivery to Lady Jane, admits, tint 
 La Marre told him of the delivery in the 
 Chambrc de guarde of the Hotel Dieu, in pre- 
 fence of Monfieur Melet and Monfieur Giles. 
 Thefe two witnefles agree with Menager in 
 this,- and add, that it was when La Marre re- 
 fided in the Hotel Dieu,*as a furgeon there; 
 and it is in proof, that he left the Hotel in 
 December 1746. The evidence of Monfieur 
 Giles has indeed been objected to ; but no 
 objection is offered againft the evidence of 
 Monfieur Melet ; and there are feveral things 
 in Menager's oath which fliew, that he can-*- 
 not be credited. Thus he fays, that La Marre 
 taught midwifery, and practifed under Mon- 
 fieur Menjon. This is difproved by Menjon's 
 oath. Monfieur Menager fays, that La Marre 
 figncd his name P. and Pier la Marre ; tho* 
 it is not cuflomary for French people to fign 
 by their Chriftian names ; and it is proved, 
 by La Marre's brothers, and by the production 
 of writings fubferibed by him> that he onr 
 ly figned Delamarre. It is evident, that 
 Menager has fworn to the fubfeription as a- 
 bove, in order to fupport the forged letters, 
 which are fo figned. Monfieur Menager fays, 
 that he himfelf was recommended to the 
 Comte d' "Argenfon, as his furgeon by Mr 
 
 Bagieu,
 
 LORD KENNET. 3 6 7 
 
 Baffieu. Badeu fwears, he never recommen- 
 
 o o 
 
 ded any fuch perfon. It is alfo remarkable, 
 that although Menager fays, that La Marre 
 told him the foreign lady was delivered in 
 Madame le Brim's houfe ; and thai La Marr 
 dcfired he might be ready to aflift him at the 
 delivery, if neceffary ; yet he did not tell him 
 in what place of Paris Le Brim's houfe was in 
 174R; nor did he ever know it, though La 
 Marre applied to him for his affiftance. The 
 rcafon of this is obvious. Menager durft not 
 mention the place, becaufe thereby the falfe- 
 hood might have been detected ; and though 
 Menager fays, that he knows there was a con- 
 nection betwixt Tier la Marre and a Madame 
 le Brim ; yet La Marre's brothers fwear, that 
 they knew of none fuch; and Sir John lias 
 laid th.it He thinks he was recommended to 
 Le Brim's houfe b\ Monficur Godefroy. 
 
 L it isdifnroved, that this Louis PieiTe De- 
 lamarre delivered Lady Jane, then the ftory 
 of Madame Gander's having nurfed Sholto 
 mufl fall Lo the ground; for it was this Louis 
 rre Dclamarre who gave the child to her 
 to be nurfed ; and, independent of that, I 
 think it is clear, that hholto was not the 
 child nurfed by Gamier : Lor, firjl, Sir John 
 Lys, that Sholto was lent to be nr.rled at 
 
 ■j.
 
 3 6S THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 a village two or three leagues from Paris on 
 the road to Amiens. Gamier lived at the 
 Hauteborne within one eighth of a league of 
 Paris, on the road to Menilmontain. Sholto's 
 nurfe wa*> a farmer's wife, Gamier a quar- 
 rier's. Sir John and Mrs Hewit agree, that 
 Sholto's nurfe came for him ; but the child 
 was brought to Madame Gamier. Mrs Hewit 
 writes to the maids, that flic got Sholto's 
 nurfe, and that fhe was preiTed to go tollheims 
 with him. Gamier lays, fhe was befpoke by- 
 La Marre, and never dciired to leave her own 
 houfe. Gamier never heard the name of the 
 child, or to whom he belonged ; he has 
 therefore been a concealed one. This was 
 not Sholto's cafe ; La Marre told Gamier, that 
 the child flic was nurfing would one day be 
 the richeft in his kingdom. This could not 
 be Sholto ; for his elder brother behoved to 
 be richer than he. 
 
 But, chiefly, the time of the year when 
 nurfe Gamier got the child does not agree 
 with the time of Sholto's birth : For Gamier 
 fovs, her fon Jerome was then fix months, or 
 fix months and a half old, and he was born 
 or. the 20th of March; fhe therefore received 
 th : child which fhe nurfed in September, 
 which agrees better to his coming with torch- 
 i'e, 1 it about eiorht or nine of the clock at 
 
 night,
 
 LORD KENNE T. 369 
 
 night than the bringing a child in that man- 
 ner in the month of July. This child itaid a- 
 bout 1 3 months with Gamier, and was taken 
 away towards the fpring : Sholto ilaid only 
 16 months with his mine, and was taken a- 
 way from her in November. 
 
 1 only take notice of thefe things, to mew 
 that the defender receives no aid from find- 
 ing a Pierre la Marrc, and nurfe Gamier: 
 But they are not conckifive againft him, as 
 it is extremely poflible that the Pier la 
 Marre who delivered Lady Jane, (if flic 
 had even brought forth children), and that 
 Sholto's nurfe mi 2; lit not be found at inch a 
 diftance of time, and the defender is not 
 bound to produce them; I do not, therefore, 
 rcn my opinion againft him on thefe things, 
 but upon what I formerly Mated, viz. The 
 contradictory and incredible accounts given 
 by Sir John and Mrs Hewit concerning the 
 birth, concerning the man-midwife, the pla- 
 cing of Sholto they did not know where, no 
 body ever feeing him till he made his ap- 
 pearance at liheims ; their retting no at- 
 teflations from Paris concerning the delivery; 
 producing no real letters from Pier la M irre, 
 but producing forged letters in place thereof; 
 -"id other circumftanccs which I have already 
 A ;> a t 'ken
 
 3 /' 
 
 THE S P E E C II OF 
 
 taken notice of, and will not repeat ; and 
 "upon what I have ft ill farther to obferve. 
 
 Against thefe proofs and circumftances 
 which I have already taken notice of, the ob- 
 jections founded on the Tournelle procefs and 
 the monitoire, do not ftrikc; and notwith- 
 ftanding of thefe objections, I cannot altoge- 
 ther lay out of my view the proofs brought 
 by the purfucrs, which I am now to mention. 
 There is, in the Jirjl place, the proof of 
 Sir John and Lady Jane's rcfiding at Gode- 
 froy's from the 4th to the 14th of July; in 
 which cafe the could not be delivered in Le 
 Brim's on the 10th of that month. This refi- 
 dence is exprefsly depofed to by jVIoniieur 
 Godefroy and his wife : That his memory is 
 good, appears from his remembering the let- 
 ter whereby Monfieur Maillefer recommended 
 Sir John to him, before that letter was found ; 
 and he docs not fwear altogether from me- 
 mory, becaufe lie had his books to afliit him, 
 It is true, that the name is blank in the tide 
 or tnc accompt which he afcribes to Sir John 
 and his company ; but he was afiifted to fill 
 14; this biank by the entry of Sir John in his 
 houlehold-book on the 8th of Auguft that 
 year, where Sir John is exprefsly mention- 
 ed j and Mr Godefroy iwcars, that both ac- 
 
 comet'o
 
 LORD KEN NET. 371 
 
 compts relate to the fame perfo-i: He was 
 ai aiG.led by the llvre <V infpetfeur, where oir 
 John ij entered by name. The accuracy of 
 the houfehold-book is eflabliihed by the in- 
 quiry which has been made into it for the 
 fpace of three years : It is admitted, that Sir 
 John and his company entered to that houfe 
 on the 4th of July, and ftaid there for fome 
 days ; and, if this accomptdoes not apply to 
 them, there is no other in it that can. It agrees 
 as to the number of three pcrfons, and their 
 paying their biil on. the 8th of July, and en- 
 tering again on the 9th at night : And it is 
 a proof of the goodnefs of Mr Godefroy's me- 
 mory, that he even remembers the room in 
 winch they lodged; and I do not ice it pre- 
 tended, that lie was miitaken in this particu- 
 lar : His evidence is the more to be depended 
 upon, that Mr Godefroy infilled confidently, 
 that Sir John and his company relided at his 
 houfe during the above period, at a time when 
 the purfucrs agent did not believe he hid 
 ftaid there; but infilled that he and his com- 
 pany had rei'ided in Michell's houfe from the 
 Oi'juiy. 
 A great outcry has been made agair.il the 
 ToUrnedc procefs; and it has been infilled, 
 that die witncfles who have been examined
 
 372 THE S P E E C 11 O F 
 
 before that court cannot be credited. For 
 my own part, I condemn that procefs j I think 
 it was improper to call a Britifh fubject before 
 a court in France, to which he was not a- 
 me::ablc. But I cannot fee how that procefs 
 could be fo hurtful to the defender, as is pre- 
 tended. It has been faid, that the witnef- 
 fes were tied down, not to depart from the 
 evidence which they had given before that 
 court. 'But why is it to be imagined, that 
 they fworc falfely at firft? It often happens, 
 that witneffes are examined in this country 
 upon the fame facts before different courts. 
 As firil before the Jufticiary or commiflary- 
 courts; and afterwards before the Court of 
 Seffion. But was it ever pretended, that they 
 could not be received as witneffes, or credit- 
 ed, becaufe they had formerly been exami- 
 ned before another court ? Surely, no: The 
 v. itncfTcs examined before the Tournelle have 
 been compared to flaves fwearing under their 
 matter's lafli. But the comparifon furely was 
 highly improper. For the parliament of Pa- 
 ris has long been confidered as a reputable 
 court. The members of it have often flood 
 up for the liberty of the fubjeci, fo far as the 
 conftitution of that country would allow; 
 and whatever may be the cafe with refpeefc 
 
 to
 
 LORD KENNET. 373 
 
 to ftate- trials, I never heard, that, in private 
 caufes, the parliament acted partially, or un- 
 juftly, even betwixt the fuhjects of that coun- 
 try. What then could induce that court to 
 deviate from the paths of juftice in a foreign 
 caufc, in the event of which no french- 
 man had any concern ? 
 
 The method of examination before that 
 court has been objected to, as the plaintes are 
 read over to the witnefles, before their giving 
 evidence, and becaufe they are examined with- 
 out the prefence of the parties. But this ob- 
 jection docs not much move me. In trials be- 
 fore the Jufticiary-court in this country, wit- 
 nciTes have accefs to fee the printed indictments 
 before they are examined; and the method of 
 examining witnefles differs in different coun- 
 tries. Mere it is thought proper, that parties 
 fhould be prefent, and have accefs to put 
 queftions, and crofs queftions to the witnef- 
 fes. Abroad, in other places, as well as in 
 France, it is thought more expedient for 
 bringing out the truth, that none be prefent, 
 • cept the judge, the wit "• ;.i the o rk. 
 Truth may be come at both the one way and 
 
 the other. 
 Tii \j all the witnefles did not think rh"in- 
 
 felvcs tied down ft rial y to adhere to w.hat 
 
 tl\ev
 
 374 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 they had dcpofcd before theTournelle, appears 
 from the evidence of Madame Godefroy. For, 
 when flic was examined before that court, fiie 
 did not remember Sir John Stewart. But, when 
 afterwards examined before your Lordfhips 
 commiilioners, flic came to recollect his ha- 
 ving ftaid in her houfc, to which me was pror 
 bably led by peruiing the houfliold-books. 
 
 As for the purfuers not believing for forae 
 time, that Sir John and his company refided 
 in Godefroy's from the 4th to the 14th July; 
 it is of no moment; they were naturally led 
 to this, by Sir John's having faid to Mrs Na- 
 pier, that Lady Jane was delivered in Mi- 
 chcil's houfe on the 10th of that month; and 
 by their finding an entry in Mich ell's livre 
 rt" infpefteur, bearing, that Sir John was there 
 on the. 3th of that month. But it is now e- 
 vident, that this was an error in writing the 
 figure, which ought to have been the 1 8th. 
 This tends to confirm the evidence given 
 by Godefroy, rather than to weaken it, as 
 it fhews, that he had not been practifed up- 
 on by the purfuers. 
 
 As to the Monitoire, I condemn the ilylc of 
 it. It defcribes perfons and dates too parti- 
 cularly ; but it does not ftrike againft that part 
 of the evidence which I have juii now men- 
 tioned •
 
 LORD KEN NET. 375 
 
 tioned ; and, if the purfiiers have made out, 
 that Sir John and Lady jane remained in 
 Godcfroy's from the 4th to the 14th of July, 
 It is decisive of the caufe. 
 
 Bur the purfuers proof receives an addi- 
 tional weight from confidering what is in 
 evidence concerning the enlevements of Mi- 
 >n's child in July 1748, and Sanry's child 
 in. November 1749. That two children were 
 taken away at thefe periods, cannot be doubt- 
 ed. If the evidence of taking away Mignon's 
 child refted entirely, upon the tefrimonies or 
 Madame Mignon and her hufband, I would lay 
 no ft re is upon it ; \fr, becaufe {lie hath fworn 
 faliely with refpecfc to her feeing the memo- 
 rials ; and, idly, becaule of the improper ftile of 
 the Monitoire : But the evidence docs not 
 reft upon their teftimonies : The thing is 
 proved by a great number of witneffes, and 
 is ftrengthened by this, that, about the fame 
 time, propofals were made for a child from 
 Madame Charlan ; but the child not accepted 
 of, becauie it was too old : The coincidence 
 01 the time when Mignon's child was taken 
 away, with the time when the chiid laid to 
 be Lady jane's made his appearance at Mi- 
 cheli's, is remarkable ; and the time of the 
 enlevement ot Mignon's. child is diftinctly 
 
 aiccrtaiued
 
 $16 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 afcertained by the time of keeping the feaft 
 of St Clare that year, and the day of the 
 week on which the workmen at the glafs- 
 manufactory gave up their work. It is alfo 
 remarkable, that two children were at that 
 time wanted by the perfons who took Mig- 
 non's child, and that thefc perfons were fo- 
 reigners. 
 
 The enlevement of Saury's child was dis- 
 covered before publifhmg the Monitoire, and 
 is proved by written as well as by parole evi- 
 dence, to ivit, the entry in the police-book. 
 It is true, this entry bears date in January 
 1750. But this is of no weight; for the en- 
 levement happened fome time before that; 
 and the entry mentions, that the child was 
 taken away by Duvernes ; and it appears 
 from the police-books, that he lodged in the 
 Croix de'Feri ift November 1 749, which anfwers 
 to the time when Sir John and Lady Jane 
 were at Paris that year ; and it is proved by 
 witnefies, that Duvernes only ftaid a few. days 
 at the inn. It is alfo proved, that the child 
 was a fair one ; and that he was taken away 
 by a gentleman and two ladies, who were fo- 
 reigners. 
 
 The proof of thefe two enlevements have 
 great weight in this caufe, when the circum- 
 
 fiances
 
 LORD KENNET. 377 
 
 ftances of each are confidered : The firft hap- 
 pens in July 1748, the other in November 
 1749. The only two periods in which Sir 
 John and Lady Jane were at Paris together : 
 The firft is of a new born child, the other of 
 one eighteen months old, by a gentleman and 
 lady who pretended that they wanted to be- 
 llow charity by bringing up a poor child ; 
 and yet fearched till they found a boy about 
 that a<re ; and there are no other inflances of 
 enlevements of children in Paris in the me- 
 mory of any of the witneffes who have been 
 examined ; for though it is in proof, that 
 about twenty- two years ago, a lady endea- 
 voured to get a child, yet her attempts proved 
 fruitlefs ; and the other applications proved 
 to have been made to midwives for children 
 were by furgeons, who wanted dead ones to 
 make experiments on. 
 
 These things, therefore, added to the ac- 
 counts given by Lady Jane, Sir John, and 
 Mrs Ilcwit, concerning the birth and the 
 children, which are contradictory to each 
 other, incredible in themfelves, and difpro- 
 ved in fundry particulars by many witncfles, 
 convince me that the rcafons oi reduction 
 are moved. 
 
 B b b I ,
 
 378 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 It has been objected, that if Lady Jane 
 and Sir John had had a mind to fteal a child, 
 in order to imp'ofe upon the world, they 
 would not have taken a puny one. I am of 
 the fame opinion ; but it does not appear, 
 that Sanry's child was of this fort : But as 
 they had not found two children in July 
 1748, it was neceffary to give out that one 
 of the twins was weakly, in order that they 
 might have an excufe for leaving him be- 
 hind when they went to llheims. 
 
 The death-bed declarations of Lady Jane 
 and Sir John have been much infifted upon : 
 But I do not fee that Lady Jane made any 
 fuch. She, indeed, did not confefs when on 
 death-bed ; but continued to mew great ten- 
 dernefs and affection for the defender at that 
 time. This is proved by Doctor Eccles and 
 others ; but I fee no evidence of any folemn 
 declaration made by her ; and when Mrs 
 Greig preiTes her upon that occafion, me an- 
 fwers in point of law, That if any body 
 doubted the birth of the defender, they be- 
 hoved to difprove it. 
 
 It is true, Sir John did emit a death-bed 
 declaration in favour of the defender. I am 
 defirous to give great weight to what one 
 fays when on the brink of the grave. It is 
 
 an
 
 LOUD K E N N E T. 379 
 
 an awful period : But, alas ! experience 
 mews us, that people do not always attend 
 properly to it, and venture, even when in 
 that fituation, to affert and declare things not 
 confident with truth: I cannot therefore con- 
 fider Sir John's declaration as fufficient for 
 overturning the great weight of evidence 
 which the purfuers have adduced in this 
 caufe. 
 
 It gives me great uneafinefs that I have 
 been obliged to deliver the opinion which I 
 have now given : But it would give me 
 greater uneafinefs to deliver, as my opinion, 
 any thing contrary to the real fentiments of 
 my heart. I feel for the defender ; he is in- 
 nocent ; much do I feel for him : But, in a 
 cmeftion of property, I muft give my op^, ion 
 according to the evidence before me. 1 have 
 no latitude; 1 cannot turn either to the rig it 
 or to the left, without doing injuftice ; and 
 as I think it is proved, that the defender is 
 not the fon of Lady Jane Douglas, I cannot 
 give my voice for continuing him in the 
 pofieiTion of the cftatc of Douglas, by afloil- 
 zieing him from the reafons of reduction. 
 
 LORD
 
 H 
 
 3 8o 
 
 LORD H A I L E S. 
 
 11 O M the whole circumftanccs of this 
 proof, I am at length unwillingly in- 
 duced to form this conclufion, that there is 
 not fuflicicnt moral evidence of the defender's 
 being the fon of Lady Jane Douglas. Wc 
 are not placed in a world of demonstration ; 
 we niuft determine according to the probabi- 
 lities of moral evidence ; and they, I truft, 
 are not fo fallacious as they have been repre- 
 fented. 
 
 In a caufe of this nature, the character of 
 the parties concerned rauft have confiderable 
 weight ; and if I could perfuade myfelf that 
 the character of Lady Jane Douglas was alto- 
 gether fuch as many of the witnelTes fup~ 
 poie it to have been, it would have much in- 
 fluence in favour of the defender. 
 
 But, I am forry to fay it, there is evidence 
 in court, that Lady Jane's real character was 
 different from what it is fuppofed to have 
 been ; there is evidence that fhe could affume 
 appearances at pleafure, and that me had not 
 that facred recrard to truth which fhe oundit 
 to have had. 
 
 Thus,
 
 THE SPEECH OF, &c. 381 
 
 Thus, according to Madame Negrette, 
 *' She fpoke ill of no body ;" yet, in a letter 
 to Mrs Carfe, fhe pours out abufe on her own 
 near relations, for having reported what fhe 
 knew to be true, her marriage with Sir John. 
 Stewart. 
 
 Sir. William Stewart fwears, " That 
 " flic was particularly attached to the Prefby- 
 " terian religion, and very ftrict in the ob- 
 " fervance of it." Abbe Hibert fwears, " That 
 " flic fecmed greatly to relilh the doctrines 
 " of the Roman Catholic religion." Thefe 
 fentiments are inconfiftent ; and yet I make 
 no doubt that both Sir William Stewart 
 and Abbe Hibert fwore to the beft of their 
 judgment. 
 
 In her letter to Mr Haldane, 6\\\ Septem- 
 ber 1747, writing to borrow money from him, 
 fhe fays, " 1 am lorry to be obliged to acquaint 
 *' you, that the two feafons here and that at 
 " Spa have not altogether anfwered the intcn- 
 " tion of my journey; fo am advifed and de- 
 " termined to try the waters of Cariibad in 
 " Bohemia, where I am in hopes of getting 
 " perfect health." But, in her letter to Mr 
 M'Kcnzie, icth October 17^17, where ihc 
 writes to borrow money h'om him, and fcr 
 1 fecurity to infure her life, ihc lays, " I5c :if- 
 
 " lured,
 
 382 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 " fured, travelling, with the waters of Aix 
 " and Spa, has removed all my complaints ; 
 " and I want but to hear effectually from 
 " you to be perfectly well." And again, 
 loth November 1747, " I do affure you my 
 " health is very good, the Aix and Spa wa- 
 " ters have removed my only former com- 
 " plaints, which was lownefs of fpirits." 
 
 To her friends in Scotland Ihe mentioned 
 her purpofe of fettling in Switzerland, where 
 Ihe might have the free exercife of her reli- 
 gion ; and yet, at that very time, {he was 
 preparing to fettle in the very heart of 
 France, where {he could have no exercife of 
 her religion at all. 
 
 When it fuited her conveniency, me did 
 not hefitate to affert what I wifh I could 
 find a gentler name for than that of un- 
 truth. 
 
 Her noted letter to Mrs Carfe abounds 
 with examples of this kind; and, by the way, 
 that letter is a full confirmation of the evi- 
 dence of a lady of character (Lady Catha- 
 rine Wemyfs) who, I obferve, is treated with 
 too much freedom in the defender's me- 
 morial. 
 
 Her narrative to Lady Stair is another ex- 
 ample of the fame kind. Upon the evidence 
 
 of
 
 LORD H A I L E S. 383 
 
 ©f Mrs Primrofe, I make no doubt that this 
 narrative has been faithfully and confeien- 
 tiouily reported. Lady Jane told a moll cir- 
 Cumftantial ftory to Lady Stair, in which, 
 it muft be admitted, there was not a fyllable 
 of truth. How can this be reconciled with the 
 exalted character of Lady Jane as defcribed 
 by many of the witneffes? 
 
 To fay, that it is well known, that Lady Stair 
 was dull of hearing, or may have miftaken 
 Lady Jane, does not make Mrs Primrofe's re- 
 port the lefs credible. The defender, in fpeak- 
 ing of a thing as well known, ought to have 
 faid, that Lady Stair was fo deaf, as not to be 
 able to hear diftinctly a perfon talking with 
 her fingly and alone. 
 
 If Lady Stair was indeed fo deaf, I defirc 
 to know why fhe came to be engaged, after 
 the time of this convention, as a mediatrix 
 between two noble pcrfons, upon occaiion of 
 an unhappy family-difference. 
 
 But why multiply examples of her art and 
 infmcerity ? The defender has furnifhed a 
 molt ftriking example of it in the production 
 of Lady Jane's le Iters, p. 851. 8^:. 
 
 Sue writes to Sir John, 8th Auguft 1752: 
 " I am now fo far on my journey. Mr 
 ' M'K.ercher i^ fo good as to go a little way 
 
 " wit!;
 
 $5 4 THE S P E E C H O F 
 
 " with me, though I oppofcd it ; he having 
 " fo much to do. I mail not write again to 
 " you, dear Mr Stewart, till I arrive at E- 
 " dinburgh; fo do not be uneafy and anxiou.% 
 " I befcech you. / have no franks; therefore, 
 u won't put you to unnecejfary charges, which 
 " I hate to do. Pray remember, that the 
 " maxim of fivingnefs is the plan we ought at 
 " prefent to walk by ; when 1 am in Scotland, 
 " you mall hear often from me. I fhail then 
 " have franks enough." 
 
 She writes again 18th (Auguft): "I am 
 " now in my own country once more. The 
 " people, as we came along, and here, feem, in 
 " indulgence to me, to be highly delighted 
 " with the children. Mr M'Kercher, in his 
 " great civility and friendfhip, would give me 
 " the convoy the firft day. Mr Farquhar I 
 " am obliged to alfo ; he imagining the wine 
 " I had taken would not ferve out the way, 
 " at his own expence, bought other four 
 " bottles at a place he found it good." 
 
 Suppose, that the queftion in iiTue were, 
 Did Lady Jane Douglas go to Scotland by 
 land in Auguft 1752 ? I defire to know, whe- 
 ther a ftrong argument for the affirmative, 
 would not be drawn from thofe letters ? If 
 there were any jottings of a fhipmafter, 
 
 or
 
 LORD II A I L E S. 385 
 
 Or any memorandum of a cuitom-houfe offi- 
 cer, from whence a prefumption might arife, 
 that me went to Scotland by fea, would not 
 the fuperior evidence of thofe artlefs letters, 
 full of minute circumftances, written by a 
 Lady of honour, be oppofed to the jottings 
 or memorandums of low obfcure perfons P 
 
 Nevertheless, the defender has produ- 
 ced a letter from Lady Jane to Sir John's fon, 
 dated 1 6th September 1752, which proves, 
 beyond pofiibility of cavil, that fhe made this 
 journey to Scotland, not by land, but by fea. 
 
 As to the many letters between Lady Jane 
 and Sir John, which contain cxpreflions of 
 affection for the children: I admit their 
 weight in the fcale of evidence for the de- 
 fender. With refpect to them, I muft, how- 
 ever, make the following obfervacions. 
 
 It is not reaibnable to fuppofe, that any 
 hint of an impofture could ever have been 
 ventured in thole letters. 
 
 Many of the letters produced were writ- 
 ten tnth the intention of being mown. Tnis 
 appears from the characters of perfons there- 
 in drawn. 
 
 In none of the letters, is there the leaft infi- 
 nuation of the reports fpread concerning the 
 children. Such reports had certainly reach- 
 es c C e:l
 
 3 3<5 T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 ed the cars both of Lady Jane and Sir John ; 
 and they mull have been fenfibly affected with 
 them, upon the fuppofition, that the children 
 were their own. This muft have been up- 
 pcrmoft in their minds. It was natural for 
 them to unburden themfelves to one another; 
 and yet they never touch upon this fubject. 
 
 From the whole ftrain of the letters pro- 
 duced, it appears, that Sir John had obtain- 
 ed an amazing afcenclant over the mind of 
 Lady Jane ; and this, I am afraid, will afford 
 a key to the whole conduct of the unfortu- 
 nate Lady Jane Douglas. 
 
 Another argument in favour of the de- 
 fender, arifes from the proof of the preg- 
 nr.ncy. 
 
 That Lady Jane had appearances of a wo- 
 man with child, in the opinion of a multi- 
 tude of witnefTes, cannot in fair argument be 
 dJiputed. 
 
 At the fame time, I think, that many of 
 the witnefles, from one fort of prepofTchlon 
 or other, have reprefented thofc appearances 
 of pregnancy in too flrong a light. 
 
 Ix general, their ideas were formed upon 
 the report of Mrs Hewit. 
 
 Captivated by the addrefs and infmua- 
 tion of Lady jane Douglas, fome of the wit- 
 
 ncii'e*-
 
 LORD HAILES. 3B7 
 
 ueiTes were ready to take every thing upon 
 trull. 
 
 Madame Scholl fufpecled, that Lad) 
 Jane was with child, after having learned her 
 marriage. Her reafon for fufpecting the preg- 
 nancy was, becaufe Lady Jane was always fa 
 iveak, delicate, and pale. Had Dubois, her land- 
 lord at Utrecht in 1746. been, told of the 
 marriage, he might, for the very fame reafon, 
 have fufpecled the pregnancy. 
 
 Madame Gillessen would not have obser- 
 ved the pregnancy, unlefs flie had been told 
 that Lady jane was with child. Madam Gil- 
 leffen fufpecled nothing till flic heard of her 
 Hays being widened. Now, Blcyenheuft 
 fays, from her books, that the frrft time the 
 ftays were widened was 25th April 1748; 
 that is, in the fixth month of the fuppofeel 
 pregnancy ; it follows, that even in the iixtli 
 month of the mppofed pregnancy, Madame 
 Gillcffcn perceived nothing. 
 
 Madame Mesbach thought that ihc was 
 with child, becaufe ihc had " lc v:fa>rc tire ct 
 " Pair defaile? The fame appearances might 
 have been difecrned in 17,17 or 1749, when 
 ihc was confefiedly not with child. 
 
 The nuns at Aix-la-Chappclle, not very 
 competent judges effuch matters, fufpecled 
 
 thaf
 
 388 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 that flic was pregnant from the time of her 
 firft vifit to the convent. What was the date 
 of the firft vifit, does not appear from the 
 proof; but as Lady Jane went to the convent 
 to vifit Madame Martel, an old acquaintance, 
 it is probable that her firft vifit was foon af- 
 ter her arrival at Aix-la-Chappelle in April 
 1747, or foon after her return from Spa in 
 the fame year ; and if lb, then the nuns fu- 
 fpccled that Lady Jane was pregnant at a 
 time when no marks of pregnancy could ap- 
 pear. 
 
 The evidence of Madame Tewis goes too 
 far ; from that evidence it might naturally 
 be concluded, that Lady Jane lodged in her 
 houfe, while the pregnancy was well advan- 
 ced ; whereas fhe left it in December 1747. 
 
 Some of the witneffes fpeak of the great 
 fize of Lady Jane's breafts, Madame Negrettc 
 of their hollownefs; nothing can be more op- 
 pofite than breafts larger than ordinary, and 
 " la gorge plus enfoncee qua V ordinaire? which of 
 them am I to believe ? 
 
 Mrs Greig may be a very honcft evi- 
 dence. I have no ri^ht to doubt of her ho- 
 nefty ; but flie is over-run with prejudices. 
 Thus fhe fays, none of the French Ladies 
 were like her own miftrefs Lady Wigton, 
 
 and
 
 LORD H A I L E S. 389 
 
 and none of the French children like the de- 
 fender. 
 
 Miss Primrose may be a very honeft evi- 
 dence ; but (he is too apt to catch at circum- 
 stances. Witnefs her remembring Pier la 
 Marrc as the name of the accoucheur, and Me* 
 iiilmontain as the name of the village where 
 Sholto was nurfed. 
 
 The multiplicity of mifcarriages throws' a 
 ih ide upon the evidence of the pregnancy. 
 
 What authority is there for doubting, 
 that Mrs Hcwit told Madame Negrette of a 
 mifcarriage in Holland ? Mangin's double 
 mifcarriage is now given up. The mifcar- 
 riage mentioned by Madame llutlidge is alfo 
 rriven up. 
 
 Madame Rutltdge cannot mean the fe- 
 cond mifcarriage mentioned by Mangin, as 
 ihc defender fuppofes ; for Mangin has iixed 
 upon a certain date, namely, about two 
 months and a half after the former one, that 
 is, about February 1749. Nov/, Mangin was 
 difmiflcd from the fcrvice in April 1749, as 
 appears by Madame Maycttc's evidence, (and 
 Lady Jane's pocket-book); but Madame llut- 
 lidge did not fee Lady Jane till June 1749 ; fo 
 that Madame Kutlidge's mifcarriage and 
 
 Mangin's
 
 S9 o T II E S P E E C II F 
 
 Mangiirs fccond mifcarriagc cannot be the 
 fame. 
 
 The mifcarriagc mentioned by Mrs Mait- 
 land, cannot have been the one at Uheims, 
 iinlefs by changing the time, place, and per- 
 fons therein mentioned. 
 
 The defender fuppofes, that Mangin, a 
 married woman, miftook the cat amenta for a 
 mifcarriagc Why may not Ifobcl Walker, a 
 virgin, have made the fame miftake? 
 
 If the queftion were as to proving the 
 poilibility of Lady Jane's being with child, 
 from the evidence of mifcarriages, Would 
 not what has been obferved fhakc the foun- 
 dations of that evidence ? Are the evidences 
 of the pregnancy lefs ambiguous ? 
 
 Further, I obferve from the letters writ- 
 ten by Sir William Stewart and Lord Dum- 
 barton, unknown to each other, that fome 
 very extraordinary and interefting event was 
 hoped for and expected, from the birth of 
 a child of Lady jane Douglas and Colonel 
 Stewart. May not this have made the idea 
 of the pregnancy to be entertained with 
 more facility and ea$rcrnefs of belief? 
 
 There is an additional reafon which in- 
 clines me to believe, that the appearances of 
 pregnancy have not been fo extremely re- 
 markable
 
 LORD HAILES. 39 i 
 
 markable as Tome of the witneiTes reprefent 
 them ; and that is, their having efcaped the 
 obfervation of many witneih-s, and thofe not 
 the leaft credible in this bulky proof. 
 
 Suppose that the following had been the 
 only witncfTes examined, What is there in 
 their depoiitions which iliew that they obfer- 
 ved the marks of pregnancy about Lady Jane 
 Douglas : 
 
 i. Lady Catharine Wemtss, as credible 
 a witiiefs as any of the nuns, had frequent 
 occailon to fee Lady Jane from November 
 17 17 to the 10th of February 1748; yet ihe 
 faw no appearance of pregnancy. 
 
 2 . \! a I u li. f. R'i on of Dudwick, who knew 
 her formerly, and who was informed of her 
 marriage, faw her in April and May 1748, 
 and was the bearer of her letter to Mr Hal- 
 danc, 1 2th May 17^', and yet he perceived 
 nothing. 
 
 2. Lady Wigton, her intimate friend, faw 
 her daily during the month of May 1748; 
 '- 1 yet made no obfervations hcrfclf ; me 
 trulu-d to the report Ihe heard from others. 
 
 4. Guoxkt travelled with her for days 
 together in a ftage-coach, about the begin- 
 ning of Jimc 17,.:-!. This man is a notary, 
 ana his evidence is as minute as if he had
 
 5! ?2 T HE SPEECH O F* 
 
 been engaged a dreffcr un proces verbal ; he ap- 
 pears to have been abundantly inquilitive 
 and forward, not to fay impudent; and yet 
 he obferved nothing of pregnancy. 
 
 5. Young Mr Andrieux had repeated op- 
 portunities of feeing her in June 1748; he 
 has the rare felicity of being applauded by 
 all parties ; and yet he obferved nothing. 
 
 The fame is the cafe of Major- General 
 M'Lean, who fomctimes vifited in her houfc 
 during that period, and who faw her fet out 
 for Paris. He is a gentleman of known and 
 cftablifhcd reputation. 
 
 I fay nothing of the Demoifelles Hibert 
 and Mademoifelle S autre ; for their credit is 
 qucflioned, becaufe they anfwered as wit- 
 neffes upon a citation of a court of law in 
 their own country, which they could not 
 difobey. 
 
 But the other witneffes mud be confider- 
 ed as worthy of credit ; for they never knew 
 the horrors of the Tournel/e, nor heard the 
 thunder of the Monitoire. 
 
 I deiire to know, whether the evidence of 
 all and every one of thofe credible witneffes 
 would prove, that they had obferved even 
 the apparent marks of pregnancy in Lady 
 jane Douglas; and yet their obfervations 
 
 muft
 
 LORD HAILES. 393 
 
 mull have reached from the very firft weeks 
 of the fuppoied pregnancy till within eight 
 days of the fuppofcd delivery at the full 
 time. 
 
 If fuch be the cafe, I cannot imagine that 
 the appearances were fo violent, and indeed 
 io exceflivc as they are defcribed by others 
 of the witnclTcs, and particularly by Ifobel 
 Walker and Mrs Hewit. 
 
 Could I give full credit to Ifobel Walker, 
 the evidence in this caufe would be more 
 in aquilibrioy and it might be more difficult to 
 determine on which fide the balance inclined. 
 But I cannot help confidering her as a wit- 
 nefs partial and deeply prejudiced. I mill 
 mention the circumftances which ftrike me 
 moil ftrongly. 
 
 1 dwell not on fmaller circumftances, fuch as 
 her endeavouring to make l\lr James John- 
 lion pafs for a pcrfon little connected with 
 Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Dougl. s ; 
 lier faying, that Lady Jane explained La 
 Marrc's letters to her in Engliih, at the time 
 when (he herfclf certainly underftood French; 
 her converfation in German with Madame 
 (iillcilen, and in French with Madame An- 
 dricux : Her want of memory as to the con- 
 vcrfations which ihe had with Mrs Hewit, 
 .1) d d con-
 
 394 T II E SPEECH O F 
 
 concerning the tranfacHons at Paris ; and her 
 amazing want of curiofity in never reading 
 the evidence of Sir John Stewart and Mrs 
 lie wit, though it was put into her hands. 
 
 There are three particulars which con- 
 vince me, that Ifobel "Walker is partial, and 
 deeply prej udiced. 
 
 i. \\ hen formerly examined, fhe fwore, 
 " That fhe had occafion frequently to fee Lady 
 " Jane's naked hreajls and belly, both before lea- 
 " ving Aix-la-Chappelle, and after they came 
 " to Rheims ; and that the deponent has had 
 " her hands* upon Lady Jane's naked belly, and 
 " found Iier with live child ; and that this me 
 " would depone, if fhe wns going to ftep 
 " into eternity, whatever wretches may fay to 
 " the contrary." 
 
 This is pofitive indeed, and afferted with 
 an uncommon degree of afperity ; neverthe- 
 less, when examined ex officio by your Lord- 
 fhips, fhe fays, " That it ivas not Lady Jane's 
 " naked belly that fhe felt, when fhe found the 
 " child move, but above her fhift, as fhe 
 " thinks." So that the material epithet naked 
 is left out. How is this to be reconciled with 
 the pofitive and folemn averment which fhe 
 
 former] v made? 
 
 OHE
 
 L O 11 D H A I L E S. 395 
 
 She adds, " That before her feeling the 
 " child in Lady jane's belly, flie never had laid 
 " her hand on the belly of any other woman 
 " with child, or found the child move; and 
 " that fhe thinks, it was only at one time. 
 " that fhe felt tlu child move." 
 
 If liobel Walker is right in the sera, at 
 which (lie fnppofes this to have happened, 
 when fhe mentions it as happening juit belore 
 the widening of the flays, then it was juit be- 
 fore the 25th or April 1748, that is, in the 
 iixth month of the fuppofed pregnancy. 
 
 Now, Is it not wonderful, that fhe mould 
 not have had any occafion to make the likcob- 
 fervation, durinor all the months of Mav and 
 June; _//;.', who was conftantly employed in 
 dreflmg Lady jane, arm in aiding her to go 
 into bed, bv means o±. a box fevcn cr ci at 
 
 * o 
 
 inches high? 
 
 Is it not alio improbable, that Lady jane's 
 fituation mould, even at that time, in the end 
 of April, have been fo little determined, tha: 
 there remained a doubt, whether iiie was 
 troubled with bile, or was a woman far ad- 
 vanced in her pregnancy .' 
 
 Supposing, that liobel Walker had fixed 
 upon a more early rcra for this linglc ami io- 
 litary obiervation; this would vary, but 
 
 no!
 
 39 6 T II E SPEECH OF 
 
 not remove the improbability ; the confe- 
 quence would be, that (he felt a flight motion 
 like that of a pulfe beating ; but did not feel 
 the more frequent, and more violent motion 
 of twins, w inle the proper period for delive- 
 ry was approaching. 
 
 She does not make her narrative the more 
 probable, by faying, that Lady Jane wore no 
 bed-gown. I greatly doubt the fact: There 
 is iomething in Mrs Hepburn's evidence that 
 fecms to contradict it; nor can it well be be- 
 lieved, that Lady Jane, who complained ex- 
 ccfiivcly of cold weather, and who was cer- 
 tainly indifpofed with vomitings, did never- 
 thelefs wear no bed-srown, 
 
 Be this as it will, I c?.nnot fee how this 
 motion of the child fhould have been felt but 
 once; or how a perfon who never had had 
 occafion to feel any thing of the fame nature, 
 fhould have been fbpofitive in her averments. 
 
 2. Is quel Walker has fvvorn that fhe re- 
 ceived the letter from Mrs Hcwit of the 2 2d 
 July, previous to one acquainting her of Mr 
 Ajudrieux's fupply of money : " In which 
 ' ; letter Mrs Hcwit faid, that tliough my 
 " Lady had a good deal to do with money, 
 " yet, flic believed, flic would fend for the de- 
 " ponent and Eilic Caw." 
 
 Now,
 
 LORD HAILES. 397 
 
 Now, I think I can prove, to your Lord- 
 fhips fatisfaction, that Ifobcl Walker has here 
 fworn to the contents of a letter which fhe 
 never received. 
 
 The letter which flic mentions could not 
 have been written after the 26th of July ; for, 
 : .:i the letter of that elate, Mrs Hewit fays, 
 " She is recovered to a wonder, not indeed 
 <; without the greateft care. She is hull very 
 " weak; and her doctor has ordered her to 
 " be taken to the country in eight days, to 
 " make her perfectly lit for her journey home. 
 " She was fully refolved to have fent for you 
 " both the time flic was to ftay ; but as the 
 " doctor is politive he will have her to the 
 " country, flic has f'uch a good opinion of you 
 " both, as to think the difappointment of not 
 " coming here juft now will be linall." 
 
 After writing this letter, Mrs Hewit 
 could not write, that " flie believed mv Ladv 
 " would fend for the maids ;"' and this the 
 more efpccially, becaufe the plan here men- 
 tioned of going into the country was actual- 
 ly followed at the time propofed. 
 
