^1!^: '^ojnvjjo't^ i? '^tfOJIlVJJO'^ ^OFCAIIFO/?,^ in '^Okwmw^ ^ ^^WF UNIVEW/A ^lOSANC[lfj> ^-TilHNVSOl^ "^/ia^AiNnjwv^ -< ^.0FCAIIF0%, ^^OFCAllFOft^ '^CAavaalH'^^ "^>&Aava8ni'^^ .\WEUNIVERV/, vvlOSANCElfj ER% ^VlO^ANtflfj-^ 5' <2.«^ "o fR% A>;lOSANCElfj> vAlllBRARYQr^ ^tllBRARY(9/- ^OFCAllFOPx^ ioi^ "^/iaLMNfl ]wv^ '^OAavaaiii^'^ ^OJlTVDJO'i^ ^V^M)NIVERy/A .^WE•u^'lVERs•/A - vvlOSANr.r:/-^, •JMWV -< ^^lllBRARYi9/: ^i ^wjiivDJo'?' '^.tfojnvjjo'f^ ^:;A[l'NIVERy//; >- % -r^ , J J O 0ff4^ .^.OFCALIFO% ^5 i nvv"^ >&Aavaaii# . ^\1E UNIVERj'/A g >-^ — .^ '^/ia3AiNn3\\v* 4JS OFCAllFOfti^ ^.OF-CAllFOft^, IfwC^I t^.^l .r ^^c >- ^: ^lOSANCElfj; 1 o< ^ "^ £ ,01- ^vlOSASCFlfj-. ^? i %a3AlNn-3WV .^lllBRARYQf^ <- ^ ^' ^\\\EUNIVERS/^ or — %a3AiNnmv' A^lllBRARY(9/ ^^t-liSRARVQ. ^ v/sa3AlNil]WV^ ^OFCAllFOff^ If I HI 1 1 ^OAHvaaii-^v'^ .-^OFCAir ^CAavaaii-^^ vM-llBRARV/^/ \ j^(f|iNIVFR5-/A ■0%, ^-\'^F•^AllFnp,;. # -^1 ^ 5S ^<0F CAIIFO/?^', .j' %a3AiNn]WV -5^tllBRARYQ^ A^tllBRARY<> ^iJOJIlVJJO'^ ,^WE■lINIVERS•/A ^>clOSANCflfT, %a3AiNn]WV^ ^HIBRARY(9/^ ^IIIBR/ ^OJITVDJO'i^ '^aojiiv UNIVERV/, ^vWSANCElfx^ ^/.wiMNnmv ^-;;0FCAIIF0% ^(5Aavaan# .^;OF•CAliF0% >&AavH3n^v^ aWEUNIVERS/a Of;WSANCEl% o "^/iaJAINH 3\\v ^OFCALIF0% X.OFCAII '^OAavaaii-^'^ ^'^ovaww ARYQr ^ \Mt UNIVERJ/4 0.10s AX( '^rjlDNVSOl^'' a> "^/SajAIN :aIIFO% ^OFCAllFOfti^ , ^\^E UNIV[R% DNVSOV<^ v/5a3AlNn-3ViV ^^lllBRARYO^ ^IIIBRARYO^ ^OFCAllFOff^ ^ ^_»> I. § ^OAavaan-^"^'^ ^OFCALIFOff;]^ .^WE•UNIVERy/A •, ,——1 ^ c> .^VEUNIVERy/A .>;lOSANCElfj> o . -< %a3AiNn-3WV^ .VlOSANCElfj> o i CALIFO% ^^IIIBRARYO/ '^aodiivjjo'^ ^OFCAll FO/?^ 2; _ Q > .^WEUNIVERS//, o %a3AINn-3WV^ ^lOSANCEIfXx 3 ^^^t•llBRARYa^^ ^^^MIBRARYQ/: V -v. y • , from William Marquis of Douglas, who died 1660. ^^ w Kirll wile, dauglitcr of the Earl of Abeicorn. WILLIAM, the elevemh Earl of Angus, was created Marquis of Douglas in 16 J J. By lOifirrt wife he haii ilHie two Ions ami three daughters; hy his rtconil wife, thi-cc fi>n< and five drmghters Second wife, daughter of the Marquis of Huntley. I Lord Cannichacl. (irilel. iLidilTuc. John, Lord Bargtny. had ilTuc, William, Cnrl of Stirling iM.Tg.a-ct, tlJclldau. I'flhe iftinar. Itftonc (i ;.n&thttc daughter- Ijanies, lecondlunof the firll Imar. ivas killed at the fiegi jof Doway, and left no WVitv I James, I Lord Cirmichael, I treated Earl of (llyndford in 1701. I had ilTuc, William, Lord Bargeny, had iflue. birK-^l'^it Sinclair, j of Lon^formacus. | lL.iicairiceAlexandciJ I had iffuc, I Will.EarlofStirling, died without ilfue. James, Farl of Hynciford, Iwd ilTuc oacfon and tluet daughters ; John. Mafter of Bargeny, had ilTue. Jean, daughter ot Sir kobert Sinclair, of Longformacu;. 1 birRobeitDahymr!^-! | i^^j^ii^',, 1 Joiin Swinton, of Swinton, Sinclair, had iiVue, W,.l.ir, LorJ Torpliiclicn |L' Kalh. Alcxa.ider, 1 haJ ilTue, 1 1 bir Menzicj, of Weera. Ann Sandilands, left ilfue. , - [ ~\ iLady — Alexander, lanngton.elq| 'l,,, i,Tue. Jolin Swinton, of Swinton. jherr Meniie f Weem. B.ii Firll wife, Jiughterof theDuk' of Lennox. Arihib.iid, Earl of An5iis,cIdcrtfon oftht lint mxt. ilitd before his father, i^sSf ^"<' ft illueoiie fun by hii firft wife, and on. fori by his fecond. Second wife, Jaughtcr of the Earl Sir Hew Dalrympk Sir John Anftruthcr B.ironcl. Lady ---Carinitlijci, liad iliuc. I LharlesO'Haro ILi Mary Lannicliatl, lias iiTue. 1 John AnJirulluj, LliarlcsOHaro.Efq Earl of Hyndford lied in i76;,ivitlioui iOiie. Dufign Ly Ann Cannichael Firft wife, daughter of the Earl of Mar. Jamis, Marquis of Douglas,diedini7oo, had ilTuc one fon by his firit wife, and one ri ( ]a,„ci, Dukcof Hamilton, lied in 1711, leaving; illur, (. \v. lit,, I'a ll ol Srlki k, (It n 1 illu John, Earl of Ruglin, had ilTue, George, Earl of Orkney, left no heirs male Lord Bafd Hamilton, ^fBaldoon, had iflue. Lord .'irchibald Hamilton, had ifl"ue. John, Duke of Athol. Ladf Katherin Larl of Dundon.dd, firll hufbaiid. I Lady Sufanna. I Marquis of Twcedali fecond hulband. James, Duke of H.iinilton, I iicd in 17+j, leaving] iihic^ I WiHi-im Hnmi left no illu. Lord Ann Hamilton. L.irl of March. Anne, had ilTue, Baftl Hamilton, of Baldoon, efq, had ifTue, William, Earl of March and Ruj:lcn. I Charles Hamilton, of Riccarton, Efq. Rev. Mr. Hamilton Colonel Hamilton. Duke of Hamilton, iicd in IT $8, leaving itTue, Archibald Hamilton, Lord Spencer Hamilton. Dunbar, now Earl of lelkirk.who fucceed- ;d to the title ainear- :lt heir maletoCbarles Earl of Selkirk. 1 1 George Jan.c=. now Duke ot Hnmillon- Loid Doiiglai Hamilton. c 1 Eail of NillifJ.Jt. Lady Lucy. Lady Margaret Awe A-L from the Court of SeJJbn in Scotland, Archibald Douglas, of Douglas, Efq. a?t hifafit^ Defender /'/^ the Original AEiio7t before the Court of Seffion in Scotland, a',id her Grace the Dut chefs Dowager of Douglas ; his Grace the Duke of Queeniberry and Others, his Guardiajts^ - - • - ) Appellants, His Grace the Duhe of Hamilton, Lord Douglas' Hamilton, a?id their Guardians ; Sir Hugh Dalrymple, Bart, and Others \ Pursuers in ^ Refpondcnts, faid Original AStion before the Court of Sej- JlOfly Z 1 ' ' " " ' The Appellants C A E. INTRODUCTION. ^ ■ ^HE Evidence, in this Extraordinary Cafe, refers to fuch an endkfs Variety of Pfr- fonSf Places, Times, and Occurrences, that it runs of Courfe into an inordinate Length. 1 But, what has contributed mofl: to fwell the Proofs beyond Bounds, is the Shape of the Attack, made upon that Poj/ejjion of the State, which the Defender Mr. Douj^^lnJ's apparent 5/- luation in Life gave him, and the Service, founded upon Evidence of that Situation, adjudged to Agauift that "Judgment ; againfl the mod folemn Acknowledgment of both his Parents -, ag-ainil the dire^ Tejiimony of two Wimefies depofing on Oath to the FaSi of his Birth ; againil a great Variety of Witneffes depofing to Circumjiances which necejjdrily infer liis Birth as fworn to ; the Purfuers have oppofed what they call Probabilities of Impofiure, and Caiifcs of Sufpidon. 'Thefe they have attempted to raife, by the Combination of innumerable iittle Circumitances : And bringing the laft into Proof, has occaiioned the nionltrous Walle of Paper to be feen in this Caufe. The natural and jufl Anxiety of ihofe, who were charged with the Duty of Tutors to an Orphan-Infant, and who were bound by ftill ftronger Ties of Humanity and Jufllce to protect the Condition of a Child committed to their Care, which they ferioufly believe to be real and honeftly acquircil ; this Anxiety prompted them to be indultrious in meeting the Jttud, what- ever Shape it aflumed -, leaving the Pertinence of each Article to future Difcuflion. To flate the Fails fimply, without explaining upon what Foimdations they are afiirmed on one Hand, and denied on the other, to be probable or applicable, would evidently be, to pafs over the whole ^tejlion, as it now depends between the Parties. It is hoped this will ferve as an Apology for introducing fuch Explanations, though they will unavoidably draw this Cafe into a difagreeable Length. To flate •&\tfrfl intlrely by thcmfelvcs, and to adduce the lafl intirely in the Sliape of P.ea- fons, (as is ordinarily done in the Supreme Court when Queftions of Law are brought before itj fcems to be irnprafticable ; or at lealt promifes to introduce infinite Piepetition, and notable Con- fufion : Tiiis is humbly offered as an Apology for purfuiilg a Method, which varies a little from die common Courfe. B It INTRODUCTION. It has been tiiought expedient to divide the various Matter, whereby the Purfuers impute Fiauil to the PojJ'.JfiQn Mr. Douglas holds of his prcfent Condition, into fuch Parts, as feemed moil independent of each other ; and, in that Manner, to examine, how far, each taken fepa- ratcly, oi all taken together, operate, to prove his prefent Conditicn fraudulent, and to eviSi his prefent Pojjcffton. Under each of thtfe Heads it will occur to flate, what the Purfuers have alledged ; in what Sort it applies to the Matter in Iffiie ; what the Evidence has done in Support of fuch Allega- tions ; what in Subverfion of tliem ; and, upon the Pk.efult, to examine what Ground the Pur- fuers have made to evi£l him from his prefent Pojjejfton of State ; of, where that happens to be the Cafe, what additional Advantage and Confrmation the Truth and Integrity of his prc- fent Condition derive from the Proof. After fo much Induftry of fo many able Perfons has been employed upon the Subjeft, it feems impoflible to add any Thing to the Variety, or Force of the Arguments already ufed : Nor will that be fo ma;h the Ai n a: prefent, a; to reprefviut the Cafe in fome Order, wherein it may be mofl eafily read, and compreheiidcd with tire leafl Trouble of referring from one Part to the other. Perhaps, it will not be thought impertinent to prefix fome fhort Account of the Compe' iltion in the original Suit (wherein the Relation of Blood being acknowledged, the Title of Heir only was difputed), in order to explain the real I>itereyfv;hich the prefent Parties have in this Conteft;. to Oiew that their very Title to proceed in this Adtion fprings from tKe meer Circumftance of haVing engaged in that Competition. Their whole Obiea in r^v; Proceeding, is to change their Parties in that, without changing the ^lejiion ; and their whole Hope in the Competition, after the Wafte of fo much Monev, and Tabour, only to change their Parties, depends upon the Chance of re- verfmg a Judgrnent, given in the Court of Seffion without one diiTenting Voice. And fuch an Account feems the moi-e ufeful, and expedient, becaufe the Purfuers have drawn a Part of their Objedions to the Defender s Pofpjfion of his State from the Source of thofe very Practices, which were ufed to raife a Claim for them in the Competition. Part I. Book I Of the Com- petition. It is propofed therefore, to flate the Settlements of the Douglas Eftate in the Year 1699, whereby Lady Jane and her Children were called to the Sudfjfon ; to relate the Praiiices, which were ufed to fct her wrong with her Brother, by falfe Rumours to the Prejudice of her Honour, and her Children's, whereby he was prevailed on to exclude her from his Succrjpoa; the Means, by which thofe Falflioods were detected, the Duke undeceived, and the Deeds (obtained by fuch Frauds) refcinded ; and to gi-^e a general Idea of the Ground, upon which the Claims of the Competitors were made, and difappointed. piTtl.Bockll. Tlic Defender has much to complain alfo, of the lingular Injuftice with which this Aflion has Of the Con- been profecuted •, the Fraud and Violence, with which the Witnefles have been circumvented, duaofthe their Teftimony corrupted, and material Articles of Evidence fecrcted and fupprefled. Toma- ReduVion ^^^^^ whi*:h, it is propofed to give a fuccind Hillory of this Adion, from raifmg the Reduc- tion to the prefent Period. Fur theRed •Part II. The Obje£t of the prefent Adion is to evi£i him from that Pojfeffton of his State, which he has T1°''n now held for above Twenty Years. It feems proper, therefore, in the firft. Place, to draw out, tive^ '^^^ irom. the whole Evidence on both Sides, fome general Hiftory ; and in that Manr.er lay out the general Q>XQ\xwiS., upon which that profufe Variety oi fraudulent Imputation \i?s been raifed by the Purfuers. This will ferve to render the particular Ground and Nature of every fuch Imputation^ more intelligible, and the Difcuffion of each more explicit. But the more immediate Ufe of this will be to manifeft the Pcffeffton, which the Defender has always heldc/"/*;; State, and to de- liver it from the Ohjc£iion, made by the Purfuers, that the Repute was equivocal, and lefs than perfcen, Her Marriage, Her Pregnancy, Her Delivery, the Manner in which Her Children were gi-jen cut to the World, and ac.ypted for Her's, the Treatment of the Parents, and all thofe external Marks of keh!io>', which denote a Man's Condition, and give it to be cbferved by thofe, within who.'e Notice He and His Place in Life fall. This will be followed by examining the Nature o£ the above mentioned Objetlion, and the Foundations upon which it (knds. Part IL In the next Part it will occur to confider more particularly, how far all thofe Circiunftarces Book II. combined go, in Eftimation of Law, to cJoatli him with the Pcfjffion of his State, and to v>-arrant Of tl« Onus ,j,g Jdjurlcation of it by the Service ; until Matter i-iiiicient to evift him be slleged, and proved, in Reduaion of that Service. And, for the Saks of fettling the Groundj tpon which the reft INTRODUCTION; of the Difpute is to proceed, it may be proper to define, with a View to the Sequel, what Kind of Matter may be competently and fulHciently alleged to eviitfuch Pojpjfwn ; and what Kiiid of Allei'ation falls Ihort cf the Point of Evi£lion ; and operates only to the fubordinate and inferior Purpofe of raiCing Su/piii'jns, which, if they could be created, will no more warrant iht Eviiiion of a Man from Pojp[fion ofhh State, than from any other Pojejfim whatever. The Allegations of the Purfuers are of many different Sorts ; viewed, as they apply more or Objections to lefs direftly to the Ground of eviiiing the Defender from the Popffion of his State. fhe Defender's Poffefuoii of The firft Sort confifls of thofe, which undertake to prove, exprcjily, what the feveral Slates "Vhatb'cnnd of him and Sholto were, before they afTumed the Condition, in which the Defender now exifts, i-js Ikother and in which his Brother died ; namely, tliat the firfl was the Son of Mignon a Glais-Grindcr, were ftoka the ficond of Sanry a common Beggar. f''""> t'^'^!'' real Parents. The fecondSort confifts of thofe, which undertake to demonftrate, that the Defender and his i- That Lady- Brother muft have been born into fame other Condition, without fpecifying ichat. This De- J3nevias!nc-i- monilration proceeds upon thefe Premifes ; that I.ady yane was of an Habit incapable of hearing t^ Children" Children ; that, for nine Months before the Birth of the Defender, flie was in a Condition and has been' notorioufly free from Pregnancy; that, arriving at P^f/i on the 4th of July 1748, Ihe remained traced in Situ- at Gcdefioi's till the 14th of the fame Month, fo well remembered in a difterent Condition, that aticns which file could not have been delivered there ; that, upon the 18th of the fame Month, flie is remem- d''P''ovetbe bered at AJJehel/i's, wliere ihe did not lye-in, but, on the contrary, wore an Appearance, and ufed a Conduft demonftr.utlve, that flie had iiot lain-in recently, much lefs within the preceding four Days ; upon which they infer, that he muft have been the Oflspring oi Jonie other Body ; and, confequently, that he hasafiumed his prefent Condition by Jlme Fraud ; though hitherto it is im- traced, unlefs the Allegations firft mentioned are verified. The third Sort of Allegations confifts of thofe, which impeach the Veracity of the Parents, in 5. That her the Accounts lliey have given of Time, Place, Perfons, and other Ciycwnjiani.es, attending Lady Accounts of yawl's Delivery. Under this Head, they offer to prove, from Letters dated of that Day, and tlie Tnne, Place, "Courfe of the Port, that Ihe was not delivered on the loth oi July 1748 ; that no fuch Perfon ^[^i',e°''Acci-'^ exifted as La Marre, whom they have reprefented as the Man-Midwife ; that no fuch Perfon drntj of her exifted as Le Brun, whom they have reprefented as Landlady of the Houfe where flie was brought Delivery, are to-bed. If thefe Propofitions ihould all be made out, as they are alleclged, they go no Way f^he. towards proving, that the prefent Condition of the Defender has been fraudulently aflumcd : They are ufed only to impeach the Veracity and Integrity of his Parents, and to induce a Sufpicicv, tJrat they wi7>' have impoCed him upon the Family oi Douglas. If the preceding Articles, -which import to be more dircft Allegations of Fraud, fail, Uiefe circuniftantial Precis fink of Ccurfc along with them. The reft of their Obje£\;ions to the Defender's Pcffi-JJion of his State are remoter flill. They in- 4. ThatSholtg fer that Sholto was not in the Poffeffion of his Parenis for the fii-ft fixteen Months of his Life ; was not in becaufe there is not Evidence enough, in their Opinion, that he was Jeen ; or where he was tjieir Poilef- during that Period. It appears, however, that he ivas fecn in that Interval ; and that Alcnilmon- I Garnier tant was mentioned as a Defignation of the Place, where he was nurfed. It appears alio, from the /V^w/i Witneffes, that La Marre put out a weakly, twin Child, of a foreign Lady of Rank, at Hautebonie, a fmnll Place near Menilinontant. Whereupon the Purfuers fet themfelvcs to dif- prove the Fact, that Nurfe Gamier reared Sholto, by much the fame Kind of Argument, as had been ufed before to difprove the Exiftence of La Marre. The laftand widcft Part of their Cafe confifts in Criticifms upon the ConduSi, Exp'4-JJions, and 5. That their Looks of bis Parents, as they ih'.nd reprefented by the Witnefles, fifteen or twenty Years after- Conduft was wards ; from which they offer to infer the Purpofe, and Confcioufnefs of Fraud. niconhllent. If the Defender ft-iould follow the Order, pointed out by this Attempt to analyfe the Purfuers Cafe, he muit begin with their moft diredt and conclufive Jverments, that he is the Son of Mignon, and his Brother oi Sanry. From thence he muft; proceed to their Jvcrment, that Lady Jane was incapable, unpregnant, and t-raeed at Places, and in a Condition, which exclude, by unavoidable Inference, the Pcjfil'ility of a Delivcy. Thirdly, He muft examine the Grounds, v-hcreupo.n the Purfuers fiiy. Lady '/«««■ was not delivered by La Marre, at LeBrun'», on the lOth of July, 1748, of Twins. Fourthly, He muft confider, what Reafon there is to con- clude it falfe, that WiZ/a was in their Pciicfiion for the fiilh fixteen Monibs of his Exiftence j and try, how far the Evidence touching Nurfe Gamier goes to confirm, cr ccrtrac;i£t Sir John Stewart, Mrs. Hcwit, Mifs Primrofe, and the other WitnelTes, upon tKt Subjed. And, laftly, he muft take fuch Notice, as occurs, of their Criticifms upon tlie Conci>£t of his Parents. , B 2 ^"^h INTRODUCTION. But, as it may probably happen, that much of the Argument open each of thefe Articles will arife from what has liappened in preceding Periods of Time, it has been thought more expedi- ent to attend, as far as that Objeft feems to demand it, to the Order cf Time -, and to ex- amine the Allegations in the following Series. Part Iir. Proceeding thus, the firft Tiling, which occurs to be examined, is, how far the Piirfuers have '^f'^^'i'T • "^^^^ good their Allegation, that Lady fane was incapable of conceiving. The Evidence Cn-!ac t • t'^ ' ^°^* ^° prove, that ihe was in the Habit of Breeding, and ailually miicarried in December conceive. '74^; and that fiie retained the vifible Marks of fuch Capacity long afterwards. To this the Purfuers oppolc no Evukn.e ; they fupply the Place of it wich Jrgumcnt. Pirt III. Tj^c; ngxt Article feems to be their Undertaking to prove, that Lady yane \vis, for the nine O^'h Peer I^Ionths preceding the Birth, in a Condition manifeftly free from Pregnancy. To eftabiifh this iiiiicy. " important Propofition, the Purfuers have condcfcended to make ufe of Evidence. Nine or ten Perfons, after manufa£luring the Evidence of five of them in the Tournelle, have been examin- ed in tliis Procefs. They i.wv Lady Jane in an Inn, or a Coach, or in fome other accidental , Manner ; and do not remember to have obferved her Pregnancy. Tl7efe Witnefles ftand op- pofed to about thirty Perfons ; mofi; of whom lived in Habit, and converfcd intimately with her ; and defcribe her Pregnancy, growing from Time to Time, by Tokens, which cannot deceive. All thefe, by fome Accident, were omitted out of the Citations to the TourtielU : They were found, perhaps, upon the previous Examination, what Mr. D'Anjou, their French Agent, calls iad IViineJfes. The Purfuers reply, with unauthorlfed Picproaches to the Witneffes, and iii- effeftual Comments upon the Conducl of the Parents. Their Argument, however, foon defcends upon lower Ground ; and they bring fome Doftors tofwear, that the Symptoms, depofed to, may attend falfe Pregnancy. However, nonecfthera ever knew fuch a Cafe ; and the only one of them, who profeifes to have any practical Know- ledge in the Matter of Midwifery, confeiles- he fliould not hefitate, upon fuch Symptoms, to pro- nounce the Pregnancy real. Whereupon, the Argument drops one Stage lower ; and alledges, that fhe may have mifcar- ried ; where or when, the Reader is left to find out. Hereupon the Defender will think himfelf warranted to infifi, that a real Pregnancy is eftablifh- ed by full, clear, and unimpeached Teftimony ; and the Faii cf Pregnancy, thus efbbliflied, induces the Delivery fo neceflarily, that it will be impoffible todifproveit by Inference, or by cir- cumfbntial Conjeftures: But, \he. Fa£i of Suppofiiion mufl be proved by direct Teftimony, to impeach a Pof.ijfion, guarded by a Title foclofely inferred. Notwithftanding the Pregnancy of Lady 'Jane is thus eflabliflied, the Purfuers undertake to fhew, there neither was, nor could have been a Delivery ; by tracing them from the 4th to the 14th of July 1748, at Gadefroi's; by finding them again Tit Michel's on the i8th; and by offering Evidence (more material, as well as more certain, and direft) of the SuppoCtion of both the Children. Part IV. The firft Propofition in Order of Time is, that they were at Godefroi's from the 4th to the 1 4th of ^°^ 'ai'i ■ 5^"^ '748- The Letters written at the Time ; the uniform Converfation of the Parents, and Mrs. tiodefroi's" '^ Hewit ever fince ; her Oath and Sir John Stewart's, all fixing the Delivery to have happened on the loth, and pointing out another Houfe as the Scene of it, combining with the Proof already mentioned of the Pregnancy, and with all that is to folloA' in Confirmation of the Reft of their Story, are on one Side. On the other Side, Godefroi and his Wife, rtnouncing all aftual Memory of them -, difclaiming every Caufe of Knowledge but their 1 loulboid-Book ; refer to that, as the Proof of their having ftaid at the Hotel de Chaakns ten Days: 'J hey have delivered an argumentative Depofition, whereby they combine two Accounts of anony- mous Gucfts (apparently diftinCt, one running from the 4th to the 7th, the other from the 9th to the 14th) by this. only Circumftance, which both have in common, that each relates to three Per- fons ; and thereupon infer, that boih relate \.o^\t John Steiiart, J/m\y Jane, ind Mrs. Hewit, be- caufe no other Account is found applicable to them, in a Book which manilelUy does not contain the Accounts of One-Third of their Guefts. — If the Futility of fuch Evidence can be demonftrated better, than by ftating it. That will be done, by fliewing its Piepugnancy to the firft Accounts given both by Godefroi and his Wife ; by fliewing it to be an After-Thought, adopted by the Pur- fuers out of mere Neceility, when their firft Allegations had been convifted of Perjury ; by ihew- ing the Partiality, and Zeal, wherewith the Witneffes had been infpired ; and by tracing, in their Oaths, the Inltruftions, whereby they had been milled to make fuch Inference. How uncertain tiie Purfuers thought this Proof, i;nd how open tQ other Explanation, will appear from their fup- preffmg INTRODUCTION. preffing the Book, with equal Fraud and Violence, in the Toumelle ; and thereby depriving the Defender of an Opportunity to prove a Variety of Objections to the Book, and probably to produce the very Perfons whom the above-mentioned anonymous Accounts rer.liy related to. If the Argu- ment really deferved that fo much Indullry fliould be employed upon it, it was direft Injuflice to rob the Defender of his Opportunity to anfwerit with Evidence. Tlie next Article of their pofitive Proof, which prcfents Itfelf in Order of Time, is indeed a very Part IV. ferious one, if it be fufiiciently made out : It proinifes no lefs than dire£t Evidence, that Mr. '^^y'^ I^. Do'tglai\s\.\\!e in Perfon. But this whole SuggelHon will appear, on the fiighteft View of the ^^^^^ ^^j^f^i Evidence,to be a Pieceof impotent Scurrility, maintained neither by direft, nor by probable Tefti- inony ; though Pradices unheard of in any civilized Country, anil particularly obnoxious to the Laws of France, were ufed, to beat up for, and inftrucl the Witneifes, before their Revelations ; and, afterwards, Connedlions were formed with them, Hopes infpired, Promifes made, Eagernefs raifed, and leading Intimations given, whereby the Story is now become nothing like that which was told at firfl: ; notwithftanding all which, there remain irreconcileable Differences between the Perfons who took the Child, and the Parents of the Defender ; the Time of taking him, and of the Defender's Appearance ; the Age, Size and Complexion of the Child taken, and thofeof Mr. Douglas: And yet the principal Witnefles have changed the Time once to accommodate ; but the relt of the Evidence reclaims. Of the fame Sort is that Allegation, that Sholto was the Son of a common Beggar. This Beg- Part IV. gar's Child was given away after the Defender's Parents were come to London. The Means ufed by Book Ilf. thofe who took him, to find a Child, took up much moreTime, and ofA^r Time, than Sir John Of the taking fpent in Paris : The Perfons who took him were notably dilTerent from him and his Family : The ^{^^^ ^'"'^' ^ Childalfo differed remarkably from Sholto in Age, Strength, Walking, Speaking, and in fome ftriking Marks, and peculiar Diforders ; though the principal Witnefles have been prevailed on to fup- prefsthe latter, upon their Examination in this Procefs, after having told them to both the Parties. Here alfo may be traced an unfair Communication with the Witneffes, apprifing them, from Time to Time, of what was difcovered, that their Story might be accommodated to it ; and all this to raife a IJelief, which is beyond the Power of Evidence to raife, that they gave out a fecond Child, after finding it impoffible to procure one ; and aftually ftole a fecond Child, after finding itimpoffible to maintain the firif, or themfelves ; only to accumulate new Mifery upon their Cir- cumftances and Hopes, which were already ruined. The Penfion from the Duke of Donglasy their only Maintenance, had been withdrawn the Summer before ; and they were compelled Home by Debts and Diftrefs. If the foregoing Articled of Proof fhould liiil in the Manner expeded, the Inference, which the Part IV. Purfuersdraw from the fuppofed Appearance made by the Defender's Parents at yV//V/;Ws, com- Book IV.. bined with the Length of Time they are fuppofed to have remained at Godefroi's, will be already dif- 9* t'leirSitua- appointed ; and Nothing which can be faid of them at Mithel's will fuitain the Propofition con- h°"i-*^ ^'' tended for, of an abfolute and phyfical Impoffibility of the Delivery. For the reft, their Appear- ance at Michel's falls into the inferior Clafs of Evidence, purely circumftantial, tending to draw into Queftion the Veracity of the Defender's Parents and Mrs. Hewit. The Articles they rely upon are, that Lady ^anf appeared free from every Token or Symptom of recent Delivery ; in perfecfl Health ; and made, fome fay one, fome two, fome three Jaunts to the Country, and about the Streets oi Paris. It will appear, upon looking into the Evidence, that ihe came to Michel's on tha •2.0th oi July atfooneft; that her Situation, and her being driven out of her lying-in Bed by Bugs were known to that Family, that fhe lived with Doors and Windows fhut, to exclude the Air, and was underftood in the Houfe to have been recently delivered of Twins: That flie re- covered her Strength and Looks, by fuch Degrees, rs were to be expeifted ; and that they follicited the Woman vi'ho nurfedMr. Douglas at this Houfe, and who knew her whole Condud, by every Motive they could think of, to go with them to Rhe.ms, where the Delivery, on the loth, of Twins, and the State of the Childrens Health, were notorious. And the moll probable Refult of the uncer- tain Evidence upon that Subjcft is, that inftead of making either one, two, or three Jaunts, flie never went out at all, but that thcfe fame Jaunts have been fuggefted fince, or confounded v;ithMrs. Hewit's going to bring Home the Child from Nurfe ; or, it may be, to fee the other; And it is remarkable, how this Idea comports with the Story which the fame Witnefles told be- fore they and tlieir Books were dragged into the Tournelle, and had undergone that fraudulent Pro- cefs, which will be related hereafter. That ObjetSfion, which alfo occurs under this Head, That the Appearance of the Child was unlike that of one fo newly born, will be cleared up by their own Witnefles. Upon the Foot of this Difcuffion it is expefted to refult, that, after leaving Godefroi's, Lady Jane was thirteen or fourteen Days in a fecond Jtloufe, before Ihe came to Michd'i ; and, as far as the Evidence PartV. Book I. Evidence of the Delivery. PartV. Book ir. Objeftions to I-aMarrecon- CderetL Part V. Book III. Objections to Le Brim con- fideicd. PartV. Boak IV. Objections to Cornier and Slioko conli- dtred. INTRODUCTION. Evidence fpeaks materially and diftinftly upon this Subjeft, that flie w6re, before this Time, the genuine Appearance of a Woman about to lie-in ; and after, that of one recently delivered. In ihort, that the Thread of the Hiftory will conneft ; and yield a confiiknt Account, in furtlier Support of the Pojplfton, which the Defender has of his State ; initead of aflbrding any Means to evi£i it, by imputing Fraud to his Manner of acquiring it. The reft of the Evidence, as has been obferved, is purely clrcumjlavtlal, maintaining no fubftantive AllegiUiun, whereby Fraud is imputed to the Defender's prefent Condition ; or av hereupon his Pof- Jejjion is liable to be eviiicd. It tends, however, to draw into Queilion the Veracity of his Parents, in their Accounts of Perfnis, Places, Time, and other Accidents of tlie Delivery. It offers to prove, that flie was not delivered by La Marre, at Le Bruns, on the loth. The Name of 67W/a's Nurfe, and of her Abode, having been forgotten by the Englijh Witneffes, till it was accidentally difcovered in the Courfe of this Inveftigation, that was not a Topick upon which their Veracity could be queftioned. It was not the lefs neceflary, however, to get rid of an Article, which went fo di- reftly in fupport of their Veracity ; and the Purfuers, accordingly, undertake to prove, \\\-xtGa>mer \vas not the Nurfe of Sbolto -, nay, that Shsho was not in their Poffeffion for the firlt fifteen Months of his Life. In order to examine how far they have fucceeded in this Attempt, it is propofed to give a general State of the Evidence, which proves the Delivery, and all its Circumjiances ; becaufe La Mane, Le Biun, the Defender, his Parents, his Brother, and Nurfe Garnier, make Parts of the fame Stoiy, fo relative to each other, and fo combined, that it would involve endlefs Repetition, to ftate them fepa- rately. It is then propofed to take up the Arguments of the Purfuers, (for here they affedt no Proofs) under each feveral Head, whereby they impute Falfliood to the Vv'itneffes of the Fail of Delivery. It fliall firft be examined, upon what Foundation they infift, that La Marre, who is now fufficiently traced, did not praSlife M:diuifery, or did not pradtife it with fuch Reputation, or in futh a Stile, as to leave it probable, that he would be called to alTift Lady fane. It will then be feeri, what Pre- tence there is for aflerting, that La Marre (who did praftife INIidwifery with Reputation and acknowledged Skill ; who did, in the Summer J 748, bring to-bed a Lady of Condition (who came from beyond Sea, and laft from Rbeims) at Le Brun's, of Twins, whereof one was Jlrong and the other uva.^, and whereof //;^ /a/? was put out in the Neighbourhood of Paris, under his Cure) was not Lady Jane's Man-Midwife ; with whom they appear, by fo many Witnefles, to have held a Corrcfpondcnce. It will then be feen, whether the rw/ Hiftory of thofe four Letters, (which were produced on the Service, and which have fuffered fo many injurious Comments upon <;// Occafions, pertinent and impertinent) goes further to fuppoft, or jutvat the Story, atteited by fo many feveral and independent Teftimonies ; and whether that Account of La Alarre, which was fo unduly drawn, or rather excruciated from Sir John, does materially, diftindly, and ex- prefsly vary from the real La Alarre, Lady Janc'a Man-JNIidwife, and neceflarily raife another Perfon in his Place. It will next be difcufled, whether the Le Brun (mentioned by the rr^w/jWitnefTeSjas conne£led with La Alarre, as Landlady of the Houfe where he brought a foreign Lady to-bed, and named by the £«?