 Neither could the letter in crueftion have 
 been written between the nd, the date of the 
 former one, and the 26th, the date of this 
 Arncj for .Mrs Ilcwit, in this letter of the 
 
 26til,
 
 393 THE SPEECHOF 
 
 26th, writes, " Juft as I was let down to write 
 " to you, I got your's, wrote on the fame day 
 " I wrote you, which was the 21ft day, tell- 
 " ing you the happy news." 
 
 The expreffion fecms to exclude the idea 
 of an intermediate letter; and this may be 
 confirmed by the following obfervation. 
 
 The defender's hypothefis is, that the let- 
 ter 22d July was written on the 21ft, but 
 dated 2 2d, becaufe it was to be difpatched on 
 that day. By parity of reafon, the defender 
 muft hold that the letter 26th July was writ- 
 ten on the 25th, but dated 26th, becaufe it 
 was to be difpatched on that day. Now, ac- 
 cording to this hypothefis, when mull the in- 
 termediate letter in queftion have been writ- 
 ten ? It is not probable, that Mrs Hewit 
 would write a letter on the 2 2d to be dif- 
 patched on the 23d, becaufe fhe had already 
 difpatched a letter on the 2 2d; and if fhe had 
 written on the 2 3d, to be difpatched on the 
 24th, why write again on the following day, 
 the 25th, which the defender muft fuppofe to 
 be the date of the letter 20th July ? 
 
 3. Isobel Walker depones, that in Mr 
 
 Murray's dining-room, Sir John received a 
 
 letter from La Marre ; that this letter was fent 
 
 by
 
 LORD HAILES. 399 
 
 by a friend of La Marre's ; and that it contain- 
 ed compliments to Mrs Hewit. 
 
 Isobkl Walker told more circumftanccs 
 to Mrs Hepburn ; nor has me ever denied her 
 converfation with Mrs Hepburn, or pretend- 
 ed that Mrs Hepburn had related more than 
 really pailed at that conversation. Take her 
 oath and Mrs Hepburn's together, and it is 
 plain, that the famous fourth letter is 
 meant. 
 
 Now, it is in proof that Lady Jane left Mr 
 Murray's in September 1751 ; yet the fourth 
 letter from La Marre is not dated earlier than 
 9th June i~s~- Has not this all the appear- 
 ance of an unjufrifiable inclination on the part. 
 of the witnefs to corroborate the evidence 
 iuppofed to have ariien from thofe fatal let- 
 tc s? 
 
 i proceed now to confider the chief cir- 
 cumftances of evidence on the part of the 
 purfuers. And here I begin with the evi- 
 dence arifing from Sir John Stewart's decla- 
 ration. 
 
 An apology for the inconMftencics and im- 
 probabilities of that declaration is drawn 
 from the vivacity of Sir John, ;md his )wn 
 confidence in the goodnef, of his memory. 
 But it mult be obferved, that Sir John, in his 
 
 aniw ers
 
 4 oo TIIESPEECHOF 
 
 anfwers to the qucflions put to him, docs not 
 fo much confide in his memory, as to be e- 
 qually certain of every particular. On the 
 contrary, he is careful to diftinguifh what 
 he remembers precifely, from what he is lefs 
 pofitive of. Thus, for example, in his an- 
 fwer to the thirty-third interrogatory, he fays, 
 that he knows, that he believes, that he is con- 
 vinced, that he is not fur e, that he is not pofitive, 
 that he does not knoiu, that he cannot recoiled ; 
 that fo far as be remembers, he did not fee 
 any of his countrymen at Peltier's cofiee- 
 houfe, except Con ; and that while at Paris 
 in 1748, he did not fee Clanronald. 
 
 Here all the different modes of fpeaking, 
 from pofitive affirmation, to pofitive denial, 
 do fucceliively occur ; and this has not the 
 appearance of a man who trufted too much 
 to his memory, who was precipitate in his 
 anfwers, or who, from a lively imagination, 
 was ready to remember things whereof he 
 
 Knew nothing. 
 
 But iuppofing that his vivacity and lively 
 imagination fhould have fo far milled him up- 
 on his folcmn examination in a court of juftice, 
 the lame fuppofition will not apply to the 
 accounts which he gave to Mrs Napier, when 
 afked by her to give an account of the princi-
 
 LOUD HAILES. 401 
 
 pal circumftances relating to the tranfactions at 
 Paris in 1 748, he did not, from his lively imagi- 
 nation and confidence in his memory, proceed 
 to tell her a circumftantial ftory ; on the con- 
 trary, he hefitated ; he made excufes for not 
 remembering; but, upon being prefTed by a 
 woman of excellent underftanding, to relate 
 the circumftances whereof he was certain he 
 gave her the outlines of that narrative which 
 he made at greater length before your Lord- 
 fliips. 
 
 It has been further faid, " That Sir John 
 " was very apt to forget dates and names; yet 
 " had a very good memory of perfons and 
 " facts/' 
 
 I grant that Sir John has miftaken fome 
 dates ; whether he was apt to forget names, 
 may be collected from the names which he 
 remembered. 
 
 He remembered, 
 
 1. The name of the inn-keeper whofe 
 houfc he firft went to at Paris, and the ftrcet 
 of his refidence, Godefroy, Pate St Martin. 
 
 2. The name of the perfon in whofe houfe 
 he lodged while at Paris in 174B, Michell. 
 
 3. The name and refidence of the perfon 
 who kept the cofTce-houfe which he frequent- 
 "d, PePet'wr.quai Pellet tor. 
 
 k e e 4. Tnr
 
 4 02 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 4. The name and iituation of the tavern 
 where he was in ufe to drink with his twen- 
 ty-feven years acquaintance, Pier la Marre, 
 Sources de Bourgogne, Pont St Michell. 
 
 5. The name of his correfpondent at 
 llheims, Mcnfieur Andrieux. 
 
 6. The name of the village where they 
 went on leaving Paris, Dammart'in. 
 
 7. The name of the place where Mr George 
 Leflie refided, Villers Cotterets. 
 
 8. The name of the defender's laft nurfe, 
 Manger, which is the fame in his way of pro- 
 nunciation as Mangin. 
 
 That he particularly remembered the 
 names of his acquaintance at llheims, appears 
 from his declaration, where he mentions the 
 receiver- general's Lady, Madame L'Elue, 
 the fyndic's Lady, Madame Maillefer ; and 
 from his letter to Monficur Maillefer, 18th 
 January 1763, where he mentions Monfieur 
 Maillefer of the regiment Royal Champagne ; 
 he alfo remembered where Clanronald lived, 
 at a houfe about two leagues from Paris upon 
 the fide of the obfervatory. 
 
 Having thus mentioned the names which 
 he remembered, let us now examine what 
 names he forgot, 
 
 I Ik
 
 LORD II A I L E S. 403 
 
 He forgot, 
 
 r. The name of the ftreet where La Marre 
 lived. 
 
 2, The name of the ftreet in which Ma- 
 dam lc Brim lived, tho' he defcribed it in a 
 very fpecial manner, as lying on the left hand 
 when one goes from the Font Neuf to the 
 Luxembourg, by the Rue de la Comedie, in the 
 Fauxbourg St Germain. 
 
 3. Which was juft as natural, he forgot 
 the name of the ftreet where Michell lived. 
 
 j\. The name of the village at which Shol- 
 to was nurfed ; tho' he defcribed it exactly, as 
 being " two or three leagues from Paris, upon 
 ■' the Amiens road." 
 
 5. The name of Mr Taflin, from whom he 
 received a confiderable fum of money imme- 
 diately after his arrival at Paris. 
 
 6. The name of Mr Pannier, with whom he 
 had a correfpondence, in confequence of his 
 (lupidity, as he calls it, in taking double pay- 
 ment of the fame quarter's annuity. 
 
 7. Tin names of all the nurfes at Paris, 
 and particularly of the nurfe Favre, though 
 lie remembered her name many years after 
 >'.]>'>, .is appears by his note to Mr Loch. 
 
 Tii .1 he Ihould not remember the names 
 i>1 lervants, or of feliow-lodgcrs, is not ex- 
 traordinary ;
 
 404 T II E S P E E C II O 1? 
 
 Inordinary ; it would have been more ex- 
 traordinary had he remembered them ; lb 
 that, as to this, there is no occailon to find 
 an excuf'e in his age and infirmities. 
 
 It is ftrange, that he mould have forgot 
 all thofe names; for they are all of great mo- 
 ment ; and where-ever any of them have 
 been difcovered, fuch difcovery has tended 
 to eftablifh material facts. 
 
 The inference which I draw from thefe 
 obfervations is, that Sir John's memory was 
 far from being defective as to names, when 
 he chofe to remember. His memory, as to 
 dates, may have been lefs diftinct, though 
 itill it has the appearance of being diftincr. 
 enough. Indeed a caufe may be affigncd for 
 his not remembering fome names, and for his 
 mijlak'ing fome dates. 
 
 I do not propofe to go through all the re- 
 markable circumftances in Sir John's declara- 
 tion. In this I have been, in a great mea- 
 fure, anticipated by fome of your Lordfhips. 
 
 I mall, however, fpeak to fome particulars, 
 which have been either omitted or not fully 
 treated. 
 
 Sir John's nrft journey to Paris, in June 
 1748, is acknowledged by the defender to be 
 a miftakc, or more properly, it is a fiction. 
 
 The
 
 LORD H A I L E S. 405 
 
 The defender apologizes for this part of 
 Sir John's narrative in the following manner: 
 " Sir John was at Godefroy's in Auguft 1748; 
 " but was not there in June 1748. He mif- 
 " takes the gcras, and acknowledges a jour- 
 " ney to Paris in June; but denies that in 
 " Auguft. This is from want of memory. 
 " In like manner, he denied his having vifit- 
 " ed Mr Hepburn at Boulogne, till the vilit 
 *' was proved by the circumftance of a night- 
 " gown, and an Amiens pye." 
 
 Had nothing more been fuppofed to have 
 happened on the firft journey to Paris in 1748, 
 than the prefenting a night-gown to a friend, 
 or eating a part of an Amiens pye with him, the 
 defect in memory might have been excufed ; 
 but here the fubject of the journey to Paris 
 was no lefs than that of fecuring a midwife 
 to Lady Jane. Bcfidcs, Sir John had reafons 
 for not remembering the journey which he 
 made to Paris, as well as for remembering the 
 journey which he did mt make ; an acknow- 
 ledged rcfidence at Godefroy's on the 8th 
 Auguft 1748, would have added to the cre- 
 dibility of Godefroy's teftimony that he 
 knew Sir John, and had not a month before 
 entertained him in his houfe for upwards of 
 i week 
 
 Six
 
 4 o6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Sir John's account of La Marre, in itfelf 
 improbable, becomes more fo, as he men- 
 tions farther circumftances. 
 
 Here is a man called up to Paris about an 
 affaire cp'imufe, and declining to tell his lod- 
 ging ; yet walking every day, and fomctimes 
 twice a-day, in the public gardens, and habi- 
 tually frequenting a coffee-houfe. 
 
 Sir John intrufts the care of Lady Jane 
 to a man whom he did not know how to 
 find, excepting in the morning, and perhaps 
 in the afternoon. Had Lady Jane been feized 
 with her pains in the night-time, Sir John 
 admits, that he would have had another ac- 
 coucheur to feek, where he belt could. But 
 this is not all; for, if Lady Jane had been 
 feized with her pains on a rainy day, Sir 
 John would have had another accoucheur to 
 feek ; nay more, the fame thing might have 
 happened, had her labour come upon her in 
 the afternoon ; for La Mane's refidence in the 
 Thuilleries or Luxembourg gardens, was not 
 certain, but only occafional in the after- 
 noon. 
 
 Notwithstanding this monflrous im- 
 probability, Sir John perfifts in it throughout 
 his declaration; and to rivet it the fafter, he 
 mentions the manner in which he addrefled 
 
 his
 
 LOUD HAILES. 407 
 
 his letters to La Marre: a prefent demeurant a 
 Paris, au bureau de pfle ; which addrefs pro- 
 ceeds upon the fuppofition, that he did not 
 know La Marre's abode. 
 
 When Sir John came to be again exami- 
 ned, there was an abfolutc neceiTity of his 
 having been in the knowledge of La Marre's 
 rcfidence. In 17^9, he was to find him, in 
 order to find Sholto. La Marre might, in Ju- 
 ly, be found walking every morning in a pu- 
 blic garden. But how could this happen in 
 the month of November ? To overcome this 
 difficulty, Sir John, at his fecond examina- 
 tion, recollected, that La Marre had at laft dif- 
 clofed to him the place of his abode; but 
 ivhere it was- Sir John could not remember. 
 
 Tins recollection was very critically timed; 
 for, without it, Sir John could not have got; 
 his fon Sholto immediately upon his arrival 
 at Paris, which was his intention, when he 
 propofed to remain at Paris for one ?ii(rbr. 
 Had he, upon his arrival at Paris, wrote to 
 La Marre, by his addrefs, at the pofbhoufe, he 
 might have waited for days before La Marre 
 chanced to call at the pofl-houfe. 
 
 Supposing that tin's recoil c^ion of Sir 
 John's is right and agreeable to truth, the 
 next quchion occurs, How came Sir folin, for
 
 408 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 fifteen or fixteen months, to be conftantJy 
 writing to L;i Marre, an bureau de pofte, while 
 he knew his addrefs ? If it be anfvvered, that, 
 in this alfo Sir John was in a miflake ; why- 
 is any other particular in his declaration to 
 dcferve credit ? 
 
 One thing is plain, that, if the man-mid- 
 wife intended by Sir John in his declaration, 
 had been a praclifing man-midwife, having 
 his fixed refidence at Paris, there could not 
 have been this uncertainty about his addrefs. 
 
 The next thing that I fhall mention, is 
 the fmoaky houfe, which they were obliged to 
 leave, as Sir John told Mrs Napier. What 
 houfe was this? It could not be Godefroy's; 
 for there is not the moft remote infinuation, 
 that the fcene of the delivery was ever in- 
 tended to be laid at Godefroy's. It could 
 not be Michell's ; for they went from it to the 
 country, by advice of the doctor, as Mrs 
 Hewit fays. It could not be Le Brun's ; for 
 that houfe is mentioned as being over-run 
 with bugs, and is diftinguifhed from the 
 fmoaky-houfe. It follows then, that the 
 fmoaky-houfe was a non- entity, and only in- 
 troduced when a woman of uncommon pe- 
 netration put more queftions to Sir John 
 than he was prepared to anfwer. 
 
 If
 
 LORD HAILES, 409 
 
 If there was a fmoaky-houfe, it was one 
 which Sir John could not acknowledge in his 
 declaration before the court. 
 
 Sir John, in giving an account of Sholto's 
 nurfe, /ays, that " ill 2 Jived two or three 
 *• leagues from Paris, upon the Amiens road." 
 This is exceeding remarkable; a La Marre, 
 a Walloon furgeon, accidentally at Paris a- 
 bout an affaire epincufe, knew of an excellent 
 nurfe two or three leagues from Paris upon 
 the Amiens ro:id. This, in itfelf, is not a 
 probable ftory ; but it agrees excellently well 
 with Mrs Hewit's account of a farmer's wife, 
 and of going a good way to find her. It al- 
 io accounts for this extraordinary cireum- 
 •lance, that Sir John, while at Paris, never 
 vilited the child. 
 
 When Sir John came afterwards to make 
 oath in this caufe, he took x\\ opportunity of 
 fiying, " That the village where the nurfe 
 " lived was but a little diitancc from Paris." 
 It will not efcape obfervation, that, by this 
 time, Sir John had heard of the Parifian La 
 Marre; and it fecms pretty plain, that he was 
 inclined, if poflible, to adapt his former ftory 
 to new difcoveries. But it furpaiTes all belief, 
 that Sir John fliould have miftaken Hauteborne, 
 a place dole upon the gates of Paris, and not 
 
 Y f f 0:1
 
 4io T II E S P E E C H O F 
 
 on die Amiens road, for a place two or three 
 leagues from aris on the Amiens road. 
 
 It is not enough to fay, as the defender 
 doe*, " That Sir John was miilaken, and that 
 " Ills memory was far from being: accurate in 
 " fuch matters." If a man mould affirm, that 
 his child was nurfed at a village five or fix 
 miles from Edinburgh on the road to North- 
 berwick, and an attempt mould be made to 
 mew, that a child nurfed at the Crofs- 
 caufeway on the Dalkeith road was that 
 man's child, would it be enough for reconci- 
 ling the hypothefis with the affirmation of 
 the man, to fay, " that he was miftaken, and 
 " that his memory was far from being accu- 
 " rate in fuch matters ?" 
 
 The whole flory of La Marre is effentially 
 abfurd and inconfiftent from beginning to 
 end. It may be fit to take the whole of Sir 
 John's account of La Marre in one view. 
 He met him by accident in the Thuilleries in 
 fummer 1748. La Marre faid that he had been 
 called up to Paris about an affaire epineufi, and 
 that he believed he would continue there for 
 fomc time. Sir John continued to correfpond 
 v ith La Marre at Paris till the end of the 
 year 1 -49. In 1752, he writes to La Marre 
 itill fuppormg: him a*" Paris: for, as he fays, 
 
 the
 
 LORD II A ILL 8. 
 
 411 
 
 the addrefs was, at the poil-houfe, Paris ; by 
 this tunc the affaire cphicujc mull have Lifted 
 four years. La Marre anfwers lull from Pa- 
 ris, i\i\ s he had been at Naples and propofeel 
 to return thither. Sir John, when examined, 
 fays, that he knows nothing more concerning 
 La Marre, but that it is probable that he is a- 
 bout Liege, where their acquaintance com- 
 menced. Why ciici lie think that he was about 
 Liege rather than at Naples or at Paris : The 
 beginning and the end of this ftory are in- 
 conilftent. 
 
 I mail admit, that the Tcurnclle procefs 
 mav have deterred Sir fohn from croinc: to 
 Paris, by reafon of the great danger he run of 
 being put to the torture. 
 
 Sc'nbat qua fun barb arm 
 
 Tortrr paraai 
 
 But thoie apprchenfions could not have pre- 
 vented him from going to the country of 
 Liege, where he thought it was probable that 
 La Marre was to be found; La Marre, the con- 
 clufive evidence of his innocence, and or the 
 defender's birth. At Liege, Sir John would 
 have been in fafety, out of the reach of the 
 French church, and of the French Hate. 
 
 /• F T E Ii
 
 4 i2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 After, all the attention I have bellowed on 
 this proof, it is impoflible for me to connect 
 the Pariftan Delamarre with the La Marre de- 
 fcribed by Sir John Stewart. 
 
 It has been faid, " That there is nothing 
 " incompatible in the appellation of Walloon, 
 " which Sir John gives to his La Marre, with 
 " that La Marre who was a native of Montrcuil 
 "fur mer in Picardy : That the anticnt divi- 
 ' «' fion of France was into the Pais Romain, 
 " where the Latin lansmasxc was ufed, and the 
 " Pais Gaulois, by corruption Walloon, where 
 " the antient language of the country was re- 
 " tained : That, according to this divilion, the 
 " Arto'is was in the Pais Gaulois; and that Mon- 
 " treuil, though in Picardy, which was part 
 " of the Pais Remain, is fituatcd unon a river 
 " which takes its rife in the Artois ; that therc- 
 " fore there was no great impropriety in Sir 
 " John's giving a native of Montrcuil the ap~ 
 " pellation of Walloon?"* 
 
 The obfervation is excecdins;lv ingenious: 
 but it may be anfwered, that it is more pro- 
 bable that Sir John would fpeak according to 
 vulgar ufage, than according to an antient 
 geographical divifion of countries. In com- 
 mon language, a Picard is never called a Wal- 
 loon : and indeed, according to this apology 
 
 for
 
 LOUD HAILES. 413 
 
 for Sir John, the argument in his favour 
 would have been more conclufive, had he 
 thou 2: lit fit to fay, that his La Marre was a 
 Roman, not a Walloon ; for the province of Pi- 
 card y where Montreuil is fituated, is confef- 
 fedly part of the Pais Remain. 
 
 The hit article which I mall mention of 
 Sir John's declaration, is that relating to the 
 four letters of La Marre. 
 
 The four letters produced arc not the com- 
 pofition of a Frenchman. This is fo clearly 
 proved, that there is no occafion to refer to 
 the evidence of that proportion. 
 
 They arc not all originals, or fome copies, 
 fome originals, as Sir John has, upon recol- 
 lection, declared ; but they are all copies made 
 by a pcrfon ignorant of the French language. 
 
 All the four letters are of one hand-wri- 
 ting, although the defender has, by miftake, 
 fuppofed that a poftfeript to one of them is in 
 another hand. 
 
 They arc, in fcvcral places, corrected by an- 
 other hand. This will be plain upon ocular 
 inflection. 
 
 From internal evidence, there is the higheft 
 probability that thole letters were compofed 
 by Sir John himfelf, and very prudently gi- 
 ver.
 
 414 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 vcn by him to be copied by a pcrfon win* 
 did not underftand their contents." 
 
 The pcrfon who tranferibed thofe letters 
 is ftill unknown. Sir John not only aflcrted, 
 that fome of them were copied by Mr An- 
 drew Clinton, but took much pains to make 
 Mr Clinton believe that he was the copier. 
 
 The defender fays, " r lhat notwithfland- 
 " ing Clinton's difavowal, there is reaion to 
 " believe they were wrote by him." How 
 this is confident with the known rules of 
 evidence, I do not fee. The letters do not 
 refemble the hand-writing of Clinton : Clin- 
 ton denies that he wrote them : That he did 
 write them, there is no evidence but Sir 
 John's declaration. 
 
 But further,- Sir John's own hypothecs is 
 inconfiftcnt with the fuppofition of their be- 
 ing written by Clinton. Sir John fays, They 
 were copied while he himfelf lived at Bedel's 
 in Southwark ; and he gives the following 
 •account of the caufe for which he had the 
 copies made : " That .Lady Jane, after her 
 " arrival in Scotland, having wrote to the 
 " declarant, then at London, defiling him to 
 " ihr.d down thofe original letters, the de- 
 " clarant gave them to be copied by Andrew 
 c ' Clinton., and alio gave him fome French pa- 
 
 "per
 
 LORD HAILES. 415 
 
 l « per to copy them on; and, as far as the de- 
 " clarant can recoiled:, he fent Lady Jane 
 " tlicfe original letters, or the copies made 
 " by Clinton, though he is not pofitive 
 
 " which." 
 
 Nov, Bedel fwears, That Sir John left his 
 houfe in May or June 1752, and Lady Jane 
 did not arrive in Scotland till Auguft 1752 ; 
 therefore, according to Sir John's hypothecs, 
 Clinton could not copy the letters : Or, in 
 other words, if in Auguft 1752, or after that 
 period, Lady Jane wrote for the letters, they 
 could not, in ronfequencc of her writing, be 
 conk • : efore July 1752. 
 
 Y, tl v U entering into a particular difqui- 
 iitioii :: to al! thofe letters, it may be pro- 
 per to fay fomcthing as to the drain of the 
 fourth letter, <;th June 1752. Il bears many 
 internal marks of great art and deep contri- 
 vance. 
 
 The plain pnrpofe of it is to fcrve as a 
 ccrtiii: ate to the following effect : " I Pierre 
 " la Marre accoucheur, do hereby ccrtifv, '] if, 
 " on the 10th July 174", 1 de- 1 IV'aaamc 
 
 " Stewart, wife o^ Colonel „ ,u t, of male 
 41 twins : That Mrs Ilevvit wps prefent at the 
 " birth ; and that ''.a youngeft of the twins 
 " being weak, and in danger of death, I pcr- 
 
 '• tormed
 
 416 THE S P E E C II O F] 
 
 #< formed the ceremony of fprinkling him by 
 " the name of Sholto-Thomas. In witnefs 
 " whereof, I have written and iubferibed thcie 
 " prcfents, at Paris, this 9th day of June 1752. 
 " Pierre la Marre." 
 
 When this fourth letter is accurately ex- 
 amined, m my remarkable circumflances in 
 it will appear. 
 
 By mentioning his performing the function 
 of a pried, the writer meant the ondoyement : 
 But though he knew the thing, he feems to 
 have been ignorant of the term ; and there- 
 fore he ufes an aukward circumlocution, 
 •which is alfo profane in the mouth of a llo- 
 man Catholic. 
 
 By making the certificate in the form of 
 a letter, the difficulty and danger of forging 
 the fubfeription of witneffes, or of a notary, 
 are avoided. A formal certificate was ob- 
 tained from Madame Tewis, concerning the 
 marks of pregnancy ; but there is only a let- 
 ter produced as from La Marre. The reafon 
 of the difference may be eafily found : She 
 who was to give the formal certificate cxift- 
 ed ; the fuppofed writer of the letter was an 
 imacrinary pcrfona^c. 
 
 By mentioning his journey to Naples, his 
 long refidencc there, and his intention of 
 
 fo on
 
 LORD HAILES. 417 
 
 foon returning thither, an excufe was always 
 ready for not rinding La Marre either at Paris 
 or about Liege. 
 
 By mentioning the difeafe in his breaft, 
 which had been relieved, but not removed, 
 there was a probability eftabliflied of La 
 Marre's fpcedy death. 
 
 By providing, that the letter mould be de- 
 livered by La Marre's friend, inftead of co- 
 ming by the poft, the great difficulty arifing 
 from the want of a poll-mark on a foreign 
 letter was overcome. 
 
 The mention of the profcffion of La 
 Marre's friend, ga\ e a more natural air to 
 the whole. But circumftances which save 
 an air of truth to a forgery, afford alio the 
 means of detecting it. Since the defender 
 has not fo much as endeavoured to mow, 
 that a miniature painter, of the name of Du- 
 bois, exifted at London in 1752, I will pre- 
 sume, that he is a perfon altogether imagi- 
 nary. 
 
 Any one who knows London, muft know, 
 that the exiflcn.ee of a painter may be 
 
 dily proved ; efpecially the exiflence of a 
 
 ioi'cign painter, and of one whole braucii of 
 
 buimeis is that of painting in miniature, 
 
 C' ''" c! which
 
 4 i8 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 which few painters, comparatively fpeaking; 
 profefs. 
 
 The defender might have learned any day 
 at Slaughter's cofYee-houfe in St Martin's lane, 
 from the French artifts who frequent that cof- 
 fee-houfe, whether Dubois exifted or not; and 
 T am perfuaded, that an inquiry, fo obvious, 
 and eafy, and momentous, cannot have been 
 omitted, when fo many inquiries, lefs ob- 
 vious, much more difficult, and of fmailer 
 moment, have been made. 
 
 The mentioning the name of the child, is 
 alfo remarkable j and not only the name 
 which he is underftood to have born in com- 
 mon converiation, but alfo the name of Tho- 
 mas, probably from Sir Thomas Stewart, Sir 
 John's father. 
 
 Any Scotfman, unacquainted with the rites 
 of foreign churches, would naturally con- 
 clude, that La Marre gave him the name of 
 Sholto-ThomaSy when he performed the cere- 
 mony of fprinkling. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is certain, that a child 
 at an ondoyement, receives no name at' all. 
 The name is given by the par rains and the 
 marrains) and there are none fuch at an on- 
 doyen: ■•;.', 
 
 Perhaps
 
 LORD HA ILLS. at 9 
 
 Perhaps I have dwelt too long on the 
 letters of La Marre. But the truth is, that I 
 ahvavs confidered them of exceeding: moment 
 in this caufe. When I firft heard of the fcr- 
 vice, and of the evidence there produced, 1 
 heard of the letters of a celebrated man-mid- 
 wife: and I confidered them as a very coeent 
 proof on the one fide : Now, that I am con- 
 vinced, that thofe letters are abfolute forcre- 
 ries, I muft confider them as a very cogent 
 proof on the other. 
 
 I proceed now to make a few obfervations 
 on the evidence arifing from the letters and 
 depoiltion of Mrs Iiewit. And here, in the 
 entrance, I muft obferve, that, although the 
 defender reprefents P.Irs Iiewit, as a perfon 
 having her memory impaired through age 
 and infirmities; yet that, upon the mo ft ac- 
 curate examination, her memory appears to 
 have been uncommonly tenacious. 
 
 In her depofitions, (he mention-; /:.'. :::••-[:. 
 different dates ; in nine of them fhe is pre- 
 cifely right; injix fhe is nearly right ; in one 
 {he is miftaken, from an error in < alcul li ion ; 
 in fizr dates relating to tilings of no moment, 
 (he appears to have been mifi th^n from want 
 of memory.
 
 420 THE S P E E C II T? 
 
 The remaining five dates are i/?, that they 
 fet out on their i'econd journey to Paris in 
 October 1749; 2 d, That they fet out from 
 Rheims for Britain about the firft of Novem- 
 ber 1749; $d, The time fpent in their jour- 
 ney to London ; and here indeed, her calcu- 
 lation is monftroufly erroneous. It is plain, 
 that the journey from llhcims to London 
 took up at moil thirty-four days. She has 
 made feven lie-days at St Omers, fourteen 
 at Dunkirk, fourteen at Margate; and thus 
 .{lie has not left a fmgle day, for per- 
 forming any part of the journey. Here 
 are three dates exceedingly miftaken ; and, 
 if Mrs Hcwit thought it expedient to prove 
 an alibi from Paris at the time of the enleve- 
 ment of Sanry's child, the mifcake may be 
 accounted for. The other two dates arc the 
 capital ones in this caufe, the time of the 
 departure from Godefroy's, and the time of 
 the arrival at MichelFs. 
 
 From this deduction, it will appear, whe- 
 ther Mrs licwit's memory had failed her at 
 
 the time of her examinations in the fervice, 
 
 and before this court. 
 
 But fuppofmg, that the ideas of Mrs Hewit 
 were very naturally confufed, whereof I do 
 not fee fuilicient evidence, and fuppofing her 
 
 memory
 
 LORD HAILES. 4 2r 
 
 memory to have failed before flie was exa- 
 mined in this caufe, whereof I think I have 
 proved the contrary; yet ftiil it cannot be de- 
 nied, that during the fpace of a month after 
 the ioth of July 1748, her memory muft have 
 ferved her as to daily incidents ; more efpe- 
 ciaily, when thofe incidents related to the 
 tilings which the defender muft fuppofe to 
 have taken up her whole attention at that 
 period; namely, the care of Lady Jane and 
 the children. 
 
 If during that month Hie made a recital 
 
 o 
 
 from time to time of what really happened, 
 her recital muft have been confident. 
 
 Three letters from her to the maids arc 
 produced; one of the 22d July; another of 
 die 26th July; and a third of the 12th Au- 
 guft, r 74H. Ifabel Walker fays, that there 
 were two more between the firft letter and 
 the laft. But I have already attempted to 
 flicw, that Ifobel Walker's memory is fomc- 
 times defective, fometimes exuberant. It is 
 therefore juft, that Mrs Hcwit be tried upon 
 the evidence of her own letters actually in 
 court. 
 
 Ui.RF. 1 muft prcmife three proportions, 
 
 ' ieh cannot well be difputcd.
 
 422 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 ift, That, when Mrs Hcwit wrote, and 
 fent oil* the letter of the 2 2d July, the nurfe 
 Favrc, therein termed the milk-woman, had got 
 the child, and was fuckling him; idly, That 
 Favre continued to ruckle him, while the fa- 
 mily remained at Paris ; ^dly, That {he went 
 with them to Dammartin, and continued to 
 iuckle him there, until he was delivered o- 
 ver to Mangin. 
 
 The Jirfl proportion is clear from this : 
 That parties are agreed that the family was 
 at Michell's on the 2 2d ; and that the child 
 had no milk-woman but Favre at that time. 
 
 T h e fecond and third proportions are pro- 
 ved by Favre, who is a witnefs againft 
 whom the defender can take no reafonable 
 exception ; for that her prejudices are in fa- 
 vour of the defender and his caufe. All 
 things confidered, fuch prejudices arc natural. 
 There is internal evidence of them from the 
 circumilance that Hie mentipns of Mrs Hewit's 
 pronouncing the word doux j from whence 
 the witnefs conjectures, that Mrs llewit 
 meant to fay, that tije defender was one of 
 
 twins. 
 
 Thus much having been premifed, let us 
 
 inquire into the accounts given by MrsHewit, 
 
 in her letters concerning the eldeft child. 
 
 Her
 
 LORD HAILES. 423 
 
 Her letter of the 2 2d July would infi- 
 miate, that the eldeft «child had only one 
 imrfe before the milk-woman or Favre : " He 
 " (the youngefl) agreeing fo well, (with the 
 " country, or with being out of the houfe), 
 " we are fond to fend the other (that is out 
 « of the noufe); fome days after your mailer 
 " went out to fee him, and found the nurfe 
 c: drunk ; upon which he fent the coach for 
 " me, and we brought him with us. We 
 " have get a fine milk-woman, till we get a right 
 " mule. 1 ' 
 
 The expreffions, " fend the other" and your 
 maftcr went out, would naturally imply, 
 that the eldeft chili was fent to the country; 
 but s the expreiiions may only imply out of 
 the L'jUj'j, not out into the country, it is heft to 
 imderfland them in the fenie lcaft liable to 
 cxc( prion. 
 
 On the 26th July, me writes, " 111 luck he 
 " lias lud to his nurfes, poor man; but has at 
 41 Uj'1 got a line one, and he not a bit the 
 " worie." 
 
 Ar., at this V,:v:, the defender continued 
 !;)!( I by j avre, it follows, that Mrs 
 
 ':• .]■ ;.\ " nurf.-', and at la ft crcttin r^- a line 
 " ()},• ,"' muft have meant to make tie maids 
 Relieve, that previous to Favre, he had more 
 
 nurfes
 
 424 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 vurfcs than one ; the leaft that is pofiible to 
 be conceived is, that he had two before Favre. 
 So Hands the calculation on the 26th July: 
 Next, comes the letter 12th Auguft, by which 
 time he had been put into the hands of 
 Mangin. 
 
 At the 12th of Auguft, then, he muft have 
 had three nurfes according to the letter of the 
 2 2d July; 1. The drunk woman ; 2. Favrej 
 3. Mangin. But according to the letter of 2 6th 
 July, he mu ft have had four nurfes ; 1. and 2. 
 two nurfes before Favre ; 3. Favre ; 4. Man- 
 gin. 
 
 On the 12th Auguft, however, the fcene 
 changes. " Our dear little man that is with us, 
 " he has been the moft unlucky, poor dear, in 
 " his nurfes, no lefs has be had than five, all good 
 " milks, but bafe jades, would not come along with 
 " us for love nor money." She then mentions 
 the reaper, Mangin, whom they had procured 
 ii their diftrefs for want of a nurfe. 
 
 It follows from the letter of the 12 th Au- 
 erufl, that the defender had five nurfes before 
 Mangin, who were all good milks , but bafe jades, 
 that would not come along for love "nor money. 
 
 How arc the five to be made out ? By the 
 letter of the 22a July, there were only two; 
 1. The drunk woman: 2. Favre. Again, by 
 
 the
 
 LOUD HAILES. 4:5 
 
 the letter o£ the 26th July, if there were two, 
 before Favre, the drunk woman and another, 
 ftill there would be two wanting to compleat 
 the number of live ; and even this, upon the 
 fun pofal that the drunk woman was a good 
 milk, and one whom they would have defired 
 to go along with them. 
 
 In order to reconcile the letter of the 26th 
 July with that of the 12th Auguft, we mull 
 fuppofe that the defender had four nurfes be- 
 fore he ffot Favre: that is, that he had changed 
 four nurfes before the 2 2d, or rather before the 
 2 1 ft, when the letter was wrote; and indeed, 
 according to the evidence of Michell's family, 
 by the 20th. But how can this be reconciled 
 to probability, or to the letter of the 22c!; 
 more especially as it is laid, that the defender 
 was fuckled for forae days by the drunk wo- 
 man ? 
 
 If the defender was born on the lotli July 
 between three and four in the afternoon, the 
 iooncft that he can be fuppofed to have been 
 ready for a nurfe, or a nurfe ready for him, 
 muft have been the morning of the r 1 th. Sup- 
 poling that the drunk nurfe Raid but a day in 
 the lodging with him, and had him but /zco days 
 with her in her own houfe, which is the mo ft 
 limited explication of feme if'tys, here are three 
 ' Mi days
 
 A i6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 days oonfumed. The milk-woman, Favrc, 
 could not be got latter than the 2 ift ; here 
 then are ten days before fhe was got ; three 
 at lead are taken up by the drunk nurfe ; fo that, 
 in the remaining feven days, there were hired 
 for the defender three ?iurfes ; and during 
 that period, all three difmiffed, not becauie 
 they were bad nurfes, but becaufe " they 
 " were bafe jades, who would not go to 
 " Rheims for love nor money." It is plain, 
 that this could be no reafon for difmifling 
 three nurfes before the defender was ten days 
 old. 
 
 It would be ftraining beyond meafure to 
 fuppofe, that Mrs Hewit, by faying " no lefs 
 " has he had than live, all good milks," meant 
 that he had the offer of no lefs than five ; for, 
 befides that the words do not bear this fenfe, 
 fhe adds in the fame letter, " infpite of all that, 
 " he is the ftatelieft dear." This neceffarily 
 implies, in fpite of his having changed fo 
 many nurfes. 
 
 Mrs Hewit, in her examinations, gave an 
 account of the nurfes different from any of 
 the accounts contained in her letters. Her 
 hypothecs is as follows, 
 
 The firft nurfe procured by Madame le 
 Brun continued with the child till Sir John 
 
 found
 
 LORD HAILES. 427 
 
 found her drunk, and then the child was 
 brought to Michell's, where it got 2d nurfe, 
 the milk-woman Favre ; 3d nurfe who was 
 procured by Sir John, and proved a bad one 
 with no milk ; 4 th, the milk-woman got 
 back for the fecond time j 5 th, the nurfe 
 Mangin. 
 
 When this hypothecs is confidered, it rauft 
 be acknowledged to be very ingenious. It 
 reconciles the letter of the 2 2d and 26th Ju- 
 ly. Thus, on the 22d, they had quitted the 
 drunk nurfe, and got the milk-woman, by the 
 26th, they had got and had diimifled the nurfe 
 with no milk, and had got back Favre; and 
 therefore, it might be laid, that the child had 
 had ill luck to his nurfes, having changed two, 
 the drunk woman, and the woman ; without 
 milk ; and that he had now got aline one, (*. e.) 
 the milk-woman Favre for the fecond time. 
 
 But this is ftill irreconcilable with Favre's 
 evidence, and with the five nurfes changed 
 before the 12 th ofAu^uft. 
 
 o 
 
 The roll of nurfes in her letters 2 2d and 
 26th July, and in her dcpofitions, will never 
 anfv/cr to her account " of foe good milks ', who 
 " would not come alonsr with them for love 
 
 o 
 
 " nor money." The drunk nurfe could not be 
 laid to be a good milk, or one whom they de- 
 fined
 
 428 THE S P E E C H OF 
 
 fired to go along with them. The nurfe with 
 no milk, and who was branded as a thief, 
 could not be a good milk, or one whom they 
 deiired to go along with them. The other 
 two nurfes beiides Favre, are, in all probabi- 
 lity, imaginary ; fo that, " the free bafe jades 
 " with good milk? are reduced to the folitary 
 Favre. 
 
 From what has been laid, it appears, that 
 Mrs liewit, when her ideas were clear, and 
 her memory entire, has endeavoured, by 
 heaping up minute circumflances, to mow the 
 diftrefs they were in for nurfes, the difficul- 
 ties they were daily encountering, and the 
 great care and concern for Lady Jane and the 
 children, exprefTed both by Sir John and her- 
 felf ; but that, in entering into this detail, 
 flie has both contradicted herfelf, and the un- 
 exceptionable witnefs Favre. 
 
 Further, Mrs Hewit, in her letter of the 
 26th July 1748, fpeaks of the Doctor having 
 ordered Lady Jane to the country in eight 
 days. It muft be admitted, that this means 
 to convey the idea, that at this time there was 
 a Doctor attending Ladv lane. 
 
 I think that there is convincing evidence, 
 iliac there was no Doctor attending Lady Jane 
 at that time ; and that this may be proved 
 
 without
 
 LORD HAILES. 429 
 
 without having any regard to the evidence of 
 the people in MichelPs houfc. 
 
 From Favre's evidence it is plain, that fhe 
 never faw a man-midwife or phyfician a- 
 bout Lady Jane or the child. Favre had the 
 child under her care from the 2 lft July at la- 
 teft : It is impoflible to fuppofe that the man- 
 midwife was in the courfe of viiiting Lady 
 Jane after the 21ft, and yet, that he never was 
 taken to vifit the nurfe and child, who were 
 either in the houfe, or within a door or two of 
 it ; a child almoft ftarved by a bad nurfe ; a nurfe 
 taken at a venture to fupply her place ; an 
 anxious mother, a fond father, a careful fe- 
 male companion ; and yet the man-midwife at- 
 tending Lady Jane was never fent to examine 
 the condition, either of the nurfe or of the 
 child! This pafles belief: 
 
 It would confume too much time were I 
 to take notice of all the contradictions and 
 improbabilities in Mrs Hewit's evidence. One 
 circumftance, however, I cannot omit. 
 
 Siik has fworn, that " flic had no convcrfa- 
 " tion with Lady Jane concerning the man- 
 •• midwife, prior to the delivery.'' If this is 
 true, and fuppofmg a real .delivery, I will be 
 bold to aflirm, that it is a lingular fact, not to 
 be parallelled in the hi Lcr; human nature :
 
 430 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 That the confident of Lady Jane, her fingle 
 acquaintance in a ftrangc country, {hould ne- 
 ver have any convcrfation with her concerning 
 a perfon whom they had come fo far to fcek; z 
 perfon who was to be employed in the office 
 the moft interefting that could be imagined! 
 This circumftance has always ftruck me, and 
 I cannot account for it upon the common 
 principles of human nature. 
 
 It is further to be obferved, that Mrs 
 Hewit herfelf fays, That Lady Jane would 
 have lain in at Madame Obin's houle in Bruf- 
 fels, had not Mr Obin been called away. 
 Mrs Hewit muft mean, that Lady Jane in- 
 formed her of this. She further fays, That 
 Lady Jane had no nurfe befpoke, and would 
 not allow one to be befpoke; becaufe fhe 
 did not know whether £he would bear a li- 
 ving child. She alfo fays, That Lady Jane 
 alked Madame Andrieux about midwives at 
 liheims, heard her anfwer, and interpreted 
 the converfation. Here are converfations a- 
 bout the place of lying in, about the procu- 
 ring or not procuring a nurfe, and about the 
 ignorance of the midwives at liheims ; and 
 yet there was never any converfation about 
 the perfon whom Lady Jane was to employ 
 at her delivery. How can thefe things be 
 
 recon-
 
 LORDHAILES. 431 
 
 reconciled ? Can I believe them all ? or which 
 of them ousrht I to believe ? 
 
 I come now to an unexceptionable, though 
 a Tournelle evidence ; I mean not Godefroy, 
 but Godefroy's books. 
 
 The residence at Godefroy's is one of the 
 capital articles of the caufe ; for if it be once 
 eftablifhed, that Sir John and Lady Jane re- 
 iidcd at Godefroy's until the 14th July, or 
 pair, the 10th of July, the whole fyftem of 
 the defender, and every prop and pillar of it, 
 fall at once to the ground. 
 
 The more I examine thofe books, the more 
 I am perfuaded of this proportion, That Sir 
 John and Lady Jane were at Godefroy's upon 
 the ioth of July 1748. 
 
 The following particulars feem clear : 
 
 1/?, That the blank article in the h 011(0- 
 hold-book, Jeudl, ^me Juillet> relates to a com- 
 pany of three people at three livrcs per head. 
 There is neither evidence nor probability, 
 that any company ever came there and rc- 
 fided at the rate of four livres ten fous per 
 head ; and I cannot explain this article in a 
 different manner from the other articles in 
 the books. 
 
 idly, That it relates cither to a man ha- 
 
 vine:
 
 43 2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 ring perfons of another fex with him, or to 
 a man who acted as the m after of a family. 
 
 ■idly, That it relates to a company which 
 entered in the evening of the 4th of July. 
 
 Atbfy, That it relates to a company of three 
 perfons having no fervant with them. 
 
 $thly, That the article, " Monjieur a paye et 
 " recommence" relates to the fame company for 
 whom an account was opened on the even- 
 ing of the 4th of July. 
 
 All this appears from written evidence, 
 and would equally well appear, although 
 Godefroy and his wife had died fifteen years 
 2"D, without being ever examined, as it can 
 do now while they are alive, and ftand as 
 witneffes in this caufe. 
 
 Now, the time of entry, the number of 
 perfons, that one of them was the paymafter, 
 that they had no fervant, do all precifely a- 
 gree with Sir John Stewart and his com- 
 pany. 
 
 The queftion then is, How is this article 
 to be discriminated from Sir John Stewart 
 and his company ? By article, I mean both ar- 
 ticles, as they confefledly relate to one com- 
 pany. 
 
 The defender's hypothefis mufr. be, that 
 an account was opened in Godefroy's houfe- 
 
 hold-
 
 L ORD H A I LES. 433 
 
 hold-book for a company, as entering on the 
 .4th of July after dinner: That this company 
 confided of three perfons ; that one of them 
 was the paymaftcr; that they had no fervant 
 with them ; and that this company was dif- 
 ferent from Sir John Stewart's company, al- 
 though agreeing with it in all thole particu- 
 lars. 
 
 To fuppofe that Godefroy kept a third book, 
 is contrary to evidence, and without proba- 
 lity. 
 
 To fuppofe that the namelcfs company 
 confifled of two perfons at four and a half 
 livres per head, is an ingenious conjecture ; 
 but, befides other objections, is liable to this, 
 that the defender has repeatedly aflertcd, 
 " that the book in queftion was merely a 
 " book for the ordinary of the houfe;*" and 
 it is agreed, that that ordinary was at the rate 
 of three livres per head. 
 
 The defender's hypothecs docs further 
 fuppofe, that they were in the houfe on the 
 7th of July, and yet were not infertcd in the 
 police-book, while Sir John Stewart and his 
 company were, and that they had an account 
 opened for them in the houfe-book, while 
 Sir John and his company had none opened 
 
 • them; or, in other words, that they were 
 1 i i in
 
 434 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 in the houfcliold-book and not in the police- 
 book, while Sir John and bis company were 
 in the police-book and not in the houfehold ■• 
 book. 
 
 Further, as the defender holds, that the 
 infpefteur actually vifited the houfe on the 
 nth July, his hypothefis muft lead him to 
 maintain, that this namelefs company efca- 
 ped not only one vifa of the injpefteur, which 
 is common, but two vifas, that of the 6th, 
 and that of the i ith. 
 
 All this is poflible; becaufe all this does 
 not infer an abfolute contradiction ; but it is 
 exceedingly improbable, as every one at firft 
 fight muft perceive. 
 
 But the great improbability of this hypo- 
 thefis, and confequently the great probability 
 of the contrary hypothefis, will further ap- 
 pear, when it is confidercd, that, in the whole 
 of Godefroy's police-book, from February 
 1 747 to the end of the year 1 749, there is fcarce- 
 ly one fingle inftance of an entry of a com- 
 pany of two or more in the police-book, 
 which has not a corresponding account in 
 the houfehold-book. I have examined them 
 all with care ; and the only exceptions feem 
 to be that of Cliquinot and Mop'mot, No. 228,- 
 and the one in controverfy j even the example 
 
 of
 
 LORD HAILES. 4i5 
 
 of Cliquinot and Mopinot, may, with ap- 
 pearance of reafon, be difputed. At the fame 
 time, during the period from February 1747 
 to the end of the year 1749, there are at 
 leaft forty-iix examples of companies mark- 
 ed in the police-book. 
 
 This, of itfelf, affords a very ftrong pre- 
 
 fumption, that the article, " Mr -font en- 
 
 " tres, yne Juillet 1 748," has a correfponding 
 article in the police-book; and, if it has., 
 then the caufe is determined. 
 
 I do not enter into the queftion, as to 
 fingle perfons faid to be entered in the police- 
 book, without a correfponding article in the 
 houfehold-book ; becaufe a fingle perfon may 
 be more eafily omitted than a company. As 
 to thofe fingle perfons, I think, that the pur- 
 ifiers have made the examples too few, the 
 defender, too numerous. 
 
 It is not fufficient to fay, that this article 
 of Godefroy's book would not be probative 
 in a queftion for half a crown. Moral evi- 
 dence is not to be regulated by the ftatute 
 168 r. 
 
 Sl-i'posk, that there were produced a letter 
 from Godefroy to Mr Maillcfer, acknowledg- 
 ing his letter of recommendation of a Scots 
 Colonel and two ladies, and mentioning, that 
 
 they
 
 436 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 they had been actually in his houfe, and did 
 not leave it till after the 10th of July ; fueh 
 letter, though not dated, and though not all 
 written with Godefroy's own hand, would 
 go very far indeed to terminate this great 
 controverfy ; and yet it might not be proba- 
 tive in a queflion for half a crown. 
 
 Hitherto, I have confidered the queftion 
 as to Godefroy's books, as if Godefroy were 
 dead, or no witnefs in this caufe. But, when 
 Godefroy's depofition is confidered, the evi- 
 dence becomes more cogent. 
 
 I have fhewn, that the articles continued 
 down from the 4th to the 13th July 1748, 
 do naturally and probably apply to Sir John 
 Stewart. 
 
 Godefroy fwears, that they do apply ; and, 
 if I am well founded in my premifes, he 
 fwears nothing but what is natural and pro- 
 bable. 
 
 By parity of reafon, had Godefroy fworn, 
 that thofe articles did not apply to Sir John 
 Stewart, he would have fworn what was 
 neither natural nor probable. 
 
 His depofition implies, that the article, 
 j\th July, continued on the eight, relates to 
 the perion, who on the oppofite fide of the 
 
 book
 
 LORD HAILES. 437 
 
 book is dcfigned Mr Stewart, and marked as 
 entering by himfelf, 8th Auguft 17.18. 
 
 This, of itfelf, might be held a fuflicient 
 caui'e for Godefroy's remembering who they 
 were that rclided in his houfe for above 
 eight days in July 1 748. 
 
 It is difficult alwa)S to alligii the caufes 
 which originally iixed a fact in the memory 
 oi any man. 
 
 Godef&oy may have had many caufes for 
 remembering kir John Stewart and his com- 
 pany, and for remembering the connection 
 between them and the written evidence. 
 
 A perfon recommended to him by repeated 
 letters from a man of difiinction at Kheims ; 
 a Briton coming with his family to Paris 
 before peace was declared: a Briton cominr 
 with ladies ; the fame perfon returning to 
 Iiis houfe within tlie fpace of a month : All 
 thofe circumftances may have concurred in 
 fixing the idea of bir John Stewart upon 
 1 iodefroy's memory. 
 
 TiiLKi: are many tilings which imprefs an 
 idea upon the memory ; and that idea will 
 remain after the came of the idea is eflaced. 
 defender himfelf .has fuggellcd anothci 
 cauli. , why Godcfroy may have h id the remem- 
 brance of Sir John Stewart and his company 
 
 impreiled
 
 43» THE SPEECH OF 
 
 imprcflcd on his mind. He contends, that, on 
 the 4th July 1748, there were in Godefroy's 
 but two lodgers, Mr Refette and Mr Defcour- 
 bons, bcfides the namelefs company, and Sir 
 John Stewart's company. Now fuppofing, 
 that the two perfons firft mentioned and Sir 
 John's company were the only lodgers in the 
 lioufe, the memory of that company would 
 be more lively in the mind of Godefroy, 
 than if he had been in a hurry of bufinefs 
 with his houfe quite full of guefts. 
 
 If it was Godefroy's general and almoft 
 univerfal cuftom, to fill up the names of his 
 guefts in his houfehold-book, the very omif- 
 lion of that circumftance might aid his me- 
 mory to the blank article. 
 
 The circumftance of there being few Angle 
 lodgers in his houfe, and no other company 
 at ail befides Sir John and his family, made it 
 of lefs moment whether the account was filled 
 up or left blank. 
 
 Had there been another company in the 
 houfe entering at the fame time, and confift- 
 ing of the fame number of perfons, this cir- 
 cumftance alone would have made it the more 
 neceflary to diftinguifh, by fomc name or ap- 
 pellation, between the one company and the 
 other. 
 
 Many
 
 LORD H A I L E S. 439 
 
 Many other caufes of knowledge might be fug- 
 gefted. The only one I fliall add, is derived 
 from the language, manners, and addrefs of 
 Sir John Stewart. 
 
 Of this the proof in the prefentcaufe affords 
 more than one example : He is remembered 
 by one of the pailengers in the ftage-coach to 
 Paris for a point of honour difpute about 
 feats, and for faying mon place, inftead of ma 
 -place. Madame Pelletier, though, as the defen- 
 der obferves, me was then very young, and 
 probably did not attend the coffce-houfe ; yet 
 {he remembers Sir John Stewart, and de- 
 fcribes him with fuflicient cxaclnefs. The 
 mention which flic makes of Sir John refidins: 
 in the Hue St Martin, points out the time bet- 
 ter than me herfelf could do from memory. 
 
 At ter all this, why are we to fuppofe, that 
 Godefroy is a perjured man, and unwortjiy 
 of credit? 
 
 It has been faid, that people who cat in 
 their own chamber paid more than In the ordi- 
 nary; and that, as Sir John and his company 
 cat in their own chamber, the blank article 
 Hated 'it the ordinary prices, cannot relate to 
 them. 
 
 I'lt this argument proceeds upon a mis- 
 take <>t the fact. Madame Godefroy fays, 
 
 « That
 
 4 4 o' THE SPEECH OF 
 
 u That at the fame time, the perfons who 
 " chofe to eat in their own apartments, it 
 " they were not fatisfied with the ordinary, 
 "gave notice thereof; but that generally 
 " they were all fatisfied with it; and that 
 " the price of the ' ordinary was the fame, whe- 
 " ther people eat in their own apartments or at the 
 H table d'hote." If Madame Godefroy is to 
 be credited in any thing, it is in a circumftance 
 of this kind ; and there is. nothing in the proof 
 which contradicts her. • 
 
 It has alfo been laid, that it is incredible 
 that Sir John would have remained at Gode- 
 froy's on the ioth of July, and yet have fix- 
 ed upon that day as the asra of the delivery ; 
 for that the danger of a difcovery, by means 
 of the people at Rheims, was evident. 
 
 But it does not appear, that the people 
 with whom Sir John and Lady Jane became 
 acquainted at their return to Rheims, ever 
 knew of the day fixed for the delivery of the 
 twins. Mr Andricux and his family may 
 have heard it; but then, What could have 
 induced them to have traced out Sir John, 
 or to have inquired where he lodged upon 
 the ioth of July ? 
 
 After all that has been faid for proving 
 that Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane were at 
 
 Godefrov's
 
 LORD HAILES. ^i 
 
 Godefroy's upon the ioth of July 1748, I ad- 
 mit, that thefe circumftances would be of 
 little moment, were there better and more 
 convincing evidence, that, after a ftiy of: 
 two or three days, Sir John removed from 
 Godefroy's, and was at another houfe upon 
 the iothofjuly: And this leads me to in- 
 quire what proof there is of his refidence at 
 the houfe of a Madame le Brun, to which houfe 
 it is aflcrted, that he removed about the 7th 
 of July. 
 
 All the laborious fearches in the capita- 
 tion-rolls for a Madame le Brun have proved 
 unfucccfsful ; no difcovery has been made of 
 Inch a Madame le Brun as might anlwer to 
 the description given by Sir John. 
 
 TiiKRE is no evidence of a perfon having 
 eluded the capitation who was poifeiTed of 
 lodgings capable of accommodating herfclf, 
 her daughter grown up to woman's eilate, 
 and, at leaft, one fervant maid, together with 
 a female lodger and three ft rangers, who, at 
 that time, muft be fuppofed neceflariiy to 
 liave required three beds. It is plain, that 
 there muft have been live beds in this houfe, 
 >ugh one of the family had llept with the 
 female lodger. 
 
 Kkk No xf.
 
 , H 2 T II E S P E E C II O F 
 
 None of t]ic fi-:e Madames lc Bruns, men- 
 tioned in the proof, can poflibly connect with 
 
 the defcription given of the fuppofed perfon 
 in controvcrfy. 
 
 Not Madamoifclle le Brnn, RuedeBievre; 
 becaufe flic lived fingle, and in a fourth ftory. 
 Not Madamoifelle le Brun, Rue du Murier; 
 becaufe flic alfo lived iinglc, and in a fourth 
 'lory. Not Madame le Brun, Rue des Aman- 
 diers : bccaule flic and her daughter had a 
 f.wde room in a third ftory. Not Madame' 
 le Brun, Rue Dominique ; beeaufe her refidencc 
 ir, abfolutcly inconiiiccnt with the defcription 
 of a ftrcct on the left hand of the Rue de la 
 Comedie, as one goes from the Pont Ncuf to 
 Luxembourg. 
 
 Least of all, Madame le Brun, Rue de la Co- 
 medie, although flie is reprefented as the perfon 
 whole defcription bears the neareft refem- 
 blancc to Sir John's Le Brun; for that the 
 Rue de la Comedie, can never be faid to be on 
 the left hand of the Rue de la Comedie; and Sir 
 fohn would never have made an excufe for 
 not remembering the ftrccts to the left of the 
 Rue de la Comedie, by reafon of their number, if 
 lie had meant to place the houfe in queftion, 
 not in one of thofc ftrccts, but in thcRuede/a 
 Comedie itfclf : Belides, this Madame le Brim 
 
 was
 
 LOUD HAILES. 
 
 i-o 
 
 ■was ;i fmgle woman: There is no appearance of 
 her daughter or fervant on the caphalion-roli; 
 and fha muft have been of the very mcameil 
 rank, tor (lie is taxed at three livrcs, while trie 
 apprentice to a dealer in earthen-ware is taxed 
 at four li\ res. 
 
 But, indeed, I much doubt of the proprie- 
 ty of all this icarch in the capitation-rolls, I 
 ilill think that the .Madame ie Brim in ipae- 
 ftion mud be fourjht for anion a: thole who 1. 
 either hotel garni, or chambres varans. 
 
 Tui-: accounts given by bir John and Mrs 
 Hewit are in confident with the fupnofition ol 
 "Madame lc Bran beinq; a o^/a/.' malade, or a 
 woman keeping a </:-_/;<>/ for an accoucheur, h 
 
 fo, then me muft have been, (if flic e 
 , i :r: >n who k.'x: ax / .x.' " ./ ... 
 
 J > I i < ; 
 
 In the whole dcclamlkms and x; 
 of Sir John Stewart and Mrs . wit, 
 ix) t the molt remote hint oi Ivkxamv. 
 bxn fr a garde malade, or keeper oj a c/ 
 
 i. T:u:y both xpeM: of a ! .d 
 
 feription is i ; - _ o xx. : x.l ; • ar ! 
 icriptions f_-em like d .: .. ;. . we. 
 ted ox different cam .di : >. 
 
 r.-o ' ..■
 
 444 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 2. Sir John thinks that bis Madame le B run 
 was recommended to him by Godefroy's peo- 
 ple. This mows that he never thought of the 
 hypothecs of Madame le Brim being recom- 
 mended by a man-midwife as a garde malade, 
 or keeper of a depot. 
 
 3. There is nothing in the whole proof, 
 which even fecms to infinuate, that lodgers 
 arc ever received into the houfe of a qarde 
 malade, or of one keeping a depot; and yet 
 here, we have Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs 
 Hewit, all fnppofed to occupy feparatc beds ; 
 and alfo a woman-lodger. 
 
 4. There is nothing in the whole proof, 
 which even feems to infinuate, that a woman 
 of Lady Jane's famion, and not obliged to lie in 
 clandeftmely, did ever think of being deli- 
 vered in inch a place ; in the afylum of loole 
 women, or in a receptacle for the very mcaneft 
 of the people, tor a Mignon, not a Lady 
 Tanc Douglas. 
 
 It is material to obferve, that, during the 
 lifetime of Sir John Stewart, this idea of a 
 garde malade, or a keeper of a depot, was ne- 
 ver adopted. This is a circumftance which 
 merits particular attention. The informa- 
 tion for the defender of July 1763, was cer- 
 tainly drawn up from materials furnifhed by 
 
 Sir
 
 LOUD II A I L E S. 
 
 44 '■ 
 
 Sir John Stewart ; it would be injurious to 
 fuppcfe, that the defender's counfel would 
 draw up an anfwer to the ccndefcendenccy with- 
 out taking Sir John's alTiftancc, as to facts 
 whereof he was the fitted pcrfon to inftruct 
 them. Had they anfwered the condefcend- 
 ence, without taking Sir John's afiiiiance, 
 they would have milled the puruxrs, and 
 perplexed thcmfelves in the proof. They 
 have too much candor for the one, and too 
 much judgment for the other. 
 
 Thus ftanding the cafe, it will be lit to 
 xz;A a paragraph or two from that informa- 
 tion, p. 22. " To the condefcendencc, as to Ma- 
 " dime Lc Brim not being in the police-book, 
 ;< it is anfwered, That there is no reaion to think 
 •• that the books or remitters at ^aris are more 
 •■ exactly kept, or that the officers entruftcd 
 " with them are more accurate, than thofe 
 " of the lame kind kept in Britain; and 
 •' therefore thefe books referred to in Paris, 
 ' : can have very little influence or weight in a 
 -' quchaon or tins kind." 
 
 i\'ow, had Madame 3c Brun been fuppofed 
 
 not to have kept an / /. . : ,; ;/ .':/, or cbambrcs 
 
 . here would have been the time to 
 
 I .id (o, and to have made the c'iftinction 
 
 l'L'..'.\\.ui an / 'jic 
 
 " u 'j. UL » 
 
 am 
 
 ti.e 

 
 4 4 6 T HE S P E E C II O F 
 
 defender would have properly urged, th.it the 
 non-cxiftence in the rcgiftcr, of a Madame le 
 Brun in i 748, keeping an hotel garni, or cbam- 
 bres garnies, was a circumflancc extraneous to 
 the cau fe, and abfolutely immaterial; for that 
 the Madame le Brun in queftion kepi no fuch 
 hotel garni, or chambres garnies, but kept a de- 
 pot. 
 
 It is now IV id, that Sir John Stewart did 
 not know the difference between an bote! garni 
 and a depot. 1 ftiall make that fuppoiition, al- 
 though it implies that Sir John Stewart did 
 not know the difference between fuch a lod- 
 ging-houfe as he would take his wife to at 
 the eve of her delivery, and the wretched 
 habitation of {trumpets and besc^ars. But 
 then, what will be faid of the following pa- 
 ragraph in the defender's information, ift Ju- 
 ly 1763 ? " As for a keeper to Lady Jane, their 
 " frame js would not admit of any extraordi- 
 " nary expence ; nor was a keeper ?iecej}ary, as 
 " Mrs Hewit was attending her." 
 
 If Lady Jane actually lay in at the houfe of 
 a woman keeping a depot, cr of a woman 
 whole profeiiion was that of a garde malade, 
 is it poiTible to imagine that neither Sir John 
 Sic-.', art, nor Airs Hcwit, would have inform- 
 ed the defender's counfel, that Lady Jane 
 
 acluallv
 
 LORD HAILES. 447 
 
 Lichi ill v lay in at the houfe of a perfon, whofe 
 vr :i;lon was that of a fick nurfe or keeper? 
 Imlead of fearching for rcafons why Lady 
 J 'lie j ad no keeper, the defender would have 
 i in his anfwers to the condefcendence, 
 that Lady jure had a keeper, and lived in the 
 houfe of a keeper. 
 
 Thus the fu\ pofidon of ?. depot, or the houfe 
 of a '- ; ?/cA' ma!ade,\v?ee, not entertained durinz 
 the life of Sir John Stewart. Afierwardsfornc 
 fbpmditioii of this na.'a re was required; for 
 it came out ivjun prrmf, trait 'if Madame le 
 Brim had kept an hotel - ../ or chambrcs garnies, 
 i;;e mu ft have been ;n tl e re^a'fler of police; 
 I i:t that r.o iuch ]\ T ,dame la Erun appeared 
 im >n tho<o ix-eailera, and confequently that 
 ; ■ v. (1 ea i; earn. 
 A, the raavexiftence of a M ' ■ h Brim 
 U \ roved; ami as then is h re ; :' mil a! a 
 : hay of proof- dment v. ith the hi] pj> 
 
 on of a de aver;. a' , <■'. '■ ,\ or at the i Life 
 fa 'ji'irae ria'ade, 1 ,c >. deremc : ; , I hat i\Ta- 
 • i,,c !c Lvma, a: i av '.: ; a--, rnd hear fe- 
 rn, e Umpvjr, are ail '• • i ry ; laacmarics, as 
 ..... 1 ..1 re I 1 v Lii>(.oit m >aaeon, 
 
 Ai.d his irtiniata .; aa'i l ^^ul/ois the palmer in 
 mi '.aia.re. 
 
 Tm:
 
 4-j8 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 The proof of the non-cxiftencc of this ci- 
 fential pcrfon in tlic drama, is of exceeding 
 moment: By like proofs of the non-exiftence 
 of pcrfons introduced into other dramas, 
 great and daring frauds have been detected. 
 
 Your Lordmips will remember the unpa- 
 rallelled effrontery of the pcrfon who termed 
 himfelf George Pfalmanazar. Tliis man in- 
 vented a description of the ifland of Formofa ; 
 drew up an account of its laws and inftitutions; 
 made a grammar of its language, and per- 
 illed in his fable for many years. — One great 
 means of his detection was the proof of the 
 non-cxiftence of father Rhodes the Jefuit, 
 whom Pfalmanazar reported to have been his 
 conductor into Europe. 
 
 An impofture more recent was detected 
 by a proof of the non-exutence of Count 
 VincenzQ delta Torre, the ima^inarv huiband of 
 the daughter of S'/pior Ccnjlantini of Fermo: 
 and it is remarkable, that, tho' the hiftorian 
 of Formofa did at length-, with much contri- 
 tion, acknowledge his imnouure : yet that 
 the ether hiftorian pcrfiited in allcrtine the 
 exiftence of Count Vlnccnzo dclla Torre, althc/ 
 there was cornpleat moral evidence that he 
 had never cxiftcd, unlcfs in the imagination 
 of the nrciciTor at Macerala, 
 
 Having
 
 LORD H A I L E S. 449 
 
 Having already detained your Lordfliips 
 fo long, I will but j aft touch upon the proof 
 as to the two enlevements. 
 
 With refpcct to the enlevement of Mignon's 
 child ; many of the circumftances co-incide 
 with the fyiteni of the puriuers, others dif- 
 agree with it. The principal differences are in 
 the dcfcription of the perfon who carried off 
 the child, and in the colour of the child's 
 eyes : And it is remarkable that thofe diffe- 
 rences are mentioned by the witneffes to 
 whofc tcftimony the defender has chiefly ob- 
 jected, by the perjured Mignon.s ! Set their te- 
 ftimony afide, and the connection between 
 what paffed in the Fauxbourg St Ant cine t and at 
 the hotel ITAnjou * is wonderful. 
 
 The enlevement of Saury's child docs Hill 
 more exactly rcfemblc the hiilory of Sholto : 
 The witneflcs to that enlevement arc not liable 
 to fufpicion ; they were firft di (covered and 
 examined by the defender's agents : Had they 
 varied upon oath, from what they declared 
 at their firft examination, the defender would 
 have availed himfelf of that material circum- 
 lt.ar.ee. But it is not laid that they have 
 ever varied; and indeed their evidence bears 
 the marks of truth and candor. Although 
 Lll I
 
 450 THE SPEECH OF, &c. 
 
 I do not approve of the ftilc of the Monitoire, 
 yet the witnefles of the Fauxbourg St Lau- 
 rent could not be inftructed by the Monitcire. 
 On the contrary, the Momto'ire was drawn 
 up in confequence of the information pre- 
 vioufly received from thofe witnefles. 
 
 1 have already detained your Lordfhips too 
 long ; and therefore I conclude as I began, 
 that, with great unwillingnefs, I give my 
 opinion for fuftaining the rcafons of reduc- 
 tion. 
 
 L O 11 D
 
 C 451 ] 
 
 LOUD JUSTICE-CLER K. 
 
 • T is now my duty to deliver my opinion 
 _£ upon this very interefting caufe, which, 
 taken in all its circumftanccs, and in all its 
 <:onfequences, is the moft important to the 
 parties, and to the public, that ever came be- 
 fore this court. 
 
 With refpect to the purfuers, I cannot take 
 upon me to determine, at this time, what 
 intereft they, or any of them, may finally be 
 found to have in the fuccefiion of the late 
 Duke ot Douglas : But this I know, that the 
 title of Duke Hamilton to carry on the pre- 
 sent action has been fuftained in this and the 
 higher court, and the title of the two other 
 purfuers has never been called in queftion : 
 And therefore I mall find myfelf obliged to 
 give the fame judgment in this fuit, as I 
 u-nuld have driven if the like fuit had been 
 brought by a younger filler, or the fon of 
 . younger fifcci of Lady Jane Douglas. 
 
 With refpecf. to the defender, the import- 
 ■iiu e of t he decifion to him is too affecting to 
 rfcape the obfervation and feeling ot any 
 judge: None of your I. ordfhips have felt 
 
 more
 
 452 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 more for his fituation than I have done ; and 
 if' I could difpole of my opinion, as I can of 
 my charity, unaccountably ; I know, and the 
 world may gueis, upon what fide I would have 
 given that opinion: But, fitting in this place, 
 T am not mafter of my own opinion, it docs 
 not belong to me, it belongs to facred juftice, 
 and I cannot with-hold it. 
 
 With refpect to the public, the queftion 
 is no Ids important. On the one hand, it is 
 of the higher! confcqucnce, that the rights of 
 filiation, upon which the peace of families, 
 and all the important rights of mankind de- 
 pend, may not be difturbed by a challenge of 
 birth, unfupported by legal and convincing 
 evidence : On the other hand, it is of no lefs 
 confequence, that the fame right of filiation, 
 which includes all the rights which ca.i de- 
 fcend to mankind through the blood of their 
 remoter! anccftors, be not evaded, and render- 
 cd ineffectual by artifice and bafe impofturc. 
 I am forry to give my opinion, that one in- 
 fhmce occurs of this in the prefent cafe. For, 
 after the fulleft confidcration of the whole 
 evidence, I am clearly of opinion, that this 
 defender was not born of the body of Lady 
 fane Douglas ; that he is a fuppofititious child, 
 
 and
 
 LOUD JUSTICE-CLERK. 453 
 
 and that the purfuers have fufftciently proved 
 their reafons of reduction. 
 
 Before I proceed to ftate tlie grounds of 
 my opinion, I mud beg leave fhortly to ftate 
 the rules of law, and of evidence, which ap- 
 pear to me to apply to this cafe : In doing 
 which, I mall endeavour to obviate fome ob- 
 fervations which have been Hated from the 
 bench, in fupport of a different opinion in 
 this caufe. 
 
 And the frll thing that occurs, is the 
 quefhon, cm inewnbit onus probandil This ap- 
 pears to be a difpiite about words ; for the 
 counfel of Doth fides, and all your Lordfhips 
 fecm to come to the fame conclusion. The 
 defender is in poileflion of his filiation, by 
 the acknowledgement of Ids reputed pa- 
 rents. That date is afcertained to him, in 
 frlma inflantLi by the fervice of the jury. 
 That fervice has been followed by legal titles 
 to the eftate, and by the decree of the court 
 ordering him to be put in poifeilion. Such 
 title cannot be fliaken, but by a reduction 
 founded upon evidence fuflicicnt to over- 
 turn the fervice. But every lawyer knows, 
 and muff admit, that of all the titles known 
 in the law, that of a fervice is the weaken 1 , 
 and moll infigniiicant. It is an ac : t of volun- 
 tary
 
 454 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 tary jurifdiction, may proceed before any 
 judge, and before a jury of the claimant's 
 own chufing. It is not a pleadable brieve ; 
 and the dcpofitions of two witnefles to the 
 propinquity by reputation, is held to be fuf- 
 iicient to found the verdict. But ftill it is a 
 good title to the fucceflion, till it is let afide 
 by reduction ; and accordingly, the parties 
 have proceeded in this caufe. And now, the 
 matter comes before your Lordfhips, as the 
 grand jury, to confider upon whofe fide the 
 evidence lies. If the purfucrs have, upon 
 the whole matter, proved fufficient to fatisfy 
 your minds and confciences, that this is a 
 falfe fcrvice, then you mult reduce it. If 
 not, you mull leave the defender in the pof- 
 feiiion of his Itate and filiation, as proved by 
 his fervice, and aiToiizie him from this reduc- 
 tion. 
 
 idly, All crimes, and all frauds, whether 
 purfued criminally, or ad civilem ejfeclum, ad- 
 mit of a twofold proof, either direct or t/V- 
 cumfiantial. Crimes of a latent nature, con- 
 trived of forethought, efpecially when pur- 
 fued at a diftance of time, feldom admit of 
 a direct proof. In the prefent cafe, the proof 
 is circumftantiah 
 
 \dh. 
 
 D"7'
 
 LORD JUSTICE-CLERK. 455 
 
 yllv, In fiich an evidence, each circum- 
 ftance muft be proved to the fatisfacfcion or 
 the judge or jury, before it can be taken into 
 the general chain of evidence. 
 
 Aihly, In trying the import of fuch circum- 
 ftantial evidence, you are not to feparate the 
 evidence, and try the import of each cir- 
 cumftancc by itfelf; you are to take the 
 whole evidence together, in order to form a 
 proper verdict or concluiion. And it is a- 
 grccd by all judges and lawyers, that a cir- 
 cumftantial evidence may r lead to as certain 
 a conciufion as a direct proof; in many cafes 
 more certain : And the fafety of the public 
 depends upon this principle. 
 
 rjl't'y, In a circumflantial evidence, no part 
 of the proof is lb much to be regarded, no 
 part or it can give io much conviction to the 
 mind, as what ariics from the conduce and 
 behaviour of the parties accuied. Provi- 
 dence may colled a chain of circumfiances 
 together, in fuch a manner, as to create an 
 appearance, ami fomctimes a conviction of 
 guilt againft an innocent perfon. But, 1 be- 
 ,'e, icarce an inflance cm be given, where 
 then; ncipal parte! thcevidencefromwhic.il 
 tlie guilt :- interred, does arile from the con- 
 duct jid behaviour of an innocent perfon. 
 
 6/ ; .
 
 4$6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 6th/y, Demon fl rat ion and demon/} Vat he evi- 
 dence is not incident to human affairs, and 
 is not ncccfiary in the trial of any cafe, civil 
 or criminal. Demonftration implies an im- 
 poflibility of the contrary. Such proof can 
 occur in no cafe. The moil important facts, 
 whether in civil or criminal matters, mud be 
 tried by moral and legal evidence ; and that 
 is legal evidence, which gives full faith and 
 conviction to the mind of the judge or jury. 
 Such was the opinion of all my brethren of 
 the court of JuiKciary, in the late trial of 
 John Rcid for fhcep-ftealing *. 
 
 It 
 
 * The cafe here referred to was as follows. John 
 Reid was inditfed for Healing fix fcore of fheep, from a 
 farm in the county of Peebles. It was proved, that the 
 priloner was a perfon in low circumftances, and of bad 
 character ; and that foon after the theft, he was feen dri- 
 ving the fheep upo;» the road leading from the farm 
 from whence they were flolen, towards Glafgow. He 
 was traced to the neighbourhood of Glafgow, where he 
 placed the fheep in an inciofure, and treated with fun- 
 dry butchers for the fale of them. Bur, before Gnifhing 
 anv bargain, a furmife arofe, that the fheep were ftolen; 
 upon which the pnfoner abandoned them, and fled the 
 country; but was afterwards apprehended. Upon his 
 tiial, he offered ro evidence whatever, that he had 
 come by the fheep in any lawful way ; and yet, the 
 jury, milled by the idea, that there could be no legal 
 
 proof
 
 LORD JUSTICE- CLERK. 457 
 
 It was fhid, " That if we admitted any evi- 
 -' dence, fhort of demonftrative evidence, to 
 " take away tlic filiation of the defender, 
 " eflabliflied as it is, in this c?.fe, it would be 
 " a fatal decifion to the public, and to our 
 " pofterity." 
 
 I am not moved by this alarm ; for what 
 is the right of filiation ? It is net merely the 
 right of being called the fon, and of inherit- 
 ing the fucceflion, of our immediate parents. 
 It implies alio the right of inheritance thro' 
 their blood to all their anceftors. Let us 
 now fee how far pofterity and the public is 
 interefted in the decifion. We find that liba- 
 tion cannot be taken away without demon- 
 ftrative evidence of the impofturc : But we 
 find, at the fame time, that that filiation, and 
 the moft important rights ariiing from it, 
 may be dif appointed and robbed from us by 
 any perfon who can conduct an impofturc, fo 
 as to avoid demonftration of the guilt. No 
 M m m lawyer 
 
 proof of his guilt, becaufc there was a pr (Tibility, that 
 he might have got the fliccp in a lawful way, though 
 he hue! offered no proni of it, returned a fpecLl ver- 
 di-ii, Horn which no guilt could he inferred ; ar.d therc- 
 v^on, lie was t'iimiilc J from the bar. But the five 
 i,..!'." prcfer.t, delivered their opinion fctirt'im, that 
 the verdict was erroneous, and contrary to evidence.
 
 453 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 lawyer has faid, that the crimen fuppofiti partus 
 is to be tried by a different rule of evidenec 
 from any other crime. I am for giving the 
 defender the full benefit of every rule of law 
 with regard to evidence, of every exception 
 known in the law for fctting afide evidence : 
 Vj ut I am not for inventing a new fyftem of 
 law, and new rules of evidence, for fecuring 
 his filiation different from what the public 
 and every individual enjoys for their fecu- 
 rity againfl the crimes of treafon, murder, 
 foi gery, and falfehood of every kind. 
 
 It was faid, " That a direct proof by two 
 " or more credible witneffes cannot be redar- 
 " gued by a circumftantial evidence, which 
 " may be confident with the pofitive proof; 
 " and the cafe of theft was referred to, where 
 " the ftolen goods may be found in poffef- 
 " lion of the accufed perfon, and a variety of 
 " other circiimftanccs concur to fix the sriilt 
 " upon him ; and yet, if he fhall prove by 
 " two or more credible witneffes that he 
 " bought the goods from a third perfon, all 
 " thefe circumftances muil fly off, and give 
 " way to the direct proof of innocence." 
 
 Tins propofition is folid in law; and fuch 
 of the judges as think, that Sir John Stewart 
 and Mrs Hewit, the only witneffes to the ac- 
 tual
 
 LOUD JUSTICE -CLERK. 4S9 
 
 tual delivery, are credible wrtneilcs, and that 
 the circumftances proved by the pur fliers are 
 confident with their evidence, or not fuf5- 
 cient to deftroy it, may adopt that ground 
 for their opinion : But I, and the other judges 
 who have the misfortune to differ upon both 
 thefe points, cannot poflibly be moved by this 
 
 argument. 
 
 It was admitted, " That the mere acknow- 
 " lodgement of parents was not fufiicient to 
 " eftablifli filiation : But it was laid, That, 
 " in this cafe, the acknowledgement of the pa- 
 " rents is fupportcd by univerfal habit and 
 " repute of the country where the birth hap- 
 " pencd." 
 
 But what weight can any judge lay upon 
 habit and repute in this cafe, when it muft be 
 admitted, that the fame habit and repute 
 muft neccifarily have attended the defender, 
 if he had been a fuppofititious child. No 
 veftigc of the houfe of the fuppofed delivery, 
 or of Madame le Brun, or any of her family. 
 His firft appearance is at the houfe of Michel 1 
 amongft ftrangcrs, who could have no rea- 
 fon to doubt that he was the child of the 
 perfons who brought him thither and nurfed 
 him as their own child. When carried iu 
 Dammartin, and afterwards to illieims, and 
 
 il..
 
 46o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 there baptized as the fon of Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas, of whom flie had been delivered at Pa- 
 ris, Who, in that place, could entertain the 
 lcaft doubt of the parentage that was afcribed 
 to him ? Such habit and repute could not a- 
 rife from any knowledge of the circumftances 
 of the birth : It refts entirely upon the affer- 
 tion of the fuppofed parents, and mult {land 
 or fall by the truth of that aflertion. 
 
 "We have heard of the extent of the Bri- 
 " tifh empire, and of the dangerous confe- 
 " quences which muft enfue, if a proof is re- 
 " quired of the actual delivery : And it was 
 " laid, That even of thofe born at home, not 
 " one of a thoufand can prove their actual 
 " birth at a diftant time." 
 
 This alarming argument proceeds upon a 
 falfe hypothefis ; for it fiippofes that a child 
 born at home or abroad, acknowledged by its 
 parents, and habit and repute to be their child, 
 by thofe who had befh accefs to know, mult 
 alfo, in fupport of fuch filiation, prove his 
 actual birth. But no proportion can be more 
 falfe in law. The child in poUcflion of fuch 
 filiation needs no evidence to fupport his re- 
 puted birth ; and he who brings the challenge 
 muft bring evidence fufficient to difprove it. 
 
 The
 
 L O 11 D JUSTICE- CLE 11 K. 4 £i 
 
 The pregnancy, delivery, and reconvalefcence- 
 of a woman, do not .confrfl in punclo. They 
 carry with them a train of circumftances 
 which makes it impofliblc to difprove a true 
 birch; and no inftance has occurred where it 
 happened. 
 
 " We have beard a load of imputation 
 <: thrown upon the purfuers for delaying their 
 f ' action ; whereas it was faid, the defender 
 ,; could bring no fuch action to declare his 
 « birth." 
 
 Tins circumftance of the delay would have 
 had more weight, if the challenge now brought 
 3iad come on a furprife and unexpectedly : 
 But the evidence is full, and public notorie- 
 ty puts it beyond all doubt, that the fufpicions 
 ot lmpofture were coeval with the defender's 
 birth. His parents, if confeious of the truth 
 ot his birth, had it in their power to prevent 
 the pofiibility of fuch a challenge. Durincr 
 the life of the Duke of Douglas, thefe pur- 
 fuers had no intereft to brine: fuch challenge, 
 i doubt if fuch anion would then have been 
 fuftained at their inftance. But there can be 
 no doubt, that a declarator for c ft abli miner the 
 proof of the birth of the defender would have 
 been fuftained at the inftance of his parents. 
 J. impute nothing to them for not taking this 
 
 meafure ;
 
 462 THE SPEECH OF 
 itieafurcj but I cannot fee that any imputa- 
 tion can lie againft the purfuers for notbrino-- 
 ing their action before they had an intereft to 
 challenge the birth : And 1 firmly believe, that 
 the defender has fuffered nothing in point of 
 evidence by the delay. 
 