/'/'; V/itneffes in the lame Relation to her) is fo circumvented by thofe Lines of Evi- dence, they have tried to draw round her, as to be abfolutely pufhed cut of Exiftence. They look for her in the Police Books, where, upon the Face of the Story, it was unlikely to find her. They look for her in the Capitation Rolls, where innumerable Circumftances might have exclud- ed her, and yet where no Man alive can be fure flie is not found. Upon this uncertain Founda- tion they olT'er to extinguiili Mad. Le Brun ; and by an Argument, which either proves nothing, or conviiits all thofe of Perjury, who have ventured to name fuch a Woman ; particularly Dr. Gibpn, who actually brought Women to-bcd in the Houfe of a Woman of that Name, in the Year 1745. Whether Madame Le Brun does now cxiil, or wl.y, if ihe does, ihe has not been produced, is a Field wherein their Condudf will be difculfed, who prevailed with Francois La Marre to fupprefs his Knowledge of her from the Defender ; who pre\ailed with Gilles to re- traft the Account, he had repeatedly and folemnly given to botli Parties, and to other Perfons of Credit ; w ho prevailed upon Le Brun of St. Germoins to deny the Story flic had often told (happily for Jurtice) to no lefs than l^ight diiferent Perfons ; who brought the Widow La Alarre into the Tournelic to infult her out of the Declaration, Ihe had given before the Huijfier em- j'loyed by themfelves. The next .Article, they undertake to prove, is, that Nurfe Gamier (who received from La Marre, in the Summer l-j\i, one of two Male Twins, born of a foreign Lady of Condition, and vi- fited by t^oo foreign Gentlemen, weakly in Habit, of a fair Complexion, drelfed in Dir.tellei d' Jng!cterre, and Child-bed Cloaths of a foreign Fafiisn, and aurfed him till the ftcond IVmter after) INTRODUCTION. after) was yet not the Nurfe of Sh!io. This is attempted by infifting on fuch Articles asthefe : That Mrs. Hnuit fays the Nurfe, when fhe came to take Shollo Home, was prefled by Lady Jane to ftay with her ; whereas the Nurfe, at the End of Seventeen Years, fays the Child was brought to her Houfe .- That Gamier reprefents her own Child, as if it were fomewhat older at the Time of receiving this foreign Child, than it would have been in Ju/y ; and, as they were paid for eighteen Months, that flie confequently carries the Time of its being taken away too far forward in the Year 1749, for the Time of Sho/to's being carried to Rheims. Such Oh- jccflions, befidcs the obvious Confutation thev are liable to, have already received an Anfwcr from the Purfners ; who think it neceflary to tax the WitnefTes with Perjury, upon this exprefs Foundation, that the Story bears too great a Piefemblance to the HiRory of Lady Jane. After this it may be proper to fet right that Mifapprehenfion of the Courfe of the Pofl-, which Part V. has led the Purfuers into a laborious Argument, that Letters writ upon the loth, without men- Book Vf. tioning the Delivery, prove that no Delivery happened on the loth. The Pofl goes zvax at Eight, Of the Letters which Hour, confequently, clofes the Correfpondtnce of that Day ; and the Delivery happened iotli1ulvi74S. at Four in the Afternoon. The lafl Pvefort for Objeftions to tlie Popjfion the Defender holds of his State, is to Cavils Part VI. againft the Condud of his Parents ; infifting, at the End of Seventeen Years, that, in certain Of the Con- Articles, it appears different from what might be expected in the prefent Review of their Cir- p * (umjlancei and Situation. This Sort of Argument feems to be extremely hard, againfl: Mr. Douglas ; who mufl be ignorant of what their Cciidu£} really was, and of the Circumjiances, from whence it fprung, and whereby It was influenced. Explanations of this Kind, if they be wanted, can only be had from thofc, who have a pcri"e£l ISIemory of every little Occurrence, and temporary Motive, which governed it. In fliort. Lady ^rtn^ fcems to have been the only Perfon likely to give them fatisfaftorily. This Sort of Argument is fo fallacious, that no Judgment can be hazarded upon it, without manifeft Danger of doing Injuftice ; unlefs it were previoufly afcertained, that every little Article refpe£l:ing their Situation, flood as fully in the View and Contemplation of the Judge, as it did in their own at the Time. After which the Difference, which generally prevails between the Tempers, Opinion, and Charafter, of different Men, mufl be carefully weighed. The whole Ground is too uncertain and doubtful, to be the Ground of a judicial Sentence ; therefore it is of little Confequence, whether the Defender will be able to give fatisfaftory Explanations upon fuch a Subjefl. But, in Confidence, that, w ith all thefe Advantages, the Purfuers have found no Part of this Story defeflive or obfcure enough, to raife even Sufpicions from it, the Defender will offer fuch Explanations, as fpring direftly from thofe Circumftances, which have been preferved by Accident, and produced in Evidence. He is grofsly deceived, if the ConduSl of his Parents will appear, in any Inftance, inconfiftent with that Relation : If, on the contrary, it will not appear fuch, as could not have been diifembled in Fail ; as cannot he thought diflembled, while Faith and Truth are thought to exilt among Men ; fuch a Train of Falfliood — fo deliberate and conftant — confifting in A£ls and Expreflions of Tendernefs, fo frequent, uniform and animated — to Children whom they had no natural Caufe to love — who preffed the Weight of their Diftreffes ftill heavier upon them, is merely i7npojfible ; nor can their Conduft be accounted for by any Means, but by allowing them to be, what they undoubtedly were, the natural Parents. This is the general State of the ^ejlion, as it has been raiftd by the Purfuers. TIius have been introduced the immenfe Volumes of Evidence, brought upon an endlefs Variety of fmall Circumftances ; which aim to prove not the Faii of Fraud, but the Poffdnlity of it. For In- ftance, the Evidence does not offer to maintain that Mr. Douglas and his Brother afluolly are the Children of Mignon and Snnry, nor that his Parents aSiually took away fuch Children ; but that, within the Compafs of Poffibility, \hiiy may he fo : And the whole Queftion upon this Head is, "WHiether the Imputation hcpojfible. They infift, upon fpeculative Arguments, that moft Womea lofe the Capacity of conceiving before they are forty-nine Years old, not that Lady Jane had loft it: That her Mifcarriage in ZJtYfwiffr 1748 might have heen tome other Diforder, not that it luas fo : That her Pregnancy might have been diflembled, not that it was Ho. In tracing their Perfons, the Godefrois affedi not to remember their Perfons ; but they offer to make an Inference from their Books, which might be trvie, if their Books were as comprehenfive, as the Form of the Argu- ment requires ; but at prefent is no Inference at all. The Incidents, which the People at Alichelie's fpeak of, in their uncertain and contradi£lory U'ay, do not ufually happen to lying-in V/omen : 'Hicrefore it might be true that flie was not recently delivered, if other Evidence had not eftabliih- ed that file was fo. The fame Idea prevails more remarkably in the refl of the Cafe, where the Queftion is not, Wliether the Defender fhali be evi£ledhun\ his PoJJi£ion -, nor even, "VVheiher his Parents have /poke Truth ; but. Whether the Truths, they have uttered find, additional Support or not, from the concurrent Evidence ? Thus,, having traced a Maii-Midwjfc of the Name of La Alarre at The general Nature and Application of the Purfuers Art; anient. INTRODUCTION. at Paris, unJer all tlie Circumflances mentioned before, a Doubt is ftill raifed, whether that afford? addiiional Pr-.of of this Ciraw.ftance, that La Marre was her Man-Midivife. So, after finding tint Le Bran kept a Houfe for Delivery, fo connefted as is faid betorc with La Alarre, it is argued that fhe might be a dificrent Perfon from that pointed oiit by their Story. The Cavils about ■ their Conducl are not worih a Place even in thii Lijl of Arguyr.ertts. Mr. DougIa<. has been encouraged, upon View of the Evidence, to infift, that every pofitive Allegation of the Purfuers is not meerly falfe, but iwpo([ib!e. That all and every of them, taken fingly, or combinedly, arc fo far from tending to evi£l bis Poffejp.ou, or faljify his Parents in any Circumftance, that they confirrn them in every Par- ticular, and form an additional Barrier to his PoJJeffion of State. This Ground is manifeftly advanced^ bovond a«;' he was obliged to take ; and thofc, iffuch there be, who think he is unable to main- tain this Ground, muft argue very weakly, if they conclude from thence, that he is unable to main- fain any. His Pojfifion wants no Support, till fome Means are found out to attack it. The Depo- litions of the Witnelfes to his Birth muft ftand for true, till ftronger Evidence convicts them of P^r- iury. Tlie rcil of the Evidence, though much mutilated by Time and Mortality, fupport thofc 'Depofitions. It is diiHcult to imagine, and totally impoffible to demonftrate, (the incumbent Province of the Purfuers) that he could ever have been in any other Condition, than that, whereia he now .7npcarsj and wherein he has appeared ever fince he e.\ifted. PARTI. BOOK I. Of the Competition for the Eftate of Douglas, and the Hiflory of the Settlements whereupon the Parties claimed. CHAP. I. Of the Eflate of Angus attd Douglas down to the Year 1694 inclufively. IN the thirteenth Century, the Eftate of Angui pafled, by Marriage with an only Daughter and Heirefs, to an Englijh Family, Umphreville, Lords of Brodhoufe and ReddefdaU. In three Generations, it palled in the fame Manner to the Houfe of Stuart. Tlmmas Stuart, Earl of Angus, who lived in the fourteenth Century, left two Daughters, Co-heirefles of his Earldom, Margaret and Elizabeth. Elizabeth made over her Part of the In- heritance to her Sifter, and the King granted a Charter of the whole Earldom io Margaret. 9 April, 1379. Margaret firft married with the Earl of Mar, on whofe Death, without IlTue, (he married JVilliam Earl oi Douglas, and had Iffue by him George, to whom flie refigned the Earldom of 'S^j. Angus y &c. and vi Charici piutccded thereupon to him and his Heirs of Body. The Houfe of Douglas failed in the eldeft Branth by Forfeiture for Rebellion agalnft Kong '+55* James the Second. The Lordfhip of Douglas, Part of the forfeited Eftate of Douglas, was granted by the Crown to i4S7. George Earl of Angus, ^ Heredibus fuis -, who thus held the Eftates of An^us and Douglas united, in Fee fimple. His lineal Defcendant, Archibald Earl of Angus and Douglas, married Margaret, Daughter of Henry the Seventh of England, and Widow of James the Fourth of Scotland. They had IlTue, a Son, James, and a Daughter, Margaret, who married Matthew Earl of Lenox. To prevent his Eftate from finking in the Family of Lenox, Earl Archibald ohtMncd upon his own 15+7. Refignation a Charter, limiting the Succeflion to Jameshis Son, and his Heirs Male of Body — Remainder to his own Heirs Male whatfoever. Soon after, the Eftate pafled to ArchibaU Earl of Angus, his Nephew, who took under the Remainder in Tail Male. William Earl of Angus, in the Marriage-Settlement of his Son, TVilliam Lord Douglas, cove- it July, 1601, nanted to convey his Earldom and Eftate to the faid IVilliam Lord Douglas, and his Heirs Male of Body. — 2. To James Douglas, the Earl's Second Son, and his Heirs Male of Body. — 3. To Francis Douglas, his Third Son, and his Heirs Male of Body. — 4. To the Earl's own Heirs Male of Body. — And laftly, To his Heirs whatfoever, bearing the Surname of Douglas, and Arms of the Houfe of Angus. William Lord Douglas, eftabliflied his Title to the Eftate by Charter and Feoffment, upon this 3 Feb. i6oi. Marriage-Settlement in Fee Tail, but not reftrained from difpofing. Under this William Lord Douglas, all Parties to this Caufe claim. He became Earl of Angus In j6i6. — He hadlflue of his firft Marriage, Archibald Lord Douglas. — Of his fecond, William, af- terwards created Earl of Selkirk, who married the Heirefs of the Houfe of Hamilton, and became Duke of Hamilton. In the Marriage-Settlement of his Son, JrchibaldLord Douglas, with Lady Ann Stusrt, Sifter of 9 Nov. 16:91 the Duke of Lenox, he covenanted to make over his Eftate to his faid Son, and his Heirs Male ^sMay, 1630. of Body. — Failing whom, to return to the faid Earl, and his Heirs A'lale, and of Tailzie, contained in his Feoffment of the Earldom of Angus, and their Affigns whatfoever. The Settlement afterwards refervcs the EarVs Life Ef.ale — Power to charge the Eftate to a cer- tain Extent, and contains Obligation to infcoff. Prohibition to fell, or other wife convey, to mort- gage, or contracl Debt, whereby the Eftate might be evicted, without the fpecial Advice and Confcnt of the Earl during his Life-time, obtained in Writing. — But the Procuratory of Refigna- tion does not contain thefe Reftridions. A Charter paffed on this Procuratory of Refignation. — But neither the Charter nor the Inftru- mentof Seifin, or of Feoffment, that followed, contain the Reftriftions and Prohibitions .jbove- mentioned, any more than the Procuratory of Refignation and Obligation to infeoil". ° ^ William 1631. 2 OFTHECOMPETITION Book I. ^7 June, 1633. JFiUit3m Earl of Angus was created Marquis of Douglas, and hereafter Archibald Lord Douglas took the Title of Earl of Angus. He had IfTue of the Marriage with Lady Ami Siuatt, James, after- wards Marquis of Douglas. II June, 1649. On the Death of Lady y^«« he married Jane, Daughter of DavuJ Lord f/^o .— And fettled on the Heir Male of that Marriage the Baronies of Bothwell and IVanilell ;— Remainder to his own Heirs Male and SncceiTors wliatfocver. He had IfTue of this Marriage Archibald, afterwards created Earl of Forfar. January,! 655, Archibald Earl of Angus died before his Father, leaving Jatnes, the only Son of his firft Marriage, who took the Title of Earl of Angus during his Grandfather's Life ; Archibald, the only Son of the fecond Marriage ; and two Daughters. 8A E 16 - "^^ Marquis //^r/Z/rtOT (who had no greater Interefl: than a Life-Rent) confulering the prohibitory ^^' Claufe as infringed, took upon him to grant the whole Eftate de novo, with the fame Limitations, and under the fame Terms and Conditions, as it had been granted by the Marriage-Settlement of 1629 and 1630. 4 • ' 5S' Feoffment followed upon this Inftrument : But the Limitations, and Prohibitions, not having been inferted in the Procuratory of Refignation, nor in the Precept of Seifin or Warrant to infeoff, they were not contained in the Feoffment. James Earl of Angus was then a Minor. 1666.' Marquis //^//w/z died ; Marquis James came of Age, and eltabliflied his Title to the Eflatc 8 Sept. i66g. by Service, as Heir Male to his Father Archibald Earl of Angus, under the Marriage-Settlement 9 Oit. 1668. in 1630, and was duly infeoffed. i6 Nov. 1669. In Implement of his Father's Man iage-Contra£t with Jane, Daughter of Lord £/<:/;(», Marqu.^ James conveyed the Baronies of Bothwell and IVandell to Archibald Earl of Forfar, his Brother of 17 Nov. 1671. the half Blood, and his Heir Male of Body, Remainder to his own Heirs Male and Succeffors. — The Earl of Forfar was infeoffed accordingly. 7 Sept. 1670. In 1670 Marquis James, In his Marriage-Settlement with Lady Barbara Erfkin, Daughter to the Earl of Mar, covenanted to refign his whole Family-Eftate, and all his Laiids and Eflates whatever, to take a new Grant to himfelf and the Heirs Male of the Marriage his own Heirs Male of Body Archibald Earl of Forfar, and his Heirs Male of Body Jf^ilUam Duke of iiamilton, and any Son of his (not fucceeding to the Eflate and Dukedom of Hamilton) whom he the Marquis fliould name in Writing ; and in Default of fuch Nomination, the remaining Sons of Duke Hamilton (not fucceeding to the Dukedom) fucceffively in Order of Birth, and their Heirs Male of Body his own neareft Heirs and Affigns whatever. The Inftrument re- ferves Power to alter the Order of Succeffion, and difpofe of the Ejiate in what Manner the Marquis fhali judge proper. Of this Marriage tlie Marquis had Iffue a Son, called Jama Earl of Angus, who was killed at the Battle of Stenkirque. 13 Dec. 1691. On his fecond Marriage with Lady -Mjr;i Kerr, Daughter to the Earl oi Lothian, he fettled his Eftate to himfelf and the Heirs Rlale of this Marriage, with Remainders as in the former Marriage-Settlement, and with the fame Power to revoke. «5 Mar. 1694. The Eftate of Dudhope falling to the Crown by Attainder of y^^n Vifcount Dundee, it was granted to the INIarquis of £)ow/,7j and his Heirs Male of Body to his other Heirs of Tailzie in the Marquifue and Eftate of Douglas to his own Heirs and Affigus whatever. In 1694 the late Duke of Douglas was born. Marquis James fell into a Courfe of low Debauchery, keeping Company with the mcaneft Peopie, who made Ufe of every Opportunity to draw from him great Sums of Money and large Grants, till, by his Indolence and Diifipation, he was involved in great Difficulties:—— Whereupon the late Duke of ^leenjberry, the Earls of Lothian and Annandale, perfuadeil him to execute a Settlement of his Eftate on his Infant Son, to fecure that from further Depredation ; with Powers to pay his Debts, and clear the Circumftances of the Family. 14 Sept. 1897. Accordingly by Deed of this Date he conveyed to Lord Angus, his Infant Son, and Heirs Male of his Body Heirs Male of himfelf by his then Wife his other Heirs Male of Body —Heirs of Tailzie, to be nominated, and in the Order, and under the Conditions, to be appointed by any Writing under his Hand in his IJfc, which Writing to be as if therein inferted— failing fuch Nomination Heirs Male whatfoever— Heirs and Aftigns whatfoever, all his Earldom of Angus, and all his Places of Pre-eminence, viz. the Pviglit of fitting nrft in Councils, Coro- nations, and Parliaments ; of leading the Front of the King's Armies in War ; of canning the Crown in all Parliaments, and all his Eftates whatfoever ; rcl'erving his Honours and Rents, and ether Profits of Superiorities, is'c. fur Life ; and alio the Lifc-Rcuts of the Marchionefs and Couutefs Parti. , FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS, &c. j Countefs of S^///;^r/a;z^— referring alfo Power to borrow Money and fell Lands, except the Barony oi Douglas, for Payment of his antecedent Debts— a Provifion binding the Earl of Angus, hy his Acceptance thereof, to pay his faid Debts— the Marquis bound to pay the growing Intereft, for which Purpofe he is to empower Comnoiflioners to receive the Rents of all but the Douglas Eftate. In 1698, hzAj Jane Douglas ■y him and Simpfon on the 9th of March ibc^q. The Marquis ftiling himfelf heritable Proprietor of the Earldom of Jngus, binds himfelf to g Mar. 1699. convey the (aid Earldom to Lord Angus, and his Heirs Male of Body ; which failing, to his own Heirs Male of Body ; which failing, to Earl Forfar, and his Heirs of Body ; which failing, to Lord Bafil Hamilton, and his Heirs of Body ; with other Remainders of the fmie Limitation to Other Sons of fames Duke of Hatnilton, and terminating in his own rigUt Heirs, under certain Reftriftions and Conditions -, namely, he binds all his Heirs aforefaid, to warnxnt this whole Tailzie, and alfo to bear the Name and Arms of Douglas, with a Claufe of Irritation againfl thofe •who fhould fail. He provides, that the Inftrument, though no Refignation or InfeofTment, fhould follow, and though remaining with him at his Death, Ihould be as valid as a delivered Evident. He referves a Life-Rent in the Whole, without providing for the Interefl of his Debts, which was by the Deed of 1697, to be paid out of the firft Rents ; and concludes with a Claufe, by which he binds himfelf and his Forefaids, never to revoke, alter, innovate, annul, change, or infringe this his Bond of Tailzie and Provifion. There is a Subfcription on the fame Inftrument, which imports a Delivery of it, in the Prefence ,j jyn, ,5q,- of one Haddow and Anderfon. The Deed is framed with a perfect Ignorance of all his Settlements, even of the Deed of 1697. The Marquis aflumes the Charafter, and afts as Proprietor, having no fuch Property : He impofed Conditions, under Pain of Irritancy, on all his Heirs, having referved nothing by the Deed of 1697, but a Faculty of fubftituting. After two exprefs Subftitutions of Heirs, he has bound himfelf to warrant a Title he had no Power to make. He impugned the Deed of 1697, by referving the Whole as a Life-Rent againft the Creditors, whofe growing Interefl: the Life-Rent ■was bound to pay, and by referving an unlimited Power of raifmg a Fortune for Lady fane. He delivered it, though it was his declared Purpofe to keep it. It imports to be a Conveyance in the common Form of conveying an Eftate, wherein one has an abfolute Property, without Re- ference to any foregoing Settlement ; and confequendy, cannot operate as the Execution of a. Power which manifeftly was not in his Contemplation, iox the Inftrument is repugnant to that wherein the Power is referved. The Confederates had learned, that fome Inftrument was executed by Advice of the Lords the Commiffioners ; the Whifper conveyed that it was a Nomination of Tutors, and fome confufed Account, that a Difpofition of the Eftate of Douglas, in Prejudice of their fuppofed Deed, was inferted in it: Wliereupon the 15th of fune ibqq, (at leaft that Date was inferted) they drew i^ June, ifog, from the Marquis a very anomalous Inftrument, taking this idle and falfe Rumour for its Narra- tive, and declaring the fuppofed Difpofition and Taikie to have been foifted in witho-ut his Know- ledge, and by Advantage taken of his Sicknefs, and adhering to tliut Inftrument of the 9th of March; ona Lientcnznt Haddow, Simpfon, and Jvckrfon, were the Witnefl'es. They drew from the Marquis another Inftrument, which the noble Earl was afliamed and »7 June, ifgj, afraid to produce ; and it was found after the F.xtindtion of that Family in his Pvepofitories. It contaijied a Mifrecital of tlie Deed of the ^th of Septmikr 1697, and of the Commifficn of the lath 6 OFTHECOM PETITION Book I. 12th of Augujl i6q8 ; and a fahe and infamous Libel vipon the Commiffioners therein named; It annulled the laft Commiflion ah Initio \ it appointed all new CommilTioners, except tlie Duke of ^ueenjherry and Lord Lothian, Lord Forfar and Lord Bafd Hamilton ; and made the Duke of ^ueenjbirry^ Duke of Hamiltoi:^ Farl of Forfar, and Lord Baftl Hamilton, of the Quo- rum : The fame Witneffes as to the hft Deed. This Nomina ion of CommiiBoners was under- flood by Simpfon, and perhaps by the Marquis, to be a Nomination of Tutors. iSJane, 171 6. The Duke ^ras fer^'ed Heir t?o the Eftates of Bothwell znA. Wandell, upon the Death of the laft, I July, 1716. Earl of Forfar, and was infeoffed accordingly ; the Eftates ftood limited to Heirs Male, but, under no Reftraints to alienate. 1716. The Draught of a Deed of this Date was found in the Duke's Repofitories, made upon the Opi- nion oi Sir frailer Pr ingle, whereby he gave his whole Eftate I ft. To his own Heirs Male of Body. zdly. To his Heirs Female, and their Heirs whatfoever, taking folely, and not as Portioners. 3dly. L:idy Jane, and her Heirs Male of Body. 4thly. Lady Janets Heirs Female, taking in the fame Manner as his own. 5thly. The Duke of ^uenjberry and his Heirs Male. 6thly. Lord George Douglas, the Duke o[ ^teen/berry's Brother, and his Heirs Male. ^thly. The Duke of .^awn/Ji-n;! his Heirs Female, to fucceed as his own. gthly. Lord George his Heirs Female, in the fanip Manner. 9thly. His own Heirs Male whatfoever. ^ lothly. His Heirs general. D.P.iooo.B.F. By Mr. Archibald Stuart's Account it (hould feem that this Inftrument was executed by tho Duke. »5Mar. 1718. In 1 7 18, the Duke executed a Difpofition, containing Pro^arflf»>-)t of Refignation, according to the Forms of the Law oi Scotland, in Favour of his own Heirs of Entail ; whom failing to Lady ynne, &c. A Nomination and Difpofition to Lady Jane, appointing her his fole Executrix — Bond of Provifion for 30,000 Marks in her Favour. 7 May, 1718. He made her an additional Bond of Provifion.— A further Nomination and Difpofition of Executry in her Favour. n June, 1718. The Duke executed another Difpofition of his Eftate oi Dudhope, or Dundee, to the fame Heirs called in the Deed 17 16. And having made other Purchafes, he fettled them, together with his 1726. ancient Eftate, in the fame Manner, 7 Feb. J736. In 1736, the Duke gave Lady Jane a Bond, reciting that 50,000 Marks were due to her, the Intereft of which was 138/. 17^. c)^d. ; and that by the Death of the Marchionefs her Mother, with whom fhe lived, it being become infufficient to maintain her, that he was minded to give her an Addition of 161/. 2s. 2\d. making together 30CI. He bound himfelf accordingly, to pay her 300 1. a Year, revocable however as to the laft Sum of 16 1/. 2S. z\d. This was cf Courfc delivered to Lady Jane. CHAP. III. Of the Means which were ufed tofet Lady Jane wrong with her Brother ^ and the Settle- ments of his Grace^s EJlate obtained in Confeqiience thereof TJ Itherto Lady Jane's Fortune was all-profperous ; flie ftood the prefumptive Heirefs of the ■*^ Houfe of Douglas, with a graceful Perfon, excellent tTnderftanding, and engaging Manners : Beloved and admired by all, (he ivas moft pecuharly the Favourite of her Brother, and fhe regarded him with equal AS'e£tion. ©.P. 896. A B. ■^"^'^y J^"' tlio"glit that her Brother's private Happinefs and Regard to an illuftrious Family, which depended upon him for being continued, both required that he fliould marry ; and prefled him to do fo by every Confideration which a Sifter could fuggeft. Tl;c Duke, though averfeto Marriage himfelf, was no lefs anxious to perpetuate the SuccefTion in the Houfe of Douglas, and offered his Sifter, if tlie would marry, the largeft Settlements, no lefs Parti. FORTHEESTATEOFDOUGLAS, &c. 7 lefs than 600 1, a Year, and the whole Dudhope Eftate, to be fettled in whatever Way any four No- blemen of Scotland would advife ; allowing the freed Choice of any Nobleman or Gentleman ; but fhe could not at that Time be induced to think of it. The Duke at the fame Time was a Man of violent Temper, proud, paffionate, fufpicious in Articles which touched his Pride, eaCly irritated and tranfported to great Excefs : Even his Affec- tion to Lady Jane was tempered with Family -Pride and Difdain of what he thought a Mif-Al- ]ja„ce. His Delicacy upon this Subjeft fpurred him to a very ralh Aftion, which proved the Source of his own Unhappinefs, and of ail her Misfortunes. He was obliged upon this Event to live extremely retired, and fell into the mofl undoing Company which a Gentleman can be furrounded with ; his own Servant and Agents, and^ others equally mean in CharaiSter, who fought him upon intereflcd Inducements, and by Dint of Flattery at once gained a corrupt Confidence, and indifpofed him to receive honeller Information. The three Perfons who chiefly poffefled the Duke's Confidence, were Mr. James TFhite, of Stock- Iri^s, Mr. Archibald Stuart, and one Major Cockran, wiro aftei-wards married Stuarfa Daughter. The firft, who was bred a Mafon, was in the Year 1736 employed by Mr. Archibald Stuart zs Overfeer of the Works then carrying on at Douglas C\x{{\e. In the Year 1737 he was fuch a Favourite, as to be appointed Faclor to the Eflates of Douglas and Rokrton, without the ufual Precaution of giving Security for the Rents, which were 1570/. a Year. His Charge was afterwards encreafed, under the fame Confidence in him, to 3000 /. a Year. He lived conltantly at Douglas, and obtained fo vlfible an Afcendency over the Duke, that it came to be univerfally d. P. 4.39 r. obferved, the Management of his Grace and all his Affairs was in his Hands : Whoever had Occa- p_ p_ ^j^ j,^ fion to approach Douglas, mufk do it by his Means, or not at all ; and he judged that his own iji. a. Influence depended on keeping the Coaft as clear as might be, wherefore he difcouraged thofe who ^, ^ ^_ were willing to come. Anderjon fays, that he was not well with Mr. IVhite, and fo knew nothing of D. P. 859. e. the Duke till after his, Z^/^/Vs, Death. And the Reverend Mv. Hamilton, a zealous Friend and P. P. 317. n. forward Witnefs for his Namefake, yet confeffes that in his own Experience he has felt the bad 331. c. EffeiSls of Mr. White's Influence ; for that the Duke was at the fame Time very credulous and very violent, and that JVIjite had hindered him of Accefs for four Years, by giving him a bad Name to the Duke. Nay, fo abfolute was he grown at length, that he was in Ufe to keep up the Duke's D. p. 439. c. Letters, and even to anfwer them himfelf. One Inftance is ftill remembered, for the Angular p. p. ^j^. c. Impudence of it: Lord Haining^ one of his Grace's Commiffioncrs, wrote to the Duke, to en- 331. b.c- quire whether it was by his Grace's Authority that Mr. If^bite was fo profufe in entertaining the 3J8, l. Clergy at the General Affemblies ; which Letter Mr. fVhiie kept up, and anfwered Lord Huining that it was ; and if his Lordfliip and the other Commiffiorlers did not like it, they might refign, and he would get others in their Places. This Story is pretty well authenticated ; for Mr. Archil/aid Stuart, perhaps in a Fit of Jealoufy, told it himfelf of his Friend. This White was a crafty bad Man, who affefted Religion to cover his Falihood, and diffembled Friendihip to mafque 330 d. his Malice. He made feveral believe him the Friend of Lady Jane, while he was wilfully undoing p. p. gg^_ p, her with the Duke by the cruelleft Fahhoods. Mr. Archibald Stuart was Doer at once to -the Dukes of Diuglas and Hamilton. — The firft Employment made him a very important Servant to the latter, and probably procured him that Em- ployment. He was Tutor to the prefent Duke. Extremely fenfible of his Ufeiulnefs, and that his Intereft lay in exerting it to the utmoft, he made a drift Conneckion with Mr. White, and found Means to engage him altogether ni his Purposes. What ihofe Means were is difficult to trace, after fo great Length of Time, and in the Darknefs of a foul Confpiracy. But it was certainly D. P. gps. ^, the Belief of many, and among the red of the Duke himfelf, that he was to have for his Share of — — 4+0' d- the Plunder a Fart of the Douglas Edate, called the Mailings oi Lefmahagoiu. This was Matter of future Expeftation. In the mean Time it has been proved, in the Year 1 759, that he defrauded the Duke of feveral thoufand Pounds, in aAVay which could not have been without Mr. Stuart's Privity. If extraordinary Anxiety had not been ufed to ihield Mr. Stuari from the Edge of that Enquiry, a more explicit Account of that Matter would probably have turned up. Not that fuch Evidence is wanting to edablidi in Point of Fatl the Concert in v.'hich thefe Gentlemen belied Lady Jane. Major Cockran feems to have been rather an Indrument of their Malice, than a principal Agent : A very aftive Indrument, however : His Idlenefs and Rank gave him Accefs to a Variety of Peo- ple ; and he made diligent Ufe of it, to circulate the Falfehoods which they invented : By which Means he had the Merit of contributing, in a very eminent Degree, to the Didrefles and Death of Lady Jane. It was difficult enough in every Event, to introduce into the Douglas Succeffion, a Race which the Duke had never thought of before ; but downright impoffible while Lady Jane retained her Place in the Duke's Affedion ; To fubvert this was their fird Aim. " Ever. 8 OFTHECOMPETITION Book I; Even though the Duke had been open to general Accefs, no Obfervation could trace, or Me- mory record, the numberlefs little Arts which People, bent on fuch Furpofes, pradlife to obtain them : Accident, hov.