 "We have alfo heard great weight laid upon 
 " the illegality of the Tournellc procefs ; and 
 a it was faid, that the witneffes examined un« 
 " der the authority of that court, were fo fir 
 " from being omni exceptione majores, that they 
 " were omni reputationc minores ; and that no 
 " more credit ought to be given to their evi- 
 " dence than to a {lave depofing under the 
 " terror of his matter's fcourge." 
 
 But whatever your Lordfhips opinion may 
 have been of the propriety of that action be- 
 fore the parliament of Paris ; and however 
 much attached to the laws and conftitution of 
 your own country, you cannot entertain an opi- 
 nion fo derogatory to the honour and courfe 
 of proceedings before that very refpectable 
 court, as this parallel would fuggeft. 
 
 What are the grounds upon which this 
 prejudice is taken ?gainit the evidence of thefe 
 witneffes ? i/?, Ihat they were examined in 
 prefence of the judge only, after reading the 
 plainte over to them j and interrogating them 
 
 upon
 
 LORD JUST ICE -CLERK. 463 
 
 upon the fubject-matter therein contained : 
 And, idly, By being thus examined upon oath 
 before that judge, they were thereby preju- 
 cheated and tied down in their fecond exami- 
 nation, under your Lordfhips authority, to 
 fwear agreeable to their firfl depofitions, whe- 
 ther true or falle. 
 
 As to the frft. If any exception could be 
 taken to the form of examining thefe wit- 
 neffes before the Tournelle, furely this can- 
 not apply to their examination taken upon 
 your Lordfhips commiflion, according to your 
 own forms, and in prefence of both parties : 
 And it is this la 11 examination only which is 
 in evidence before you. 
 
 As to the fecund. It has not been explained 
 upon what principle of law or common fenle 
 it is founded: Becaufe a witnefs has been 
 examined in one court, where the action could 
 not proceed, Is there any rcafon why he may 
 not be examined before a more competent 
 court upon the fame faefs ? Docs* not this 
 happen every day in both parts of the united 
 kingdom, without any imputation to the cre- 
 dibility of the witnefs? 
 
 If the witneli'es examined in the Tournelle 
 had bem picked up from the llrects of Paris, 
 and brought before that court to fwear to 
 
 tad <j
 
 4S4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 facts, of which there was no evidence that they 
 had any knowledge, except from their own 
 oaths, there might be fomc ground for this 
 challenge ? But who are the witnciTcs to 
 wliofe evidence this exception is taken ? Are 
 they not the very peribns whom Lady Jane 
 Douglas contefledly made choice of as her 
 confidents and attendants, and to whom flic 
 committed herfelf, as the fole witneffes of her 
 conduct during her ftay at Paris ? 
 
 One of your Lordfhips number took the 
 liberty of repeating what he heard faid in the 
 Houfe of Lords upon occafion of the Lift ap- 
 peal; and from thence prophefied, that the 
 Tournellc evidence would be totally difre- 
 carded in that court. 
 
 But, if any tiling ftrong was faid upon 
 that occafion, Was it not owing to the 
 jliamcful invective which was there thrown 
 out againft the conduct of Mr Andrew 
 Stuart, during the courfe of the inquiry 
 at Paris; and to the bold charge then made 
 of a falfmcation in the book of Michell, after 
 they were exhibited by him, and lodged in 
 the Tournellc by order of that court? No 
 wonder that cieen prejudices were conceived 
 from fuch an attack : But has not the fame 
 learned judge, with great honour to himfelf, 
 now difclaimcd the grounds of" that attack, 
 
 and
 
 LORD JUSTICE-CLERK. 465 
 
 and certified, from his own proper know- 
 ledge, the purity and integrity of the whole 
 of Mr Stuart's conduct in this caufe from firft 
 to laft. 
 
 After joining my own higheft teflimony 
 to the honour and in ^grity of that gentle- 
 mm's character, I v\ III only add, that it has 
 undergone a fcrutiny upon this occafion, 
 which nothing but the moft upright and de- 
 licate conduct could have withitood, by a pu- 
 blic exhibition, not only of the journal of all 
 his tranfaclions at Paris, but of the moil pri- 
 vate and confidential thoughts and obferva- 
 tions which occurred to him and his afliftants 
 in the conduct of their clients caufe. 
 
 And, therefore, without prefuming to re- 
 peat what I heard in the Houfe of Peers, 1 
 will likewife hazard a prophefy, That if 'he 
 opinion of any of your Lordihips mall pro- 
 ceed upon a total rejection of the Tour - !le 
 v/itneffes, that opinion will not be fupportcd, 
 but will be found inconfifcent with the lift 
 judgment of that mole Honourable Houfe, 
 which, for the fake of juftice, ;mt[ a fair trial, 
 relaxed the letters which your Lordihips had 
 impofed upon the purfucrs by your interlo- 
 cutor, and opened a method for facilitating 
 the examination of thefe witnefies under the 
 
 nority of your Lordfliips commiffion. 
 
 K n 11 I
 
 ^66 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 I mall now proceed to ftatcmy opinion upon 
 the different heads of the proof, referring; 
 to the evidence, which all your Lordfhips are 
 poficfTcd of, and which has been fo fully Hated 
 by the judges who have fpoken before me. 
 
 And, firfty As to the character of Lady 
 Jane Doughs, I agree in opinion with the 
 learned judge who fpoke laft, that there is 
 the ftrongeft evidence before us of the falfe- 
 Iiood and duplicity of her character. Her let- 
 ter to Mrs Carfe, her bofom-friend, upon the 
 fubjeel of her marriage to Sir John Stewart ; 
 her converfation with Lady Katharine Wemyfs 
 upon the fame fubjeel ; the falfehood and im- 
 position of her letter of the 7th of Auguft 
 1748 to her brother, clearly implying, That 
 Ihe was then at Rheims, and had been deliver- 
 ed at that place ; her after letters from 
 Rheims to Lady Mary Hamilton, Mr llaldane, 
 and her other intimate friends, all calculated 
 to impofe that belief; and, above all, her be- 
 ing art and part in the forgery of La Marie's 
 letters, and preferving them with fo much 
 care for the purpofe of creating falic evidence 
 of the defender's birth: All thefe things fa- 
 tisfy mc, that this Lady was capable of the 
 falfehood and impofture, which is now the 
 
 fubjeel: of trial. 
 
 The
 
 LORD JUSTICE- CLERK. 4 6 7 
 
 The fame thing I fay of the character of 
 Sir John Stewart, who Hands now convicted, 
 not only of the forgery of thefe letters, but 
 of the groiTeft falfehoods in his judicial exa- 
 minations before your Lordihips. 
 
 As for Mrs Hewit, the only other pcrfon 
 privy to the fuppofed delivery ; no attempt 
 has been made to iuftifv her from the crroffefl 
 perjury in many particulars of her evidence; 
 and therefore I coiifider her as very capable 
 of being an accomplice in this impofturc. 
 
 As to the queftion, cu'i bono, or from what 
 motives can Lady Jane be fuppofed to have 
 contrived and executed this impofturc? 
 
 It is difficult to dive into the motives of 
 
 lie Imuran heart in the commiilion of crimes : 
 But the proof prefents feveral motives which 
 
 night actuate the mind of this Lady ; her 
 defperate ciicumfiances ; the bad terms fhe 
 Hood on with her brother; her defpair of re- 
 covering his favour and fupport, without 
 ic remarkable change in her fituation ; re- 
 lc-ntment againft die partiians of the iamil) oi 
 Hamilton, to w!:om (he afcribed the lofs of 
 her brother's favour, and iiniuii views to Ii is 
 lucceflion. luit, above all, the clear opinion 
 which Hie entertained oi the indefcalible right 
 to the horours and ciiutc of Annus as fecu-
 
 463 T HE S P E E G H O F 
 
 red to her, and her iiTue, failing the ilfue of 
 her brother, of which there was no profpect. 
 All, or fomc of thefe motives, might operate 
 upon the mind of fuch a woman, and greatly 
 palliate the guilt of a fictitious delivery : For 
 I cannot fuppofe that Lady Jane was fo de- 
 praved as to have been guilty of this crime, 
 if flic had the fame fentiments of it that all 
 your Lordfliips mufl neceflarily have. 
 
 As to Lady Jane's age, I admit flic was not 
 paft the poflibility of iffuc ; but flic was in 
 the 50th year of her age, paft the period of 
 iflue, according to the ordinary courfe of na- 
 ture. I cannot therefore agree with one of 
 my brethren, who faid that her pregnancy 
 was as credible as if fhe had been but 25 years 
 cf age. For, if the calculation were made, I be- 
 lieve, of women of this ifland, not one of 2 0,000 
 have iflue at the age of 50. This is at leaft a 
 circumftance of improbability againft the de- 
 fender ; at any rate, it would have rendered 
 Lady Jane more timorous, more communica- 
 tive to perfons of experience, more anxious 
 to have the beft afliftance, and to be well at- 
 tended at the critical period of her delivery. 
 How far this was the cafe, will appear to your 
 Lordfliips from the whole of the evidence. 
 
 As
 
 LORD JUST ICE- CLERK. 469 
 
 As to the proof of the pregnancy, upon 
 which the defender feems to lay the greateft 
 weight, every body knows the uncertainty of 
 the appearances of pregnancy ; and that, in. 
 every inflance of a fictitious delivery, appear- 
 ance of pregnancy have been, and muft ne- 
 ceiiarily be ail'umed. It is the delivery alone 
 which can afcertain, whether thefe appearan- 
 ces are real or afiumeJ; it is not the appear- 
 ance of pregnancy which we are now to try, 
 it is the actual delivery of Lady Jane Douglas, 
 at Paris, of this defender : And if, upon con- 
 fiderinsr the whole evidence for and ajainfl 
 that delivery, I mall find any opening in my 
 mind to a belief tint there might have been 
 a delivery at Paris, I mail hold the previous 
 aepcarancc.3 of pregnancy to have been real; 
 but if, on the contrary, I Avail feel, from the 
 whole evidence, a full conviction, that there 
 was no delivery at Paris, I will then hold thefe 
 appearances as only afTumed, in order to pave 
 the way for the fictitious birth. 
 
 At the fame time, in palling, T muft fay, 
 tint the evidence of the pregnancy is not 
 filch as I would have expected in a real cafe, 
 i cannot account lor Lady Jane's poiitivc 
 denial of her marrriage to Lady Katherine 
 Wemyfs. if me wis then truly in the fifth 
 
 month
 
 470 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 month of her pregnancy. I do not like the 
 unnecefTary and unufual coverings of her 
 body for fome months before her departure 
 from Aix-la-Chappelle. I give no credit to 
 the exaggerated defcription of her belly and 
 breads given by Mrs llewit and Tibby Wal- 
 ker. If this laft witnefs could have had any 
 credit with me upon her former dcpolitions, 
 that is totally obliterated by her late exami- 
 nation before your Lordfhips. The only 
 credible witnefs who depofes to the fize of 
 Lady Jane's breads, is Mrs Hepburn. She 
 appears to have had but an accidental and 
 tranfient view ; and under the prepoffef- 
 fion of Lady Jane's pregnancy, I can eafily 
 conceive, that a woman, without experience, 
 might have been deceived in that appeal ance. 
 Madame Negrette, a lady of experience, and 
 the confident of Lady Jane, could perceive 
 no fymptoms of pregnancy, till Mrs llewit 
 allured her of it ; and falfely told her, that 
 fhe had had a mifcarriage in Holland. And 
 ihe depofes, that, in the end of March, her 
 brcajls were holioiver them ordinary, which {he 
 afcribes to a fuppofal, that this was the be- 
 ginning of her pregnancy, though fhe was 
 then near her fixth month. 
 
 I
 
 LORD J U S T I C E - C L E R K. 471 
 
 I will not follow the hiftory of Lady Jane's 
 travels through the low countries. I will 
 take her up at Rheims, where ilie arrived 
 near the laft month of her pregnancy, and 
 where it is faid {he intended to lie in. Advan- 
 ced in age, pregnant with her firfl child, 
 lately threatened with a premature birth, fo 
 big, that twins were prognoiheated by Mrs 
 lieu it, it was natural for her to mow fome 
 anxiety about her delivery, and above all 
 things, to have fought out the moil fkilful 
 midwife or accoucheur in the place, and to 
 have befpokc a nurfe. To none of thefs 
 tilings does me attend ; and after flaying a 
 whole month at Rheims doing nothing, Hie 
 takes the fudden rcfolution of going to Paris, 
 when within a few days of the delivery. 
 
 E\ kry thing was difadvantageous to this 
 journey; and the defender's counfel arc fen - 
 iiblc, that they mult give fome account or 
 fo fudden and unfeafonablc a change of her 
 iirfl rcfolution. The account r'v'jn is, the 
 want of proper afjifcanee J.V »r her delivery at 
 Rheims. But i> it not ftraugc, that ilie was 
 not apprized of this fooncv, a::d that :he de- 
 layed ti.king ib loi g a j.-ju n< ■; . till vhhin a 
 s of her lime :' . ■ •■ 1 i ; :< fa t is dif- 
 proved by clear e , .. vain tv of 
 
 r 1 ..1
 
 472 THESPEECHOF 
 
 fkilful mid wives and accoucheurs were to be 
 had at llheims ; and the flory of Madame 
 Andrieux being unlkilfully brought to bed, is 
 contradicted by the belt evidence that can 
 now be had. 
 
 Having taken this flrange refolution of 
 leaving llheims, and going to Paris to be de- 
 livered, it is natural to expect, that fhc would 
 have given notice thereof to fome of her 
 friends; that flic would have carried her maid- 
 fervants with her ; that me would have got 
 proper recommendations from llheims, for 
 the ncceiTary affiftance flic wanted at Paris. 
 But how different was her conduct in all thefe 
 refpects ? No letters wrote to her friends ; no 
 letters taken from llheims to direct her to 
 proper affiftance. The only letter carried 
 from llheims, was one from Mr Maillefer, 
 from whom Lady Jane's fituation was kept a 
 fecret, and who recommends them to Mr 
 Godefroy, under the character of a Scots Co- 
 lonel, with two ladies, who had gone to Pa- 
 ris for a fhort time, and were to make fome 
 purchafes. 
 
 But above all, Lady Jane's leaving her 
 two maids at Rheims, is moft unaccountable. 
 All the lawyers who treat of this crime, men- 
 tion fuch a circumflance as this, as one of 
 
 i the
 
 LORD JUSTICE-CLERK. 473 
 
 the ftrongeft, and moft ufually attending this 
 fpecies of impoilure. Sir John Stewart and 
 Mrs Hewit are fenfible of the force it, and 
 endeavour to account for this part of Lady 
 Jane's conduct, by the want of money to 
 carry thefe fervants to Paris. The account is 
 abfurd ; becaufe lefs than one pound Sterling 
 would have carried them to Paris, where they 
 could have lived in family with Lady Jane 
 at lefs expence than they did at Rheims ; and 
 it is alio falfe, becaufe it is clearly proved, 
 that Sir John had credit at Paris fufficient 
 to anfwer all his cxpences. 
 
 It was laid for the defender, " That he 
 " ought not to be obliged to account for cve- 
 " ry Hep of conduct of his parents, efpecially 
 ' ::t fuch a diflance of time; and that Lady 
 ■• Jane's marriage with Sir jchn Stewart was 
 ' as unaccountable a flep as any in her after 
 " conduct." 
 
 Tiif. general proportion may be true in 
 matters of indiiTcrence, or in matters which 
 admit of a variety of motives and conduct ; 
 but no', in m.itters of the hiurheft moment, 
 .Hid where reafon, ienie, and the common 
 i ; e clings of mankind mult ncceilarily direct 
 tun" con duel - , 
 
 Goo Hire
 
 474 T II F. SPEEC II O F 
 
 Here then we have Lady Jane Douglas 
 fetting out for Paris at two o'clock in the 
 morning in a common flaire-coach, in order 
 to have better afliuance at Paris than flic 
 could have had at Rhcims. Amongfl her fel- 
 low-travellers in that carriage, are, a lady who 
 had born many children, and a young lady 
 of fome rank, and well acquainted with Pa- 
 ris, whofe acquaintance Lady Jane feemed 
 fond to cultivate; and yet, during a long 
 journey of three days, not one of the com- 
 pany obferved her pregnancy, nor had flic 
 the lead converfation with any of them touch- 
 ing her fituation, or the object of her journey 
 to Paris. 
 
 She next arrives at the Hotel of Godefroy, 
 one of the beft in Paris for one in her fitua- 
 tion, in refpecc of the character of Mr Godefroy, 
 and of his wife, who had born many children. 
 There they confefledly flay for forne days ; but 
 nobody in that family obferved the leaft ap- 
 pearance of pregnancy : No difcovery was 
 made of Lady Jane's fituation by herfelf or any 
 of her company : No mention of an accoucheur, 
 of a nurie, or of proper lodgings for her de- 
 livery. What is the excufe for this unac- 
 countable conduct? Sir John had befpokr 
 P'erre la Marre ; and he was to take care of 
 
 every
 
 LOUD JUSTICE-CLERK. 475 
 
 every thin^. If it had been fo, Why not 
 fpeak of her fit nation to Madame Godefroy ? 
 Or how could Lady Jane's fituation, at the 
 point of delivery, efcape Madame Godefroy 's 
 obfervation for io many days: But why did 
 not the accoucheur appear? It was the fole 
 object or the journey to find a good one; 
 anJ, io foon as he was engaged, it was na- 
 tural for Lady Jane to defire to fee him, and 
 to make him acquainted with her fituation j 
 yet no iudi perfon ever appeared during their 
 flay at the houfe of Godefroy. 
 
 Hkr next remove, as it is laid, was to the 
 houfi ■ on the 7th or 8th 
 
 of July, where ihe was . eiivered on the loth, 
 and ftaid till the 18th or 19th. If this had 
 been true, Sir John Stewart, who knew Paris. 
 Io perfectly well, could have had no difficul- 
 ty in deicribins; and finding out the 1 ode 
 where he had refided for ten or twelve d..ys, 
 and" where his lady had been delivered of 
 twin-children. Such an event happening in 
 any lodging-houfe to ftrangcrs, who could 
 have no plot to conceal it, behoved ncccilari- 
 iy to draw along!: with it a train of circum- 
 i: :. es diffident to lead to the dilcovery of 
 (lie houfe ; and yet, after the molt diligent 
 inouiry bv both parties, ailified with esery 
 
 refource
 
 47* THE SPEECH OF 
 
 refource which the police of Paris could af- 
 ford, no veftige or difcovery has been made 
 of any fuch houfe or family as that of Ma- 
 dame le Brum The circumftance of Sir John's 
 iirft account of the place of delivery, in his 
 memorandum to Mrs Napier, is not imma- 
 terial. He faid, it was the houfe of Madame 
 Michell ; and Mrs Hewit's letter to the Duke 
 of Douglas, aligning the fame place for the 
 delivery, carries a ftrong appearance, that 
 they had not then invented the fictitious- 
 houfe of Le Brum 
 
 But to proceed with the defender's ac- 
 count of the matter : Here they are at Le 
 Brun's on the 7th or 8th of July, and on the 
 10th of that month Lady Jane is delivered 
 of twins. 
 
 Unfortunately for the defender, no lefs 
 than four letters from Sir John Stewart, of 
 that date, are extant, and not a word in any 
 of them of Lady Jane's delivery. But this is 
 not all ; for it is proved, that Mrs Hewit 
 wrote a letter to the maids at Rheims, bear- 
 ing date the nth of July, and no mention 
 is made of the delivery. This muft be ab- 
 folutely fatal to the defender, if not taken 
 oft: And how is it taken off? By Mrs Hewit's 
 
 after
 
 LORD JUSTICE- CLERK. 477 
 
 after correction of that date, in her fubfequent 
 letter to the maids of the 2 2d of that month. 
 Now, is it pothole to fuppofc, that Mrs Hewit, 
 a weak inaccurate woman, would have 
 thought of fuch a correction ? Two things 
 limit be here fuppofed, ift, That the mifdated 
 her letter of the 1 ith ; and, idly, That, at the 
 diftance of eleven days, fhe recollected that 
 miftake, and thought it material to correct it 
 in her letter of the 22c!, If nothing wrons: 
 was going on, there was no occafion for fuch 
 anxiety in recollecting and correcting the date 
 of her fir ft letter. 
 
 Thk like correction of the date of Sir John's 
 letter to the Earl of Crawfurd, written upon 
 the 10th of July, falls under and ftrengthens 
 this obfervation : Both (how that there was 
 no delivery upon the 10th; and that the after 
 correction of the dates of thefc letters, at the 
 diftance or eleven days, took its rife from after 
 circumftanccs, which obliged them to fix the 
 delivery upon the 10th of fuly. 
 
 But further, What account can poflibly 
 be given of the profound filcr.ee with regard 
 to l/uly Jane's delivery, from the 10th to the 
 2 ilt and 2 2d of fuly? 1'or the iirft letters, 
 civinir account of this impel ; n c\ cnt to their 
 friends and correfpoudents, are 01 thete dates. 
 
 Two
 
 47 8 THE S P E E C H O F 
 
 Two reafons arc affigned to account for 
 tliis extraordinary conduct ; i/?, The hurry 
 that Sir John and J\Irs llevvit were in for the 
 firit eleven days after Lady Jane's delivery : 
 And, icily, Becaufc Lady Jane behoved to write 
 to her brother before any other perfon was in- 
 formed of her delivery. 
 
 Both thefe accounts are equally abfurd 
 and falfe. No fuppofeable hurry can account 
 for this lilence for eleven days. From her own 
 account, Lady Jane had a furprifing recovery: 
 And Mrs Hewit's own evidence clearly proves, 
 that there was no fucli hurry as could have 
 prevented her or Sir John from communica- 
 ting the joyful news to their friends for eleven 
 days : And the fecond reafon is difproved by 
 the letters produced, wrote by Mrs Hewit and 
 Sir John before the 7th of Auguft, when Lady 
 Jane firfl communicated her delivery to the 
 Duke of Douglas from Dammartin. 
 
 Another unaccountable circumffcance in 
 their conduct, is the falfe dating of all their 
 letters written from Paris, and Lady Jane's let- 
 ter to her brother of the 7 th of Auguft: as from 
 Rheims. One or two letters might be dated 
 from a wrong place by miftake ; but the falfe 
 dating of fo many letters could not be with- 
 out defign : And it is very remarkable, that 
 
 this
 
 LOUD JUSTICE-CLERK. 479 
 
 this defign of impofing upon their friends as 
 to the place of delivery, is followed out in a 
 number of letters written by Lady Jane to her 
 friends in Scotland, after her return to 
 Rheims, in none of which is there the leaft 
 mention of her having been at Paris ; but, on 
 the contrary, they arc all calculated to impofe 
 a belief, that me was delivered at Rheims. 
 
 i he only anfwer attempted to be made to 
 this obfervation, was, that neither Sir John 
 nor Lady fane, in any of their letters, have faid, 
 that flic was delivered at Rheims : So much 
 the worfe, as it fhows their deceit and artifice 
 in impoiing upon their friends : But befides, 
 let any candid perfon read Sir John's letter to 
 the Earl of Crawiurd, dated Rheims, July 22. 
 and Lady Jane's letter to her brother, date.) 
 Rheims en Champaign, ~th Aug'/Ji 1748, and they 
 will there iee the delivery fixed by Sir John 
 md Lady Jane to have been at Rheims, with 
 as much clcarncfs and certainty, as if they had 
 aflertcd it tolidem -cerbis. The import of all 
 this evidence, arifmg from fo many letters 
 wrote by Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs He wit, 
 duiing the period of Lady Jane's fuppoied in- 
 lying and reconvalefccnce, cany the lirongelt 
 marks of falfehood and impofturc, and have 
 great weight in my opinion. 
 
 Bl J
 
 480 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 But the moft ftriking and direct proof of 
 the impofturc arifes from the books of Gode- 
 froy, fupported by the evidence of Mr and 
 Madame Godefroy. This branch of the argu- 
 ment has been fully exhaufted by the learned 
 judge who fpoke immediately before me. I 
 will therefore content myfelf with declaring 
 my opinion that thefe books, fupported by 
 the depohtions of Mr and Madame Gode- 
 froy, (againft whofe evidence I fee no good 
 objection), have conveyed to my mind a full 
 conviction, that Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs 
 Hewit, arrived at Godefroy 's upon the night 
 of the 4th of July, and remained there till the 
 1 3 th of July, without any appearance of a de- 
 livery; which is totally inconfiflent with, and 
 difproves the whole hiflory of the defender's 
 birth. 
 
 The complaint, that fo much ftrefs mould 
 be laid on the books and evidence of an inn- 
 keeper and his wife, has already been obvi- 
 ated. They are not witnefles picked up by the 
 purfuers ; they are the perfons with whom 
 Lady Jane confeffeclly lodged, and to whom 
 alone me committed the evidence of her con- 
 duct during her ftay there. If the defender 
 could have produced the fhadow of evidence 
 of Madame le Brun's houfc and family, or 
 
 of
 
 LORD JUSTICE-CLERK. 4 8r 
 
 of any other houfe where fhe could be fup- 
 pofed to have rcfided, and to have been de- 
 livered upon the ioth of July; fome argu- 
 ment misrht from thence have been formed 
 to have impeached the credit of Godefroy 
 and his wife, and of their books : But when 
 there is no veftige of any other place of re- 
 fidence to be fet in opposition, I can fee no 
 ground in law or reafon for denying my af- 
 fent to the evidence arifin<r from thefe books. 
 Both parties feem to agree that Lady Jane, 
 Sir John, and Mrs Hewit, came to Michcll's 
 upon the 1 8 th or 19th of July; and their con- 
 duct and tranfactions during their flay in this 
 houfe are indeed remarkable, becaufe they 
 prove that Lady Jane was in a Situation upon 
 the 1 8th and fubfequent days of July, as ap- 
 pear to me incompatible with her fuppofed 
 delivery on the ioth of that month. The 
 reafon afiiirned for her coming to Michell's fo 
 early as the 1 8th, is, that fhc was forced to 
 leave Le Brim's on account of bugs. It is 
 fcarce fuppofeable that this nuifancc would 
 not have been difcovered fo as to make her 
 change her lodgings before her delivery, or 
 that that dillrefs would have made Lady jane, 
 fo lately delivered of twins, quit the houfe 
 upon the 9th day after her delivery: But, 
 
 v P P h
 
 482 T II E S? E E C II OF 
 
 it is remarkable, that no fuch thinn; is- 
 mentioned in Mrs Hewit's letter to the maids 
 of the 2 2d July; nor indeed is any mention 
 made of Lady Jane's having changed her lod- 
 rir.p;s. 
 
 But what appears more remarkable is, the 
 undeniable proof of Lady Jane's having gone 
 out in a coach from Michcll's with Sir John 
 and Mrs liewit, early in the morning of the 
 day after her arrival, in order to bring home 
 the defender, and of her continuing abroad 
 the whole day, and returning in the evening 
 with the defender, and fuch a nurfe as me 
 never could have intrufted her fon with. No 
 account is given why the defender was fent 
 away from Le Brim's, the place of his fup- 
 pofed birth ; and it is impoflible to account 
 for Lady Jane's being abroad a whole day fo 
 recently after her delivery, in order to brinjr 
 Archibald to Michcll's houfe ; when it is ad- 
 mitted, that, during her whole flay at Paris, 
 
 7 O ' 
 
 me did not make one viiit to Iier younger 
 ion Sholto, who was removed from her the 
 day after his birth, and was at nurfe in the 
 dole neighbourhood of Paris. 
 
 Mrs Hey/it, in her letter to Mr Har- 
 per, fays, upon the word of a dying woman, 
 that it was upon the fixth day after the deli- 
 very
 
 LOUD JUSTICE-CLERK. 4S3 
 
 very that they removed to Michell's. If fo, 
 then it was upon the feventh day after her 
 delivery, that Lady June was thus unneccfia- 
 rily going abroad a whole day in queft of her 
 
 loll Al CillOalu. 
 
 I will pafs over the ftrange and contradic- 
 tory accounts given by Sir John and Mrs 
 IL-v.it of the different nurfes. Nor will I 
 i iv much weight upon what Michell's family 
 have depofed ; that thefe {hungers laid they 
 were going to bring their child from St Ger- 
 mans, where they underftood the lady had 
 been delivered ; and that th 
 
 le caiiu, wnen 
 
 bro-^ 
 
 ught to Michell's, appeared to be three cr 
 lour weeks old. But what appears moft re- 
 markable is, the indifputable proof of Sir John, 
 Lady Jane, and r.Irs Hcwit, attended by Ma- 
 ze lilainvillc, having rone, within a few 
 days after her arrival at Michell's, to Ver- 
 sailles, and there fpent a whole day teeing 
 I he palace and gardens. Their fc e on d tour, 
 11 a few da)s alter, to fee the fquares and 
 public places in 1\m i •, is alfo ^<';<'^ 
 
 ,1 
 
 -* ' ; 
 
 ft oil' 
 
 , - never v. a 
 i'..i nine, ii.i\ 
 
 o mdiputably pro- 
 
 ;i r.t :wart, and Mrs Lewit, 
 L Pa; i . or Versailles at any 
 i ilii ivelv denied before your 
 
 rd-hips that they m.ide either oi thefe 
 mi . TJie reebm oi tlii pcrjuiy is obvious • 
 
 tb •
 
 484 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 they durft not avow Lady Jane's making 
 thefc unncccftary jaunts fo recently after her 
 delivery ; whilft, at the fame time, they ac- 
 knowledge, that, during her whole ftay at 
 Paris, flie never once faw her weakly child 
 Sholto. Put this in oppofition to her tragi- 
 cal exclamation upon the death of Sholto, 
 and what a figure does it make ? The thing 
 is impofliblc, and nature and reafon will not 
 fuller me to believe it. 
 
 It is alfo proved by Michell's family, that, 
 from the time of their coming there, Lady- 
 Jane ilept with Mrs Hewit, and rofe and 
 went to bed with the reft of the family} and, 
 during their whole ftay, no inquiry was made 
 after them by Pier la Marrc the fuppofed 
 accoucheur, nor by any of Le Brim's family, 
 where it is fuppofed Lady Jane was delivered. 
 
 The counfel for the defender, by fixing the 
 period of Lady Jane's reconvalefcence in Mi- 
 chell's houfe, only fliow that they felt the 
 neceflity of proving fome appearance of re- 
 convalefcence from a late delivery of twins 
 by a lady paft the 50th year of her age ; but 
 it is not only not proved, but, in my humble 
 apprehenfion, clearly difproved by the whole 
 circumftances of her conduct, during her ftay 
 in Michell's houfe, 
 
 I
 
 LORD JUSTICE CLERK. 485 
 
 I will here only add that unaccountable 
 part of Lady Jane's conduct in not providing 
 a nurfe before her delivery. The notable 
 reafon aligned by Mrs Hewit, becaufe fhe faid 
 fhe did not know if fhe would bear a living; 
 child, is too mocking to reafon and the feel- 
 ings of a mother to admit of any explana- 
 tion which can render it in the leafl degree 
 probable. 
 
 To all thefe circumftances of evidence may 
 be added, their ftudicd privacy and conceal- 
 ment at Paris. We fee Lady Jane and Sir 
 John fond of company in every other 
 place where they refided. But here in Paris, 
 upon the molt important and joyful occa- 
 sion, they remain fecrcted in different houfes, 
 fo as not only to be invifible, but unheard 
 of, for near a whole month., by any of their 
 acquaintance, or by any ikitilh fubject: And 
 indeed it is remarkable, that from the time 
 of their leaving Rhcims, and during their 
 whole flay at Paris, no perfon Iras been 
 found who faw Lady Jane in a ftate of preg- 
 nancy, or in the ftate of a lying-in-woman, 
 or who heard of her being delivered in Pa- 
 ris ; for, as to the oath of the perfon called 
 Lady Avdjlicl, it mult be given up as handing 
 contradicted by the evidence of Sir John 
 
 * and
 
 4 36 T H E S P E E C II O F 
 
 and Mrs llewit thcmfelves; and it had been 
 better, that fuch a witnefs had not been 
 brought to examination. 
 
 Having confumed fo much of your Lord- 
 fliips time, I will not enter upon the evidence 
 of the enlevements of the children of Mig- 
 non and Sanry. It is fully flated in both the 
 memorials ; and the material parts of it have 
 been fpokc to by feveral of your Lord mips. 
 J will only lay, that it is no fmall confirma- 
 tion of the impofture to my mind, that there 
 is fuch clear evidence of the carrying oft" 
 two male children from their parents at Paris, 
 attended with inch circumftances in point of 
 time, ages of the children, and defcription of 
 the perfons to whom they were delivered, 
 as, in my humble opinion, do ftrongly apply 
 to this cafe, and give me a conviction, that 
 thefe were the children which Sir John 
 Stewart and Lady Douglas have impofed up- 
 on the world as their own iffue. 
 
 In ftating the chain of this circumftantial 
 evidence, it is impoffible to overlook the 
 unaccountable conduct of Sir John and Lady 
 Sane, in abandoning themfelves and their 
 children for fo many years, not only to the 
 iufpicions of the world, but to the difbelief 
 of their ncareft relations, of her being the 
 
 mother
 
 LORD JUSTICE-CLERK 4S7 
 
 mother of thefe children. It was an object 
 of t :h importance to themfelves, and 
 
 to dicir children, to be overlooked or defpi- 
 ieu; especially, wlien the means of confuting 
 Lhefe iufpicions were at hand, and could have 
 been procured without expence or trouble. 
 r j lie advice afcribed to Lord Prefton grange, and 
 referred to as the fob excufe for thus conduct, 
 cannot be believed by any perfon who knew 
 thai: gentleman, li it l:.\Ci been given, La- 
 dy fine and Sir John could have no motive 
 to rely upon it, in a matter cf that impor- 
 tance, and where they h^d inch eafy aceeih 
 to the evidence ; and accordingly, we iind 
 them, in their letter to Madame Tewis, 12th 
 February 1 7 50, greatly irritated with the 
 imputation of this impofture ; "and refol- 
 " ving, f( r dee lake erf their dear children, to 
 "ha\e the cireun i of the bc^innin <T 
 
 ••' of Lady Jane's pregnancy, and tiic progrefs 
 "of it until her happy deliverv, as authen- 
 " tically proved as is pofii' !e." But, indead 
 of following tills, natural ; nd caiy pi; n, tl 
 (')r.tent themhdves v.ith tie examination ol 
 a few witrn fi< s at /: ix-i i-( !b ;ppeli ■, i 
 the appearances of tie ■ 1 -g i;h:cv ; and 
 tlure Iron fliort, without m hhe<' anv a-;- 
 
 tr;
 
 ^S8 TIIESPEECHOF 
 
 tempt to bring certificates or evidence of 
 any kind from Paris of the actual delivery. 
 
 When to this unaccountable neglect of 
 fecuring true evidence of the birth, is added 
 the unjuftifiable contrivance of forging falfe 
 evidence to fupport the birth, the cafe be- 
 comes too flrong for my mind to refill the 
 conclufion. It is clearly proved and admit- 
 ted, that the four letters of Pier la Marre, 
 the pretended accoucheur, which were pro- 
 duced in the fervice, are all and each of them 
 forced letters. Sir John has admitted, that 
 lie was the contriver of that forgery, and 
 that he tranfmitted them to Lady Jane Dou- 
 glas. They remained in her pofleflion till 
 her death, and were taken out of the trunk 
 where her mofl valuable things were depofit- 
 ed, and produced, and printed, with the o- 
 thcr evidence laid before the jury at the fer- 
 vice. To overlook or difregard this attempt 
 in the defender's fuppofed parents to fupport 
 his birth, by the forgery of evidence, would 
 firike at the foundations of all law and pu- 
 blic fecurity. What ftrong^r evidence of 
 falfehood and impoflurc, than a detection of 
 evidence forged to fupport it, and that for- 
 gery contrived, and made ufe of by the very 
 authors of the impofture ? It is in eadetn gencre 
 
 malitic
 
 LORD JUSTICE-CLERK. 489 
 
 malitiiZ, as the lawyers fpeak ; and he or flic 
 that is capable of the one is capable of the other. 
 A true birth does not require forgery to iup- 
 Dort it. A true father and mother would not 
 think of having: recourfe to it. But this is none 
 of the arguments that need illuftration. If it 
 docs not touch the mind of a judge upon 
 the bare dating of it, it cannot gather ftrength 
 by any enlargement. 
 
 If more were neceffary to fix my opinion 
 in this caule, 1 would, in the Lift place, refort 
 to the account given by Sir John Stewart in 
 his judicial declaration, of Pier la Marre, the 
 man-midwife, who he fays delivered Lady 
 jane. When I confider the circumicances in 
 which Lady Jane came to Paris, paft the 50th 
 year of her age, big with child for the ftrft 
 time ; leaving Rhcims upon a notion that 
 proper ailiftance could noc be had there; un- 
 dertaking a long and painful journey to Pa- 
 ris, in order to get the belt ailiibncc ; fuiii- 
 cicntly provided with money, and under no 
 difficulty at the firit houfe where flic alight- 
 ed to be adviied where the belt afliilance, 
 and every thinar clfc neeeilarv for her fafc de- 
 livery, would be round : And when, in this 
 view, I read the account given by Sir John 
 Stewart of Pier la Marie, to whom he com- 
 O q cj milted
 
 493 T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 mitted the delivery of Lady Jane, and after- 
 wards the care of Sholto, it ftrikes me with 
 fuch inherent marks of falfehood, from be- 
 ginning to end, and in fo many material 
 circumftanccs, that I cannot refill the conclu- 
 lion that ncceflarily refults from it. 
 
 And indeed, io fenlible were the defender's 
 counfel of the incredibility of Sir John's 
 whole account of this Pier la Marre, that 
 they have laid him aiide altogether, and have 
 attempted to fubftitutc a Lewis Pierre Dela- 
 marre in his place, as the perfon who deliver- 
 ed Lady Jane. 
 
 I obferve, that this circumflance has not 
 itruck all your Lordfhips in the fame light; 
 but, for my part, when I lirft obferved this 
 itrancre attempt to fubftitute another accou- 
 chcur in place .of the one mentioned and 
 deicribed by Sir John Stewart the father, I 
 thought the defender's caufe was abandoned. 
 Sir John has, at lead, fixed a clear and di- 
 ilincl defcription or his Pier la Marre, by his 
 intimate knowledge of him at Liege in the 
 172 i ; by his- country; his employment as a 
 furgeon in a Walloon regiment; his feeing 
 him repeated times at Paris ; correfponding 
 with him for feveral years ; and particularly, 
 by this circumftance, that he went to Naples 
 
 in
 
 LORD JUST ICE- CLERK. 49 1 
 
 in the 1752, from which place, Sir John fays, 
 
 he received a letter from him; and I fubmit 
 it to your Lordlhips, whether it is pollible, 
 by any fhetch of invention or argument, 
 to apply the defcription and hiftory given 
 by Menager, the furgcon, of his Louis Pierre 
 Delamarre, to the accoucheur thus defcribed 
 by Sir John .Stewart. 
 
 Lin: whole appears to me to be a liciton, 
 and that Menager has fworn falfely in or- 
 dcr to difeover an accoucheur tor Lady 
 Jane Douglas, when no fuch accoucheur ever 
 exifted. Sir John's account of his accou- 
 cheur is certainly falie, and, in effect, given 
 up by the defender; and Menagcr's evidence 
 is a vain and falfe attempt, to fubftitute ano- 
 tlier accoucheur in his place-. 
 
 1 lay the lame thing of Carnier, t!ie ncv. 
 invented nurfc for Sholto. The dhcrcpaii- 
 cies as to the time when the child which 
 fhe nurfed was brought to her, and the time 
 when that child was taken from her, the 
 place of her residence, and a variety oi other 
 circumftances, difference the child which flic 
 nurfed fo much from the account giver, by 
 Sir John and Mrs IIev.it of the fuppc/.cd 
 Sholto's nurfc, that it is impofiiblc for me to 
 confider tins part of the defender's evidence 
 ;n any other light, than as an attempt to 
 
 mak<
 
 492 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 make the hiftory of that child as nearly to 
 correspond to that of Sholto, as could be de- 
 cently contrived. And, if your Lordfhips 
 are Satisfied of the falfehood of Garniers evi- 
 dence, with regard to Louis Pierre Delamarre 
 having been the accoucheur of Lady Jane, 
 this of itfelf muft neceffarily deflroy the 
 whole ftory of Gamier, the new invented 
 nurfe of Sholto. 
 
 Upon the whole, after laying the circum- 
 stances of this evidence together, I am forry, 
 that I cannot help being clearly of opinion, 
 that the reafons of reduction of the defend 
 der's Service are Sufficiently proved. 
 
 LORD
 
 [ 493 1 
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 
 
 A S all your Lordfhlps have already deli- 
 j \ vered your opinions, 1 have not vani- 
 ty enough to think, that any thing I can fay 
 will have any eilecl:. I do not pretend, in 
 any caufe, to make converts to my opinion, 
 much lefs in this fo great caufe, which all 
 your Lordfiiips have fludied fo much. Nor 
 fhould I crive vou the trouble of hearing anv 
 thing from me, efpccially as I do not find 
 myfelf in a very good ftatc of health, if I did 
 not think myfelf bound in confeience to de- 
 clare, before your Lordfhips and this audi- 
 ence, my full conviction that the defender 
 is the fon of Lady jane Douglas. 
 