-ever, has preferred a few, jufl enough for a Specimen and Proof of the reft. P.P. 318, P.O. If fhe happened not to be at Home when the Duke vifited her, his Pride was applied to, Neglecl; was iufinuated : The Behaviour of her Friends was mifconflrued in the fame Manner, and placed to her Account. In this Light INIr. IVhke reprefented a Story, in itfelf quite indifferent. — The Duke went to vilit Lady Jane at Edinburgh : She was gone to Lord Rofi^s at Alelville. The Duke went thither : Lady Jane was at Church ; Lord Rofs was ill, and could not wait upon him : The Duke was made to underfland this as a meditated and concerted Piece of Difrefpetl. I5.P. 896.C.E. His Impetuofity had given new Matter of Offence, which together with his frequent Piefort to P. P. 318.1 L. Edinburgh, called to People's Mind his former unfortunate Conduct. — Lord Ilay wrote to Lady Jane 319. A. B. upon that Subject : Lady Jane, quite unfufpecling that flie had loft .'.ny Part of his Confidence, Avrote her Advice with her ufual Freedom, Affection, and Zeal. The little Jealoufies which had been carefully infufed ; the Sorenefs of his Mind on th.-.t Subjcft, and his Impatience of Reftraint, contributed to make thefe Letters feem offenfive : He uttered ftrong Expreffions of Refentment to his Sifter. His Temper was not fuftered to cool : On the contrary, they fo- mented his Anger, by reprefenting the whole Paffage as a Contrivance of Lady Jane to have him confined, that Ihe might get Poffeffion of his Eftate. — Tlie Duke enraged, {hewed about the Let- ter as the Caufe of his Quarrel ; but it docs not appear that he fatisfied any Body of the Juftice of it, who had notprevioufly latisfied him on that Head. Mr. Hamilton, the only Witnefs who fpeaks to the Contents, calls it a Letter of friendly Advice : Yet was their peftilent Idea inceffantly re- D. P. 896. E. pcated to him by the Partizans, and even by the Duke of Hamilton himfelf. Ttiat it was this which P.P.'3Z9.A. kindled the Duke's Refentment againft Lis Sifter, Mr. White was not afhamed to avow ; and Mr. 3ro.E.G. Hamilton of Owr/5« being alked that Queftion by the Purfuers, gave the Duke's own Words, " That in Return to what he had done for Lady Jane, in bringing her from Frar.ce, and paying a *' great Deal of Money for his Mother and her, he was informed that fhe had applied to the Duke ♦' of /^;e;'/ for a Warrant, and wanted to have him confined as a Madman, that ftie might fit down <* upon "the Eftate, and take Poffeffion of it." Which Information Mr. Hamilton was perfuaded the Duke believed ; and that it was one of the Caufes of their Differences. In a Converfation with the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, who preffed him to marry, he refufed, for he was eafy what Way his Eftate - — 328. D.E. went : " Janie once thought to get it fequeftered, and ftie put in Poffeffion, but fhe fliould ne- " ver get a Sixpence by him while ihe breathed." Wlio gave the Duke fuch Information is not left to Conjecture, though that might be fufficient to point out fuch Authors. — The Duke himfelf de- D. P. 428. A. claied it was Mr. IVhite and Mr. Archibald Stuart. 434.. CD. Some ftiort Time after, the Duke, who was little known at Edinburgh, and ill thought of by the 897. A.c. People, was infulted there in his own Houfe by the Mob. — Who could have thought of referring this to Lady Jane, or of hoping to getfuch an Infinuation believed. Yet he was made to believe a formed Story, that the Mob had been hired by Lady Jane, and headed by Colonel Stewart, with whom fhe was at that Time intimate, to murder him, or carry him off to St. Kilda, that they might get the 428. A. Eftate into their own) Hands. AnAMt. White and Mi. Archibald Stuart vouched the Truth of this Story alfo. 16 oa. 1744. In this Temper an Inftrument of Revocation was produced, whereby, for certain moji juji Caufesy and to the End, that failing himfelf, and the Heirs Male and Female of his Body, his Eftate might defcend to the Heirs of aniicnt Rights and Invejlitures ; he makes a general Revocation of all his for- Inforraat. mer Deeds of Settlement, with Power to make new Settlements. — This Inftrument is attefted by the 1761. p. 3°' faid Mr. Jamn IVhite and Mr. Archibald Stuart -, and Duplicates were depofited with each. — This im- plies, according to the Purfuers, His being made fcnfible of the Folly ofdij'pofing in Favour of his Sijler^ ivhiJ] mujl have funk his Family, by dividing the Ejlate from the Honours : Ulnreupon he rcfolved to tranfmit them together. But the Truth is, he had not then learnt, that tranfmitting his Eftate to Female Heirs wzs friiing it ; or that making it an Appennage to another Nnme and Family would fave it. He •was provoked enough to withdraw every Token of his own Affection, but not to intercept the Bounty of her Father, and her own Rights of Blood. She ftill remained the prefumptive Heirefs cf his In'veJiitures, though ftie loft the more immediate Benefit he had conferred upon her. Thus Meff. IVliite and Stuart judged, and perfifted in repeating the fame, and inventing other Calumnies on Lady Jane. In 1 745 thcRebels infulted DouglasQiSA^. The fame Gentlemen found Means to perfiiade the Duke that 1-adv Jane had lot them on to take away his Money and Arms. As if the Rebels wanted a Pretext to take Money and Arms.— Even the prejudiced Duke of Douglas could not have fwallowed fuch a Story, if he had not been firft taught to hate Colonel Stewart (with whom P.P. 327, K.I., his Sifter was then much conneded) as a Jacobite and Papift, and to believe him involved in that Rebellion. ' ^ . Lady D.P.427. r.G, • 418. A.B. Part I. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGI^AS, &c. 9 Lady Jane^ debarred from Accefs to her Brother, and uneafy in her Mind, determined to change at leait the uncomfortable Scene. Being engaged in a very intimate Conne£lion with Colonel Stewart, fhe refolvcd to marry him and go abroad. She was married accordingly, by one ]Mr. Keith, at her own Houfc, and pafTcd through ^Aut^. 1746, Holland, into Germany, where ft e became pregnant, and from thence to France, where fte was D. P. 999.C. delivered of two Children. Col. Sfewirt was a younger Brother of the Houfe of Grantully ; a Man of Familv, but no For- tune ; of a fine Figure, lively Converfiition, and allowed Honour ; but, withal, quite thoughtlefs, and extremely profufe. It was an unlikely Connection for fo accompliflied a Perfon as Lady 'Jane to form : A Step, perhaps, fitter to be forgiven than applauded. Tliis precipitate and imprudent Marriage, without Notice to the Duke, gave juft Offence to him, and cruel Advantages to her Enemies ; which they too fuccefsfully employed to ruin her. Nothing flie had faid or done, nor even any Tiling they had taxed her of faying or doing, had provoked the Duke to the Point of meditating any Alteration in his Family Settlements. A Line of Heirs now offered, correfponding exa£tly to, the Wiftes he had exprefTed fo anxioufly while his Sifter poflefl'ed that Place in his Bofom which fhe well deferved to hold. They were driven to tlie defperate Meafure of undertaking to inculcate in him that Belief, which they could not per- fuade themfelves to entertain, that the Children were fuppofititious. It demanded flrong Proof to maintain that a Woman of remarkable Delicacy and Honour, highly born, religioufiy educated, and pofTeffed of the general Efteem, ftould plunge at once into a Scene of Falfehood, Bafenefs, Guilt, and Slvame ; to fpend the whole Refidue of her Life in the hourly Practice of hateful Diffimulation ; Nature, Confciencc, Pride, every juft and every noble Sentiment, of which Nobody liad more, conftantly revolting. They ofl'ered ftrong Proof, if thfe reft may be judged of from what has been accidentally preferved ; and yet with all the Advantages of Indignation and Prejudice already infufed, and all the Opportunities of conveying falfe Imputations, which could be derived from her Abfence in a diflreffed and obfcure Situation, it will be feen that it coft them many Years and much deteftable Induftry to bring their Pui-pofes to bear. Her Time of Life, according to the ordinary Courfe of Nature,- afforded fome little Pre- fumption ; but that being purely accidental, was nothing, unlefs the Fadl could be eilabliflied one Way or other. Mr. Archibald Stuart, ever anxious for the Family of Douglas, had taken the Trouble to enquire, p p. 4.^^.0. r. and faid, he received his Information on this Head from Margaret Kerr, who lived Servant with 4.2S.C.D. Lady Jane before fhe went abroad. She told him, that before her Ladyfliip left Scotland, fte was 437- b c, not in a Situation to bear Children ; and that the Marble Table, on which he then laid his Hand, { would as foon bear Children. It was not remembered, nor is it very material, whether this ftrong Figure was Mr. Stuart's Inference, or faid to be Margaret Kerr's Obfervation. This Con- verfation attended the firfl News of the Children. Mr. T^/;//^ Informed the Duke of another CIrcumflance, no lefs decifive of Lady Jane'sTr-iud -, ■viz. That Lady Stair difcovered the Impoflure by looking in the Mouths of the Children, and found one to be confiderably older than the other; which direflly falfified her Ladyfliip in the Article of giving them out for Twins. Major Cochran took Care to inform himfelf of the Particulars of this Story from Lady Stait 's •own Mouth before he would venture to affert it ; and then he found himfelf forced by his Duty to make a full Difcovery of the Impoflure. He had often affured the Duke the Children were iiftitious, and now proceeds to give him an Account of the Difcovery made by the Countefs of Stair, by a Letter written exprefsly for that Purpofe : " Your Sifter went there with the tv.'o Ini- " poftors. So foon as they entered the Piooni, the Countefs called out to Lady Jane, You cannot " pafs thofe Boys upon the World as Twins, for one of them muil be confiderably older than " the other. Your Sifter changed Colour ; but the Countefs of St^vr went up biilkly to the " Children, opened their Mouths, and difcovered by their Teeth that one of them was fix Months " older than the other. Your Sifter propofes to go to London foon, and take the Boys with her. " It is thought they will die one of thefe Days, as Lady Kinnaird's did. I niuft entertain your " Grace with this curious Proccfs, which has lately been 'before the Commiffaries. Lady " Arin«flzV<-/havinga Pique at her Iluiband's Heir, gave it out that flie was with Cliild, and was " afraid that flie and her Child would be in Danger from the Heir, fo abfconded for fome Time : " At her Ret\irn, told that fhe had been delivered of two Beys. The Heir raifed a Procefs againft *' Ixer, to produce the Boys ; but her Ladyfliip, finding that the Plot would be difcovered, was " glad to give it under her Hand that the Boys' were dead. My deareft Lord, I tliiuk it my Duty S97. E.r. — 417- e. — 420. c. i6 OFTHECOMPETITION Part I. " to inform your Grace of every Thing that may turn out to your Advantage; arid if ever you " find me vary frc:n the Truth, believe me to be a damned Villain." To Duh of Doughs. Signed Thomas Cochran. But Major Cochran's Aftivity in the Caufe of Juftice did not reft here ; once got into the Train of making Difcoveries, he puflied them to the very Spot where the Children were bougln, and the very Sum of Money paid for them : Whereupon this Friend, fo zeilous that he thought it bis Duty to inform the Duke of every Thing which might turn out to his Grace's Advantage, and fo fineere, that he begged to be believed a damned Villain if ever he varied from the Truth, made all D. P. 420. B.C. Speed to inform the Duke that Lady 'Jane's Children had been purch.ifcd out of an Hofpital, at the $97. E. Ptate of Eight Shillings : INIr. TVhite alfo, a more deliberate Judge of Truth, confirmed that they were Impoltors bought out of an Hofpital. 420. c. Eefides which, it was manifefl upon their Appearance, that they were not Twins, but of quite diiferent Ages, for one had Teeth while the other had none. " Who told you that, Totn ?" fays the Duke. "Lady Stair, a Perfon of Honour, and much to be depended upon ;" for Tctn always 897. 1;. flood to the Truth of his Letter. Thefe R.eprefentatlons, and their Authors, are by Accident preferved ; and that they were fo made, ftands upon every Degree of Evidence the Nature of the Faft can admit of. The Letter whicli many faw, is attefled by many. The Converfations which the Duke only heard, declared by the Duke : Tliefc make it vehemently probable, that many more Facts, equally decifive, were proved to the Duke's Satisfaction by the fame Witnefli^s ; becaufe it is now cert.iin, that they were juft as capable, in every Senfe of that Word, of proving every Article which has been fiucc alledged againlf the Reality of the Birth. Thus the Impofture was proved in all the Terms of it ; the Fact of Suppofition difcovered ; that Difcovery further fupported by a Circumftance, which direftly inferred it ; and the Whole guarded by a Demonftration, that the pretended Delivery was impollible in Nature. V P. 3*0. H. After this, MefT. TVhite, Stuart, and Cochran, did not fail to remind the Duke, at every Turn, 306. B. j^^j j]^g Children were not his Sifter's, but Impoftors, bought out of an Hofpital. D.P. 897. G.E. The Duke of Hamilton alfo aflerted the fame Tiling to the Duke of Douglas, which gave the Story great Credit ; becaufe it mufl needs ha^•e proceeded from liis Grace's certain Knowledge r For, as his Grace was exceedingly interefted to have luch a Story "believed, it was a Force upon his Delicacy to report even a Truth upon that Head. - — 4-15. E. Lady Charhtte Edwin, Aunt to the late Duke of Hamilton, who appears in her Correfpcnd- — — 459. F. gf,(,g yi\Ca the Duke, to have preffed the Intereft of xht Hamilton Family, was pleafed to aflert ■ ■ 3"-B. jjj Qj^g pf j,^j. Letters, that his Grace's Eftate would go to one who had neither Douglas Blood, nor Douglas Name ; a very important Idea to prefs upon the Duke, who laid fo much Strcfs upon both. D.P. 899. CD. The Marquis of Lothian, and Sir TVilUam Douglas, who appear to have had their Share in the Perfecution of Lady fane, thought it a pregnant Proof of Impofition, that flie did not call her Relations, and owii the Children at her Death : How Ihe did behave upon that awful OccafioM will be feen hereafter. In the mean Time, would either of thofe honourable Perfons have obeyed fuch a Summons ; and what Encouragement did they give her to expeft it ? Which of thofe kind Relations, by whofe induitrious Means ifie was brought to die in the molt forlorn and deftitute Condition, would have prefented themfelves in fueh a Scene, to hear the fliocking Story of her Aitlidtion and their own Guilt ? — -47S. D.£. Others, whofe Names are not tranfmittcJ, were prevailed upon frequently to repeat the fame M^-^- Stories to the Duke. He declared afterwards, that he had often been told, that the Children were bought ; and becaufe real Perfons enough could not be foimd to vouch thefe important Truths, anonymous Letters were fent him to the fame Effect. jtjj c. In t^-e fame Manner, the Duke -(vas afflired, that they were Seventy TTioiifand Pound in Debt ; 440, F. and ii his Eftate went to them, it would foon go to Pot. Thefe are fome faint Traces, fuch as Time hath left, and Accident hath difcovered, fervirig \o give a tolerable Idea of the Means by which the Duke was prevailed on to think his Siltcr bafe and infamous, fit to be abandoned to Want, and all the Variety of Wretchednefs fhe fuifered -y P.P. 106. B.C. in which the Duke certainly founded on no Knowlege, Sufpicion, or ConjecT:ure of his own, but 307. A. declared, that he had been made to believe fo, referring to the abovementioned Evidences. It was impoffible to flop here : WHiile Lady yane was borne up and countenanced by other Friends, there was continual Danger that fome importunate Interpofition would undeceive him. This out- door Work fell of Courfe upon Mr. Archibald Stuart, and his Son-in-Law. Lady Book!. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS, &c. n Laily Stci'r, notwithflanding fhe had made a Difcovery which fatisfied the Duke of the Impof- p. p. ^jg. r. ture, fcems not to have been convinced of it herfelf ; fhe ftill fliewed CompafTion and Friendfhip P. P. 352. h, to Lady ya>!e ; and knowing Major Cochra?i to have frequent Accefs to the Duke, entreated him to carry a Letter from her to the Duke, which flie explained, was to beg of his Grace to do Some- thing for his Sifter and her Children. The Major aillired her Ladyfhip it was in vain ; and, as a Proof of it, told her what had happened to himfelf lately : He had been interceding with the Duke in Favour of his Sifter Lady Jane, and had even gone fo far, as to make Ufc of Her Lady/l:ip's Name to influence him. 'iTie Duke thereupon faid, He was very fenfihle of the Friendfliip of ■both Lady Stair, and of him Major Cochran, to himfelf and his Sifter ; and as a Friend, he would fhew him his Reafon for not doing for his Sifter; and carried him into another Pioom, where he fhewed him a Letter from Count Douglas, bearing, that his Grace's noble Family was well-known all over Europe, and tliat he could not bear to think of a fpurious Brood being impofed upon his Family ; and thought it his Duty to inform his Grace, that his Sifter Lady Jane, and Colonel Stewait, had bought thefe Children out of an Hofpital : And that the Duke had further faid, that he would hot expofe his SiAer in his Life-time, but that at his Death the laid Letter from Count Douglas would be foiuid in the Bofom of his Settlement, and would juftify him to the World for having done Nothing for his Sifter : And the Duke, moreover, defired the Major to tell Lady Stair what his Reafons were- If Lady Stair was aftoniflied at this Information, the Particularity and fober Certainty of it fluit out all Doubt. Major Cochran, as warm a Friend to Lady Jane as herfelf, could not refiit fuch Convi£tion. The Duke, who was beyond her Expectation tender and kindly difpofedto her, had ftruggled with his own Indignation ; and rather than expofe an only Sifter to publick Pieproach, chofe to undergo himfelf the publick Cenfiue of a cruel and unnatural Brother. It would be fhocking to perfdt in teazing a good, but unhappy, Brother, upon the Account of a worthlefs Sifter. The Subject was too delicate, and the Duke felt it too fenfibly. It would be fliameful even to own fo bafe a Woman for a Friend. Nothing was left but to abandon her to the Fate flie defcrved, and in Confequence Lady S^/j/r withdrew her Sympathy from her, and flic died in Want, of the d. P. 427. b. common NecefTaries of Life. The Major told the fame Story to Mr. Loch, another warm Friend of Lady Jane -, but not with 4,4.. d, the fame Succefs. He happened to think differently of the Major's Character, and treated his In- formation with Scorn. Mr. Archibald Stuart alfo told the fame Story of the Letters from Count Douglas to Lord Rofs, P. P. 353. a. vho felt, on hearing fo plain and clear a Story, as Lady Stair had done. The fame Mr. Archibald Stuart told it upon his o\m Knowledge, in the moft foiemn Manner, D. P. 413. f. to Mr. Loch, that the Duke had received fuch Letters. The Converfation pafied at a Tavern kept 4i4- ^\. by one Wilfn. Mr. Loch obferved, that all the World thought the Duke oi Douglas cruel to Lady '^^'^' ""* Jane, tmd all about him unpiu-doi'-able in not fetting him right. He was harfli and rough in his own Vindication ; bitt that was not material for the Duke oi Douglas. He faid that his Grace had tlie heft Reafons never to coimtenance Lady Jane in any Refpeft, becaufe flic wanted to impofc Children not her own upon him. Loch treated that as a Story fpread by the Hamihon Family, to keep the Duke and his Sifter at Variance. ^\x. Stuart, with much Earneftnefs and Paffion, fwore tliat a Count or Chevalier Douglas had writ a full Account of the Story to the Duke, how Lady y(^ne came by tlie Children ; and that the Duke, and all of them, were fittisfied oftheFalfity of the Children's being Lady Jane's ; and therefore the Duke had taken Care they never fhould have a Shilling of his Fortune. Nor did this worthy Gentleman ever hefitate to charge Lady Jane with the fame villainous P. P, 305, k, Impofture. In the fmall Circle wherein he converfed, Mr. IVhite ufed the fame Diligence to propagate the 3:0. h. Jleport. Sir TFillia7n Douglas oi GL-nbervie either believed, or affefled to believe, the fome, and entered 373. h.w. into warm Difpute upon that Subject with Mr. Douglas of Eclrington. But his Reafons were fo idle, tliat Mr. Douglas did not give Heed enough to them to remember them. His D, P. j;;,!', Pveafons, however, were not fo idle as Mr. Douglas might think them. Sir William Douglas knew that Lady Jane\iiix Paris to go and He-in private! v at Rhei?ns only becaufe I^ord Morton had offered to fend his Lady to attend her in lying-in ; and this he declared publickly. It is obvious, from the Eagemefs with which thefe Stories were circulated, that many more fuch were told, and to a vaft Variety of People ; but it is Matter of more Wonder, that theft have been preferved, than that the Reft have been loft. Mean While other Accidents fell out, which gave People with fuch Difpofitions and Op^^or- tanities Occafion to inflame the Duke's Diflikcs ftill hieher, if poflibk. D 2 The ^^ OF THE COMPETITION Part L The Expence of her Family, and her Inattention to Money, involved her jn Debts, which her Creditors profecuted by Arreftment of her Annuity in the Duke's Hands ; a Circumdance which might have excited in an only Brother fome Degree of Compjrfion and Charity to an only Siiter of her Qii^aliiy in fuch heavy Diflrefs. But her Enemies Hood ready to intercept and prejudice • every kindly Reflexion, and it made no Impreflion but that of Offence to his Pride. -•o Julv, 1740. Mr. Jrchibald Stuart had the Pleafure to receive a Letter mifTive from the Duke, difcharging him to pay his Siiler any more of the Sum of 300 /. a Year than flie had then received. In Confequcnce of which he did difcontinue the Payment thereof, or any Part of it, from the Term oi fFhit/unt/ay preceding. Tliis was the more extraordinary, becaufe ftie was juftly intitled to demand 50,000 Marks, except fome fmall Sums which flie and her INIother had already received; and 138/. a Year was due to her on that Account. But Ihe had no Friend to reprefent for her to the Duke, and fhc was forced to leave Rhebns, where a fmall Income would have maintained her and her little Family, to come over to Great Britain and beg her Bread, in no Condition to conteft it vvith his Grace, if^ upon other Accounts, that hail been thought advifeable. Lord Morton lent her 350 /. to bring her and her Family over ; and his late Majelty was pleafed to give her a Penfion of jco /. a Year. D. R970. A. The Letter flie wrote to the late Mr. /"^/Aaw on that Occafion, is a genuine Proof of the Deli-- cacy and Noblenefs of Sentiment which diftinguiflied Lady Jane in every Situation Certain Inflruments mentioned before, were lodged in the Hands of Mr. Hamilton of Serv, 40. B, Innerwcek, for Lady Jane's Behoof ; and with fome Solemnity Lady Jane alledged in a I^etter, which, though not addrefl'ed dire£l!y to the Duke, was meant for a Meflage to him, and flic plainly wifhed it might be (hewn him, that Dot4glas of Cavers declared in his Grace's Hearing, at the Time of depofiting them, that they belonged only to her, and none other had a Right to them. And Mr. Hamiltcn, in the Depofition above-mentioned, fays, They belonged to Lady Jane. PoffefTed with this Idea, with Lady Mary Hamilton i Privity, fhe took them out of Mr. Hamilton's Pofleffion, in which, if fhe did not miftake the Law of Scotland, fhe certainly took a wrong Mcafure of her own Ability to conteit it with theDukc of Douglas, This inadvertent Step was the free Gift to her Enemies of one Ground, on which to inflame the Duke's Refentments, without the Trouble or Hazard of a Falfliood. When Lady Jane returned to Scotland poor and deftitute, bereaved even of CompafTion by the Means above-mentioned, Mr. Jrchibald Stuart received her with Procefs of Exhibition, at the Duke's Suit, to recover thefe Papers. Lady Jane fupplicated the Duke for Leave to bring him thofe Papers herfelf, and implored only to be heard before flie was finally condemned upon the various Charges which had been brought: againft her : Both which Requefts feemed unreafonable, and were refufed. »7 Oft. i-»5i. Whereupon flie gave up the faid Inflruments to Mr. S/aar/, who till that Time afFe£led to ap- I>. P. J002. A, pear her Friend. But the infulting Demonflrations of Triumph with which he took away her only Serv. 41. D. Refource undeceived her. He obferved that fhe was fhocked at it, and with a Duplicity equally de- teflable, promifed that he would intercede with her Brother to reftore the Bond and Annuity. That Mr. Stuart meant nothing in making fuch Promifes, will appear in the Sequel. From this Moment flie never faw or heard yrawz him more ; and all fhe heard of \iim was, that he. ■was conflantly at the Abbey, contriving Matters with the Duke of Hamilton. ^t Aug; 1753. But though Mr. Stuart never applied to Lady Jane any more, he did by great Diligence fo fpeed his Suit, as in her Abfence to obtain a Decreet of Exhibition, and Delivery of thofe very Papers he had received on the 27th of Oiiober preceding, and of other Papers generally defcribed in fuch De- ercet, which was never carried to an Examination of Lady Jane thereupon : Why it was fufl'ered to- refl fo is not hard to guefs. He could learn nothing about thofe Papers which he had received fince the Procefs raifed ; and for _. p tiiC reft, it appears from his own Account, that he well knev/ how they were difpofedof. In the Year 1745 or 1746 the Duke oi Douglas found thefe very Papers : Mr. Stuart looked over them to fearch for Claufes of Pievoc.tion. They were thefe which Douglas of Cavers and the Marchionefs (as the Duke faid on that OccaGon) had induced him to make in Favour of Lady Jane, which had then been long miffnig, which hefufpeSted his Mother and Sijler hadaljhaP.cd, and whidi he now wanted to dxftroy, and accordingly he burnt them. Piirfuers Pcti- But to clear up his Charafter, Mr. Archibald Stuart had produced two Letters from the Duke of tion, 10 Mai-. Douglas, one dated the i6th oi January, 1752, before the Procefs was raifed; the other the 7th of ^^^^• November 1752, after the Pieccit. The firfl takes Notice of a Letter to Mr. TFhite from Mr. Stuart, containing a Cafe laid before Ccunfcl, with bis Anfwer ; ami is a Direction to puifue the Procefs with all his Might. Thiis Book I. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS, &c. 13 This proves what has been largely fet forth before, that the Duke was much enraged againfl: his poor Sifter ; but does not explain what Pieprefentations had been made to him either in Converfation, or by that very Cafe laid before Counfel, which, if it would have borne the Light, now would doubt- lefs have been produced. The fecond obferves, by a Copy oithe Receit dated tlie 37th of Oiiober 1752, thatyZi^ had not deli- vered all the Papers depofited in the Hands of Mr. Hamilton 0/" Innerweek the 2tth of July I733> o Note /jf which you had from me a long Time ago ; and as my Sifter may likewife be poflefled of a great many other Papers granted by me, which now efcape my Memory, I defire y u will infill in the Aftion, ds'ir. Now it happens, that the real Receit does contain all the Papers which his Grace had granted Lady Jane, and depofited in the Hands of Mr. Hamilton, as appeared by the Note, then out of the Duke's and in Mr. Stuart's PoflelRoii ; and what became of the lell Mr. Stuart was able to explain. But fuppofe the Duke's Authority, though founded on an apparent Mifapprehenfion, bound him to proceed even without correfting his Client's Mifapprehenfion, by the Papers which that Client had , put out of his own Hands into his ; "Why did he not proceed ? Why did he not examine Lady fane upon his Decreet, and without which it was Wafte-Paper .'' Becaufe he knew that nothing could be. made of fuch an Examination, but a Difcovery of his own unfair Proceeding. In the Year 1752, flie had beenadvifed by her Friends, as the laftEfTort, to throwherfelf atthe P.P. 329. c. Duke's Feet and beg to be heard. She wrote to implore his Grace's Leave ; but her Letter, if it 3 so- a. found Accefs, received no Anfwer. Probably it was difpofed of like hord Hainin/s, and other Ap- ^- ^' ^9^''^- plications, which Mr. IFhite difapprovcd ; for it has not appeared fince; notwithftanding which, 9y°-^- Ihe was perfuaded to go to him. She went accordingly to Mr. Hamilton's at Douglas, and from thence took the Children with her to the Caflle. She flood at the little Gate, and faw Green- Jhields, the Duke's Valet de Chambre, pafling through the Court ; Ihe called him to her, and told him (he was come with her Children to wait upon the Duke. He propofed to open the Gate and carry her in ; but fhe refufed till he had acquainted the Duke. He did go to the Duke and tell him. The Duke feemed furprifed, and flood fome Time thoughtful ; and then, without the leafl Refleflion upon her, faid he had no Pioom to put them in, and alked where they could be lodged : Greenjhields told his Grace there was Room enough. ---But the Duke ordered him to call IVhite, who converfed a While with the Duke apart, and then ordered Greenjhields to tell Lady fane fhe could get no Accefs there. The Duke's Surprife and Irrefolution looked much as if he had not received her former Letter ;• and That, together with his Enquiring after the Children when efore Duke Hamilton s Counfel on his Grace's peculiar Account. It is not pretended, that this Tranfaclion was with the Privitv or Content of the Duke of Douglas ; nor would it have been believed, if INIr. Archibald Stuart had been pleafed to fwear it, that the Pride of the Duke woidd have Hooped fo low as making a vo- luntary Settlement in tlie Nature of his lad Will, to call upon his dedgned Heirs to pay the Expence of advifing with Counfel. Nay, Mr. Stuart has gone fo fir as to withold the Cafe and Opinion from the Duke of Douglas himfelf, and his Nephew; avowing, as his Pretence, that it was the Duke of ■ icci. r. Hamilton'^ Paper. His Words are. That as Agent and Doer for the lad: Duke of Hamilton, he ad- vifed and confulted with IMr. Robert Cragie in Pielation to the Duke of Douglas's Power over his ILf- tate, and the Duke of Hamilton paid the Fees of tlie Confultation ; which Memorial and Opinion the Deponent keeps as a Writing belonging to Duke Hamilton. This Paflage Mr. Stuari (whh the Cafe and Opinion in his Pocket) fometimes fays happened In looT.F. the Year 1752, fometimes 1753, and fometimes 1754. The Date of the Deed determines for the 44.3. E. laft. 1 OSt. 175+. By another Inftrument reciting the former, and his Purpofe to devolve his perfonal Ertate on D. P. 1003. c. the fame Series of Heirs, and for certain fpecial Reafons to debar and exclude the Children and Iffue of the deceafed Lady Jane Douglas his Sijler from all Right of Succeffion to the fame. Therefore he not only debars and excludes the faid Children and Iffue of bis faid Sijler, &c. but alfo difpofes to his Heirs Male of Body — his Heirs Female of Body — Heirs Male oi Hamilton, &c. as before. loTtme, 1757. The Duke executed another Deed. It recites the two former Deeds, and his Purpofe therein, B. P. !C04. B. rki'AX.no Part of his EJlatc fl)ould goto the Iffue of the deceafed Lady l^wz his Sijler. And that he h.id purcl-.afed other Eflates ; and it wasjlitl his Purpofe to feclude the Iffue of his faid Sijler from all his Ejlate luhatfoever ; but to vary the Subilitution fo as to infert his own Female Iffue next to his Iffue Male. Therefore he does accordingly debar and exclude the Children and Iffue of the faid deceafed Lady Jane Douglasyram all Right of Succeffion to his Ejlate, &c. And difpofes to his Heirs Male of Body---Heirs Female of Body — and for the Reft as before. This perfetled the Ruin of the Defender. It became now indifferent to his Intereft in his LTncle's Eftate, whether he were the lawful Son of Lady Jane, as the two laft Deeds fuppofed, or bought out of an Hofpital, picked up in the Streets of Paris, or lurniihed by the Diforders of a Nunnery ; all which Stories his Enemies had given out : And yet it looked fomething odd, that after having prevailed againft him, by maintain- ing, upon the moft clear, tlired, and exprefs Evidence, that he was an hnpcjlcr, they fliould think of excluding him under a Defi^nation which defcribed him as the touful Iffue of Lady Jane. Did they believe their own Ailertions, why then fo anxious, exprefsly and by Name, to exclude one who never had, or could have, the Pretence to fucceed ? Did they but doubt, why hazard the Perpetration of fo foul a Fraud, as depriving a Man of his Eftate and Condi- tion by falfe Suggeftioiij ? Did they believe him the real Son of Lady y(7«c, Words cannot denote the Bafeneis of that ]Man and his Tools, who could purchafe an Eftate at tlic Expence of fo much Profligacy. From Book I. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS, &c. 15 From the only new Limitation put into the lafl: Deed, the Duke appears in the Year 1757 to ?■ P- S^*- »■ have entertained fome Thoughts of Marriage, and the Expectation ot' Children. Ic appears alio, that he had been advifcd againil Marriage : It was bad for his Health. The true Reaibn is more obvious, and Icfs abfurd : The World thought hardly of the Duke, for the Treatment which hi had ufed to his Sifter. This Story of the Inipoflure, though graced with his Name, and fupported by confident AiTertions of exprefs Authority for it, made little Way but with that very confined Number whom they had Opportunity and Authority enough to convince. In general it was thought too much to have born down an only Sifter, the moft amiable of Women, with Sorrow to her Grave ; and afterwards to trample upon her Afties, purfue her Memory with Difgrace, and leave her Child to ftarve, merely upon the Suggejiion of an Impofture, vi'hich carried many IMarks of Calumny, none ftronger than the Names of its Authors. At leaft, it was fit to (nquire into tl-.a Foundation ot it. It was eafily forefeen, that fuch would be peculiarly the Sentiments of any Wo- man of Honour whom the Duke ftiould marry ; and that Enquiry was equivalent to Detection ; and that the free Communication with the World, which would probably follow fuch an Event, was equivalent to enquiring : It was therefore bad for the Duke's Health to marry. He did, how- » Mtx. 175S, ever, marry a Lady of his own Name and Family, INlifs Dotiglas oi Mann, a Woman of Honour, and what was worfe ftill, of the Family of Douglas, which had been peculiarly mortified by what had happened to lady Jane. C II A P. IV. Of the Means txhcrehy the above mentioned Falfehocds were detetled, and the Duke un- deceived. T T fell of Courfe to the Duchefs to hear all the Reafons of the Duke's Procedure ; and as many "■ referred to very credible Authority, it was no lefs obvious to enquire after the 'JVuth : That muft be attended with one of thefe good Confequences, either to fet the Diike right in the general Opi- nion, or to corretl: his own Miftake. She had no Intereft or Inducement to fupport the Caufe of an Impoftor, and graft him upon the great Name and Family (he belonged to. But if he were the real Son of Lady Jane, flie had every Inducement to a generous Mind, of Kindred, Gene- rofity, Juftice, and the Honour of the Family, to provide that its neareft Relation (hould not be caft off" to the Support of Strangers, who could not be brought to think 111 of Lady Jane with ■ out evident Caufe. In the Courfe of this Enquiry, every Article of all which had been fo confidently aflerted to the Duke, turned out flatly falfe. 1. That flie had interceded with Lord Ilav, to get his Grace confined as ? Madman, and fo take _^ „ Pofiefiion of the Eftate herfelf, was afferted by Mr. IVUte and INIr. Archibald Stua't. Lord Hay (then ' ^''^' ^''^' Tiwkc oi Ar^yle) 'n\ a Vifit which he made the Duke at the y^/'/vj; after his Marriage, juftified her from having ever complained of the Duke, and added, that {lie had intreated him, " if poffible, to " procure her Brother a Pardon, and to carry him to London, where it would be feen, tliat the " Duke's only Ailment was Lownefs of Spirits ; and that he needed only to be known to be " agreeable." 2. The Stories of the Edinburgh Moh, and of the Rebels, were vouched only by Mr. James White znd '^Ir. Archibald Stiaiit, and confequently were out of the Reach of Truth to detciSt, ex- cept fo far as their Inconfiftency with the Account given by the Duke of Argyle of her Behaviour, their own egregious Improbability, and that Scene of Knavery, which came to Light at JVhiie\ Death, put Difeountenance upon them. 3. Tliat Margaret Kerr (her Servant before ftie married) had aflerted fhe was as incapable of bear- ing Children as a Marble Table. This ^vas told the Duke by Mr. Archibald Studtt and Major Cochran, and Mr. IVhite in particular. Mr. Stuart pretended to have it from Margaret Kerr herfelf. In Truth, Margaret Kerr never faw Major Coihran at all, nor Stuart after Lady Jaiie firft went P- P- 47- a. i.. Abroad, nor ever converfed with Whne more than once ; when he told her that the Duke had received a Letter from Lady y^w?, informing him of the Marriage ; and telling him, in Apology. for doing it fo late, that (he never meant to own it, if the had nut pro\ed with Child. She heard alfo, from general Rumour, that Sir John apprized the Duke of her Delivery by a Lettei- dated the 9th Day after ; which Cireumftance flie took for an Intimation of her being out of Danger. She never entertainetl any Doubt of the Truth of this, for believing her to be married, Jhe did not the leaji doubt her having Children. 4. Tlwt Lady Stair had difcovered the Impofture, and put Lady Jane to Confufion, was aflerted p. P. 41;. a. o. in Writing by Major Coc/jr^n, and in Converfation, by him and' If^hite. In Fact, Lady Stair 416. a. b. had never converfed with Major CW'r^/; on the Subject of the Children, nor more than once about '^^*^?'^'^' Lady Jane, when ftie recpiefted his Interceflion with the Duke, and he anfwcred her with the long 417* a d! Story, mentioned before, of the Letter from Count Douglas. She exclaimed ftrongly againft his p.p.309!k.k, Falfliood ; i6 OFTHECOMPETITION Part I. pp. 551, c.L. Falfliood ! and when that Matter had been cleared up to her, declared, on many Occafions, that flie wondered how any Body could doubt that the Children were Latly Jane's. 5. That the Children were bought out of an Hofpital for Eight Shillings, alTerted by Mr. Jame! Ifhiie and Major Ct:chran to the Duke. Tlicfc Gentlemen were pleafed to fupprefs the Authority '.tpon which they aflerted that, perhaps becaufe it was fupeifiuous, as his Grace had it then in his Pocket ; which maybe the Reafon why their worthy Collegue, Mr. Stuart, is not traced in main- taining the fame Falfliood ; but to others it has been feen : They relied on the Letter of Count DcHgldi to the Duke. 6. That Count Douglas wrote th.e Duke a Letter, bearing that he thought it his Duty to infornt his Grace, that his Sifter, Lady Jane, and Col. Stewatt, had bought thefe Children out of an Hofpital. This Mr. Archibald Htuari fwore to his Knowledge of ; Major Cochran actually faw ; and IN!r. James TFhite aflerted to be true ; and which, if true, it was well known he certainly faw. Tliat the Duke of Douglas fliewed this JjCtter to Major Cochran as his Reafon foi" refufing the Major's kind Interceflion for his Sifler, and told liim that he would not expofe her in his Life, but would leave it in the Bofom of his Settlement to jufl;ify him to the World. In Truth, no fuch Letter ever exifljd, or has been heard of, except in Confequence of the falfe TV B c ■f^^pO'"t above mentioned. Mr. Archibald Stuart depofes, that he neither knows, or fufpeQs, where fuch Letters, or Copies of fuch Letter-s, ■ are, unlefs they be in the Hands of the Duchefs of Douglas, or thoje managi'ig for her iti this Caufc. A pretty extraordinary Infinuation this, after the Duchefs of Douglas has fworn that flie never faw fuch Letter, or Copy thereof; and after Mr. Stuart himfelf D.F. "y.D^c." hearcl from the Duke that he never received any fuch; and after the Duke had protefhed to Lady Stair, that as a Man of Honour, and as he flioidd anfwer it to God, he had never received P. P. 3i2. 1., ycfjy fuf-jj Letter. He declared at the fame Time, with much Emotion of Tenderncfs and Concern, that he never held any fuch Converfation with Cochran as he had reported to Lady Stair. 7. That Lord and Lady ^or/«« being at Paris at the Time of Lady ya«f's Lying-in, his Lord- fhje offered to fend Lady Aiorton to attend her on that Occafion ; to avoid which flie went from _ p 'Paris privately, to lie-in at Rheims. Lord Morton being queftioned upon this Subjedt, faid, that ■ ' ' ' he and my Ladv had left Paris long before Lady Jane came there. And it is now agreed on all Hands, that flie did not leave Paris to iie-in. Tlie Behaviour of thofe two Gentlemen, Mefl". James White and Archibald Stuart, though little attended to at the Time, or enquired after finee, carried fom'e Marks of Sufpicion about it. Mr. Archibald Stuart had been intimate with the Colonel ; was fedulous to enquire after him and Lady Jane while they were Abroad ; profefled Friendfliip to them on feveral Occafions, and even when his Inclination was half difco\ered he drew back, and made large Promifes of Friendfliip and bcrvice. Mr. James IVhite finding how ungracious the Duke's Behaviour to his Sifter appeared, P P. iw I K. '^'■^ '^'^ Pains to perfuade that he had laboured with his Grace in her Favour. " I am extremely " concerned," faid he to Mr. Hamilton, " that the Duke would not fee Lady Jane ; and I faid " to him. Though you will not fee her, I would earneftly beg of your Grace to give her a Purfe of *' Gold, for I am furc flie is in very ftraitened Circumftances." And what tended to make Mr. Hamilton think IVhite fincerc was, that he afterwards ordered his Son to give Lady Jane 50/. Mr. Hamilton underftiood this to be a Prefent.' The Truth was, that the Rev. Mr. Thomas White, Son of James, lent Lady ^awc at one Time 30/. upon her Note, and at another 20/. But he knows nothing of his Father's being even her Creditor for any Sum of Money. It is now certain they were both inceffant in working her Ruin by the bafeft Means. Again, when they happened to he queftioned more clofely of Things which they affeiEled tlie clear^ft Knowledge of, each referred to the other as his Author. Thus White, who firft raifed the 99- • i^eport that the Children were not Lady Jane's, faid he had it from Mr. Stuart. Thus Stuart, who had fivorn to the Duke's Receipt of the Letter from Count Douglas, being confronted with the Duke, faid he had heard it---Afterwards, that he never doubted of it---And IP'hite being dead, he fwears that he heard it from him. Perhas fo -, but as he has not fv.-orn this to be the firlt Time of hearing it, it will be no Offence to his Truth and Sincerity to believe that he invented it, efjiecially as his Son-in-law is proved to have taken the Lead in propagating it. If that could be traced, it would be worth Curiofity to enquire how thefe Gentlemen were paid lor the vile Service they were employed in. Mr. White, befides the Promife he was fuppofed to have from the Hamiltons of the Mailings of Lffmahagow, was paid in the mean Time in more fubftantial Coin, as has been feen. If Mr. Stuart took as good Care of himfelf in tlie Management of both Eftates as he did fer his Friend in the Management of one, he was fufliciently paid for all the Violence he did his Conference, over and above any imdifcovered Bargain he may have made for it. The 303. K.L. •— — 304.. A. B. 417. F.O — — 443. A. B Bookl. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS, Sec. 17 TUe Purfuers feem at a Lofs whether to difclaim or defend thefe three worthy Perfons. Tlicy are furprized thefe Reports fhould be referred to the Family of Hamilton. They are inclined alfo to think the Authors of them may be innocent. How is it pofiible not to refer thefe Reports to the Family of Hamilton, when their Agents, Par- tizans, the Family, nay, the Duke himfelf, were concerned in raifiiig, prefling them upon the Duke oi Douglas, and othervvife propagating them ? And when it is obferved alfo what Ufe was made of them, in obtaining Settlements in their Favour— To call them innocent is an Affront to common Senfe. Of White tkey fay, that the Duke blamed him for preventing his feeing Lady Jane when Jlie came with her pretended Children. But it is poflible he may have done what he thought right, and given the Duke the Advice which appeared to him to be beft. It is likeiwfe pof- fible, that his Conduft in this Particular may hare proceeded merely from a View to his own lu- tereft. It is not impoffible, that his View was to maintain his own Influence, which he had Reafon to apprehend might be diminiflied lithe Duke and his Sijier came to be reconciled. It is not true that the Duke blamed him for repelling her pretended Children ; nor is it true tTiat preventing her Vifit was the only Article of Blame which the Duke put upon him. Many other Inflances of Falfhood and Inhumanity have been enumerated, many which have not come down, were referred to : Nor is it poiTible that any Man is bad enough to think it right to ruin an innocent Perfon with falfe Accufation, or good Advice, to proceed againft her with Rancour. Whether his interpofing, in fo deteftable a Manner, to hinder an only Brother from being re- conciled to an only Sifter in Diftrefs, was in View to the Interefl: of the Hamilton Family, or to his own, or to both, may eafily be collefted from the foregoing Story, if that be of any Confequence : But the EffeiSt was the fame ; it mifled the Duke to difmherit his Nephew. In Defence of Major Cochran, they ftate his only Crime to be that of writing the abovementioned Letter. They affeft to doubt the Authenticity of the Copy produced ; and they fay it was written in Favour of the Earl of Hyndford, not of the Duke of Hamilton. This is a very partial and inadequate Defence. Many other Fallhoods of the fame Kind have been exprefsly proved upon Major Cochran, without referring to thofe which fuch Impertinence as his, employed to that Purpofe, mufl have vented on the fame Subjedt. The Authenticity of the Letter (if that were all) has been well eflabliflied. The Original was d. P. 426. s. burnt in the Fire which confumed Douglas Caftle, in the Year 1758. A Copy made by Inglis the P. P. 31 1. h. Duke's Secretary, was found in the Poffeffion of another Servant. Mr. Hamilton repeated the Pur- 3»o- a. port of it without referring to the Copy. Sir William Douglas certified the Copy of it to be jufl:. It ''■'^" ^' had been read by Mrs. Hepburn, Mr. Hamilton of Overtoun, and the Duchefs of Hamil- ^jg' ^i ton. Though her Grace has forgot that fhe ever i;iw it, it was read over to her twice by Col- 414- i>. leftor Hamilton, and once by herfelf. It was delivered to her by the Duke, to be fhewn to Mr. P- P- loS f. Archibald Stuart, on the Colleftor's undertaking that flie would return it ; and her Grace talked of D.P-4'5- •• it herfelf to Major Cochran : It is wonderful flie forgot it. It was read to Mr. Muir of Caldivell, to pTp.VA". c. Mr. Rofs-M^Kie, Duchefs of Douglas, Lord Dumfries, Mr. Douglas of Garrcllan, Captain Douglas his Son, and many others : In fhort, Nothing could be more public. If the Major pleaded the Caufe of the Earl of Hyndford, that was the accidentr^l Effe£l; of his na- turalTurn to Duplicity. Itis plain thcFamily of //a?;j;7/o« had other Expeiftationsfromhim. Thegood 308. h,r. CoUeftor, who made no Obfervation upon his afperfing Lady Jane with falfe Pieproach, thought he behoved to be a filthy Monfler, that would endeavour to make his Grace fettle his Eftate on the Earl of Hyndford by his Coufin Duke Hainilton, who had given him (Major Cochran) an Houfe or Land (no Matter which) near the Abbey on the fame Account. The Duchefs oi Hamilton gave Ma- .gg, ^ l, jor Cochran a C/ierie (or fevcre Reproof) at Hawkhead, which, if her Grace had no particular Reafon to expeft other from him, would have founded fomething odd. In fliort, they feem to have dif- claimed him for no imaginable Reafon, but becaufe they were afliamed to own him. For Mr. Archibald Sfuart, it is fuppofed that the only Faults he is charged with are, the Reports he made to the Duke of Lady Jane's Incapacity, pretended by the Authority of Margaret Ken; p_ p 53- ^^ and the fwearing to the Letter which Count Douglas