 I mould have had fome doubt of this pro- 
 portion, if the caufe had ftill ftood on the 
 ground which it was put upon, in the me- 
 morial laid before the French lawyers, or 
 even in the condefccndencc given in to this 
 court. I do not fay, that, even upon that foot- 
 ing, there would have been legal evidence a- 
 gainft Mr Douglas, according to my notion 
 of the nature of the evidence required in 
 
 this
 
 494 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 this caufc ; but there would have remained 
 doubts and fufpicions in my mind which ne- 
 ver could have been removed. The facts then 
 alledged were, imo, That Sir John had enter- 
 ed himfelf in MichelPs book, in his own 
 hand-writing, on the 8th of July 1748 : 2do, 
 That the child which was brought to Mi* 
 chelPs the next day was two months old : 
 %tio, That no fuch man as Pier la Marre ever 
 exifted ; and, laftly, That there were fufpicions 
 of the birth in France at the time it is faid to 
 have happened. But the fhape of the caufe 
 is entirely changed. It is become altogether 
 a new caufe, with hardly a veftige of the old, 
 unlefs it be the four letters of La Marre, 
 which are faid to be forged. And the grounds 
 on which the caufe now ftands are, firft, Cer- 
 tain particulars of the conduct of Sir John 
 and Lady Jane, which cannot be explained 
 otherways than upon the fuppoiition of an 
 impofture ; and under this head I take in Sir 
 John's declaration and the four letters of La 
 Marre. ido t The alibi in Godefroy's, now in- 
 filled upon, inflead of the alibi in MichelPs. 
 And, laftly, The two enlevements. This di- 
 vifion, I think, comprehends the purfuers. 
 
 whole caufe. 
 
 In
 
 LOUD MONBODDO, 495 
 
 In the entry, I cannot help observing, that 
 this fo great change of ground gives me but 
 an unfavourable idea of the purfuers caufe. 
 In the very beginning of this action, they 
 frequently told your Lordfhips, that they had 
 fully difcocered the impofture, having traced it to 
 its fource, and ice re able to produce proofs of it as 
 clear as fun-pine. But inftead of that, fo late 
 as a Utile while before the proof was con- 
 cluded, I fee them hefitating and balancing 
 betwixt the two books of Godefroy and 
 Michel], (the only direct evidence which they 
 can pretend to have in the caufe) ; and, at 
 laft, after much deliberation, preferring Gode- 
 f'roy's boo!;, fupported by his evidence and 
 that of his wile ; which, however, they tell 
 your Lordlhirs, that they themfelves did not 
 at fiill believe; and their French procureur 
 iu'.s gone fo far as to fay, that it was abfo- 
 liiteiy incredible. r l his to me gives their 
 i;:e the appearance of an artificial caufe, 
 luikupon conjectures and opinions, not con- 
 (ii in;;' ol" that plain, natural, and unambigu- 
 ous evidence which compels the afient, and 
 ves no room for heiitation or doubt what 
 hy[)!jthehs to foliow; ■ ; a vet, in my appre- 
 hcr. lion, luch the cvi.. 'o :\\ be that is 
 
 10 take away the bii : : !»t of .Mr Dour las.
 
 496 THE S P E E C H OF 
 
 Some of your Lordfhips are of opinion, 
 that there is no queftion of law here, but only 
 of fact. I am of a very different opinion : And 
 I think there are feveral queflions of law, of 
 very great importance, which enter into the 
 deciiion of this queftion ; and which, there- 
 fore, I will beg leave to ftate to your Lord- 
 ihips before I come to fpeak of the fact. 
 
 And the firjl is concerning the onus pro- 
 band], upon whom it is incumbent. The 
 purfuers fct out, in their memorial, with this 
 proportion, and make it the foundation of 
 their whole caufe : That Mr Douglas, tho' he 
 has been fo long in poffeflion of his birth- 
 right, was acknowledged by father and mo- 
 ther, and was habit and repute their fon ; yet 
 is obliged to prove his birth, like any other 
 fact upon which he was to found a claim. 
 This, my Lords, I hold to be a moft dange- 
 rous doctrine ; and it is that which makes this 
 truly a great caufe : For it is not great names 
 of parties ; it is not the value of the fubject, 
 nor is it the queftion of flier, of however 
 great importance to the parties, and particu- 
 Jarly to one of them, that makes this caufe 
 great and important in the eye of law. But 
 it is this queftion of fuch general confequence, 
 
 which
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 497 
 
 which makes this caufe not only the caufe of 
 Mr Douglas, bat of every perfon who hears 
 me, 1 may fay, of mankind, and not only of 
 the prefent race now living, but of all future 
 generations : 
 
 Et natl natorum, et qui nafcentur ab iliis, 
 
 jivc concerned in this queftion : For if this 
 were law, Who, of the age of this defender, 
 can fay, that he is fare of his birthright, or 
 that he has a ftate, or belongs to a family? 
 But fuch a doctrine I hold to be as erroneous, 
 as it is pernicious and fubverfive of the com- 
 mon rights of men. For the acknowledge- 
 ment of- parents, joined to the habit and re- 
 pute, is the charter which every man has for 
 his birthright, and which cannot be declared 
 to befalfe, forged, or feigned, except upon evi- 
 dence the cleared and moil unexceptionable. 
 As to the pofitive evidence of birth by the 
 testimony of witnelTes, it mull:, of necefhty, 
 be confined to a very few, and thofe few in 
 a few years v ill grow ftill fewer, till at Ia.ll 
 they mull be quite gone. But, as was very 
 well laid by one of your Lordfhips, in pro- 
 portion as the evidence by witneiles irrows 
 weak, the prefumption of law grows iirong, 
 till at fill it becomes fo Iirong, that nothing 
 11 rr but
 
 493 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 £>ut evidence amounting to demonflration, 
 where there is not a loop to bang a doubt on, 
 can overcome it. 
 
 But the cafe of Mr Douglas is much 
 flronger than the common cafe ; for his birth- 
 right is not only fecured by the acknowledge- 
 ment of parents, the habit and repute, and 
 thelapfe of fo many years; but he has brought 
 a direct proof of it by the only two witneffes 
 now living, fo far as appears, who were pre- 
 fent at it : He has further brought a proof by 
 many witneffes of what mull have been ne- 
 celfarily precedent and fubfequent to it, name- 
 ly, the pregnancy and reconvalefcence ; and, 
 over and above all that, he has brought a cir- 
 cunrftantial proof, more pregnant perhaps 
 than even the direct proof, and mofl wonder- 
 ful at this diftance of time. What, my Lords, 
 can take away fuch an evidence as this ? No- 
 thing but proof, the ftrongeft and moil di- 
 rect, of an impofture, by witneffes of greater 
 number, and more credible than thofe pro- 
 duced by the defender, or by an adamantine 
 chain of circumftances, which excludes even 
 the poiTibility of a birth. In fuch a cafe, your 
 Lordfliips are not to weigh and balance, and 
 proceed upon conjectures and probabilities, 
 as in ordinary cafes, where the law allows you 
 
 to
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 499 
 
 to find proved, or not proved, according as 
 the evidence appears, and is perfectly indiffer- 
 ent to either fide. But, where there is fuch a 
 weight of pofitive proof, as well as of legal 
 prefumption in the one fcale, there mud be 
 in the other fuch a preponderating weight of 
 evidence, as does not fuffer the balance to 
 remain a moment in aquilibrio, but makes 
 the oppofite fcale immediately to mount and 
 kick the beam. 
 
 This I apprehend to be raoft clear and un- 
 doubted law : And therefore the plea of the 
 purfuers, which is founded upon the contrary 
 doctrine, and fuppofesit neceflary for Mr Dou- 
 rlas to prove his birth, as he would be bound to 
 prove any claim of debt, or other ground of ac- 
 tion againft the purfuers, mult appear to me to 
 be built upon a very rotten foundation : And 
 your Lordfhips mull agree with me, if you 
 admit die principles above laid down ; for I 
 have not heard any of your Lordfhips fay, 
 that there is fuch a proof upon the part of 
 the purfuers, as is abfolutely incompatible 
 with the birth, and excludes the poflibility 
 of it, 
 
 In order to fupport this ftrange doctrine, 
 which they have chofen to make the founda- 
 tion ui their caufe, the purfuers fay, That 
 
 Mr
 
 500 T II E SPEECH OF 
 
 Mr Douglas has no*- habit and repute in his 
 favour, becaufe there were fufpicions raifed 
 in Scotland of his birth very foon after it 
 happened : And one of your Lordfhips went 
 fo far ms to lay down this general proportion, 
 That there is no habit and repute with refpect 
 to a man born in foreign parts. But this I 
 hold likewife to be a moft dangerous doctrine, 
 efpecially at prefent, when fo many of his Ma- 
 jefty's fubjecls live with their families in fo- 
 reign parts. If indeed his Lordfliip had faid, 
 that pcrfons had not a habit and repute of their 
 birth at home, the proportion might be ad- 
 mitted. For it is no doubt the opinion of 
 thofe who are upon the place where the birth 
 happens, who are acquainted with the parents, 
 fee their behaviour, and know the circum- 
 ftances of the cafe, which makes what we call 
 habit and repute ; and a perfon born in France, 
 or any other foreign country, has no habit 
 and repute here, but what he brings over 
 with him from that country. The queftion 
 therefore is, What was the opinion, concern- 
 ing the defender's birth, of the people in 
 1 ranee, Britim and others, who knew Sir 
 John and Lady Jane, and the circumftances 
 of the cafe ? Had they, my Lords, any fufpi- 
 cion of the birth? Not the leaft. For, tho' 
 
 the
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 501 
 
 the purfuers have laid it as one of the articles 
 of their condefcendence, that there were fucli 
 iufpicions in France; yet not one of the hun- 
 dreds of witneiTes which they have examined 
 in France lias faid fo; nay, even their own 
 witnefies whom they have adduced to prove 
 the impofture, have mown the cleareft con- 
 viction of die truth of the birth, notwith- 
 ftanding of very improper methods which 
 were taken to make them doubt of it ; par- 
 ticularly, Madame Michell, to whofe houle 
 Lady Jane came, within eight or ten days af- 
 ter (lie was faid to have been delivered, and 
 who therefore, next to thofe who were pre- 
 fent at the birth, mud have known moll of 
 the matter, in a converfation which me had 
 with Mr Andrew Stuart, recorded in hii 
 journal, wherein he mod irregularly, and 
 with a plain intention to prejudice the wit- 
 neis, did tell her as a piece ot news, That the 
 parents of one of the children were found : 
 Ne le crcyrz pas, fays flic; and there he gives 
 her anfwer in her own words, which amount 
 to this, That they were impofingupon him; 
 and that, tho' others might pretend to be 
 the parents, Lady Jane was truly the mother- 
 And flic added, That when flic came to her 
 Jioufe, flic had all (he appearance of a woman 
 
 newly
 
 5 o2 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 newly delivered. And tho' her evidence was 
 much foftencd by fuch converfations, and by 
 the Monitoirc, before fhe came to depofe; yet 
 even then flic fays, That if Lady Jane was not 
 the mother, elle auroit joue unfurieux rol/e, " flie 
 " mull have acted a mofl extraordinary part." 
 And Madame Blainvillc, who was then in Mi- 
 chell's houfe, and faw Lady Jane every day, 
 fo far from doubting of the truth of the birth, 
 ihows, through her whole oath, the ftrongeft 
 conviction of it. As to the fufpicions in Scot- 
 land, it is evident from the proof from whence 
 they came, and upon what grounds they 
 were raifed ; and altho' thofe fufpicions had 
 been ftronger and more general, and had not 
 been raifed by the agents of the family of 
 Hamilton, and fupported by the groffeft ca- 
 lumnies ; yet they can avail nothing againft 
 the opinion of the people in France, and the 
 proof of habit and repute by fo many credi- 
 ble witnefies in the fervice, to which the pur- 
 fuers thought fit then to fubmit, and did not 
 attempt a contrary proof. 
 
 The purfuers would likeways deprive the 
 defender of the acknowledgement of his pa- 
 rents, at leaft, of one of them, Sir John ; be- 
 ca.ufe, in his declaration, he has fallen into 
 many miftakes concerning the birth, and par- 
 ticularly
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 503 
 
 ticularly has coined out of his brain, as they 
 fay, an imaginary man for the accoucheur, 
 who never had an exiftence ; therefore, fay 
 they, fuch an acknowledgement of the defen- 
 der can never avail him. 
 
 But the purfuers confound two things 
 that arc in their nature quite diftincr, viz. the 
 acknowledgement of parents, and their evi- 
 dence when examined as witnefles concerning 
 the particulars of the birth. The firft is cal- 
 led by lawyers the traclatus, that is, the beha- 
 viour and manner of treating the child, from 
 which it is inferred, that they acknowledge 
 him as their child ; the other is, the tcftimony 
 of a witnefs, which is to be confidered like 
 the evidence of any other witnefs ; for a pa- 
 rent, as well as another witnefs depofing to 
 the particulars of the birth, at the diftancc of 
 fifteen or fixteen years, may fall into many- 
 errors, contradictions, and abfurdities. But 
 this will not take from the child the traclatus 
 or acknowledgement of his parent ; nor will 
 it hurt the evidence of his birthright, any 
 more than the errors of any oilier witnefs : 
 And indeed, it would be the harder! cafe in 
 the world, if the miflakes of an old man of a 
 father, fuch as Sir John was, examined upon 
 fuch an infinite number of particulars, which 
 
 happened
 
 504 THE SPEECH OF, 
 
 happened lb long ago, mould be fatal to his 
 child! 
 
 And this leads me to fpeak of Sir John's de- 
 claration, which, though it has been allowed 
 to be printed, and to make part of the ftate, 
 as a circumftance of evidence ; yet, like many 
 other circumilances in this caufe, it has nut 
 with me the lealt weight ; not only becaufe it 
 was not taken upon oath, without which, it 
 cannot be legal evidence; but chiefly, becaufe 
 it was taken in abfence of the defender. For, 
 in fuch a caufe as this, the defender could 
 be in court only one of two ways, cither 
 by the days of compearance being run, or by 
 a condefcendence being given in. And as nei- 
 ther of thefe was the cafe, Mr Douglas was 
 as much abfent at that examination, as any 
 other man. Now, that fuch an examination 
 fhould be evidence againft him, cfpecially in 
 fuch a caufe, is contrary to the law of this, 
 and, I believe, of every other country, un- 
 lefs where the inquiiition is eftabliihed : 
 Even in the Tournelle, the examinations of 
 witneiles in abfence, arc not evidence againft 
 the party, till he is brought into court, and 
 confronted with the witnefs. And indeed, if 
 your JLordfhips were to admit fuch an exa- 
 mination for evidence, it is impoflible to 
 
 know
 
 LORD MONBODDO, 505 
 
 know where to flop ; for, by the fame rule, 
 every witnefs examined in abfence muft be 
 held as evidence, provided only he be exa- 
 mined before a judge. So that a party, in 
 this way, may have a great deal of evidence 
 acrainft him, of which he never heard. And 
 it ouqrht to be further confidered, that the 
 defender made the objection, while Sir John 
 was alive, that his declaration could not be 
 evidence; and, by application to your Lord- 
 fhips, dehred, that it might be cancelled, and 
 Sir John re-examined in the proper manner 
 upon the fame fads. So that, if the purfuers 
 delayed the re-examination of Sir John, who 
 was their own witnefs, till he was dead, they 
 have themfelves to blame: And your Lord- 
 iiiips muft not, on account of their negli- 
 gence, oiler fuch violence to the law of evi- 
 dence, as to admit lor proof, the declaratiou 
 of a witnefs in ablencc ot t'le defender. 
 
 Bi; srni:s tills fo lirong objection inlaw, 
 the circumfrances of fact attending tins de- 
 claration are fuch as deftroy its credit cntire- 
 ' with me. Tor, in the fi-jl place, it was ob- 
 1 lined by furprife from the court, up, 1:1 an 
 averment of a fact abfolutely falf'e, viz. That 
 Sir John was immediately g'-i^g out of the 
 country, with an intention to withdraw him- 
 
 ■:< fdf
 
 $66 THE S P E E C II OF 
 
 folf from your Lordfliips jurifdiction. Upon 
 this information, Sir John, an old man of 
 feventy-flvc, in a very bad liate of health, 
 was taken out of his bed, and examined for 
 three days, in prefence of your Lordfhips, 
 upon a multitude of queflions, prepared with 
 crreat deliberation bv the purfuers, but which 
 l«ad never been feen by Sir John, nor had he 
 the common time for preparation and recol- 
 lection which every witnefs is in titled to. 
 
 In this fituation, it could have been no 
 matter of wonder, if, depofmg to fo many 
 fa els, at the ctiilance of fo many years, he 
 had fallen into very great miftakes. But 
 he has not fallen into fo many as the pur- 
 fuers would make your Lordfliips believe; 
 and particularly, with refpeel to La Marre, 
 in faying, that he was a Walloon, he has 
 not gone far from the truth ; for Montreuil 
 fur mer, where La Marre was born, is within 
 a few leagues of the Province of Artois, 
 which is a part of the Walloon country; and 
 it is very likely, that La Marre, and the peo- 
 ple of Montreuil, fpoke a Patois, refembling 
 that of Artois; from which Sir John ima- 
 gined, that he was a Walloon. As to the 
 time and place of his acquaintance begin- 
 ning willi him, viz. at Liege in the 1721, 
 
 it
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 507 
 
 it is a miftake that any witnefs might have 
 fallen into at luch a dillance of time; and 
 it is very likely, that Sir John may have con- 
 founded him with another man of the lame 
 profeflion, whom he had known at Liege, in 
 the fame manner as he lias mi {taken a jour- 
 ney which he made from Dammartin to Pa- 
 ris, after the birth, for a fuppoied journey 
 which he fays he made from Kheims to i an.s 
 before the birth; and, as to the circumilances 
 of concealment concerning La Marre, which 
 he mentions, they may h.\vc been io far real, 
 that La Marre being at that time not licenced, 
 and liable to a penalty for prachfing, did dc- 
 fire that Sir John might conceal his being the 
 accoucheur. 
 
 But, iuppofmg Sir John had fallen into 
 much greater errors concerning La Marre, it 
 is a ftrangc inference, which the puriiicrt; 
 would make from them, that Sir John was 
 fpeaking of a La .Marre quite dijicrent from 
 the La Marre whom he had always named as 
 the perfon who brought Lady jane to bed, 
 and who told Menagcr that lie had delivered 
 a Lady, defcribed by him ; n inch m inner, 
 that it mull have been Lady Jane, and v, !io 
 alfo gave the child lo the nurfe warnii r in 
 the vear 174^, which could !>c no oilier than
 
 5 o8 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 Sholto. And from thence, they take occaiiou 
 to fct up two La Marres, one the La Marre of 
 Menager, as they call him, whofe exiftence 
 they cannot deny ; and the other, Sir John's 
 La Marre, whom they treat as an imaginary 
 perlon of his creation. But this, my Lords, 
 is arguing moil unfairly. If indeed they 
 could have fhown, that there was another 
 man of the fame profeffion of the name of 
 La Marre in Paris in the 1748, they might 
 have pretended, that Sir John's defcription 
 applied to him, and not to the La Marre na- 
 med by Menager. But, as they cannot pre- 
 tend that, it is a very unfair conclufion, that 
 the La Marre named by Sir John from the be- 
 {nnnincr as the accoucheur, and with whom 
 he correfponded by letters, and who was the 
 enly man of that name and profeffion at that 
 time in Paris, was not the La Marre of whom 
 he fp-taks in his declaration, though he may 
 have fallen into fundry miftakes about him. 
 
 But fuppofing ftill further, that Sir John, 
 in his declaration, had not only fallen into 
 miftakes, but had willfully faid what was 
 falfe, which I am perfuaded none of your 
 Lordfhips believe, What could be inferred 
 from thence asrainft the defender? Nothing 
 more than a fufpicion that Sir John was tell- 
 in c:
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 509 
 
 In" falfehoods, in order to cover a falfe birth. 
 The fame iufpicion, or a ftronger, will ariie 
 againft a party in whofe favour a witnefs per- 
 jures himfelf j yet the party will not lofc his 
 
 cauie on account of the perjury of fueli a 
 witnefs: And, in a very late cafe of a borough- 
 election, Sir John Anllruther won his cauie, 
 ugh two of his witnefies were convicted 
 and puniflied by your Lordfhipi as being 
 guilty of perjury and prevarication upon 
 oath. And there is this difference betwixt 
 the two cafes, in the defender's favour, that 
 the witnefies in Sir John Anftruther's cafe, 
 were witnefies produced by hirn ; whereas 
 Sir John Stewart was the purfucrs witnefs. 
 
 A fourth queftion in law is, What the effect 
 of the delay of the action in this cafe is ? And, 
 j/?, Whether there be any delay? For one of 
 your Lordfhips doubted, whether the pur- 
 fucrs could have infilled on tills challenge 
 immediately after the birth, and during the 
 life of the Duke of Douglas. But I hold it 
 to be certain law, that they could. For with 
 refpect to Sir Hugh Dalrymplc, he had an 
 immediate intcreit, ! ■.•!--. ■- one of the Duke's 
 heirs of line, if I\Ir Douglas was a fuppofiti- 
 l.ious child: And as to the Duke of Hamil- 
 ton, or his brother Lord Douglas, they had 
 
 an
 
 5io THE SPEECH OF 
 
 an eventual interefb, by which, in certain 
 events, they might have fucceeded to the 
 Duke of Douglas, if Mr Douglas was taken 
 out of the way; or, in certain events, Mr 
 Douglas might have fucceeded to them : And 
 it was upon thefe grounds, that the Duke of 
 Hamilton's title was fuilained to carry on 
 this procefs ; tho' his intereft was fo eventual 
 and contingent, that it was a thoufand to one 
 that ever he fucceeded to the Duke of Dou- 
 glas, or Mr Douglas to him. 
 
 The delay then being certain, let us con- 
 fider what the effects of it are in law j and 
 thefe can be no other than to give a double 
 force to the preiumption of law in his favour, 
 to fupply every defect in his proof, and to 
 deliver him from the neceffity of accounting 
 for many things which othcrways he would 
 have been obliged to account for; And, in- 
 deed, it would be the moil cruel cafe in the 
 world, if the challenge of a birth fhould be 
 delayed for fo many years, then, when the 
 party happens to fucceed to a good eflate, 
 he mould be immediately attacked by thofe 
 who had the fame title before, but not the 
 lame intereft, and mould neverthelefs be o- 
 bliged to go to proof with his adverlaries 
 upon equal terms ; and yet this would be 
 
 the
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 51 1 
 
 the cafe with Mr Douglas, if he were to reap 
 n' advantage by the purfuers delay. While the 
 Duke lived, and the defender had nothing, 
 
 ' o 7 
 
 they did not envy him the ho:. our of being" 
 the ion of Lady jane Douglas. But, as foon as 
 lie fucceeded to the Duke's cftate, the^besran 
 this fait againft him : And they were the more 
 incxcufable for this delay, that they fay they 
 had fufpicions of the birth immediately after 
 it happened; for otherways they might have 
 pretended, that they had not the lcaft fufpi- 
 cion of the impofture till after the Duke's 
 death; and therefore could not raife the ac- 
 tion fooner. 
 
 T11 e defender, therefore, in this cafe, has 
 no occasion to feek for a Madame le Brun, 
 an accoucheur, or the witneiles that were 
 prefent at the delivery : The law fupplies all 
 thefe: But, if any witnciTcs arc dead, yet if it 
 ran be proved, that they laid id or fo, the law 
 will make this hear-:ay evidence, which, in 
 other edes, would not be good, effectual to 
 tlie defender. And, in this manner, the law 
 will revive both Mrs Tcwi.s and Lily Caw, 
 -.nd make than evidences of La Jane having 
 with quick child, as wei . ..lr; (Jl.Us. 
 
 Tie. other questions of law which I fliall 
 to your Lordfhips, are co.i^rm::^ .e 
 
 rule
 
 512 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 rule of evidence : A moft facred rule, upon 
 which our lives, as well as our properties, de- 
 pend. And the firjl is, That, in no action 
 of this kind, where a crime is charged, the 
 purfucrs are intitlcd to fay, that the witneiTes 
 who are moft neceffary, as having beft accefs 
 to know the fact, are accomplices in the crime. 
 For this is plainly begging the queftion ; and, 
 fuppofing the crime already proved. Thus, in 
 a cafe fuch as this, of a fuppofulo partus, the 
 chief witneiTes for the defender, and, in many 
 cafes, the only witneiTes, mull be the perfons 
 that are moft about the Lady, fuch as her 
 chamber-maids, and her moft intimate compa- 
 nions. And if thefe arc rejected as witneiTes, 
 who muft beft know the truth, upon pretence 
 of their being accomplices, How is it pofTi- 
 ble that the defender can prove his birth ? If 
 La Marre had been alive, and Le Brun had 
 been found, the purfuers would have laid, 
 that they were likeways accomplices, as well 
 as Pvirs Iicwit and Mrs Glafs ; and for the 
 fame rcafon : So that the purfucrs require, 
 that the dclender mould prove his birth, and 
 at the fame time make it impofilble for him 
 
 to do fo, by depriving him of the moft ne- 
 scfTary witnefles* 
 
 But
 
 L O II D M ONTJODDO. ut 
 
 But more particularly, with refpcct to Sir 
 John, Mrs Hewit, and Mrs Glafs, whom they 
 make accomplices all three, and, for the fame 
 rcafon, they mould have added a fourth, vi~. 
 f.tlv Caw; becaufe, as (he was about Lady 
 fane's perfon, and dreffed and undidled her 
 as well as Mrs Glafs, flic mail have known 
 if there was any impoflure. li' Sir John had 
 been called upon by the defender as a wknefj, 
 I apprehend, he ought to have been admitted, 
 nfter io long a delay ; though, in ether cafes, he 
 no doubt would not have beer, a habile wit- 
 nefs for the defender. At the lame time, I 
 own that his tcftimony in favour cf the de- 
 fender would have been fufpicious, if he had 
 been contradicted, or even not fupported, by 
 other lefs fufpicious witneffes. But having 
 l)een called asawitnefs by the puruicrs them- 
 felves, it muft appear to your Lordihips ionic - 
 thing extraordinary, that they fliould ol ic;ffc 
 to their own witnefs as an accomplice, and 
 defire vour Lordihips to rejeJc .him on thai 
 account. And I appeal to y;mr Lordihips, 
 V. hethcr, during lo loin* ^n examination, lie 
 gave any iigns of guilt, or ol willv.l falfe- 
 
 h(K;d. 
 
 As to Mrs Ilewit and Mrs (dais, they were 
 
 bnth likeways examined in your Lordfh • 
 
 T t t prei'm-.:: ■
 
 514 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 prefcncc : And with rcfpcct to Mrs Hewit, 
 your Lordfliips will remember, that me be- 
 haved with the greater! calmnefs and fedate- 
 nefs, without any of thole emotions that 
 nm ft be fuppofed in a perfon guilty of fuel* 
 a crime, and without the leaft appearance of 
 perjury or wilful falfehood, whatever mif- 
 takes fne may have fallen into, being an old 
 infirm woman, and depoiing to fo many par- 
 ticulars at fuch a diftance of time. As to 
 Mrs Glafs, upon whofe late examination your 
 Lordfliip very juftly laid fo much weight, 
 her behaviour upon oath was a perfect model 
 for all witnefTcs : The greater! calmnefs, dif- 
 tinctnefs, and readinefs at the fame time ; 
 and Ihc was fo far from mowing any for- 
 wardnefs in favour of the defender, that tho' 
 her depofition was all very ftrong in his fa- 
 vour, every queftion that was put by the 
 pnrfuers being anfwered againft them, fiie 
 never went the leaft beyond the interroera- 
 tory put to her, but contented herfelf with 
 aniwering it limply and plainly: And though 
 once, and but once, fhe was a little fretted 
 and milled, by the many teazing and captious 
 queftions put to her by the pnrfuers, not for 
 informatio" but with a plain defign to in- 
 fnare the wiuiefs in contradictions j yet I did 
 
 not
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 5 15 
 
 not for that think the worfe of the witnefs, 
 
 but rather the better, as lhe fliowed that pro- 
 per indignation which every lion eft witnefs 
 ought to have, when he fees himfelf fufperl- 
 ed of perjury or prevarication. To believe 
 fuch a witnefs perjured is not only contrary 
 to law, in my apprchenflon, and the rule of 
 evidence, but it is want of common charity: 
 -rind yet the purfucrs, by making- her an ac- 
 complice, do fairly admit, and your Lordfhips 
 that have fpoken hold it fo too, that uniefs 
 flic be perjured, the defender mult be the foil 
 of Lady Jane Douglas. The caufe is fairly 
 put upon this iflue ; and your Lordfhips, by 
 giving the caufe for the purfucrs, mull pro- 
 nounce this witnefs perjured, wiio behaved, 
 at the time (lie was examined, fo wed, that 
 (he fecmed to <nve fatisfaction to all your 
 Lordfhips, and to the numerous audience, in 
 whole prefence flic was examined. 
 
 Your Lordfhips have heard a very critical 
 examination of Mrs Ilewit's letters to Mrs 
 Olafs, (then Tibby Walker), as well as of 
 Mrs ilewit's evidence. The number ofxlates 
 in which (he was right, and alfo the number 
 of thofc in which {he was mifiakcn has 
 
 c.n exactly calculated; and it his been 
 
 (hewn
 
 516 T H E SPEE C H O F 
 
 mown, that her letters arc very blundering 
 and inaccurate, contradicting fomctimes one 
 another, and contradicted, in ibme particu- 
 lars, by her evidence. But what can be from 
 thence interred ? Nothing, in my opinion, 
 but that Mrs Hewit was a woman ot a me- 
 mory not very accurate, nor of a head very 
 clear cr oiiKnct. But with refpect to the im- 
 pofture, io la' from being a proof of it, they 
 furmih, in my apprehenfion, a very itrpng ar- 
 gument againft it : For Ladv Tanc is allowed 
 by all your Lordihips to have been a woman 
 cr very gocd parts, and Mrs Hewit muft be 
 fuppofed to lurve acted in concert with Lady 
 J ne, and under her directions. Now, how 
 ir, it poiiible to fuppofe, that fhe would have 
 all; ived Mrs Hewit to write fuch fenfelefs 
 letters, loading the impofture with fo many 
 particulars concerning Lady jane, the chil- 
 dren, and the nurfes ? which was furnifhing 
 jufr. as man} opportunities for detection; for 
 Lady Jane, though fhe did not underitand 
 Latin, would underitand very well the mean- 
 in c of the maxim that Fraus latet in senerali- 
 bus, as there is nothing plainer or more ob- 
 vious to a much weaker capacity than Lady 
 Jane's, than that a feigned tale mould be as 
 
 little
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 5 i 7 
 
 little encumbered with circumftances as poi- 
 
 Jible. 
 
 But thofe letters appear to me to prove 
 one thing very clearly, that Mrs Glafs was 
 no accomplice : For, how is it poflible to firp- 
 pofe, that Mrs llewit, who certainly was an 
 
 iccomplice, if there be any impofture, fliould 
 write i'o many particulars concerning the 
 birth, Lady Jane's recovery, 6 'c. to another 
 ■iccomplice who knew that the birth was all 
 a farce ? This is fiich a thing as, it is be- 
 lieved, never happened before fince the be- 
 nanninn- of the world : And it iu impolTible 
 to give any other account of it, except what 
 I think a mo ft improbable one, namely, that 
 Mis llewit wrote thofe letters on purpofe to 
 ii'.iniih evidence in lupport of the impofture, 
 if ever it mould be challenged. But, firjl, 1 
 think this is much too great a refinement c( 
 cunning: And if judges will indulge them- 
 fclvesin fuchfufpicions, they may make a deep 
 plot of the piainell and fimpleft facts ; and 
 in that way turn the cleared: and moll direct 
 evidence againft the party in whole favour it 
 is adduced. If Lady Jane had intended to 
 procure fuch evidence in fupport of the f Lip- 
 pofition, flic certainly would have employed 
 better pen than Mrs Ilev.il's ; or, at leaft, 
 
 have
 
 518 T II E SPEECH F 
 
 have revifed and corrected thole letters which 
 fhe defigned for evidence of the truth of the 
 birth. But, ido, If Lady Jane or Mrs llewit 
 had intended that thofe letters mould have 
 furnifhed fuch evidence, we mud fuppofc, 
 that the confident Tibby Walker would have 
 been enjoined to keep them carefully, and 
 accordingly would have fo kept them : Where- 
 as it is evident, that there were many more let- 
 ters that palled betwixt Mrs Hewit and Tibby 
 Walker, which are now loft; and thofe which 
 remain were preferved by mere accident. 
 
 And this obfervation may ferve as an an- 
 fwer to a circumitance of itrong fufpicion 
 much infiited on by the purfuers; namely, 
 the correction of a date of a prccecding let- 
 ter in Mrs Hewit's letter of the i 2d of July, 
 saving an account of the birth. For to what 
 purpofe this correction, as fhe was writing 
 to an accomplice who knew the whole to be 
 a farce ? She had no more ado but to write a 
 private note to her, or to defire her at meeting 
 to deftroy that prccecding letter of a wrong 
 date. 
 
 Another, device which the purfuers have 
 fallen upon to deprive the defender of the 
 pohToility of proving his birth, while at the 
 fame time they infift upon the iiCCcfUty of his
 
 LOPiD MONBODDO. 51? 
 
 doing fo, is to lay hold of the miftakes which 
 the witneiles neceflarily muft have fallen in- 
 to, depofing to fo many particulars at fuch a 
 diftance of time, and to infer from thence, 
 that the witnefles are perjured, and not to be 
 believed. And this your Lordfliips will ob- 
 ferve is one of the great hinges upon which 
 the caufe of the purfiiers turns ; for they have 
 examined the witnefles to every particular of 
 the conduct of Sir John or Lady jane for 
 years together, both in France and Britain, 
 however foreign to the ifllie. And if thefe 
 witnelles can be trapped in any miftake, then 
 fuch witnefles mult beheld to be perjured. 
 Thus Airs I'ewit mufl be perjured, becauic 
 ihe fays, that the remittance from lllieims 
 came to Sir John on the day of the birth; 
 whereas it was ionic days after before it arri- 
 ved, as if that circumflancc were in the leaft 
 iuatcri.il. Again, Mrs Glafs is convicted of 
 perjury, becaufe flic h.;s fallen into the mif- 
 t.ike of laying, that Lord Blantyrc law Lady 
 Jane at Aix during Iter pregnancy; and that 
 nnrfe MangirA; child was carried with them 
 from Bammartin to Ilheims ; circumflances 
 equally immaterial. And in this way they 
 have gone on examining witnefles about eve- 
 
 rv tli in: they could think of, though not in 
 
 1^ * ,.
 
 520 T II E S P E ECU OF 
 
 the leaft connected with the caufc. Thus 
 your Lordfhips fee a poor woman, I think it 
 is Madam Boucault, is clofely examined a- 
 bout the number and order of her own chil- 
 dren ; how they were nurfed, and how long 
 they lived. And Monf. Menager is obliged 
 to give an account of all the acquaintance of 
 his youth, and among many other things in- 
 tirely foreign to the illue, he is afked, whe- 
 ther or not he did not fay in converfation, 
 that fuch a man told him, that he knew of a 
 lady of 55 that was delivered ? and this man 
 is produced by the purfuers to prove Menager 
 perjured. 
 
 Your Lordfhips will ferioufly confidcr,whe- 
 ther in this way any the cleared and moft di- 
 ftincl: '> :s may not be fet afide. The- 
 
 v. it- . u this cafe, and in every Other, come 
 1 to give evidence to the fact in iiiue ; 
 endes th?t, they were afked in this cafe 
 innnite number of qneflions which they 
 i never feen, and could not be prepared to 
 an'V.-er, concerning aprodigious variety of par- 
 ticulars, which happened fifteen or fixteen 
 years ao;o: ard if they commit miftakes in 
 any particular, or if in the courfc of fuch long 
 and tcazing examinations, and re-examina- 
 tions, inch as we have in this cafe, fomc of 
 
 which
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 52 1 
 
 which Lifted for days, the witnefs grows 
 impatient, anfwers rafhly, and by that means 
 fills into contradictions and abfurdities, then 
 mufl fuch a witnefs be rejected as perjured, 
 and not to be believed. 
 
 And if the miftakes or blunders of wit- 
 ncllcs, under the torture of fuch examina- 
 tions, with refpecl to facts not material to the 
 iiTue, will not difcredit their evidence as to 
 the material fact, much lefs will their contra- 
 diction to another; and yet this is another 
 principal hinge of the purfuers caufe : for they 
 have examined hundreds of witneffes in 
 France, and in Britain, and almoft in e very- 
 country of Europe, concerning every parti- 
 cular of Sir John and Lady Jane's conduct, 
 not only accompanying the birth, but pre- 
 ceding and fubfequent to it, for a courfe of 
 years; and when thefe witneffes difagrce, as 
 they necefiarily muft do in many particu- 
 1 irs of facts which happened fifteen or fix- 
 teen years ago, then they conclude, that one 
 or other of thefe difascreeins; witneffes, or all 
 of them, nm ft be rejected. In this way they 
 have fet at variance Sir John and I\lrs Hewit 
 with nurfe Gamier, concerning the hifto- 
 ty of the fecond child Sholto. And the pur- 
 fuers cuvnfel, as I remember, reckoned up 
 U u u thirty-
 
 522 T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 thirty-two difcrepancies ; from which he con- 
 cluded, that the whole ftory of" Sholto is a 
 mere fiction. In the fame manner Sir John 
 and Mrs Hewit are fet at loggerheads, and 
 made to deftroy one another's evidence ; and 
 they are both faid to be perjured, becaufe 
 they are contradicted by Madam Blainville, 
 and fome other witneffes, who muft have had 
 the ftory from her, concerning a journey faid 
 to be made by Lady Jane to Verfailles. Now, 
 this is another way, your JLordfhips fee, by 
 which any the clearer!; and directed: proof 
 may be taken away. If indeed the witneffes 
 differ in the material circumftances of the 
 principal fact, that will, no doubt, make their 
 credibility. But that is not the cafe here; 
 for all the witneffes concur as to the pregnan- 
 cy and reconvalefcence, and with refpect to 
 every material circumftance of the birth it- 
 fclf j for they all agree as to the day, the 
 place, the particular houfe, the name of the 
 landlady, the man-midwife, the number, the 
 fex of the children, their condition as to 
 health and ftrength; and even with refpect 
 to the nurfes, the difcrepancies about whom 
 the purfuers io much infift upon, they all 
 agree, that the eldeft child changed nurfes fe- 
 veral times, but that the vounoreft a:ot from 
 
 the
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 523 
 
 the be^inninsra g:Ood one, and never had but 
 
 one. 
 
 1 have infilled the longer upon thefe rules 
 of evidence, as I think they apply directly to 
 this cafe, and are decisive of it. For your Lord- 
 fhips will obferve how it ftands. The defen- 
 der has brought a clear proof of his birth, his 
 mother's pregnancy and reconvalefcence, botli 
 direct and circumftantial. The purfucrs can- 
 not pretend to have brought any proof ftrong 
 enough to take away this. But, fay tiiey, 
 imo, The defenders witnefles are accomplices, 
 becaufe they mult have known the fraud, if 
 there was any. ido, They are perjured, be- 
 caufe they are miftaken in fundry particulars. 
 And, /./:'/.', they contradict one another; and 
 therefore none of them can be believed. This 
 is the true completion of the purfucrs caufe; 
 and it' tl.e rule:; laid down above are juft, it 
 is certainly a bad one ; and to give it for the 
 puriuers, would be to eilablilh a molt dan- 
 _, tous precedent, by which any the cJcarcir. 
 r.i' in the world might be explained away. 
 
 i have only one obibrvatioii more to make 
 
 concerning the nature ot cvi.L-nce, and which, 
 
 i think, is equally applicable to this cafe, 
 
 •re (!. ae is on one lit! : clear and lull evi- 
 
 oi :'u: birlli, ;iiiJ ol wh:it was necef- 
 
 1'r.iiv
 
 524 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 farily precedent and fubfequent to it, I mean 
 the pregnancy and reconvalefcence ; and on 
 the other fide, nothing, in my apprehenfion, 
 but fufpicions and conjectures. Theobferva- 
 tlon is, That it behoves a judge carefully to 
 diflinguim betwixt evidence and fufpicion. 
 Parties, agents, and counfcl, when they grow 
 heated in a cauie, may confound the one 
 with the other, and may think, that a num- 
 ber of fufpicions amount to full evidence: 
 and the people without doors, who are net 
 accuftomed to weigh evidence, and to judge 
 of it by certain rules, may be excufed for 
 falling into the fame error. But a learned and 
 difpaffionate judge will not commit this mif- 
 take, and he will carefully diftinguifh betwixt 
 what forces his aflent, by leaving no room to 
 believe that the thing can be otherwife ; and 
 what only gives him a fufpicion that the thing 
 maybe. In fhort, he will diftinguifti, like every 
 man that is learned in any fcience, betwixt 
 what is certain, what js probable, and what 
 is only contingent, that is, may be, or not 
 be, as it happens. To trace the maze of fuf- 
 picions, to pile them up one above another, 
 and link them fo together, as to give them 
 the appearance of evidence, fhows do doubt, 
 very great parts and acutcnefs, and makes a 
 
 great
 
 LORD MO NB OD DO. 525 
 
 great figure at the bar; but allow me to fay, 
 it is a very dangerous talent in a judge. And 
 if judges will take upon them to leave the 
 broad patent road of evidence, and indulge 
 themfelves in hunting the trail of fufpicions 
 and conjectures, no man's life or property is 
 1'afc ; I lay, my Lords, no man's life is fafe. For 
 1 confider this as a capital caufe, not only on 
 account of the great flake which Mr Douglas 
 lias depending upon it ; but becaufe I think 
 the fame evidence which takes away the birth- 
 right of the innocent child, muft have con- 
 victed the guilty parents of a capital crime ; 
 *nd your Lordiliips, in judging this caufe, 
 muft confider Sir John and Lady Jane as 
 Handing before you under trial for their lives : 
 And, before you can condemn Mr Douglas, 
 you muft lay your hands upon your hearts, 
 and fay, that there is evidence here, upon 
 which you could have taken away the lives of 
 the parents, as well as the birthright of the 
 child. 
 
 And this leads me to examine more parti- 
 cularly the purfucrs proof, beginning with 
 the firft head under which I have ranged it, 
 Viz. the conduct of Sir John and Lady Jane, 
 b' .. '.broad and at home. 1 have already fpo- 
 fohn's declaration before your Lorcl- 
 
 fhips,
 
 526 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 mips, by which they would dcftroy the whole 
 account given by Sir John of his birth, and take 
 away from the defender even the acknow- 
 ledgement of his parents : And I come now to 
 fpeak of the four letters from La JNlarre, faid 
 to have been forged by Sir John. 
 
 And, in the firjl place, The purfuers can- 
 not, with any propriety, call thofe letters for- 
 ced, as the effence of that crime confrfts in u- 
 fing the forged deed, knowing it to be fuch. 
 Now, that Sir John ever ufed thofe letters as 
 a proof of his Ion's birth, is not pretended : 
 And as to Lady Jane, it was laid indeed by 
 one of your Lordfhips, that fhe did ufe them ; 
 but, in my opinion, that was faid altogether 
 without evidence. For as to Mrs Menzies 
 laying, that Lady Jane told her me had 
 evidence in her pocket that would make the 
 matter clear, which evidence Lady Jane faid, 
 was letters from the man-midwife. In the 
 frrjl place, this is but one fingle witnefs, and 
 an exceptionable one, being connected with 
 one of the tutors of the purfuers. In they£- 
 cond place, How docs it appear that thefe let- 
 ters were then in the pofTefTion of Lady Jane; 
 for this converfation happened a confiderablc 
 time before Lady Jane's death, after whicli 
 thofe letters made their appearance for the 
 
 firft
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 52? 
 
 firfc. time, and even before Lady Jane went 
 to Douglas -caftle, which was many months 
 before her death? And, htjify, If we mould 
 fuppcfe, without evidence, that thofe letters 
 were then in her poiTeffion, How does it appear 
 that the letters fiic then (poke of were thofe 
 very letcrs, and not other genuine letters of 
 La Marrc's r For, if any thing is proved at all 
 on tl;c fide of the defender, it is proved not 
 only- by parole, but by written evidence, that 
 there was an intercourfe of letters betwixt Sir 
 John and La Ivlarrc. . 
 
 And, indeed, the letters, when attentively 
 confidered, arc fuch, that it is impoflible they 
 could be intended to be palled upon the world 
 for originals from any perfon ;, for they are 
 plainly copies made by a perfon who ap- 
 pears neither to have under ft ood the lan- 
 guage nor the hand-v. ruing of the letters he 
 was copying: That t lcv are eerie; made by 
 a man who tranferibrd them line by line, is 
 evident from this, Th it, in the 7 9, of . ' em, 
 there are three words : : : of a one 
 
 feored out, which tl ' are in the 
 
 tnd of the precef ling lie. ■ ; fo that it is clear, 
 t-;at the copier, in tranf ribiag, has happen- 
 cd to cart his roe too high., by which menus 
 he took the three words of tee end of the
 
 528 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 prececding line inftead of thofe which mould 1 
 have concluded the line he was writing. 
 And further, it feems to me evident, that the 
 letters he was tranfcribing were one or more 
 of them letters written by a Frenchman j 
 for I fee phrafes in them which could not 
 have come from Sir John, as we may judge 
 from his other French letters, publifhed in 
 the proof, and hardly indeed from any Bri- 
 tifh man. I will give but one inftance : La 
 Marre, fpeaking of the nurfe, fays, Je ne 
 puis pas trop me loiter de la nourice. This is an 
 idiom purely French, not very common even 
 among the French ; but fo remote from the 
 Englifli idiom, that I have known Britifli 
 men, who fpoke and underftood the French 
 very well, that would not believe it was 
 a French phrafe. Now, Sir John, if he had 
 forged this letter, would undoubtedly have 
 faid, Je ne puis pas trop louer la Norice, which 
 is very good French likewife, and at the 
 fame time agreeable to the Englifli idiom.. 
 But as it appears, that this copier could not 
 well read the hand, whenever he was at a 
 lofs, he foifted in words and phrafes of his 
 own, by which it has happened that there 
 are no doubt feveral Englifli idioms in them. 
 And befides this, there have been different 
 
 transcribers
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 
 
 529 
 
 tranfcribers employed, particularly the poft- 
 fcripts to the laft letter, wherein there is 
 mention made of a journey of La Marre's to 
 Italy, are written in a different hand, by 
 which means it may have happened that a 
 poftfcript may have been taken from ano- 
 ther letter written by a different man, and 
 annexed to this, to which it did not be- 
 long. 
 
 The whole amount therefore of the evi- 
 dence upon this head is, That Sir John did 
 make out, and give to his wife, very blunder- 
 ing and innaccurate copies of certain French 
 letters, which Lady Jane never made any ufc 
 of, but left them among other papers, when 
 flic died. And it is fubmitted to your Lord- 
 fhips, whether fuch a circumjlance of evi- 
 dence, will bear the weight the purfuers lay 
 unon it. 
 
 Ijct, fuppofing the letters to have been 
 forged by Sir John; and fuppofing further, 
 without evidence, that Lady Jane did make 
 life of thofe letters, and fliow them to fun- 
 dry pcrfons, as an evidence of the birth of 
 her children ; 'What is this more than fiifpi- 
 1, tlr.it fuch a forgery was intended, not 
 ••) maintain the truth, but to cover a falfc- 
 h(;od ■ Lut decs it prove, that Lady J e 
 
 V X X W.'i
 
 530 THE SPEEC H O F 
 
 was not pregnant, or not delivered ? Is it not 
 very poflible to fuppofe, that fuch a man as Sir 
 John, who was in fuch poverty, and changed 
 his iodennus lb often, and was fo carelcfs and 
 inattentive, as to throw by papers of the 
 grcatcft confequence, in the manner Lady 
 Stewart has depofed, may have loft letters, 
 which he had from La Marre, and then for- 
 ged thole, in order to pleafe Lady Jane, who 
 no doubt would be very defirous, after the 
 iufpicions in Scotland had gathered (trench, 
 to have thole letters of La Marre in her pof- 
 ieffion ? It is not therefore evidence, but iii- 
 fpicion ; and even, the fufpicion Hies oil" enti- 
 tirely, when we coniider the weight of the 
 evidence on the fide of the defender, and par- 
 ticularly the clear evidence of there having 
 been a correfpondence by letters betwixt Sir 
 John and a La Marre, who had the charge 
 of his younzeft child. 
 
 Another part of Sir John and Lady Jane'. 
 conduct, while in Britain, upon which the 
 purfuers lay great weight, is their not making 
 the proper inquiries concerning the birth of 
 their children, in order to fatisfy the world, 
 r it came to be mfpected. It muft appear 
 to your Lordfhips v ay hard, to make the de- 
 fender accountable for every iicciicrence and 
 
 omiilion
 
 LORD M ON B O D "0 O. 531 
 
 om iil 10 11 of his parents. And it is .1 iullicient 
 anfwer for him to fiy, that Sir John was a 
 cuadeis diiTipated man; that they were both 
 hiah-mmded perfons and thought themfelves 
 much above iiich imputations ; and that, it 
 thev neir'eaed 10 make inquiries en that or 
 any other account, fiich inquiries have now 
 been made, and the defender's birth as much 
 
 aa .1; an i . 
 
 I' (-',., A 1 ..',, 
 
 hind can he, bap- 
 pening in a foreign ■ mntry, and a. fuch a 
 
 L'jce or time. But, 2c/;, in point or hi; , 
 an inquiry was begun. Lady jane lent to 
 Aix-la-ChappcIle, and got a declaration from 
 Madame Tewis, in whofe houie ihc had lod- 
 ged there, and who is one of thofe that felt 
 the living child in her belly. But, before the 
 declaration came to her hand, Lady jane was 
 dead ; h> that the inquiry went no farther. 
 But why, fay the purfuers, begin at Aix-la- 
 Cdiappeller Why not go directly to Moniieur 
 
 larre and Madame le !5rmi at Paris? Till ;, 
 
 .'. Lords, is putting nil] a harder talk unon 
 
 ' r, to oblige him not only to fh : x 
 
 his p ;a;,: , did. m ;i e 151 ;u:ries, hu! to 
 
 ••nil wliy tbey did a-r make them in fuch 
 
 iu-Cii a man ;er. ; is an in m.hi'.iou 
 
 v-. h\< .1 a ) in m" ; hall .a. ilan ! : A lid 1 I 
 c .. ; ■ . . ; ; . irs from L.i !y
 
 53"- TIIESPEECH OF 
 
 Jane's couverfation with Lord Prcftonjrrancre. 
 depofed to by Mrs Glafs, that Lady Jane did 
 think of reporting to La Marre ; for, lays fhe, 
 I believe the man-midwife is flill alive. But, 
 by that time, Sir John may have loft his ad- 
 drefs; and it is poflible (and I think the de- 
 fender is at liberty to fuppofe every thing 
 that is fo) that La Marre, being difobliged 
 becaufe he had not been fo well paid as it 
 appears he expected, did not care to give a- 
 ny atteftation of the birth, 
 
 I come now to Sir John and Lady Jane's 
 conduct in France at the time of the birth, be- 
 fore and after it ; and, during all the time 
 they were at Aix-la-Chappelle, llheims, and 
 Paris; and, while they were journeying be- 
 twixt thefe places ; for it feems the defen- 
 der muft anfwer for every thing they did, and 
 alio every tiling they omitted to do : And your 
 Lordfliips will oblerve, that all the purfuers 
 objections under this head of conduct, come to 
 this ; Why did not Sir John and Lady Jane 
 do fo or fo ? Why did they do fo or fo ? Why 
 did they go from llheims to Paris for Lady 
 Jane's lying in ? or if they were to go, Why 
 did they go fo late ? Why did they not in- 
 form their friends of the birth immediately 
 after it happened ? Why did they date their 
 
 letters
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 53- 
 
 letters from Rheims, while they were at Paris? 
 "Why did they not inform the Duke, and 
 their other friends, that the delivery was at 
 Paris ? &c. &c. 
 
 As I have already confumed fo much of 
 your Lordfhips time, I will not go thro' all 
 tliofe particulars, which have been already an- 
 iwered more (liflicicntly than I think is necef- 
 fary for the defender ; and particularly, the 
 two Lift qucftions have, I think, been very well 
 anfwered by one of your Lordihips, by fup- 
 poling what feems tome very natural, that Sir 
 John, who wanted money from the Duke, and 
 wanted alfo to borrow from my Lord Craw- 
 furd, and no doubt from others of his Bri- 
 tifh friend.,, did not care that it mould be 
 known to them that he was living in fo cx- 
 penfive a place as Paris, which might have 
 hurt his ere, lit with them. For, v. ith refpect 
 to his French acquaintance at Rheims, it 
 is clear from the proof, that he made no 
 feeret of the journey to them. And indeed 
 how could he, as lie travelled in the public 
 voiturc, and took a recommendation from 
 IMaillcfer to the inn at Paris to which the tra- 
 veller 1 ; from llheims commonly went : And 
 as to him and Lady fine living in fo private 
 a manner in Pari-;, and feeing fo icw of the i: 
 
 countrymen,
 
 554 T HE S P E E C II O F 
 
 countrymen, (a circum fiance which the pur- 
 fuers much iniift upon), it was the plan laid 
 down for them by Madame Andrieux, accor- 
 ding to Mrs Glafs's lad depoiition ; and it 
 was a rational plan, upon the fuppofition that 
 Sir John was pinched for money, which un- 
 doubtedly was the cafe. For it is to no pur- 
 pofe that the purfuers reckon up the money 
 that Sir John got when he was at Paris, unlefs 
 they could tell your Lordfhips, at the fame 
 time, what occaiion Sir John had for money 
 while there, and could allure you that he had 
 no debts to pay there, nor loft any money at 
 game, to which it is proved he was addicted: 
 For, that he had not money to anfwer his de- 
 mands, is evident from his borrowing, or 
 attempting to borrow, from almoft all his ac- 
 quaintance, fuch as Lady Wigton, Lord 
 Crawford, Sir William Stewart; and, even 
 while he was at Paris, we have him demand- 
 ing a fmall fum of 25 louis d'ors from Mon- 
 ficur Andrieux, who appears to have been 
 unwilling to truft him, and only did it at laft 
 upon the credit of his trunks and cioaths at 
 liheims. It was therefore not to be wonder- 
 ed that Lady Jane ihouid chufe to live very 
 privately and foberly at Paris, and to fee few 
 or no company; efpecially confidering they
 
 L O R D MONBODD O. s^5 
 
 had then a Iioufe and family at Rhcims, which 
 thev appear to have conlidered even then as 
 the place of their refidence. 
 
 Bit many of the oddities and inconfift- 
 encics which they charge to the account of 
 Sir John and Lady Jane, fo far from proving 
 the impoihire, have, in my apprehenfion, the 
 dirert contrary tendency ; and, in this view, 
 I will mention fomc of them. And, in the 
 firft place, fay the purfuers, Why did Sir 
 John and Lady Jane make a journey from 
 Rheims to Paris, but eight days before Lady- 
 Jane was brought to bed? Upon the fuppo- 
 fition of no impoflure, the anfwer is obviouc, 
 namely, 'Lli.it after deliberating long whether 
 Lady Jane fhould trull hcri'alf in the hands 
 of the midwives at Rheims, Ih at I a ft deter- 
 mined, though Lite, to go to . aris. And, if 
 flic had been brought to bed the very oay die 
 arrived .it Paris, it womd h.ive ivcen nothing 
 extraordinary, but a tiling that has happen- 
 ed to many women. But, upon thv fupno- 
 fition of an imnouurc, it is no! Lo be beiie- 
 vct ', th.at, as t iiey had tl ■ ■ , : ■ ( . d ., . erv oi 
 1 ( ; v. 1 1 ( 
 
 , •.'. ay a . 
 Ac, .in, fay l..c y..; ■ ;-, Ida d.id they 
 lea\ e then- !i:.:a., al i 1 r. t -at .he
 
 5$6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 qucftion ; if there was an impofture here, or 
 which tliofe maids mull: have been accom- 
 plices, Why did they not take them with 
 them, in order to have more witneffes to the 
 pretended birth ? Why did they not at leail 
 take Tibby Walker with them, whom the 
 purfuers aver to have been an accomplice, e- 
 fpecially as the purfuers fay that Sir John had 
 plenty of money ? And here one of your 
 Lordfhips made an obfervation, which was 
 indeed very ingenious, but I muft be forgi- 
 ven to fay, did not appear to me very folid, 
 viz. that they did not carry Tibby Walker 
 with them to be a fecond witnefs to the 
 birth, becaufe Mrs He wit and me mi^ht 
 have difagreed when they were examined as 
 to the particulars. This, I confefs, is a refine- 
 ment of cunning which I cannot fuppofe, 
 that a perfon wanting to prove a fact by two 
 witneffes, mould take but one, for fear that 
 two might, upon examination, have difagreed 
 in particulars. By this way of refining, the 
 deepeft plot may be made out of the iimpleft 
 and plaineft facts. This way indeed the pur- 
 fuers have argued through their whole me- 
 morial. But it is a fort of reasoning that, I 
 think, your Lordfhips fhould not adopt. The 
 grief, for example, that Lady Jane expreffed 
 
 for
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 537 
 
 for the lofs of her fori Sholto, and the pathe- 
 tic lamentation over him, which hardly any- 
 body can read in Mrs M'Crabby's depoiition 
 with dry eyes, they fay was no more than 
 acting a part, in order to furnifh evidence to 
 fupport the impofture. But it is proved that 
 Lady Jane died of grief for the lofs of this 
 child. Was this acting a part ? But, lay fome 
 of your Lordmips, the witneffes who prove 
 this, are accomplices, are perjured, or are o- 
 ver-run with prejudices, or have warm ima- 
 ginations. If this manner ot explaining a- 
 way evidence is allowed, I afk your Lordfhips 
 how any tiling can be proved? But to re- 
 turn to the maids: Upon the fuppofition of 
 no impofture, there is nothing more cafy than 
 to account for the leaving them. It Iras been 
 fhown that Sir John and Lady Jane were at 
 that time, and indeed at every time while 
 they lived, in want of money. In order 
 therefore to five money both in the journey 
 and in their living at Paris, and likewife to 
 avoid the appearance of people of high rank 
 and condition, which the travelling \\ ith inch 
 a family mult needs have given them, hut 
 which they were in no condition to fupport, 
 they determined to leave them at liheims. 
 'J his was not only very natural, but is clearly 
 Y v v nroved
 
 51% T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 proved by the depofitions of feveral wit- 
 
 neffes. 
 
 And all the neglects and imprudencies, of- 
 which the purfuers accufe Sir John and Lady 
 Jane, are in my apprchenfion, to be underftood 
 in the fame way, ratlicr as arguments againft 
 the impoiture than for it. Why, fay the pur- 
 fuers, did Sir John delay fo long to inform 
 any body of the birth ? Why did he date let- 
 ters upon the very ioth of July, wherein he 
 did not fay a word of it ? Why did he not 
 inform the Duke of Douglas, and his friends 
 in Britain, of the particular houfe where Lady 
 Jane was brought to bed ? of the man-midwife, 
 and of the witneffes who were prefent ? &c> 
 To all which I anfwer, that, upon the fuppofi- 
 tion of a real birth, all this is eafily account- 
 ed for, from the known character of Sir John. 
 And even, without laying any weight up- 
 on that, Whd thinks of the birth of their 
 children being called in quefticn ? or who, to 
 prevent fufpicions, of which he has no idea, 
 writes to his friends a certificate of the birth 
 of his child, containing all the particulars of 
 the delivery . p But, on the other hand, if 
 there was here an impofture, it is impoffible 
 to fuppofe, that Lady Jane, a woman of fo 
 
 good
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 539 
 
 good parts, would have neglected the com- 
 mon and ordinary precautions. In that cafe, 
 there would, no doubt, have been many let- 
 ters written on the very day fixed for the de- 
 livery, giving an account of it : And they 
 would certainly have taken care, that none of 
 the letters mould be dated on that day, which 
 did not give an account of it. And, if we 
 could fuppofe Lady jane capable of fo much 
 j in prucle nee, Can we believe, that Sir John 
 would have forgot thofe neceiiary precau- 
 tions, when he mowed i'o much readiuefs, and 
 prefence of mind, in the carrying on of the 
 impofture, that one day, travelling in a 
 coach with Lady Jane, and Mrs Hepburn, 
 when they were upon their way from Aix-la- 
 Chappelle to Khcims, and feeing a beggar of 
 a deformed and uggl) afpecr. coming up to the 
 coach to afk chanty, he immediately fprur.g 
 out of the coach, and put away the beggar, 
 that Lady Jane being then witli child, might 
 not fee him p 
 
 The circumnance of the firft note to Mrs 
 Napier, is much infilled on by the purl tiers, 
 .is a proof oi the impofture ; but which, ne- 
 verthelcfs, appears to me quite irreconcileable 
 witli the fuppoiiiion ol an impofture. Lor, 
 tmon that fuppohtion, they mull, <>•. necelli- 
 
 tv.
 
 540 THE S P E E C II F 
 
 ty, have concerted the name of the houfc 
 where Lady Jane was brought to bed, as well 
 as the name of the accoucheur. And it is 
 impoflible to believe, but that Sir John would 
 have had the one name as well as the other 
 at his tongue's end ; or, if we could iuppofc, 
 that he had forgot a circumftance fo eflential 
 in the impofture, can we further fuppofe, that 
 in place of Madame le Brim's,* he would have 
 named a public-houfe, fuch as Michell's, 
 where the falfehood mu ft immediately have 
 been detected ? But, upon the fuppofition of 
 no impofition, it is intircly agreeable to the 
 carelefs and diflipated character of Sir John, 
 and to the circumftances of diftrefs he had 
 been in, when he mentioned to Mrs Napier, 
 that he fhould not have at firft recollected 
 the name of Le Brim, though he did im- 
 mediately recollecl that of La Marre, with 
 whom he had been much more connected, 
 having correfponded with him fo frequently 
 upon the fubject of his youngeft child. 
 
 But this miftake, upon recollection, lie af- 
 terwards corrected in his fecond converfation 
 with Mrs Napier, and a fecond note which, 
 upon that occafion, he gave her. And here, 
 fomc of your Lordihips were in a miftake, in 
 fuppofing, that this correction was not till af- 
 ter
 
 LOUD MONBODDO, 54 r 
 
 ter lie had heard of the inquiry made at Mi- 
 chcll's by Principal Gordon : For this is a 
 ilippofition, not only without evidence, but 
 contrary to evidence. It is without evidence, 
 becaufe Mrs Napier has not faid fo ; and it i.<> 
 contrary to evidence, in fo fir as Mrs Napier 
 has faid, that tliis fecond conversation hap- 
 pened about the time ot' her lying in, and 
 while flic was confined to her room on that 
 account. Now, flic lay in upon the 5th of 
 Auguft: 175^. Lady Frances Stewart's letter 
 giving her an account of the ill fuccefs of 
 Principal Gordon's inquiries, was dated from 
 Spa, the 28 th of the fame month of Auguft, 
 and confequcntly could not have come to 
 Mrs Napier's hand till towards the middle of 
 the month of September. So that your Lord- 
 fhips who will fuppofc, that this fecond conver- 
 fation happened after this letter arrived, and 
 after Sir John was informed of the contents; 
 of it, mull likeways fuppofe, not only that 
 this convcrfation happened after Mrs Napier's 
 lying in, which the witnefs has not laid, but 
 that Mrs Napier was confined to her chamber 
 ior above a month alter her lvincr in. And 
 your Lordfhips will obfervc here a miftake 
 with refpect to the old and new ftile, which 
 the purfucrs have fallen into in their memo- 
 rial,
 
 542 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 rial, by which they make the 28th the date 
 ! of Lady Fanny Stewart's letter, to be the 17 th 
 old fiile ; whereas, in the year 1756, there 
 was not in Britain any fuch diflincrion of 
 ftilcs. 
 
 And now that I am upon the chapter of Ma- 
 dame le Brun, I will beg leave -Qiortly to Hate 
 to your Lordfhips the amount of the evi- 
 dence as to her: And, in thefirft place, I was 
 much furprifed to hear fome of your Lord- 
 fhips deny the exiftence of this woman ; for, 
 if any thing at all is proved upon the fide of 
 the defender, not only the exiftence of a Ma- 
 dame le Brun in the year 1748 is proved, 
 but alfo her connection with La Marre, both 
 by parole and written evidence. For, in the 
 Jirft place, Menager has fworn to fo many 
 particulars concerning Madame le Brun and 
 her daughter, with whom he appears to have 
 had a very intimate connection, that even, if 
 your Lordfhips could fuppoic perjury in o- 
 ther parts of his evidence, you could hardly 
 fuppcfc it in this. Now, by his evidence, is 
 not only proved the exiftence of her and her 
 daughter, but alio her connection with La 
 Marre. Further, this is alfo proved by a mofl 
 unexceptionable witnefs with refpect to the 
 purfuer, viz. Francois la Marre, the brother of 
 
 Pierre,
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 543 
 
 Pierre, who in a converfation with Mr An- 
 drew Stuart and Monfieur Danjou, told 
 them, fur le champ et fans hefiter, that his bro- 
 ther was connected with a Madame le Brim; 
 that he himfelf knew her ; and accordingly 
 lie tells fundry particulars about her; and, 
 among others, fays, he believes, {he was a 
 fchohr of' his brother's in the art of midwife- 
 ry : And this he repeated in a fubfequent 
 converfation without variation. And in this 
 hit converfation, lie told Mr Stuart and 
 Monfieur Daujou, that he had concealed this 
 crrolmftancc from the gentlemen upon the 
 other fide : Though that was not true, as it 
 is proved that he told it likeways to them : 
 But he was plainly in the interefl of the pur- 
 fuers, and had been employed by them to 
 make a ioi nicy in fearch of witnefTes, for 
 which, 1 ' doubt, he expected to be very well 
 paid : And this accounts for his denying eve- 
 ry thing concerning Madame lc Brim, when 
 he rime to be examined upon oath. And, 
 la lly, There is written evidence of the cxiit- 
 ence of this woman and lur connection with 
 La Marrc, from La Marre's compt-book, where 
 there is a fum of money fct down give by 
 him to Madame le Brum 
 
 l'i is very true, that this Madame le "nn 
 
 c miiot
 
 544 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 cannot now be found : But, in the jirfl place, 
 I fubmit to your Lordfhips, whctlicr it be 
 not abundantly fufEcient, and even more than 
 is incumbent upon the defender, to prove that 
 a Madame lc Biun exifted in the 1748, was 
 connected with La Marre, and very probably, 
 as Menager fuppofes, kept one of La Marre's 
 depots (V accouchtnents ; and which is further 
 confirmed by what Gilles faid in anfwer to 
 the qucftions put to him by Morand, that 
 La Marre told him the foreign Lady was 
 brought to bed of twins in the houfe of Ma- 
 dame le Brun. 2 do, The woman herfelf is not 
 now to be found, for a very good rcafon, name- 
 ly, that in all probability flie is dead, and it is 
 not improbable that the daughter is alfo dead, 
 coniidering the way in which ilie lived. 3/w, 
 A Madame lc Brun has been found living in 
 the Rue Dominique, in the Fauxbourg St Ger- 
 main, in a houfe of that flreet now ruinous, 
 which Madame le Brun anfwers, in every par- 
 ticular, to the Lc Brun mentioned by Sir- 
 John and Mrs Hewit ; for me was a widow 
 woman that was a aarde malade, that took 
 fick women into' her houfe, and hud a voun<x 
 
 * JO 
 
 rrirl for her daughter. Whether this be real- 
 ly the woman or not, is of no importance to 
 the defender. It is fuflicient for him to fay, 
 
 that
 
 L O II D MONBODDO. 545 
 
 that fhe might have been the woman, and to 
 have proved, chat there was a woman of that 
 name exiiKng in Paris in the 1748, who was 
 connected with La Marre. And the only de- 
 fect of his evidence upon that head is, that 
 iio body has been found who heard this Ma- 
 dame le Brun fay, that a forciirn lady had 
 been delivered of twins in her houie. And 
 yet, upon this mere negative, to be accounted 
 tor in many diilerent ways, do the purfuers 
 lay i'o much weight, that Mr Stuart told Sir 
 William Stewart, that if only Madame le 
 Brun could be found, he would give up the 
 caufe, being already quite fatisfied as to the 
 pregnancy. 
 
 And here your Lordfhips will obferve, how 
 natural it was, that Sir John, having employ- 
 ed La Marre for the accoucheur, mould carry 
 Lady Jane to lie in in the houie of Madame 
 le Brun ; for it would have been altogether 
 improper, that fhe mould have been brought 
 to bed in an inn, fuch as Godefroy's, or a 
 hotel garnie, fuch as Michell's. And accord- 
 ingly, it appears, from Maiilcfer's letter to 
 Godefroy, that it was Sir John's intention be- 
 fore he left llhcims, to go as foon as might 
 be into private !odcnn<2S. Now, there was 
 nothing more natural than that Sir John 
 Z v. z ihould
 
 54* THE SPEECH O F 
 
 ihould take thofc lodgings upon the recom-* 
 mendation of La Marre ; and it was as natu- 
 ral that La Marre fhould recommend this wo- 
 man Lc Brun, with whom he was fo much 
 connected. 
 
 And, indeed, all the great lines of the con- 
 duct of Sir John and Lady Jane in France 
 have been mown, even at this diftance of 
 time, to be probable and natural, without 
 fuppofing any fraud or imposition. Their 
 going abroad was a prudent ftep, and the 
 beft thing they could do in their fituation. 
 Their going to Aix-la-Chappelle, is mown to 
 have been on account of Lady Jane's health, 
 who imagined that the waters there would 
 do her good. Their going from Aix-la-Chap- 
 pelle to llheims, after much wavering and de- 
 liberation, is alfo accounted for ; and like- 
 ways their lafl refolution of going from 
 llheims to Paris. Even their happening to 
 employ this man La Marre is pretty well ac- 
 counted for, by the connection which he had 
 with Britifh and Irifh people in Paris, one of 
 whom may have recommended him to Sir 
 John. Their chufing Le Brun's houfe for 
 Lady Jane to lie in, has been already account- 
 ed for ; and the reafon of their leaving this 
 houfc fo foon, and going to MiclielPs, is alio 
 
 proved.
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 547 
 
 proved. And as they had a houfe taken at 
 llheims, nothing was more natural than that, 
 as foon as Lady Jane was in a condition to 
 travel, they mould fet out for that place. 
 Accordingly they did fo ; but, on account of 
 Lady Jane's weaknefs, they Hopped for fome 
 days at a pleafant village on the road, called 
 Dammartin. As to the children, it was very 
 natural, and I believe commonly happens, 
 that of the two, one mould be much fhongcr 
 than the other ; and as that other was a very 
 weak child, it was alfo very natural that he 
 fliould not be kept in town, but fent out to 
 the country to be nurfed, under the care and 
 direction of La Marre. And there is a cir- 
 cumflance with refpect to this youngeft child, 
 which is altogether extraordinary in this 
 country, and never could have been invent- 
 ed by Sir John, Lady Jane, or Mrs Iiewit, 
 but which is very common in France, name- 
 ly, the ondoyment or fprinkling of this weak 
 child by the man-midwife. 
 
 Thus the great lines of Sir John and Lady 
 jane's conduct in France are very well ac- 
 counted for; and it can be no wonder, that 
 at this diftance of time, fome particulars can- 
 not be lo well explained ; but even ot theie, 
 ionic have by accident been cleared up, which 
 
 othenviie
 
 548 THE SPEEC H OF 
 
 othcrwife would have had a very fufpiciouS 
 look. Thus, for example, their dropping 
 their man-fcrvant in their journey from Aix* 
 la-Chappellc to llheims, looked very ill, much 
 worfe, in my opinion, than the leaving the 
 maids at llheims. But, by the accident of the 
 man's wife beinsr alive, this matter is fo clear- 
 ed up, that the purfuers no longer iniift upon 
 it as a circumttance of fufpicion. Again, it was 
 allcdged againft Sir John, that, in the year 
 1749, when he and Lady Jane returned to Pa- 
 ris to fteal another child, he lodged in one 
 Renaud's, under his own name of Colonel 
 Stewart ; but when he went to the Croix de 
 Fer, where the crime was to be perpetrated, 
 he affumed the name of Duvernes. Now, 
 by the accident likewife of the widow of Co- 
 lo,: otewart of Ardfiiiel being alive, it has 
 been difcovered that it was her hufband, not 
 Si.- John, who lodged at that time in Renaud's; 
 and, in like manner, itmuft be prefumed, that 
 every circr.mftance of fufpicion would have 
 been cleared up, if the purfuers had not de- 
 layed their procefs fo long ; or even, if they 
 had afked Sir John Stewart when he was alive 
 concerning fome circumftanccs which they 
 now very much infift upon,fuch as their letters 
 being dated at Rheims, while they were at 
 
 Paris ;
 
 LORD MONBODDO, 549 
 
 Paris ; their delaying for twelve days to give 
 any account of the birth to their friends ; and 
 their not fpeaking of it in their letters dated 
 the fame day that it happened. 
 
 Let us now confider the tale of the impo- 
 rt, ure as told by the purfuers, and fee whether 
 it be as probable and natural a fcory, as that 
 which is told by the defender. And here I 
 muft beg your Lord£hipsj>articular attention, 
 if I have not quite exhaufted it ; as this 
 point has been hardly touched upon by any 
 of your Lordfhips, nor fully ftated even in 
 the defender's memorial ; and yet, in a cir- 
 cumftantial proof, which is all that the pur- 
 fuers here pretend, it is a circumfhince of the 
 grcateft weight, to confider, whether the tale 
 told by them is probable or natural; or, on 
 the contrary, molt improbable and unnatural, 
 as I think 1 am able to {how it. 
 
 And 1 omit the improbability of a lady 
 of virtue and piety, fuch as Lady Jane is 
 nroved to have been, and a Lady who had 
 fo high a notion of the rank and dignity of 
 her family, committing a crime of this kind, 
 by which fhc was to ingraft upon the ftock 
 of the illuftrious houfe of Douglas, two 
 beggars brats. 1 emit alio the improbability, 
 that a woman of Lady jane's parts would 
 
 have
 
 550 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 have engaged in a crime, the commiffion of 
 which was fo difficult, as it is a crime re- 
 quiring many accomplices, not committed in 
 an inftant, but continued for a tract of time, 
 and thereby liable to manifold occafions of 
 detection. I do not infifl neither how un- 
 likely it was, that Sir John or Lady Jane 
 mould even think of a crime that never was 
 committed in this country; nor was it ever 
 thought of by any body here, except Lady 
 Kinnaird, who did only think and fpeak of 
 it ; for flic never attempted to put it in exe- 
 cution. But even of this, it does not appear, 
 that Sir John or Lady Jane, who were then 
 abroad, ever heard. Nor do I innft, how 
 much more unlikely ftill it is, that Lady 
 Jane fhould commit fuch a crime, by which 
 fhe was not only to difgrace her family, but 
 might difinherit her own future ifiue, as fhe 
 was certainly capable of having children ; and 
 this, without any motive to perfuade her; 
 but, on the contrary, the ftrongefl reafon to 
 diffuade her, namely, the fear of lofing her 
 brother's favour and her penfion, upon her 
 being obliged to own her marriage, which ac- 
 cordingly happened. All thefe confidera- 
 tions, however weighty, I lay afide; and fup- 
 pofing Lady Jane capable of committing fo 
 
 great
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 5$: 
 
 great a crime, and fo abfurd a one in her fi- 
 tuation, without any motive to induce her, 
 I will examine the general plan of this fup- 
 polition, and the manner in which they exe- 
 cuted it; and then I will leave it to your 
 Lordmips to judge, whether perfons of the 
 leaft degree of common fenfe could either 
 have projected Inch a plan, or executed it in 
 the way that Sir John and Lady Jane did. 
 
 And, in fir ft place, we have the project of 
 fuppofmg two children at once; a thing of 
 which there is no example in all the many in- 
 ftances of this crime which have been col- 
 lected by the purfuers from fuch numbers of 
 volumes. And the reafon is obvious ; for, in 
 the fir ft place, one ferves any purpofe that 
 could be intended; and, id/y, If the fuppofi- 
 tion of one is a crime of along and difficult 
 execution, the fuppofltinn of two muft be 
 infinitely more difficult, and liable to many 
 more opportunities or detection ; lb that 
 it is hard]}" poffible 10 cfcape difcovcry. 
 Whereas, on the other hand, as there was here 
 no impofiurc, according to my firm pev.'ua- 
 iion, the circurnftance--. concerning {!>•; one 
 of the children, 1 mean Sholto, base won- 
 derfully contributed to iuprori the birth of 
 the other, and form a chain o. evidence, 
 
 viiicl-
 
 S$i THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 which I fliall ftate afterwards to your Lord- 
 fhips, fuch as has hardly occurred in any 
 c*fe. 
 
 But, ido, What is more extraordinary 
 ftill, and exceeds all belief, is, that they 
 fhould publiili to the world this plan of 
 double fuppofition, before they had executed 
 it, and give out that they had two, when 
 they had but one, defcribing very parti- 
 cularly the youngeft, as a puny weak 
 child, and telling many other particulars 
 concerning a child that then had no e- 
 xiftence, whereby they laid themfelves in 
 fome fort under the neceflity of committing 
 the crime over again, and of finding another 
 child, anfwering exactly to the defcription of 
 Sholto; and which, at the fame time, was of 
 fuch an age and lize, as could be fuppofed 
 to be born at the fame time with his twin- 
 brother. 
 
 But, itio, What is more wonderful ftill if 
 poilible, they go to • aris, at the diilance of 
 fixteen months, and bring from thence a 
 child, anfwering in every particular to the 
 defcription they had given of Sholto, a puny 
 weak child, and a lefs child than the other; 
 though, as the purfuers fay, about four 
 months older ; with this additional circum- 
 
 ftance,
 
 L O R D MONBODDO. 553 
 
 fiance, v.- Inch I wonder none of yourLordfhips 
 li is taken notice of, that lie was as like Lady 
 I .inc. as i t was pofliblc that an infant could be to 
 a crown peribn. This is Inch a concurrence 
 and combination of circumilances in favour 
 or the truth of the birth, as could not be 
 the effect cither of chance or deli/;.; ir.d 
 at the fame lime, makes the tale of the pur- 
 fuers, not only improbable, but moially 
 ipeakin^ impofuble : For, if we could inppoie 
 a public market of children in Paris where 
 they were to be got of all agvs, i\;:r<, and 
 complexions, it would beatlealt a thouiaud Lo 
 one, that they iliould have found a child fo 
 exactly aniwerin^ the defuiption of ^holto, 
 lei-) than the oth< r child, yet four months 
 older, and at the fame time, as like Lidy 
 fane as it was poflible. And, when we join 
 to all this, the cireumftanccs Sir fohr and 
 L ; jane were then in, flarving in a mm- 
 nci at liheims, and having juit got a fir dy 
 fr an my Lord Morton of only L. :p-. S'Vr- 
 b;'; v , their Lift reiource, yet not fuflicienC 
 If) pay oil their debts at HheimSj and carry 
 i.hcm back to ihitain, that they IhoukI think, 
 m that iituation, oi returning to Paiis, to 
 commit over a^ain the fame crime, and to 
 -} A burden
 
 554 T HE SPEECH OF 
 
 burden themfclvcs with tlie maintenance of 
 another child, after the fuppofition of the 
 firll had fucceeded fo well with them, and 
 when they could have given out, with the 
 greateft probability, that this puny weak 
 child, whom they had always reprefented as 
 having but a Ihiail chance to live, was dc.id, 
 is a ftory really incredible. 
 
 Tins is the plan of the impofturc concerted 
 betwixt Sir John and Lady jane, a woman of 
 very praod parts, as all your Lordfliios have 
 acknowledged, which, I think, I may venture 
 to fay, was as abfurd and irrational, as it was 
 without example or precedent. Let us now 
 conllder how Lais plan was executed. And, 
 in the firjl_ place, if they intended inch a 
 fraud, it was natural for them to con- 
 ceal themfclvcs as much as poflible, and, for 
 that purpoie, to get private lodgings, and go 
 as little as poflible to public-hoiiles. Inftcad 
 of that, the) go directly to Godcfroy's, a houfe 
 pci recti) "axil known to the people ofiiheims, 
 with a recommendation from the chief ma- 
 Q-'fiiatc oi Rheims to Godefrov. They ftav 
 t\, e, say the puiiucrs, eleven days ; and not 
 oni) io, but they fix the delivery upon one 
 or the days while they were there; a tinner 
 which Monfieur Datijon, the purfuers 
 
 French
 
 L O II D MONBODD O. 555 
 
 French agent, fays, in one of his memorials, 
 was abfolutely incredible; and yet this is 
 what the purfuers would have you believe, 
 without telling you, why it is more credible 
 now than it was then, that Sir John and La- 
 dv Jane, being to return to liheims, mould iix 
 the day of delivery while they were at Godc- 
 fruy's, a houfe ib well known at Ilheims, that 
 :t was jmpofiiblc they could cfcape detection. 
 Iu'rthf.r, after Lady Jane was (hid to be 
 brought to bed, it was obvious to common 
 fenfe that fhe mould have remained fo 
 long in her private lodgings, where the pur- 
 fuers admit (lie was betwixt Godefroy's and 
 MichelFs, that flic might have appeared 
 to be quite recovered: Bat inilead of that, 
 v/ii bin eight days after the time of the delive- 
 ry, away they go to another pubiic-houie, where 
 : : muft have appeared to every bod}', more e- 
 cially as Lady Jane did not attempt to con- 
 ceal herfelf, that flic was not newly brourht 
 to bed. 
 
 Further frill, the choice of the man they 
 named for the man-midwiic of tin's pretend- 
 ed deliver}', is moft unaccountable. Neccfla- 
 )V, indeed, it was, that they iliould name 
 fomebody for th.e man -midwife, being, no 
 doubt, an cfTcntiai circumftance of the tab 
 
 V ■'!!'' I '
 
 55* T HE SPEECH O 1- 
 
 which they mil ft have prepared to tell to the 
 world, but, in order to find a proper name 
 for the man who was fuppofed to have dit- 
 tharged this oiiice, they ihould have gone to 
 the rcgiuer 01 6t Cume, and there picked out 
 the ok left man-midwke, who, in ail likelihood, 
 w iiid be dead before the birth could be chal- 
 lenged, lnitead or that, they named a vouncr 
 man then practiiiiiCi I'm crv and man-mid- 
 Witen i'i Paris, but to be leen in no remitter. 
 
 1'urther, it there was here an impofture, 
 it was a necciiarv ingredient in it, that Lady 
 Jane mould publifh her pregnancy to the 
 world; and it might have been expected, that 
 Lady Jane would rather have over-acred her 
 part, as is commonly the cafe u« fuch impoii- 
 tions, and have oftentatioufly fhown her big 
 belly to all the world. But inftcad of that, 
 it is clear from the proof, that flic endeavour- 
 ed to conceal it, even after flic had written 
 to her brother the Duke that flic was with 
 child, and after it was well known to my 
 Lord Lrawfurd, and her other intimate ac- 
 quaintances. Nov/, a real pregnancy has been. 
 oilen concealed ; but what could be the mean- 
 ing or concealing a firnulated pregnancy ? Up- 
 on the iiippolition oi no iimulation, the con- 
 cealment is candy accounted for, either from 
 
 Ladv
 
 L O R D MONBODD O. 
 
 557 
 
 Lady Jane's natunil fhynefs or bafhfulnefs, 
 and which is common to women of any fa- 
 ihion while they arc with their firil chikl ; or 
 from hcrdeiirc to conceal her marriage, which 
 one of the witneffes fays fne intended never 
 to have r.ublifhed.if flic had not brought forth 
 alivingchiid. 
 
 Again, as the two maids mull have been 
 accomplices, it" there was any impollure, how 
 j.^ it poilibic to fiippoie, that Lady Jane, l\i- 
 : l'uch a fecret upon their tonsmes. iliould 
 have treated lliem in the manner ihe did: 
 I* or it is proved, that in the journey betwixt 
 Aix-la-( happelle and Ilhcims, while Lady Jane 
 ■was carrying on the farce of a big belly, the 
 maids having refilled to travel in the boot of 
 the coach, Lady Jane rated them very found- 
 Iy, and called them fancy jades; undone of 
 them ill e turned oil' after flic returned to Bri- 
 tain; with which, as the witneffes fay, Lily 
 Caw, for that was her name, was much dii- 
 contented. 
 
 I forbear to mention fome other circum- 
 lt mces which appear to me altogether impro- 
 bable, upon the lhpj fition < f an impoilure, 
 i. 
 
 e 1 have taken notice ox thcnl already ; 
 <uch a-, the accident oi the beggar, a Imall, 
 
 iiv urufcaiicc : the leavimr 
 
 Dili a verv flnk:i
 
 5 5 S THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 of the maids at Rheims ; the fixing the day of 
 the birth fo foon after Lady Jane's journey 
 from Rheims ; and the forgetting a circum- 
 ftance fo material in their ftory, as the name 
 of the houfe where Lady Jane was brought to 
 bed, together with Sir John's other omiilions 
 and imprudencies, which cannot be accounted 
 for upon the fuppofition of an impofture. And 
 I mall only mention one further ftriking im- 
 probability in the purfuers flory, viz. That 
 Sir John coming to Paris to commit fuch a 
 crime, mould have been at no pains to con- 
 ceal himfelf, by taking a falfe name, or a falfe 
 country; but, on the contrary, mould have 
 fairly given his name and his country at Gode- 
 froy's; and, even at Michell's, after he had com- 
 mitted the crime, tho' his name was ill writ- 
 ten by the maid of that houfe : And inftead of 
 hiding himfelf while he was at Paris, he went 
 out every day ; and inftead of running away as 
 Duvernes did after he had Hole the child, fo 
 as to get out of reach, he remained at Paris 
 more than twenty days, lodging the greatcil 
 part of that time in a pub!ic-houfe;and when, 
 at 3 aft, he left Paris, he went no farther than 
 Dammartin, and fo on leifurely, till he re- 
 turned to Rheims, a place where every body 
 knew that lie had gone to Paris, in order that 
 
 Lady
 
 LORD MONBODDO, SS9 
 
 Lady Jane might lie in there : And after he 
 had left Paris, he returned again from Dam- 
 martin, goes kick to Godefroy's houfe, where 
 he had iixed the day of delivery, and at two 
 other times returns again to Paris, juft as if 
 nothing had happened, without Showing the 
 leaft tear or detection. 
 
 Such being the cafe, I appeal to your Lord- 
 fhips, and to every body who hears me, whe- 
 ther this itory of the purfuers, which they 
 dciire your Lordfhips to believe, is not fo ab- 
 solutely incredible, in all its circumllances, 
 as hardly to be believed upon the faith of 
 any evidence, even the moll full, direct, and 
 conclusive. 
 
 And thus much with refpecl to the rlrfc 
 head of the purfucr's proof, containing all the 
 particulars of Sir John's conduct which they 
 think unaccountable, except upon the iuppo- 
 fition of an impolturc. 
 
 The pc'/ad head, under which 1 have ran- 
 ged the puriucr's proof, is Godefroy's evi- 
 dence : With refpecr. to which, I mult again 
 befpeak your Lovdfhips patience, as 1 think I 
 can put that matter in a clearer light than 
 bit; erlo it has been put; and as it i 1 - tiie on- 
 ly thir.g like direct c.idcnce, which the pur- 
 fuers
 
 5 6o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 fucrs protend to, it is very well worth yonr 
 Lordfliips attention. 
 
 And, in the fir ft place, T diftinguifh be- 
 twixt the evidence of Godefroy, and that of 
 his books, and will, with yonr Lordfliips per- 
 miffion, confider them feparately. 
 
 And,//-,'?, As to Godefroy's own evidence, 
 I have heard him praifed by fomc of your 
 Lordfliips as a witnefs moft credible, and a- 
 bove all fufpicion ; but I am fo far of a dif- 
 ferent opinion, that I think he is a witnefs 
 that cannot be believed ; nay, I go further, 
 and 1 fay, he is inch a witnefs as with me 
 goes near to difcredit the purfuers whole 
 proof: For I will mow, in the fir ft place, 
 that he is a witnefs that has been inftructed ; 
 idly, That he has varied his tale; and, la Illy, 
 That he has fworn falfely concerning a thing 
 which he mould certainly have known, the 
 method of keeping his own books. 
 
 The queftion, your Lordfliips fee, is con- 
 cerning the application of the accompt blank 
 in the name, beginning the 4th of July and 
 ending the 13th, to Sir John, Lady jane, and 
 Mrs He wit. In order to make this applica- 
 tion, he mu ft of neceflity have known two 
 things ; fi'rft, That Sir John and Lady Jane 
 
 arrived
 
 LORD M ONBODDO. 
 
 561 
 
 arrived in his houfe upon the 4th; ■M\Ci,fecond- 
 ly, That there was a third perfon with them, 
 ;;■, he fuppofes the accompt to apply to three 
 pcr.or.s. Now, it is abiolutciy importune, 
 (hat, fro ni his memory, he could Ii. A vc re- 
 collcaed, at fuch a diicance of time, that Sir 
 J(dm : ': 1 Lady Jane, and one woman more 
 v.hh them, arrived at his houfe precifely upon 
 the .;th of July 17-;-; cfpeeially, as both he 
 I his wife have laid, that they paid no 
 particular attention to thefe ftrariffers while 
 tliey were in tlieir houfe, and never thought 
 of them after they went out of it, till the be- 
 ginning of this procefs. It is true, the pur- 
 suers ha\ e been at much pains to magnify 
 die memory of Godelroy ; but fucli a memo- 
 ir as they would here fuppofe, is abfolutely 
 incredible. Nor is (-.'odefroy's memory ih 
 extraordinary as they would make it : For, 
 in the ft e, lie lias forgot his own hand- 
 
 writing, v'icn lie lays, in lus :'ial deposition, 
 tliat he believes tlic whole account of the 
 ^tli of July is of the hand-writing of Ma- 
 dame ( ioch iroy ; v. ' ' rt oi it, and I 
 ao e tlic g) e.it> >s ov Ins own h id- 
 litiii '. And vour Lorddnps will obiervc, 
 that, at. the time lie {'wore (Ms, the !m k had 
 "i.ly b :', J v ■ > ; ear > ;n t lie Tourncile ;
 
 5 6: T II E S P E E C II O F 
 
 and before it was taken from him, he mud her 
 iuppofed to have looked at it himfelf, and 
 mown to others this account ; more especial- 
 ly if it be true, as the purfuers aver, that he 
 always told them the fame ftory, and confe- 
 quently muft always have applied this ac- 
 count to Sir John Stewart. 
 
 idly, At his firft dcpofition, he had forgot 
 another thing more material, namely, that 
 he kept two books in the 1748 ; for it is 
 plain, that both he and his wife, when they 
 were firft examined, fpoke only of one book 
 which they kept in that year, though they 
 thought proper afterwards to produce a fe- 
 cond, as it was apparent that this book did 
 not contain the tenth part of thofe who 
 came to an inn fo much frequented, not even 
 the half of thofe who were in their police- 
 book. And as to the proof which the pur- 
 fuers give of his good memory, from his re- 
 membering that Maillefer had written a letter 
 to him, recommending Sir John ; fuppoiing 
 that he had not at that time found the letter, 
 for which we have only Godefroy's word, 
 it was nothing very extraordinary, that be- 
 ing in ufe to correfpond with Maillefer about 
 the affairs of the town of Rheims, and Maille- 
 ier, no doubt, being in ufe of recommend- 
 in cr
 
 L O R D MONBODDO. 
 
 563 
 
 ing perfons to Jiirn, he might have imagined, 
 (and that is all he fays), that Maillefer may 
 ha\ e lecommended bir John, wich whom it 
 is likely he has heard that bir John was ac- 
 quainted. 
 
 1- . om memory, therefore, it was impoflible, 
 tiiat Uodefroy could recollect that theie three 
 foreigners, neither one more, nor one iefs, 
 had been at his honfe precifely on the -jth of 
 July 1748. And what only remains to iae in- 
 quired is, whether lie could have learned it 
 from his police-book ; for that is the only way, 
 as your Lordfhips A a id obferve, that Godefroy 
 pretends to iiil up any other accounts blank 
 in the names. Now, what fays his police- 
 book witli refpect to Sir John and Lady 
 Jane? It fays, in thcj7r/l place, that they ar- 
 rived the -, ; : . id, in the J'-cond [dace, it 
 fpe^ks onk oi two pcrions, Sir John and 
 Lath' fane. It i.-. there tore char, that (rode- 
 frov muit liave learned, either from the 
 Tourrelle proccis and rdonitoirc, or from pri- 
 \ate in! rn ition, that Sir \k)'.\]\ and Lady 
 |anc arrived in In; h 011 fa upon the .-jtti, and 
 yc wus another woman with them; 
 mere co:;;< 1 in e, lie lias Idled 
 np the nanus in this blank aecompt, in the 
 
 fan •
 
 5<*4 THE S P E E C H OF 
 
 fame manner as he has filled up other names 
 in his compt-book. 
 
 And thus, it appears, that the very foun- 
 dation of Codefroy's evidence, is from infor- 
 mation of one kind or another; and that c- 
 vcn after he got fuch information, he ap- 
 plied the accompt merely by conjecture to 
 Sir John and Lady Jane, and Mrs Hewit, ra- 
 ther than any other three perfons that might 
 have been in his houfe at that time. 
 
 The next thing I undertook to {how was, 
 that he had varied his tale. This is evident 
 from Monfieur Danjou's memorial above 
 mentioned, intitlcd, Expofe de fails, written 
 after Codefroy's depofition in the Tournelle, 
 to which it refers. There it isjj exprefsly laid, 
 that Sir John and Lady Jane paid their bill 
 upon the 8th, and then went out of Code- 
 froy's houfe. Your Lordfhips therefore muft 
 prefuin", that Codefroy did depofe in the 
 Tournelle, that they went out of his houfe 
 upon the 8th; whereas, he now depofes, that 
 they remained in his houfe till the 14th. 
 
 And, li'-jlly, Codefroy, I fay, has fworn falfe- 
 ly as to the manner of keeping his accompts, 
 when he has depofed, that every body that 
 came to his houfe had his name entered in 
 one or other of the compt-books, For it 
 
 is
 
 LORD M ONBODO (). 565 
 
 is now evident, as fhall be mown afterwards, 
 that many people muft have been in his houfc 
 (iome are admitted by the purfuers) who 
 have no accornpts opened for them in either 
 books. 
 Till : it appears, that this witnefs is ut- 
 terly -incredible, having: been inftructed, ha- 
 vine varied his tale, and having fworn falie- 
 ]y as to a thing he certainly mould have 
 known, viz the v. ay of keeping his accompts. 
 Av.A as to Madame Godcfroy, it is plain, 
 th-t fhe has in plicitly followed her huf- 
 bard; lor fhe knew nothing of the matter, 
 whe : Hi., was firfc examined in the Tournellc, 
 
 not io i:i"i u :. lembering the name of 
 
 Stewart, ;r police-book; 
 
 and yet, 1 •- :r< '" centradie'don to that hook, 
 lb • takes up >n her to apply an accompt, for 
 three perform of the 4th of July, to Sir John 
 and Lady Jane, who by that book appear to 
 have entered by themfelves, without any at- 
 tendants, upon the 7 tli of July. 
 
 Bit I further fay, that when you thus 
 fee a witnefs inftructed, and ("wearing falfely 
 it muft give your Lordfhips a very bad opl- 
 n or the whole of tiie purfuers e\ ider.ee; 
 more efpccially when you compare this oath 
 of Godefroy's concerning Lis own booh 
 
 V. 1 ( i .
 
 $66 THE SPEECH OF 
 with Monfieur de lluiffeau's oath 000001-111112: 
 
 o 
 
 Michelle's book. Thefe books were the two 
 hinges upon which the purfuers caufe turn- 
 ed ; but as they were inconfiftent with one 
 another, it was long matter of deliberation 
 with the purfuers, upon which of them they 
 were to make the defender ftand trial for his 
 birthright. This doubt they had not deter- 
 mined in favour of Godcfroy's book at the 
 time they examined this Monfieur de Ruif- 
 feau ; for otherways, to what purpofc exa- 
 mine him concerning Michell's book ? And 
 it is befides evident, from his examination, 
 that they did not intend ever to have fhown 
 this book of Michell's, which at that time 
 was locked up in the Tournelle ; for, if the 
 book itfelf was to be produced, to what pur- 
 pofc examine a witnefs concerning the Hate 
 of it, and the manner in which it was kept? 
 In this ftate of the caufe, they produced this 
 man Ruifieau to depofe concerning it : And 
 his oath, from beginning to end, is a fcrics of 
 falfchoods, all tending to prove, that this 
 book was an authentic record, regularly kept; 
 and inch therefore as merited faith. And, a- 
 mong other things, he fays, that the entry of 
 Flurat!, upon the 8th of AuguR, was in a hand 
 different from any of the entries of that or 
 
 the
 
 LORD M ONBODDO. 567 
 
 the proceeding page ; a manifest wifehood, 
 intended to prove, or at lead to raiic a fufpi- 
 cion, of what had been averred by the pur- 
 i'uers in their plaint es to the Tournelle, that 
 this entry was of Sir John's own hand-wri- 
 tincr. Now, that thefe con id not be miftakes 
 in thevitnefs, but intended (aliehoods, and 
 downright perjury, is evident from this, that 
 lie had been employed by the purfuers, in the 
 way of his oilicc, to inipecf. the iiate of this 
 book, to deliver it o\er to Moiiileur Buhot, 
 and, upon that occasion, to make a prows 
 verba!. And, as it is clear, from the proceed- 
 ings in France, and indeed is of itfelf evi- 
 dent, that the purfuers, founding their claim 
 intirely upon this book at ilrfr, mull haee 
 confidered it very diligently before the}- put 
 ir. into the Tournelle, it appears to me, not 
 only tiiat this v itnefs is perjured, but that 
 there is tlie ftrongcfc fufpicion or fubomation 
 of perjury, when I Ice the agents for tlie 
 purfirjr.i pre ; one eniphjyed !:y them, 
 
 and then re ley r,;^' to be under t heir di- 
 rection, t ; i ; - v hat they mini have 
 know n to ee . : • ; and, i .':'.'.:. I may fur- 
 t her [ ; v , vh. u \ o much, tint it 
 v. ; ■ .. :; . : ■; or i'o; ■ , . lo en: r. v nil' to 
 n tl.i > v. ay a i hie tenor ol a wri- 
 
 lni;i',
 
 5 68 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 ting, by which Mr Douglas's birthright was 
 to have been taken away. 
 
 To this witnefs, thus manifcftly perjured, 
 I muft join Madame Mignon, acknowledged 
 by the purfuers own counfel to be perjured. 
 I muft join alfo Francois la Marie, moil grofs- 
 ly and willfully perjured, about a fad of 
 great confequence in the caufe, viz. his bro- 
 ther's connection with a Madame le Brun; 
 and alfo Monfieur Giles,, the furgeon, who has 
 fworn, that he gave the fame account before 
 your Lordmips commiflloncr of the ftory told 
 liim by La Marre of the delivery of a foreign 
 Lady, that he gave to Morand and Moreau, 
 when the contrary is clearly proved by written 
 evidence. When 1 confider, that all thofe wit- 
 nciTes are clearly perjured in favour of the 
 purfuers, befides others, whofe evidence, like 
 that of Madame Michell's, has been foftened, 
 I muft conclude, that it was not for nothing 
 that thofe witncfTcs fwore fo. And when I 
 further fee it in proof, that one of the moft 
 material witneffes, by whofe evidence Mr 
 Douglas was to be proved the fan. of one of 
 the meaneft mechanics in Paris, I mean Mig- 
 non, was practifed upon by promifes, and by 
 fome money actually given to her fon, and 
 more expected by him, I muft confefs to your 
 
 Lordfhips
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. $6 9 
 
 Lordfhips, that I have the worft opinion of the 
 purfuers proof; and if they had proved ten 
 times as much, I would not have believed it. 
 It is true, the promiles to Mignon are proved 
 only by the woman herfelf imprudently tell- 
 ing to the people with whom flic drank, that 
 iuJi promifes had been made her. But now 
 elfe could practices of this kind be proved ? 
 It is not before witnefles that a perfon is cor- 
 rupted ; nor could your Lordfhips expect to 
 find it fet down in Mr Andrew Stuart's 
 journal: But it is proved here m the 'a me 
 manner as it was proved to your Lordfhips, 
 in fundry election cafes that were lately be- 
 fore you, where the only evidence of the cor- 
 ruption was (and, indeed, it is almoft the oi- 
 ly evidence that, by the nature of the thing, 
 can be) the imprudent acknowledgement of 
 the party to their neighbours and acquaint- 
 ance, that they had got money or promifes. 
 But, bcfides the promiles thus proved to have 
 been made to Mignon, and which, your Lord- 
 fhips will obicrve, are fpecial and particular 
 promifes, not rrcneral and vaonie proiefiions 
 of kindnefs and fervices, it is proved by a 
 w'meis of their own, namely the Ion of this 
 Million, that a {mall ium of moi ev was ac- 
 tuallv oiven to him, under the name of loan, 
 
 w 
 
 4 C bv
 
 57° THE SPEECH OF 
 
 by Monficur Danjou, their French procureur, 
 and the loan of a greater fum was, by the 
 lame Danjou, negotiated for him. 
 
 The character of the gentleman I have juft 
 now mentioned, Mr Andrew Stuart, has been 
 much infilled upon by fome of your Lord- 
 fhips, as letting him far above the fufpicion 
 of fuch practices. But, fitting here, it is not 
 characters that I am to regard, but evidence : 
 And as the purfucrs lawyers have ufed a 
 great deal of freedom, more than 1 think the 
 caufe required, and, I am fure, more than is 
 fnpported by the evidence, with a character 
 much more refpeclable, viz. that of Lady 
 jane Douglas, the friends of this gentle- 
 man will excufe me, if I fcate againft him 
 what appears in evidence, and what I think 
 very material in the caufe. 
 
 For I cannot at all agree with what was 
 faid by one of your .Lordfhips, That the 
 conduct of the caufe has nothing to do with 
 the caufe : But, on the contrary, I mufl al- 
 ways keep in my view both the private prac- 
 tices upon the witnefTes in France and the 
 public proceedings in the Tournelle court, if 
 the proceedings of fuch a court can be called 
 public. The purfuers have thought fit to 
 publifh a very elaborate defence of thefe pro- 
 ceedings,
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 571 
 
 ceedings, which, I mult own, I thought im- 
 proper, and even indecent, after what had 
 palled. For, it is clearly my opinion, (and I 
 fpeak unon much better authority than rav 
 own), that thefe proceedings had a direct 
 tendency to corrupt the very channels 01 evi- 
 dence, and to {hake the credibility of every 
 witnefs on the fide of the purfucrs, however 
 unexceptionable otherways ; and I think, to 
 this Tournelie proceis, the iMonitoire, which 
 was the child of it, and to the private prac- 
 tices upon the witneilcs, the defender may 
 fairly afcribe more than one half of the pur- 
 fucrs proof, and all the defects and obfeuri- 
 tics in has own. 
 
 Having (aid fo much of Godcfroy'i evi- 
 dence, and, upon that occafion, of the evi- 
 dence of other witncfles in this caufe, I will 
 proceed now to examine the evidence of 
 CJodcfroy's book, considered bv itfelf; having 
 mown, it is liopcd, to your Lordfhips fatis- 
 faction, tlr.it it can draw no aid from his or 
 his wife's oath. And here I rauft again be- 
 fpeak your Lordfhips patience, as I think I 
 ,ini able to hate a little more fully than lias 
 l^en done by any of your Lordfhips, the 
 objection to the evidence of tins book. And, 
 
 in
 
 572 T H E S P E E C H OF 
 
 in tliefrjl place, this is fuch a record, ex facie 
 of it, as I am perfuaded never was ufed to 
 take away any man's birth-right, or to in- 
 validate cither legal prefumption, or politive 
 proof. For it is fo irregularly kept, fome- 
 times the liufband writing in it, fometirries the 
 wife ; accompts prior in date being fet down 
 after others poftcrior in date; and fo many ac- 
 compts without names, or even numbers of 
 perfons, with every mark, in fhort, of inaccu- 
 racy and irregularity, that it is impoffiblc to 
 give any faith to it : And with refpect to dates 
 particularly, it is remarkably inaccurate : For 
 even the day of the week is frequently mis- 
 taken, and in the groffeft manner : For we 
 have a Thurfday, for example, not only in 
 place of a Wednef lay or a Friday, but, in one 
 inftance, in place of a Sunday. And when 
 we fee fuch miftakes in the day of the week, 
 which is not fo ordinarily miftaken, we mull 
 fuppofe that the miftakes in the day of the 
 month are much more frequent : And this 
 evidence of inaccuracy, which arifes from the 
 book itfelf, is ftill more confirmed by com- 
 paring it with his police-book, which he was 
 bound, by the law of the country, to keep ac- 
 curately, under fevere penalties if he did not 
 Now, this book is confefied to be moft inac- 
 
 curate,
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 573 
 
 curate, not only with refpect to the dates of 
 perfons entering, but with refpect to the perfons 
 themfelves, of whom many are wholely omit- 
 ted : So that but a fmall part of thofe that came 
 to the houfe are to be feen in this police-book. 
 Now, can we fuppofe that the compt-book, 
 which lie kept for his own private ufe, is more 
 accurate than the book which he kept for the 
 public, particularly as to dates? For your 
 Lordfhips will obferve, that accuracy in the 
 compt-book, with refpect to the precife date 
 when the company entered, was of no mo- 
 ment either to Mr Godefroy, or his guefls, 
 provided they were not overcharged as to 
 the number of days they ftaid in his houfe, 
 or the things extraordinary which they got. 
 Such a book, therefore, does not prove to me, 
 that the perfons who are raid to enter upon 
 Thurfday the 4th of July, did truly enter up- 
 on that day. They might have entered a day 
 iboner, or a day later; and it was the fame 
 thing as to the guefls, if they were charged 
 for no more days than they really ftaid. 
 
 But, fuppofing this company to have tru- 
 'y entered upon the 4 tli of July, how does it 
 appear that this company was Sir John, Lad) 
 jane, and Mrs Uewit? And here it certainly 
 will not be fufficicnt for the purfucrs to fay, 
 
 that
 
 574 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 that it may apply to them, bccaufe it appears 
 to be applicable to a company of three per- 
 fons : But they muft further fay, that it mull 
 neceflarily apply to them, and can apply to 
 no other company. Now, this they can mow 
 only in two ways ; either by mowing, that 
 every accompt opened in the houfehold-book 
 relates to a perfon entered in the police-book; 
 and confequently, that, if this accompt can- 
 not apply to any other perfon (landing in the 
 police-book, except Sir John, it muft be his 
 accompt; or, 2 do, That at leaft every body in 
 the police-book has a place in the houfehold- 
 book. Now, inftead of the purfuers proving 
 either of thefe two things, the defender has 
 proved the direct contrary of both. As to the 
 firjl, it is admitted, that there are above an 
 hundred inftances of perfon s who have ac- 
 compts in the compt-book, but who are not 
 entered in the police-book. As to the fecend, 
 it is admitted, that there are fix inftances of 
 perfons who are in the police-book, but not 
 in the compt-book; and among thefe, one 
 Wrisrht an Enfflifhman : And it is remarka- 
 ble, thattho' Mr and Madame Godefroy fpeak 
 of Englifhmen coming commonly to their 
 houfe, as well as other foreigners; yet there 
 is, I think, but one Englishman that is to be 
 
 found
 
 LORD M ONBODDO. 575 
 
 found in their compt-book. But be that as 
 it will, I think the defender has a right to 
 fay. that Sir John was the feventh inftance 
 of perfons reforting to the houfe, and the fe- 
 cond of Britifh men, fet down in the policc- 
 book, and not in the compt-book. But be- 
 fides thefe fix inftances, there are certainly- 
 many more who are in the police-book, and 
 are not in the compt-book. For, in the firfi 
 place, there are inftances to the number of 
 about forty perfons who are marked in the 
 police-book, but who have no accompts in 
 the compt-book. Their names, indeed, the 
 purfuers apply to accompts blank in the names 
 of the perfons which they hud in the compt- 
 book about the fame dale. But this is mere 
 conjecture, and the lefs probable tor that, as 
 lias been already mown, there are above an 
 hundred perfons in tiie {'pace only of three 
 \ ears, who are entered in the compt-book, 
 but do not appear in the police-book; and ac- 
 cordingly they are often obliged to 1:11 up two 
 or three accompts in the compt book, with 
 one name in the police-book. But, j,/, There 
 lire fourteen iniianccs of peribiis who are 
 marked in the pfllicc-uook iumc days before 
 they appear in the compt-book. Now, in that 
 inteival, they mult ha\e fad a feparate ac- 
 
 com 
 
 i"->
 
 Sl6 THESPEECHOF 
 
 compt, not appearing in the compt-book, 
 which is the fame thing as if there had been 
 fo many different perfons who had no ac- 
 compts in the houfehold-book. And your 
 Lordfhips will particularly obferve, that their 
 entry in the police-book does not depend up- 
 on the accuracy of Mr Godefroy in keeping 
 that book, but upon the faith of the officers 
 of police, who, by their vifa of fuch a date, 
 afcertain that thefe perfons muft have entered 
 before that day : And, therefore, to fuppofe, 
 as the purfuers do, that thofe perfons are fet 
 down of a wrong date in the police-book, is 
 plainly to accufe thofe officers, without proof, 
 and contrary to proof, of falfehood and for- 
 gery in the difcharge of their duty. And, 
 3/7'tf, Befides all thefe, it is evident, that there 
 muft have been many more from the manner 
 in which thofe books were kept, which Mr 
 Godefroy has explained to us in his depofi- 
 tion, and which is evident from inflection of 
 the books. For, fays he, a man's accompt who 
 entered, fuppofe, for example, upon the 20th 
 of the month, is entered upon the 3d page, 
 let us fuppofe, of the book ; and his accompt 
 is fmifhed, fuppofe, upon \he 30th of the 
 month ; and there is fome room left in the 
 page, in which is filled up the accompt of a 
 
 man
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 577 
 
 man who entered, fnppofc, upon the 15th. 
 Now, I defire to know, where the accompt 
 of this Lift man, from the 15th to the 50th, 
 is to be found? And whether or not, in that 
 interval, he mud not have had a feparate 
 accompt ? And I a(k further, iiippofc he liad 
 cone awav before the ;oth, that is, before the 
 preceeding accompt was clofed, whether any 
 accompt of his would have appeared in the 
 lioufehold-book ■ 
 
 Thus it appears, both from comparing the 
 compt-book with the police-book, and from 
 the manner of keeping the compt-book, that 
 there mud have been many perfons in the 
 houfe who have no accompts in this houfe- 
 liold-book, but mufl have had cither feparate 
 accompts in writing, or have accounted by 
 memory with Godefroy and his wife. And 
 when we join to all this, what is depofed both 
 by (iodefroy and his wife, that their inn, 
 which had nineteen beds, was fo very much 
 frequented, that there was hardly lodging to 
 be got in it, unlefs befpoke before ; while, at 
 the fame time, it appears from their compt- 
 book, that there are not there perfons fet 
 down fuflicicnt to fill a fifth part of their 
 houfe; and particularly, betwixt the 4th of 
 July, when Sir John entered to the houfe, and 
 4 1) the
 
 578 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 the 2cth of that month, there are but two com- 
 panies to be found in the compt-book : And 
 when further we confider, that, by great ac- 
 cident, there have been difcovered four fepa- 
 rate aecompts made out by Godefroy, the e- 
 ;ce becomes invincible, that there is not 
 the leall neceility of applying this blank ac- 
 compt to Sir John and Lady Jane ; but that 
 it may be applied to feveral other companies, 
 m hich we may reafonably fuppofe to have 
 been at the fame time with them in this 
 houfe, which was fo much frequented. 
 
 But I go farther, and fay, not only that 
 the application of this account to Sir John 
 and Lady Jane is not neceilary, but that it is 
 highly improbable. For, in the frrfl place, it 
 is very probable that Sir John and Lady Jane, 
 when they came into this inn, would do as 
 they would have done in a Britifh inn, that 
 is, they would have called for a room, and 
 ordered fuch things as they thought, proper 
 for dinner or flipper, without lb much as in- 
 quiring, whether or not there was a table 
 cfhote kept in the inn, a tiling which it is 
 likely they never thought of, as this practice 
 is utterly unknov n in Britain, and even in 
 France, except in great cities. And tho 1 they 
 had known or fufpecied fuch a thing, it is 
 
 not
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 579 
 
 not probable, that, being full of money as 
 the purfuers fay, and not at all frugal or f.i- 
 ving perfons, they would have chofen to eat 
 at the low rate of this paultry inn. ido, It is 
 admitted that they did not eat at the table 
 (Fhoic, but uot their victuals in their chamber; 
 and yet, notwithstanding the extraordinary 
 trouble and attendance which that muft have 
 occafioned in the houte, efpecially as they had 
 no fcrvant, they are charged in this account at 
 no more than the ordinary rate of the iioufe. 
 If this was truly the cafe, I will venture to 
 fay, that no Britiiii man, either before or 
 hnce, ever got fo reaionable a bill in a French 
 houfe : Indeed, upon the fuppoiiticn that they 
 got any thing drefled for themfelves that 
 was not at the public table, the houfe would 
 have been wronged; fo that the purfuers muir 
 fuppofe, that Sir John and Lady lane, with i i 
 much money in their pocket, fed upon the 
 fcraps and offals of this miferahle ordinary ; 
 a fuppohtion as: improbable as that, if fucli 
 reed truly been the cafe, (,'oderrov would 
 not have charged them more lor the extra- 
 ordinary trouble (hev gave his houfe. And, 
 /.''//A', It is a very ilroug proof, in i\v r apmv- 
 heniion, of tiiis account not bclon^im/ to Sii 
 John and his couipanv, that we ice:; . !>reak-
 
 580 T II E S P E E C II OF 
 
 fails charged in it, as in other accounts in this 
 book ; for we cannot fuppofe that thefe Bri- 
 tifh perfons lived without breakfaft, or that 
 they did not drink tea in a morning ; as it is 
 proved that Lady jane did every where. And, 
 luppofing thatlhe brought her tea with her, yet 
 Hie muft have had befides fugar, cream, bread, 
 and butter. Now, it is a moft improbable 
 hypothecs of the purfuers, that they got their 
 butter from Mr Godefroy, and their fugar, 
 cream, and bread, from a coffechoufe. 
 
 This, it appears, that it is not only not 
 neceflary, that this blank accompt mould be 
 applied to Sir John, but that it is not at all 
 probable : And the whole evidence which ari- 
 fes cither from Godefroy's oath, or from his. 
 books, evaniflies, if we only fuppofe, what is 
 highly probable, that Sir John and Lady Jane 
 catinff in their room, did not eat at the ordi- 
 nary rate of the houfe ; and that they got 
 the whole of their breakfaft from Godefroy, 
 as well as their butter, 
 
 And indeed, upon an accurate examination 
 of Godefroy's oath, and Ins books, it appears 
 to me that the purfuers, after much delibera- 
 tion, have erred in preferring Godefroy and his 
 wile's evidence, and applying this blank ac- 
 compt to bir John, in direct contradiction to 
 
 their
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 581 
 
 their police- book, to the book of Michell, where 
 Sir John is fet down by name, tho' wrong 
 fpelt, as entering upon the 8th of July, and 
 this book fupported by the oath of IMichell 
 and his wife, who fwear pofitively that the 
 very clay Sir John came to their houfe they 
 remember that his name was let down in the 
 book ; and Madame Michell further adds, 
 'J hat it was by this book they accounted with 
 their lodgers for the rent of their rooms : It 
 U certain that the purfuers at firft put their 
 caufe wholely upon the credit of tins book j 
 and they have told your Lordfhips, that they 
 did not then believe Godefroy's tale, which 
 contradicted it. But they mould inform your 
 Lordfhips, why they did not believe it then, 
 and believe it now; or why your Lordfhips 
 mould believe what they themfelves did not 
 at firft believe ? The cafe has plainly been, 
 that they were refolved at any rate to find 
 an alibi ; and, having determined, after much 
 deliberation, and contrary to their firft refolu- 
 tion, as appears evidently from Danjou's me- 
 morial above quoted, to fix the alibi in Gode- 
 froy's, they accordingly adopt his tale. But 
 your Lordfhips not having come to ftudy 
 this caufe with a rcfolution to find an im- 
 polture, but rather a contrary inclination, 
 
 will
 
 582 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 will be of opinion, that tho' the flories told 
 by Michcll and Godcfroy cannot be both true, 
 yet they may be both falfe ; and that of the 
 two it is more likely, that the evidence of 
 Michelland his family, fwearingin conformity 
 to their police-book, mould be true, than the 
 the evidence of Godefroy and his wife, fwear- 
 ing in direct contradiction to their police- 
 book. 
 
 I come now to the third head of the pur- 
 suers proof, upon which I mail be exceeding 
 fliort : For the laft counfel for the purfuers 
 infilled upon them only as a circumftance 
 of evidence, (he mould have faid, I think, of 
 fufpicion, for they are certainly not evi- 
 dence, as they are not brought home to Shf 
 John). And as to the firft of them, viz. the 
 taking away of Mignon's child in the 1 748, one 
 of your Lordfhips, though of a different opi- 
 nion from me, was fo candid as to own, that 
 the defcription of Mignon's child, particular- 
 ly with refpecl to the colour of the eyes, did 
 not agree with the defender ; he might have 
 added, That neither did the baby-cioaths of 
 the child, nor did the defcription of the per- 
 fons who carried him away, agree with Sir 
 John and Lady Jane. And even as to the time 
 pf this enlevement, tho' ibme of the witneflcs
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 583 
 
 fix it nearly to the time when Sir John and 
 Lady Jane came to Michelle's, yet there are 
 others who fay the child was two months old 
 when he was carried away. And as to the 
 fecond enlevement, it appears to me to be clear- 
 ly proved by written evidence, that it did not 
 happen while Sir John was at Paris. The 
 written evidence I mean, is a private remitter 
 of oolice, kept by the Lieutenant-general in 
 the year 1749, in which is marked, upon the 
 10th of January, a letter received from the 
 Cure of St Laurent, informing' him of a child 
 being carried away by one Duvernes. Now, 
 it appears evident from the Cure's depolition, 
 that he was informed of this enlevement as 
 foon as it happened ; and it is impoflible to 
 believe, that lie would delay informing the 
 lieutenant of it, as he muft have fiippofed, 
 that the pcrfon who ftole the child would 
 immediately make off with it; which accord- 
 ingly happened. But, befides this molt pro- 
 bable conjecture, the Cure himfelf has faid 
 upon oath, that he is perfuaded it wns with- 
 in three or four days after t . :g c .me to 
 his knowledge, that he gave information of 
 it to the lieutenant de police ; though your 
 Lordfliips will obfervc, that ivir Andrew 
 Stuart gave him a very fair o^oriumtv of 
 
 adjuitn £
 
 584 THE S P E E C II OF 
 
 adjufting his oath to this new difcovery, 
 which was made in the books of police, of 
 the letter of the 10th of January, by letting 
 him know what he certainly mould not have 
 known, that fuch difcovery was made. 
 
 The deftroying in this manner one half 
 of the tale of the purfuers, concerning the 
 enlevements, is, in effect, deftroying the other 
 half; as it mows moft evidently, a thing in- 
 deed that is evident enough of itfelf, that 
 the memory of witneffes, at fuch a diftancc 
 of time, cannot be trufted as to dates : For, 
 with refpect to this fecond enlevement, there 
 is nothing, one mould think, more clearly 
 proved, fo far as parole-evidence can go, 
 than that it happened in the month of 
 November, while Sir John was at Paris ; 
 whereas now it is made clear, that it mud 
 ha\e happened at leaft a month later, that 
 is, in the end of December, or beginning of 
 January. 
 
 Thus I have Hated to your Lordfhips what 
 
 occurs to me upon the purfuers proof, in 
 
 which I find nothing but conjectures and 
 
 fufpicions, without any the leaft thing that 
 
 deferves the name of evidence, except Gode- 
 
 froy and his books j which are fo far from 
 
 beinc:
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 585 
 
 being that plain, direct, unambiguous evidence, 
 which I think neceffary to take away the 
 defender's birth-right, that the purfuers them- 
 
 felves tell your Loidfhips, they did nor. 
 at firft believe it, without giving any good 
 reafon why they believe it now more than 
 they did then. Such evidence I think not 
 fuiKcient to take away the legal prelum ptions 
 above ftated in favour of Mr Douglas, and 
 much lefs the pofitive evidence, which I am 
 now to ftate to your Lordfhips, but which I 
 will endeavour to do very fhortly, as your 
 Lord mips time is fo much fpent, and, I am 
 afraid, your patience altogether exhauiled. 
 
 This proof is both direct and circumftan- 
 tial. The firft confifts of the proof of the 
 actual birth, and of what neceilarily mult 
 have precceded and followed it, viz. the preg- 
 nancy and the reconvalefcence. 
 
 As to the birth, it is proved by the only two 
 witnefics now alive, fo far as appears, who 
 were prefent at it, viz. Sir John and Mrsliewit. 
 As to Sir John, he was certainly not a habile 
 witnefs for Mr Douglas • nor docs it appear, 
 t hat Mr i )ouglas ever propofed to examine him, 
 hut, being called upon by thepurfucrs, 1 know 
 nothing in law that hinders him to b c a pro- 
 per witm is, in fo far as he is legally cxamin- 
 } K ed
 
 5?>6 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 cd upon oath, and when both parties were ins 
 court. And as to Mrs Hewit, I have already 
 laid, that her evidence cannot be rejected, ex- 
 cept for a reafon which will be fuiEcient for 
 depriving the defender of the evidence of the 
 ;noft neceflary witnefies, and almoft the only 
 witnefies that can be expected to fuch a fact, 
 namely the domellics and iervants. 
 
 As to the pregnancy, it is proved by fuch 
 a multitude of witnefies, and fo inconteftibly, 
 that I mull be forgiven to wonder, that any 
 of your Lordmips fhould have the leaft 
 doubt of it. For it is certainly proved, if a 
 fact of that kind be capable of proof, and that 
 it is underftood to be capable of proof, is 
 clear, both in our law and the Roman law, 
 from two examples that w r ere mentioned by 
 one of your Lordmips, and which I will not 
 repeat. And indeed, it were very extraordi- 
 nary, if fo common a phenomenon, as that of 
 a woman being with child, could not be pro- 
 ved by witnefies. 
 
 It was faid, by fome of your Lordmips. 
 that the appearances of pregnancy, which 
 could not be denied, were fictitious ; and that 
 the afmming fuch appearances was a necefla- 
 ry part of the impofture. But, in the firft 
 place, there is not the leaft proof of any 
 thing affumed or fictitious in Lady Jane's 
 
 appearance ;
 
 LORD MONBODDDO. 587 
 
 appearance ; and, ido, We mud believe the 
 direct contrary, and that the appearances of 
 pregnancy of Lady jane were natural and 
 real, unlefs we belieye at the fame time, that 
 not only Mrs Hewit, but Mrs Glafs, Mrs Hep- 
 burn, and Mrs Greig, are grofsly and wilful- 
 fxilly perjured. As to Mrs Glafs, ilie has not 
 only fworn to every external appearance of 
 pregnancy, but alfo to that internal and 
 lure fymptom in a woman wlio was regular 
 in that rcipect at other times, I mean the 
 fiipprejfio mcnfium ; and further, flic has fworn 
 that fhe felt a living child in her bellv. And, 
 when to her is joined Effy Caw, the other 
 maid, who is dead, and Mrs Tewis alfo dead, 
 who laid the fame thing to two mofl credible 
 witnelles, there are no Icfs than three witnef- 
 fes to her being with live child. Then there 
 is Mrs Hepburn, who lias depofed to appear- 
 ances of pregnancy, in which flic could not 
 be miftaken ; particularly the fize of Lady 
 Jane's breaits, which fhc faw naked, and 
 which ftruek her the more, that, fhe was in- 
 timately acquainted with Lady Jane, and 
 knew that fhe was naturally a flat-breafted 
 woman. And it is vain to mince the matter, 
 I to fay, as fome of your Lordfhips have 
 d i:,\ that M: , I: ; \arii is a woman of a 
 
 lively
 
 5 88 THE SPEECH O F 
 
 lively imagination, and that £he is miftaken, 
 and the like. But we muft fairly fay, that flic 
 is perjured, if we do not believe, that Lady 
 Jane had all the natural appearances of a wo* 
 man with child. Now, it muft appear to 
 your Lordfhips, and to every body that hears 
 me, a matter of very hard digeftion, to fay, 
 that a woman of fo unblameable a character 
 as Mrs Hepburn, and fo univcrfally efteemed 
 by all her acquaintance, fhould wilfully per- 
 jure herfclf in favour of an impoflure, car- 
 ried on by perfons with whom fhe had no 
 connection, belides that of acquaintance, nor 
 the leaft intereft or concern whether Lady 
 jane was with child or not. Then there 
 is Mrs Greig, Lady Wigton's woman, who 
 has depofed to every appearance of preg- 
 nancy, both in the face and perfon, in fo 
 much that, fays fhe, one muft have been blind 
 not to have feen it. And as this woman had 
 occafion to fee her fo often, and fo familiarly, 
 it was impoilible fhe could be deceived by 
 afTumed appearances; and if, upon the credit 
 of thofe wiaieiTes, it be once allowed, that 
 Lady Jane had all the natural appearances of 
 pregnancy, then all the other witncfles, who 
 had not occafion to fee her fo familiarly, 
 but have depoied to the external appearan- 
 ces,
 
 LOR D M O N BODD O. 5*9 
 
 ccs, mud be allowed to be all good witnef- 
 tes of the pregnancy; and, in that way, there 
 ire above twenty witneffes of this fact. 
 
 What further itrengthens this evidence, 
 and (hows that thefe appearances muft have 
 indicated a real pregnancy, is, that not only 
 her capacity to have children is proved be- 
 yond all contradiction, but alio her miscarry- 
 ing afterwards at Rhcims; as to which, tho* 
 there be that difference among the witnefles 
 as to time and other circumftanccs which it is 
 natural to expect atfuch a diftance of time; 
 yet it would be pufhing incredulity much 
 too far, to believe, that therefore there was 
 no rnifcarriage at all. 
 
 As to the negative proof which the pur- 
 fuers have attempted of Lady Jane's not be- 
 incr with child, they have failed altogether: 
 becaufe tlicy have not brought one witnefs, 
 who had ever fecn Lady Jane before, that did 
 not believe f!ie was with child. And as to the 
 evidence of iirangcrs, wlio did not obferve La- 
 cjy Jane to be with cliild, if it proves an) 
 tiling beiides their want of memory and at- 
 tention to a pci :""e u horn they \x\<\ never fceii 
 '•re, it proves too much, namely, that La- 
 |a;:c, while {he was carrying on tins irn- 
 P n Lure, appeared la lore fliangers without
 
 59 o THE SPEECH OF 
 
 the aflumed appearances of pregnancy, even 
 in the ftage-coach of Rheims, to which place 
 fhe was to return after her pretended delive- 
 ry at Paris. 
 
 Thus the pregnancy appears to be proved 
 beyond all contradiction, as far as any thing 
 of the kind can be proved by human teftimo- 
 ny. And this alone appears to me to be de- 
 cifive of the caufe. Nor, indeed, has any of 
 your Lordfhips faid, nor any of the gentle- 
 men at the bar, but that, if Lady Jane was 
 pregnant, or it fhe had all the natural ap- 
 pearances of a woman in that fituation, fhe 
 muft be prcfumed to have been brought to 
 bed, unlefs the purfuers will prove, either that 
 flie mifcarried, or that fhe had fomc difeafe 
 which gave her thofe appearances of a woman 
 with child. 
 
 As to the reconvalefcence, I fhallonlv men- 
 tion one circumftance, which none of your 
 Lordfhips has touched upon, but which ap- 
 pears to me to be alfo decifive of the caule, 
 joined with the appearances of pregnancy. 
 It is what the witnefl'es, particularly Madame 
 Blainville and Madame Michell, fay of her 
 appearance in Michell's. Madame Blainville, 
 one of the purfuers own witnciles, and whom 
 they have not yet added to the lift of the per- 
 
 ■pircd
 
 LORD MONBODDO. ,591 
 
 jurcd, has depofed that flic had then all the 
 appearance of a woman newly delivered, or 
 newly recovered of fome difeafe ; and not 
 contented with this general account of her, 
 has defcrioed her peribn very exactly, and, 
 ainoncr other tinners, has faid, that her breafts 
 were remarkably flat, and likeways her belly. 
 Madame Michel!, when flic was firft inqui- 
 red at about this affair, before flic was influ- 
 enced by the Tournelle procefs, Monitoire, or 
 private converfations with Mr Andrew Stuart, 
 fpoke of her being newly brought to bed 
 when flic came to her houfe, as a thing that 
 could not be doubted. For, fays flic, ?vla- 
 dame Stewart kept her bed in my houfe on 
 account of her being lately brought to bed. 
 And in that converfation with Mr Andrew 
 Stuart, in which he thought proper to tell 
 her by way of news, that the parents of one 
 of the children were found, flic told him po- 
 fitively, that, when flic came to her houfe, 
 flic had the appearance of a woman newly de- 
 livered: And even atlafl, when flie c-.r.ie up- 
 on oath, fhe faid, flic had the appearance of a 
 (ick woman. Now, compare the delcriplion 
 of Lady fane given by thefe two witnefles, 
 with her appearance at Aix-la-(.h ippcile, 
 Liege, and llhcims, and fay, whether fome- 
 
 thintj
 
 592. THE SPEECH OF 
 
 thing mull not have happened betwixt her 
 being in thofe places, and her coming to Mi- 
 chelPs about the 20th of July. What had be- 
 come of thofe big breads, and big belly, which 
 it is proved were no affumed appearances, 
 but real, which Ihe had at thofe places ? And 
 how came me by that fickly air and look of 
 recovery, which it is clearly proved me had 
 at Michcll's, but of which no one witnefs fays 
 a word at any of the former places ; not e- 
 ven thofe in the ilagc-coach, who did not 
 perceive that fhe was with child ? 
 
 This appears to me to be fo ftrong, that, 
 in my apprehenfion, it comes very near to a 
 proof of the actual delivery: And as- it is by 
 the purfuers own witneiTes, who they have 
 not yet faid are perjured, and who certainly 
 could not be miftaken in a thing which ap- 
 pears to have drawn their attention fo much, 
 it does not occur to me what can be faid a- 
 gainft it. 
 
 I come now (for I haften to be done) to the 
 circumftantial evidence of this delivery. And, 
 if I fhall be able to ftate it clearly to your 
 Lordfhips, it will appear, I trull, even ftrong- 
 er than the direct evidence; and fuch as it 
 is impofiible there can be any fallacy or de- 
 ceit in ; unlefs we can fnppofe a number of 
 
 wit-
 
 LORD MONBODDO. $ 9 - 
 
 witncfles having no knowledge or acquaint- 
 ance with one another, all combining and 
 inftructed (and it mull have been a difficult 
 leflbn) to link together different facts and cir- 
 cumflances, lb as to make one connected 
 ftory. 
 
 I will begin with Men ager, who is proved by 
 other witnefles to have been the moil intimate 
 acquaintance thatLaMarre had. If the ftory be 
 true which he has told, of La Marrc's inform- 
 ing him of the delivery, by him La Marre, of 
 :i roreicrn Ladv of an advanced acre, who came 
 from Rheims, of twins, and for her iiril 
 birth, and of male twins, and one of them a 
 iickly delicate child, which, on that account, 
 was left to the care of him La Marre, and 
 Mas by him given out to nurfe at Belleville or 
 Menilmontant: If this, I fay, be true, the pur- 
 liiers do not deny, nor have any of your Lord- 
 fhips denied, that this foreign lady could be 
 any other than Lady Jane Douglas, to whom 
 the description given fuits in every particular. 
 And as to the time when this happened, tl e 
 witnefs has lixed it as well as it was pofliblc 
 to do from his memory, and by very good 
 marks. For, fays he, it was not in the year 
 i;.;-, becaufe I was then in the army; it was 
 not in the year 1750, becaufe, in that year, I 
 a V went
 
 594 THE SPEECH O t 
 
 went to Spain upon a public occafion, which 
 lie mentions; and, after that, I faw La Marre 
 very little. It muft, therefore, have happened 
 betwixt thefe two periods, that is, either in 
 the year 1748, or 1749. But, if he had not 
 fixed the time fo nearly, it is impofiible to 
 fuppofe, that La Marre could have brought 
 to bed any Lady, anfwering in every particu- 
 h to Lady Jane, that was not Lady Jane; 
 e ;-ec:a!iy, if we join to the defcription of La- 
 ciy Jane, that of two male twins, the condi- 
 tion of one of them, and its being left under 
 the care of La Marre, and being given out by 
 him to nurfe at Belleville, or Menilmontant ; 
 at which laft place, as we fliall afterwards 
 fhnw, there was actually a puny twin male- 
 child given by La Marre to nurfe in the year 
 1748. And your Loivlfhips will obfer^e, that 
 Lr. Marre did not fpeak of this thing to him 
 once or twice overly, but fcveral times, not 
 cnl; nrter the thing happened, but before, 
 waiting he mould be prefent JA\d afliftant at 
 the birch, as he apprehended there might be 
 dinicuity in it, en account of the age of the 
 I :y : /, -,\ for that puroofe, he lent to feck 
 h: .. at 1 Is fathci's l.cufe about the time 
 th 'Ling happened; but he was out of the 
 way. 
 
 Tnr.
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 595 
 
 The purfuers therefore are obliged to have 
 recourfe to their ordinary fhift, and to fay, 
 tliat this witnefs is wilfully and grofsly per- 
 jured. And your Lordfhips will now attend 
 to the evidence upon which they make fo 
 bold an averment. And, in the firji place, 
 ■this Menacrer is one of the moil credible wit- 
 nefies that was examined in France ; for he 
 is eminent in his profeffion of furgeon, and 
 is employed by the very bell families in Pa- 
 ris. Then he was not firfl difcovered by the 
 defender's agents, but was firft in the hands 
 of Mr Andrew Stuart and Monfieur Buhot, 
 his alliftant; and, as he has faid, told the ve- 
 ry fame ftory to them, which, however, Mr 
 Andrew Stuart thought proper carefully to 
 conceal ; and it was only by mere accident 
 that he was found out by the defender. Fur- 
 ther, this witnefs is not contradicted in any 
 the leaft circumftance of the (lory by any 
 credible witnefs, except that he lays, he be- 
 lieves, that one Mcllet was prefent when La 
 ?darre told the ftory in the Hotel Bleu ; and 
 iMuilct fays, that he was not prefent: For as 
 to the ftories told by Mcllet and Gillcs, which 
 lliey fay they heard from La Mairc in the 
 t747, they are ftories quite different from 
 denager's ; for Gillcs fays, he heard 3iim on-
 
 59<> THE SPEECH OF 
 
 Jy fpeak of the delivery of a lady of a fo- 
 reign name, without faying any thing of the 
 age of the lady, of twins, or from whence 
 fhe came; fo that this description of the lady 
 may apply to twenty that La Marre may 
 have brought to bed. And as to Mellet, he 
 did not hear La Marre fpeak of any delivery 
 lie had actually made, but of one he was to 
 make, from which he expected great things. 
 Upon what grounds, therefore, fhall I be- 
 lieve this fo creditable witnefs, found out ac- 
 cidentally by the defender, to be perjured in 
 Iris favour. I have heard but two reafons 
 fuggefted by any of your Lordfbips ; the firft 
 is, that he fays, that La Marre figned fome- 
 times with the addition of his Chriftian name, 
 Now, it appears by his contract of marriage, 
 as well as by the evidence of other witneffes, 
 that he figned only by his furname : But tho' 
 lie may have done fo in his contract of niar^ 
 liage, where there could be no miflake about 
 the pcrfon, may he not in his private letters, 
 which Menager had occafton chiefly to fee, 
 have figned by the name of Pierre, in order 
 to diflinguilh him from his other two bro- 
 thers ? Is it not natural, nay even neceffary, 
 to fuppofe that he did, to avoid confufion 
 
 an4
 
 L O R D MONBOCD O. 597 
 
 and miftakes, more efpecially as Francois 
 La Marre was of the fame profeilion ? 
 
 Ti; k other ground upon which one of your 
 Lordfhips maintained the charge of perjury 
 againft this witnefs was, that he has faid, 
 that La Marre, whom his Lordfhip was 
 pleafed to confider as a low paultry fellow, 
 very ignorant of his profeilion, gave leffons 
 of midwifery. But, in the firft place, it is 
 proved, that La Marre was fkilful in his pro- 
 feilion, by one who had a good occafion to 
 know, having aflifted with him at an unna- 
 tural birth ; and, idly, That he did actually 
 o-ivc leffons of midwifery, is proved by the 
 con verfation betwixt Francois la Marre and 
 and Monfieur Danjou, where he fays it in the 
 ft rongeft manner; becaufe he mentions it as 
 d thing of which there could be no doubt ; 
 for fpeaking of Madame le Brim, among fun- 
 dry other particulars which he tells of her, 
 1 believe, fays he, me was one of my bro- 
 ther's fcholars for Midwifery. 
 
 But further, if Menager has told this falfe 
 ilory, fo wonderfully adapted in all its cir- 
 cumftanccs to the llory of Lady Jane, it is 
 clear, that lie nuift not only be perjured but 
 corrupted. For, it is impoffiblc to fuppofc, 
 that for nothing, he would have contrived 
 
 fo
 
 59 S THE SPEECH OF 
 
 fo circumftantial a talc. Now, I dcfirc to 
 know, who it was that corrupted him, and 
 taught him fo artiiicial a ftory ? The anfwer 
 muft be, that it was the Britifh agents who 
 conducted Mr Douglas's affairs at that time 
 in France. For it is a fact well known, that, 
 when this affair came to proof, it was whole- 
 ]y in the hands of Britifh couniel and agents j 
 and there was not on that fide any French 
 procureur, fuch as Monfieur Danjou, who is 
 proved to have given money to the fon of one 
 of the moil material witneflcs. Now, what 
 grounds have your Lordfhips to lay fuch an, 
 imputation upon gentlemen from this coun- 
 try, whom your Lordfhips know, and who 
 have hitherto behaved in fuch a way, as not 
 to merit fuch an imputation ? 
 
 But, fay the purfuers, (for I think none of 
 your Lordfhips laid fo), the Dutchefs of Dou- 
 glas was at a great deal of pains with this wit- 
 nefs, and had him feveral times dining with 
 her. But, if your Lordfhips knew what tea- 
 zing, or rather torturing examinations thofc 
 witneflcs underwent out of mere good will, 
 without being obliged by any legal authority, 
 you would not be furprifed that the Duchefs 
 Ihowcd great civilities to them, efpecially to 
 fo creditable a man as Menagerj for this ve- 
 ry
 
 L O R D MONBODDO. $ 99 
 
 rv witnefs atfirft underwent an examination, 
 which lafted a whole night ; and a fecond 
 examination could not be finished in one day, 
 but was carried on for three days lucceflive- 
 3v. How difacrreeable this mufl have been, 
 as well as a great lofs of time, and interrup- 
 tion of bufinefs to a man fo much employed 
 as Mcnacrcr, is eafy to fee. 
 
 The only objection, therefore, that remains 
 to Menager's evidence is, th it he is tingle. If 
 it were fo, it were hard fiom thence to infer, 
 th.it he is perjured., or that a fingle witnefs in 
 a circumftantial proof is rot to be behaved. 
 But the fact is not fo ; and, en the contrary, 
 lie h.is a wonderful concurrence to fun, . vt 
 Ins evidence. And, in the frrjl place, I fet 
 down Gilles, in ^ hofe prefmce JMenager favs 
 that La Marre talked of the delivery of this 
 foreign lady. It h true, Cxillcs has depofed 
 the contrary ; but he is manifcflly perjured, 
 in fo far as he 1, wo n, that he q;avc the 
 fame account of th.e matter to Monficur Mo- 
 d that he f ' i -• :on oath, for it is pro- 
 '. . by written . .adc a.cr, ;■/-. }■.-. anfwers ta- 
 lown from his own moi La to writt n 
 inlfiTogatori ;, that he gave an iccount quite 
 di r "ncn . ; rceing ahri • v y particular 
 
 v. kh Menager's ftory ; nay, as Ivlcnager his 
 
 Lid
 
 coo THE SPEECH OF 
 
 laid, ho remembered more than lie did ; far 
 he remembered that La Marre had told him 
 that the delivery was in the houfe of Ma- 
 dame le Brun ; and, when this written evi- 
 dence is fupported by the tcftimony of fuch 
 men as Morand and Morcau, the two moft 
 creditable witnefles that have been examined 
 in France, there can remain no doubt with 
 your Lordfhips, that this witnefs has been ta- 
 ken off, probably by the means of Monficur 
 Buhot, in whofe family he was employed, 
 as well as other witnefles in this caufe; fo 
 that, when he came upon oath, he wilfully 
 fupprefled and concealed the truth. 
 
 But, neither is Menagcr fupported by 
 Gilles alone ; for there is ftill a more wonder- 
 ful concurrence with him of the nurfe Gar- 
 nier, who has depofed, that, in fummer 1748, 
 while ihe was living in Menilmontant, flic got. 
 from this very La Marre, the friend of Me- 
 nager, a weak delicate child, who was a male, 
 a twin, and his brother alfo a male, who was a 
 foreign child, and was vifited by foreign gentle- 
 men, one of whom exprefied fuch a concern a- 
 bout him, that fhe fuppofed he was the father ; 
 and at lafr, at the end of about eighteen 
 months, this child was taken from her, not to be 
 given to another nurfe at Paris, but to be car- 
 ried
 
 LORD M ON BOD DO. 601 
 
 ried further off. In fliort, the child agrees 
 fo exactly to the defcription of Sholto, that 
 it is impoflible to fuppofe it could be any 
 other ; infomuch, thdt the purfuers are ob- 
 liged a^ain to have recourfe to their ordi- 
 nary fhift, and to fay, that this poor woman, 
 whom the defender likeways difcovered by 
 mere accident, has adapted her ftory to Sir 
 John's ; which is, in other words, faying, that 
 fhe likeways is perjured, and, I think, of ne- 
 ceiTary confequence, alio corrupted. -But 1 
 have heard from none of your Lordfhips a- 
 nv reafon to believe fo, or to doubt, that this 
 child fhe got from La Marre was not Sholto, 
 except that the time when fhe fays fhe got 
 this child from La Marre, does not exactly a-» 
 orce with the time when Sholto was driven 
 out to nurfe ; for, as to the year when it hap- 
 pened, it is fixed by this child being nurfed 
 upon the milk of her fori Jerome, who is pro- 
 ved by the parifh-regifter to have been born 
 in the month of March 1748; and the feafon 
 of the year is alio fixed, viz. the fummcr; on- 
 ly (iarnier 1 ays, that fhe had nurfed her fon 
 Jerome fix months before fhe grot this foreign 
 child, which brings the time of getting this 
 child to the end of Auguft, or beginning of 
 September, inftcad of the month of July. 
 .1 G But
 
 6^2 THE S P E E C II O F 
 
 But this is but a fmall inaccuracy at this di- 
 ftance of time ; and, if it were greater, it is 
 impcffiblc to fuppofc, that, in the lame year 
 1748, this woman Gamier mould liave got 
 from this very La Marre, a child other than 
 Sholto, but anfwering, in every the leaft par- 
 ticular, to the defcription of Sholto. 
 
 But it will not ferve the purfuers purpoie 
 to fay, that this poor woman is perjured. 
 They muft further add to that lift her huf- 
 band and her fifter-in-law; nay, they muft 
 further fet down as perjured, her neighbour 
 Madame Boucault, who concurs with her 
 in every particular, and has remembered 
 fomc things more accurately than Gamier ; 
 for flic has faid, that the child was kept only 
 fixteen months, which is the truth ; and 
 file has defcribed one of the ftranger-gentlc- 
 men that came to fee the child, in fuch a way, 
 that there is little reafon to doubt, but that 
 it muft have been Sir John. And to this wo- 
 man's credibility I have not yet heard the 
 leaft objection. 
 
 Now, the fact being thus eftablifhed be- 
 yond, I think, all pofiibility of doubt, that, 
 there was a weak twin foreign child given 
 out to nurfe at Menilmontant by La Marre 
 in this year 174B, your Lordfhips are next to 
 
 confider
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 603 
 
 confider how this tallies with the evidence of 
 Menager, and the flory told by Sir John and 
 Lady Jane. Menager knows no more of the 
 matter, than that La Marre informed him, 
 that he had brought to bed a foreign ladv, 
 anfwering in every particular to the clefcrip- 
 tion of Lady Jane, (ome time betwixt the 
 years 1747 and 1 750, of twins, one of whom 
 being a puny delicate child, was therefore left 
 to the care of La Marre, and by him fent to 
 nurfe in the country, either at Belleville or 
 Mcnilmontant : And there he leaves the (lo- 
 ry. But where he leaves it, Gamier and her 
 whole family, and her neighbour Bocault, 
 pcrfons ail utterly unknown to Menager, 
 take it up, and tell your Lordfliips, that in 
 mmmer 174B, this very man La Marre, of 
 whom Menager fpeaks, living at the But St 
 lloch, brought to Gamier, then living at Mc- 
 nilmontant, a weak twin-child, correfpond- 
 ing in every particular to Sholto, and to the 
 child defcribed by Menager; and, when to 
 this evidence is pined the account which 
 Sir Tolin and Lady Jane have uniformly from 
 tiic beginning given of the matter, viz. that 
 1. a Marre was employed to deliver Lady Jane: 
 i hat the younger! child was left under his 
 •.are, being a weak delicate child, and was by 
 
 him
 
 6o 4 THE SPEECH OF 
 
 him given out to nurfe at Mcnilmontant, 
 and there kept for about fixteen months, 
 when he was taken away, and brought tq 
 Kheims; it is fubmitted to your Lordfhips, 
 whether this be not fuch a chain of evidence, 
 as neither chance nor defign could have form- 
 ed in fupport of a falfehood. 
 
 And this, if I am not miftaken, is precife- 
 ly what is called circumfhmtial evidence, in 
 oppofition to direct evidence. For, in circum- 
 itantial evidence, the witnefles do not depofc 
 to the fact in ifhie ; for that would be direct 
 evidence ; nor do two or more of them com- 
 monly depofe to the fame fact or circum- 
 itancc ; but different witnefles depofe to dif- 
 ferent facts and circumftances, which link and 
 tally together, and thereby form what we call 
 a chain of evidence, fuch as, I think, is form- 
 ed in this cafe, fo ftrong, that it appears to me 
 impoflible by any art or force of argument 
 to break it. And in this refpect, your Lord- 
 fhips will confider the difference betwixt the 
 circumftantial evidence on the part of the de- 
 fender, and the pretended evidence of the 
 fame kind on the part of the purfuers ; for 
 this laft appears to me to form no chain com- 
 pofed of links hanging upon one another, 
 but to be made up of a parcel of detached 
 
 circumftances
 
 LORD M ONBODDO. 605 
 
 circumftances of fuipicion, having no con- 
 neclion or dependence. Thus, the. circum- 
 ftance of their fetting out for Rhcims fo foou 
 before the lying in, and the leaving the maids 
 at Rheims, have no connection with one ano- 
 ther, that I can perceive, nor with the cir- 
 cumfiance of dating letters at Rheims while 
 they were at Paris, or of dating letters upon 
 the icth, wherein they faid nothing of the 
 delivery. Thefe are circumftances which do 
 not form any chain that can bind my affent : 
 And they are mch, as I think, can be eafily 
 accounted for, upon the fuppofition of a real 
 birth. 
 
 It was obferved by one of your Lordmips, 
 that Garnier's evidence depends intirely up- 
 on Menager's ; and that, if Menager, being 
 corrupted and perjured, cannot be believed, 
 fo neither can Madame Gamier. But this is 
 a miftake ; for, though Menager had never 
 been examined, Garnicr's evidence would 
 have flood good by itfelf, and would have 
 formed, independent of Menager, a wonder- 
 ful chain ct evidence. For, without Mena- 
 ger, it would hill have been proved, that (>ar- 
 nicr received from La Manx, the iiirgcon 
 named by Sir John as the perfon who 
 '•rouglit Ladv Jane to bed, and to whole care 
 
 Sholto
 
 6o6 THESPEECHOF 
 
 Sholto was left, a child in the 1 748, anfwer- 
 ing in every particular to the defcription of 
 Sholto, to be nurfed at Menilmontant, the 
 very place where Lady Jane faid at Rheims 
 her youngeft child was nurfing. So that 
 there are two chains of evidence, which taken 
 cither fcparately or together, alFord to me ir- 
 refiftible conviction. 
 
 And indeed, thefe circumftances put to- 
 gether, not only perfuade me, that the ac- 
 count given by Sir John and Lady Jane is 
 true; but that the tale told by the purfuers 
 is impofiible to be true. And here I muft 
 beg your Lordfhips particular attention, and 
 correction, if I am wrong. For, as this is 
 not dated in the papers, nor by any of your 
 Lordftiips, it is pomble, that I may lay more 
 weight upon it than it deferves. 
 
 The tale told by the purfuers is, that there 
 was no delivery in July 1748; no Pierre la 
 Marre employed ; and no child belonging to 
 Sir John and Lady Jane given out by him to 
 nurfe at Menilmontant. Now, your Lord- 
 fhips will compare with this ftory of the 
 purfuers, what I apprehend is proved beyond 
 all doubt on the other fide : In the fir ft place, 
 That Sir John and Lady Jane mentioned a 
 La Marre from the beginning as the man- 
 midwife
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 607 
 
 midwife who brought Lady Jane to bed ; 
 and this, without any the lead variation. 
 The weight of this circumftance the pur- 
 fu :rs feem to feel, and want to evade, by al- 
 ledging .vithout any probability or proof, 
 that I Marre is a common name in France; 
 and <:nerefore, it was no wonder that Sir 
 John ftumbled upon his name; ido, It is 
 a fact that cannot be denied, that a La Marre, 
 though not licenfed, nor in any reru- 
 iter, from which Sir John could take his 
 name, wis pracli'ing furgery and midwife- 
 ry in Paris in the year 1 748 ; and the on- 
 ly man, fo far as has been hitherto diico- 
 vered, of that name practiling then in Paris. 
 3/73, It is proved beyond all difpute, that Sir 
 John and Lady Jane, while they were at 
 llhcims, laid, that their youngeft child was 
 tinder the care of this man-midwife, this La 
 Marre who had brought Lady Jane to bed, 
 and was by him given out to nurfe in fome 
 place in the neighbourhood of Paris. Ato, \t 
 is proved, both by parole-Cvidencc and wri- 
 ting, tiiat Sir John did correspond with this 
 La Marre, upon no other fubject that can be 
 luppofed, except this child that was under 
 his care. And, laflly, It is proved, tint Lady 
 Jane, while fhe was at Uheims, did name
 
 6o8 THE S P E E C H] O F 
 
 Menilmontant as the place where her fon was 
 nurfing under the care of this La Marre. 
 This is proved firft by Mifs Primrofe, who re- 
 collected, upon hearing Menilmontant named, 
 that this was the place which Lady Jane 
 named at Rheims as the place where her fon 
 was nurfing. Madame Rutlidge alfo remem- 
 bers, that me named the place to her ; and 
 though me has forgot the whole name, re- 
 members that it began with an M. And 
 further, Mrs Greig depofes, that Lady Jane 
 defired earneftly of Lady Wigton, when me 
 went to Paris in the year 1748, that fhe 
 would fend her accounts of her fon Sholto ; 
 from which the witnefs very juftly infers, 
 that Lady Jane mufi have given Lady 
 Wigton a direction where he was to be 
 found : And it is one lofs, among many 
 others, which the defender has fuftained by 
 the delay of the action, that when this dif- 
 covery was made of the nurfe at Menilmon- 
 tant, Lady Wigton was by that time dead ; 
 lb that he could afk her no queftions about 
 this addrefs, which fhe mufi: needs have got 
 for Lady Jane's )oungefl child : And even 
 when me was examined in the fervice, fhe 
 was fo ill as to be confined to her houfe ; 
 and was therefore examined, not in prefence 
 
 of
 
 LOUD MONBODDO. 6o 9 
 
 of the jury, but by a macer; {o that her evi- 
 dence is not fo full in many things as that 
 of other witneffes. 
 
 This is the account given by Sir John and 
 Ladv lane of La Marre and the voun^efl 
 child. Now, your Lordfhips will be pleafed 
 to compare this account with what is proved 
 to have happened to the only practifing fur- 
 gcon of the name of La Marre in Paris in 
 the year 1 748. It is proved, that in that year, 
 or in the year 1749, he brought to bed a fo- 
 reign Lady who had come from Rheims, cor- 
 refponding in every particular with Lady 
 Jane Douglas, of twins, one of which, being 
 very delicate, was given out to nurfc by La 
 Marre at Belleville or Menilmontant, in the 
 neighbourhood of Paris : And it is further 
 proved, that the lame La Marre, who brought 
 to bed this foreign lady, did give out a child 
 to nurfe, anfwering in every particular to the 
 defcription of Sholto, in the very year 1748, 
 to a woman living in Menilmontant. Now, 
 let any impartial man combine thofe circum- 
 ftaiiccs together, and fay, whether it be pof- 
 hblc, upon the fuppofition of the purfucrs, 
 That there was no delivery, no La Marre em- 
 ployed, no child belonging to Sir John gi- 
 ven out by him to nurfe in the neighbour- 
 a II hood
 
 610 THE S P E ECH OF 
 
 Iicod of Paris, in the year 1 748 : Whether, 
 I fay, it be poflible, that Sir John or Lady 
 Jane could have named, as the man-midwife, 
 a La Marre to whom all the things above 
 mentioned happened in the year 1748, adding 
 too his Chriftian name of Pierre; fo that 
 there could be no miftake as to the perfon : 
 That they could have faid, that he had the 
 cai e of their youngeft child ; and further, 
 have actually named Menilmontant as the 
 place where he was given out to nurfe, to 
 which very place it is proved that, in the 
 1748, La Marre give a child to nurfe, an- 
 fwering in every the leait particular to the 
 deferiptioa of Sir Johivs youngeft child. As 
 the purfuers deal fo much in calculation, and 
 have given your Lordmips a very long one T 
 the longed that, it is believed, ever was in a 
 law-paper, but founded upon a fact which is 
 certainly not proved ; namely, that the two 
 children, in the 1748 and 1749, were carried 
 a\\ ay by a Eritifh man ; I wifli they had cal- 
 culated what chance it was, that Sir John 
 mould tumble upon the name of this man 
 La Marre, to whom all thofe tilings happen- 
 ed in the year 17-; 3 ; and mould further, by 
 a moil: extraordinary kind of divination, tell 
 a ftory concerning a La Marre and a child, 
 
 which
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 6 1 1 
 
 which is, in every article, the fame with what 
 happened to La Marre, even to the very 
 name of the place where he gave the child 
 out to he nurfed. This double chance of 
 their naming fuch a man, and telling fuch a 
 ftory concerning him, being compounded 
 and combined, according to the rules of cat- 
 culation, would, I am perfuaded, produce 
 the odds of at leaft 1,000,000 to 1 agaiuir. 
 Sir John being fo fortunate; which is laying, 
 in other words, that the thing is morally im- 
 poflible. 
 
 And thus I think I have proved, that the 
 purfuers ftory is not only not probable, not 
 only is not proved, but is really impoffible 
 to be true: And as I obferved before, tru-t 
 the purfuers have not chofen thebeft ground, 
 when they preferred the evidence or Gode- 
 •froy and Ids book to Michell and his book; 
 fo I cannot help obferving here, that they 
 have ftill judged it worfe, when they adopted 
 1 he ftory of the fuccefiive fuppoiition, and 
 diii not rather allow that Sir John had really 
 got two children in 1740. when lie wrote to 
 all his friends, that Lady J, me was delivered 
 of twins. Upon this fuppoiition, they might 
 have laid, as they deal fo much in making ac- 
 complices, that this La Marre, whom they re- 
 
 prefenteci
 
 612 THE SPEEC H O F 
 
 prefcntcd as a mean low man, was an ac- 
 complice, and aflifted Sir John in Healing 
 two children. And furcly, Sir John and 
 Lady Jane, itrangcrs in Paris, and fpeaking 
 the language but imperfectly, had much 
 need of the afliftance of a native in commit- 
 ting lb difficult a crime. And they might 
 have further allowed, that this La Marre did 
 truly give out to nurfe at Meniimontant the 
 weakefl of the two children. By framing 
 their tale in this way, they would have got 
 free of the mofl incredible hypothecs of the 
 fucceflive fuppoiition, the one at the diftance 
 of hfteen months from the other. And they 
 might have accounted for Sir John's naming 
 La Marre as the man-midwife, and correfpon- 
 ding with him by letters ; and for this La 
 Marre giving out a child to nurfe in the year 
 1748, anfwering exactly to the defcription 
 which Sir John and Lady Jane gave of their 
 youngeft child ; and alio for Lady Jane na- 
 ming the very place to which La Marre gave 
 out this child. In fliort, they would have c r 
 vaded the whole weight of the evidence ari- 
 iing from Garnier's depofition, and from Sir 
 John's naming and corresponding with La 
 Marre. Whereas, upon the hypothefis they 
 have adppted, they have told a tale fo impro- 
 bable
 
 LORD MONBODBO. 61$ 
 
 bable in itfclf, and in fuch direct contradiction 
 to the evidence, that it is impoffible to be be- 
 lieved. 
 
 This I have gone through the defender's 
 proof likeways, in many more words than I 
 propofed; but I could not bring what I had 
 to fay into lefs compafs, without omit- 
 ting fome things that I thought material. 
 
 O o o 
 
 And to fum it up, It does not appear to me, 
 that the defender's caufe refts upon one oy 
 two things, but upon feverai points, any one 
 of which, if you find proved, you muft give 
 the caufe for him. For, not to mention the 
 tmeftions of law which I ftated in the begin- 
 ning, and which I think are decifive of the 
 caufe in his favour; and fuppofmg you mould 
 fee caufe to reject the evidence of the birtlj. 
 itfclf by Sir John and Mrs Hewitj yet, if you 
 believe that Lady Jane was pregnant, or had 
 the natural appearances of it; or, if you be- 
 lieve that flic had an actual mifcarriage at 
 Rheims; or, if you are convinced that her ap- 
 pearance in Michell's was fo different from 
 her appearance at Aix-la-Chappelle, Liege, or 
 Kheims, or even in the flagc-coaeh from 
 Rheims to Paris; if you believe that Mcna- 
 ger's ftory is true; if ) ou believe that the fto- 
 ry of Gamier and her whole family, and her 
 
 neighbour
 
 <*i4 T H E S P E ECU OF 
 
 neighbour Boucault is not a lie ; if it be true 
 that Sir John and Lacly Jane named La 
 Marre from the beginning as the perfon who 
 delivered Lady Jane ; or, if it be true, that 
 they correfponded with him ; that they had 
 their youngeft child under his charge at fomc 
 place in the neighbourhood of Paris, ani that 
 they actually named the place where it is 
 proved La Marre did put a weak twin child 
 in the year 1 748, correfponding in every par- 
 ticular to Sholto : If, I fay, any one of all thefe 
 particulars is true, then mull the defender 
 win his caufe. Now, in order to dilbelievc 
 all this, confider how many witneffes your 
 Lordfliips muft hold to be perjured. I can- 
 not repeat their names from memory ; but I 
 will read them to your Lordfliips. There is 
 firft Sir John, Mrs Hewit, Tibby Walker, Mrs 
 Hepburn, Mifs Primrofe, Mrs Greig, Nurfe 
 Mangin, and others, who have fwore to the 
 mifcarriage at Rheims ; Monfieur Menager, 
 Madame Gamier and her family, Madame 
 Boucault, Madame Maillefer, Madame Rut- 
 lidgc, and all thofe who have depofed to the 
 correfpondence with La Marre : Of thefe a 
 mutter-roll might be made of above twenty, 
 whom your Lordfliips muft find all perjured 
 \>y the decree you are to pronounce in fa- 
 vour
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 615 
 
 vour of the purfuers. If v indeed, there was 
 direct and pofitive proof upon the o- 
 ther fide, by a greater number of more 
 credible witnefles, That Lady Jane, for ex- 
 ample, had all umed the appearances of preg- 
 nancy, and wore pillows upon her belly, 
 as Lady Kinnaird did ; or that, on the day 
 when me pretended to be delivered, two 
 new-born children were brought in to her: 
 or, if failing of fuch direct proof, there were 
 a chain of circumflances fuch as made it im- 
 poiii.;:e that the delivery mould have happen- 
 e , which 1 have not heard any of your Lord* 
 fii ps fay i^ the cafe, 1 could very well undcr- 
 fiand how the witnefles who have fwore to 
 ti. particulars above mentioned mould be 
 accounted perjured, or accomplices in the 
 fraud. But, without fuch evidence on the o- 
 ther hue, I mult eonfefs that 1 think it of 
 moft dangerous confequence to reject fuch e- 
 vidence, both direct and circumftantial, on the 
 one fide, and to pronounce fo many witnef- 
 fes perjured. And 1 w ; fh with ail my heart, 
 that in drawing up the decree in favour of 
 the purfuers, fomc reafons might be cxpref- 
 (e for doing fo in this particular cafe, in or- 
 der to prevent the confequences of f he pre- 
 cedent, which 1 think is molt dang a ju.. to 
 our lives as well as our properties, 
 
 I
 
 6i6 THE SPEECH Of 
 
 I am now come to a conclufion; and I have 
 fatigued myfelf I believe very near as much 
 as I have wearied your Lordfhips. If I have 
 delivered my opinion with more warmth than 
 ufual, and more perhaps than becomes a 
 judge, I hope your Lordfhips will forgive 
 me, as I do feel very deeply for this young 
 man the defender ; and indeed it is a caufe 
 which excites the feelings of humanity more 
 than any I have ever known. I hope, how- 
 ever, I have not imitated any part of the e- 
 vidence, or laid more weight upon any thing 
 than it would beaw If I have, I am furc it 
 is undefignedly, and I hope to be corrected 
 by your Lordfhip who have faid you are to 
 fpeak again, or by any other of my brethren. 
 What I lay the caufe upon chiefly, is the 
 ftrange improbability of the purfuers ftory ; 
 the proof of the pregnancy; the appearance 
 in Michell's; and the wonderful circumftan- 
 tial evidence arifing from the depofitions of 
 Menager, Gamier, avid her family and neigh- 
 boar Bouc. alt ; and from Sir John's naming 
 La Marrc from the beginning as the accou- 
 cheur, correfponding with him by letters, 
 and naming the very place where he had put 
 the youngeft child to nurfe. If your Lord- 
 fhips can fhow that I am wrong in thofe par- 
 ticulars.
 
 LORD MONBODDO. 6iy 
 
 ticulars, I fhall very readily give up my opinion: 
 But till that is done, I muft continue to be- 
 lieve, that the tale told by the purfnrs, is the 
 moft improbable that ever was told in any 
 court of juftice, fupportcd by the flightefl, 
 and contradicted by the ilrongeft evidence, 
 both direct and circumflantial. 
 
 4 1 Lor.D
 
 C 619 2 
 
 Lord President, 
 The queftion I put to yourLordfliips is, Su- 
 stain or Repel the Reafons of Reduction ? * 
 
 I ord Juftice-Clerk, Suftain. 
 
 Lord Strichen, - - - Repel. 
 
 LordKaims, - - - Repel. 
 
 Lord Alemoore, - Suftain 
 
 Lord Pitfour, - - - Repel. 
 
 Lord Gardenftoun, - - - Repel. 
 
 Lord Kennct, - -• Suftain 
 
 Lord Auchinleck, - - Repel. 
 
 Lord Barjarg, - - Suftain. 
 
 Lord Coalfton, - - Repel, 
 
 Lord Llliock, - - Suftain. 
 
 Lord Stonclield, - - Suftain. 
 
 ■', !,:s, - - Suftain. 
 
 Lord President, 
 
 hencl. 
 
 I think 
 
 \ . .:;,:'.: I'm: Or civii propi L'P _ 
 :i! . '■:., I to nt according to 
 
 ion ; aiid tin. iciore I am lov 
 ' ; ■ 11s Ot il'xi _:. . ion. 
 
 'TV 1' tc. v. cv: en:] \ . • i'cr :.' 
 
 ' . ... I h.uiu. 

 
 [62 ] 
 
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, • 
 
 " The Lords having confidcred the {late of 
 " the procefs, the writs produced, and tcfti- 
 " monies of the witneffes adduced, and heard 
 " parties procurators thereon, and having ad- 
 *' vifed the fame, with the memorials, obfer- 
 " vations, and other papers given in by each 
 " party, They Sustain the Reafons of Re- 
 " duction, and reduce, decern, and declare 
 c< accordingly." 
 
 THE ENJ3,
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 I his book is DLL on the last date stamped below. 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 MAY 7 1^6 
 
 CIRC. DEPT. URL 
 
 Form L9- Scries 4939
 
 3°, ! 7;