was fuppofed to write to the Duke. For the firft the Apology is, that he might have believed in her Incapacity, and have ex- preffed himfelf ftrongly on that Subjeft. Mr. Archibald Stuart is now dead ; and while he lived, there was no Way tolerably certain of knowing what he believed : Tlnus much is certain, that he could not have believed Margaret Kerr told him what flie never dreamt of faying to anv Body. Strong ExpreJJion feems to be but a handfomer Fhrafe for inventing and uttering a calumnious Falfehood. His fwearing to the Letter, which never exifled, from Count Douglas, the Purfuers think refer- able to, and fufficiently excufed by this, That he took ftrongly that Side of the Qucftion, that Lady £ Janis ^j OFTHECOMPETITION Part L 7^»f's Delivery wns an Impofture. It feems when Mr. Archibald Stuart took a Tlungyirongfy, he always txplaincd himfelf by a I'aKhood •• That was his Habit. It would hare been kinder to Mr. Archibald Stuart's Memory to have difclaimed him alfo, than to have defenMcd him thus : Yet is this the fair Amount of all the Apology they make for their own Agent, the leading Enemy of Lady Jane, the Author and Difperfer of thofe Calumnies, which had no Foundation but in Rancour ; no Objedl:, but to opprefs an only Sifter, and to defraud an Infant Nephew of his Hopes. There is one general Argument for all their Friends, as far as they happen to be concerned in fn-in? out the Report of the Letter from Count Doug/as, which deferves to be remembered, though not to be argued ; it is this, That Lady Jme was the Author of the Report herfelf : A refined Stroke of Policy indeed, to circulate a Calumny in the Woild, to have the Advantage of refuting it. This is inferred from a Paffage in the Depofition of Chevalier Douglas, who fays narratively that Ladv Jane fliewed him Copies of the Letters written, as flic told him, by Count Douglas ; whereas it is now admitted on all Sides, that no fuch Letters exifted. That which the ChevaHer now calls a Copy of Letters, &c. was cer'ainly in Engltfii, for he took it from Lady Jane\ Tel- ling, not from Reading himfelf, as he would have done if they had been French. Ihey were in Facl the Accounts picked up from Converfatiorv, when Mr. Loch had fent the Copies of thofe Letters. The Purport of them was put into the Form of a Letter from Sir 'Joim to the Cheralfer. This he undertook to tranfmit to the Count, which fufficiently Ihews they had neither the Origi- nal nor a formal Copy to fend him. And upon this Expreflion of the Chevalier thus explained they infer, that Lady Jane had what Nobody ever faw, an exait Copy of this fictitious Letter. In the mean Time, what is become of the Credit of them, for whofe Sake this Defence was renewed? It is fuppofed for them, that, as foon as a FaliLood reproachful to Lady Jam fhewed its Head in the World, they flew all three to its Support. I^Ir. IVhite, who had good Opportu- nity to know the Truth, gravely afferts, upon all Occafions, that he had fecn it ; Major Cochran attacking her with her beft Friend, and averring, that he had read it on Occafion of a very folemn Converfation in Lady Jaru% Behalf ; and Mr. Archibald Stuart fwearing to the Truth of it. C H A P. V. 'the Duke's Condtt£l in Confeqtience of his being fatisfied of the Afperfiom raifed on Lady Jane being falfe. 'T' H E Duke was moved with the Difcovery of the many Falfhoods which had been impofei -*■ upon him, to the Prejudice of his Sifter, and embarked in the Enquiry with fome Degree of D. P. 4.10. c. y^|r^iyity_ Hg caufed a Letter to be written to Lady Stair on the Subject, which brought on thq 416. c. Explanation of Major Cochrane malignant Duplicity ; and that, in Confequence of it, (lie died in — — 417.8. "Want of common NccefTaries. The Duke heard it with great Emotion ; and both he and Lady Siair were in Tears. TVhite was dead ; Stuart had been formerly difmifled on TFInte's Frauds being difcovered -, and ihe only Indignation he could exprefs againft Cochran, was to forbid him the Houfe, which he did. »-s— 4-0. B. Fie fent for Mrs. Hewit, and exprefled much Satisfaflion in the Account fhegave of Lady Jane- One Dav, after converfing with her alone, he brought her in to the Duchefs, commemled her, and expretfed hcrw much her Converfation about his Sifter had affected him. He aiTureddie Duchefs it would draw Tears from her Eyes, as it had from his : After which, he always fhewed great Favour and Coimtenance to Mrs. Heivit. 430. Ai He alfo employed Sir William Dauglas, a Partizan of the Family of Hamilton, to examine Mrs. Gulp, Isxe. Ifahel rValker % and to converle with Mrs. Hepburn: And upon the Foot of the Pieports made by Sir IVilliam, and of his own Converfation with Mrs. He-wit, he feemcd fatisfied that the ' ii"' <^* Children were really bore of Lady Jane. One or two Particulars have fallen from the Witnefles, which ferve to fhcw, in fome finall Degree, what the Imprefllon 4nd Temper of the Duke was at that Time. 4ts. E. Mr. LwA had been a Friend to Lady y^w, and advanced her Money. The Duke took Occafion to allude to it. Mr. Loch turned it off with faying, the only Favour he had to a(k of his Grace, was Leave to bring Lady Jane's Son to him. The Duke, not appearing averfe to it, afked the •— 4»3- • Duchefs what fhe thought of it. She referred to his Pleafure. Much other Converfation pafled op the fame Subjeft, and Mr. Loch thought the Duke had given him Leave to bring the Child. He carried him accordingly the next Morning ; but his Grace having been out of Order, the Duchefs thought it was an inconvenient Time to introduce him, and fent him away. Mr. Lech was much diT- ■434' B- Bookl. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLASi &c. 19 diflatisfied with the Duchefs upon this, and always thought that it was not the Duke's Fault that he had not feen the Child. • He often converfed with Mr. Loch on the fame Subjed, and took from him a Paper In Lady Jane's P. P. 361. k. Hand, containing an Account of her Life for feveral Years, antecedent to her Marriage, which was read htiorc hot A. Shewalton and feveral others. He learnt from him alfo the Story of Lady D. P, 429, a. Jane's Diftrefs for the Death of Sholto -, and of the Poverty and Neglect under which Ihe died her- telf. He expreiTed hinifelf fo much affefted with it, that he declared he (hould not fleep all Night. Hefaw that flie had been the moft injured of Women ; but all fhe had fuftered through Life did not afFefl: him fo much as what Oic fufFered at her Death. He lamented that Ihe had not only been negle£ted before her Death, but after. He even cried, and exprefled his Regret for the Part he had taken in it. Though thefe ExprelTions of Regret efcaped him occafionally, it was not the Duke's Boaft to talk openly upon any Subjed, efpecially upon the Settlements he meant to make of his Eftate. The Deeds of 1754 and 1757 were known in the Family ; and from thofe it appeared that he intended to devolve the Whole upon the principal Line of Hamilton. '^Tliis he was drawn in to do, much againft his own Idea, which was certainly averfe to merge his antient Name and Family in that of Hamil- ton. He had fometimes thought of Lord Douglas Hamilton, fometimes of Lor J Archibald, fome- — ■43+- »• times of Lord Selkirk, fometimes of the Defender. Upon the Death of the late Duke Hamilton, he 415. f. had apprized Lady Charlotte Edwin, that he meant to alter thofe Settlements. The Letter is loft ; P- P- 3"' »• but the Tenor of the Expreffion feems to have been, that he had now loft his Heir, with fome Re- ference to his Sifter's Son, as the Perfon upon whom the Succeffion would devolve. Tliat fuch would be the Cafe under the old Inveftiture, delivered from thofe two Deeds, was well known : In Anfwer to which. Lady Charlotte was pleafed to exprefs her Difpleafure, that his Eftate ftiouid D. P. 425. e, go to one who had neither Douglas Name nor Douglas Blood; which by the Way is additional Proof, that while thefe Stories were moft confidently aflerted, the Family of Hamilton did not be- lieve tlie Birth fidlitious ; or that Mr. Douglas coiAd be difappointed witliout exprefsly difinheriting him- The only Article in which he appears to have been fixed was, that it fiiould not be divided. A Doubt had been fuggefted, whether the Earl of Selkirk (claiming under Lord Bafil Hamilton, the fifth Son of the firft Duke Hamilton) was not intitled to Part of his Fortune ; and he was de- termined, if that had been fo, to leave it all to him. While thefe Ideas revolved in his Mind, the Duchels knew no more of his Purpofe, than (what flie had heard) that he meant to make Duke Hamilton his Heir ; and what he afterwards communicated to her, that he meant to fettle his Eftate on Lord Douglas. But his general Purpofe of making Heirs was no Part of her Concern, which confined itfelf to two Objefts. Firft, That he fliould make Enquiries, fuch as might fatisfy him, whether the D P a-8 „ Defender was really the Son of Lady y<3nc or not. Secondly, That if he fliould find him fo P p! 352.1.' that he would relieve Lord Cathcart from the Burthen of his Education, and breed him to the 326. l. Army, where his Birth would be afufficient Recommendation. In fliort, that he would confider him as a younger Son, and provide for him accordingly. The fame Sort of Application was made to his Grace by Lord Morton, Mr. Hamilton, Sir fFilliam Douglas, and others. D. P. 41S.T, Sir Ifilltam Douglas, a zealous Adherent to the Family of Ha?nilton, was wife enough to forefee that the Intereft of that Family ftood precarioufly, while it was founded on mere Oppreffion of an Orphan Nephew by Dint of Falftiood ; and conceived, that if the Pretcnfion of the latter could be fatisfied by fome reafonable Provifion for him, as a younger Son, the general Difpofi- stion to the Houle of Himilton would ftand more quiet and free from ObjeiStioii. The Duke had Penetration enough to fee through that, and anfwered his Idea rather than his Words, " You P. P. -06. h. " are an old dotard Fool. I will give him all or nothing." After which he played, as the Duke D. P. 898. r, called it, with both Hands, advifing the Duchefs to prefs in his Echalf, and perfuading the Duke not to believe him the Son of his Sifter. The Duchefs foil eafily into this Snare. She had employed the Pieverend Mr. Harper to draw the Truth from Mrs. He-wit, by charging her Confcience in the moft folemn Manner., She had 451. c. convei-fed with her and Ifahcl IValker, and Mrs. Hepburn. She was fuisfied herfelf, and thought 430. a.* the Duke had been fo ; and with that Warnnh of Humanity and Juftice, which does her Ho- nour, prefled the Duke to behave to him accordingly. Mean While other interefted Perfons were conftantly infufing Doubts and Sufpicion?, which his Temper was exceeiiiiigly apt to receive. His Determination to give him all or none made every Jealoufy look important. On the other Hand, tlie Wrongs which his Sifter had fuftered, and for which he was to blame, agitated his Mind ; he grew uneafv, he hated the Subjed, and was impatient of being talked to about it. Mr. Hamilton had obferved long before tliis, that from E 2 the E. 20 OFTHECOMPETITION Part T. p. p. 330. K. the Time he had refufed to fee Lady Jane^ he was apamed to mention her Name, byReafon o£ her not getting Accefs, though before he ufed always to alk after her. This was the Situation of a Mind fo uncertain and unaccountable, that thofe who knew him — 4J0, B. ijeft could not fathom it. In fhort, as Mr. Hamilton told Lady Jane, he was to know every Day^ The Duchefs knew neither the Extent of her Application, nor the fecret Means ufed to obftrudb prelTed them in this uneafy Temper vifible or imaginable Realon, (he referred it to the Greedinefs of thofe who expected to in- herit his Fortune, and refilled any Attempt to diminiih the Fund ; and expreiTcd herfelf fliarply about them and the Settlements they had obtained. They, on the other Hand, were ready to put the worft Conftruffion on all fhe faid, and made the Duke believe that, out of Averiion to the Family of Hamilton, {he meant ndrually to deftroy his Settlements, and fettle the Eftate upon Rh". Douglas : Whereas their own Witnefs depofes,. 3-7- A< ji^gf gU fi^g ]^3jj afked, and all the Duke had piomifed, was fome moderate Provifion for him as a younger Son. Confequently, her perfifting that (he would burn thefe odious Deeds, was but 3l Manner of fpeaking the Language of Difappointment, upon quite another Subjetl, and not tho; ferious Purpofe they made the credulous Duke fuppofe. C H A P. VI. The Duke 0/ Douglas revokes the Settlement in Favour of the Family - In the Summer 1760, the Duke told Mrs. Hepburn, that he liad cancelled the Deeds of 1754 P- 7- 74- 88' and 1757, and that his Nephew was to be his Heir. zj6o. The Duke ordered Mr. Brown, his Doer, to lay this Settlement before Coimfel, and take an j,, jy],, , j^^ Opinion of his Eftate, and his Powers over it j which is a farther Confirmation, that he meant to conftitute another Succeffion. From the fame Period alfo, the Duke obferved particular Kindnefs and Attention to Mrs. Hew/i, in a Variety of little Inftances, mentioned by the Witneffes ; and recommended her to the Duchefs as an honeft Woman, afl'uring her, that her Story would draw Tears from her Eyes, as it had from his. He often fpoke of his Sifter with great AfFe£lion, and complained, that the worft Thing f^bite had ever done to him, was hindering him from feeing his Sifter and her Bairns wheu flii came to fee him. la^ 42 OF THE COMPETITION Part I. In lamenting his own hard Behaviour to Lady "Jane, he mentioned Wh'tUy Stuart, and Coch- ran, as the principal Authors of that Mifchief, and reflecled upon Duke Hamilton for not feeing her, for which that refpectable Gentleman pretended to have the Duke of Douglas's Commands. But he added, that if he had injured her, he had made it up to her Son, by giving Iiim his whole Eftate. f I July, 4761. The Duke executed a general Settlement of his Eftate in Favour, ifl. Of hlmfelf and the Heirs whatfoever of his Body. 2dly. The Heirs whatfoever of his Father. 3dly. Lord Douglas Hamilton, and his Heirs Male of Body, with other Remainders over. At the fame Time, he executed a Nomination of Tutors to Mr. Douglas, and af^nvards often recommended him to the Care and Proteclion of the Duchels of Douglas. This is the general Hiftory of the Eftate of Douglas, and more efpecially of tlie Settlements made by the late Duke ; from which laft it appears, ift. That the Reports which were origi- nally raifed to the Prejudice of Mr. Douglas, were merely fuch Falflioods as were invented to deceive the Duke, and draw from him Settlements in Favour of the late Duke of Hamilton. 2dly. That the Difmherilbn of Mr. Douglas was owing folely to that Deceit. 3dly. That upon being perfeftly fatisfied of the Fraud which had been praftifed upon him, the Duke can- celled the Deeds he had been drawn in to fign, and replaced Mr. Douglas in his Line of Sue* ceflion. •I July, 1761. The Duke of Douglas died. CHAR VII. Mr. 'Dou^a.s ferved Hario his Uncle, and was preferred to ihe Eftate by the unanimous Decree of the Court of Seffion. 9 Sept. TV/I^' Douglas \vas ferved Heir of Tail and Provifion in General to the Duke his Uncle. 10 Dec. 1761. Charter pafled accordingly. 17 Dec. 1761, He was infeoffed in the Eibite of Douglas. I Dec. 1761. -j^g j3y].g Hamilton was fen'ed ncareft Heir Male to the Duke of Douglas. The Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Selkirk alfo purchafed Writs, to be ferved Heirs in Special to the late Duke , and brought Actions of Reduftion and Declarator to fet afide the Title of Mr. Douglas to the Earldom of Angus and Douglas, and the Lands of Dundee. To the Duke's own Purchafes Mr. Douglas was admitted to have a clear Title. Mr. Douglas oppofed their Sen'ices as fpecial Heirs, and the whole Competition was referred by the Macers to the Court of Seffion. Mr. Douglas claimed, under the Deed ctf 1697, and the LTfes declared thereon, on the iith of March 1699, ratified by the Deed of the 28th of Ofioher following, and under the Limitation in thofe Deeds to Heirs Female of the Marquis his Grandfather. Tills he faid was the Title referred to in the Charter of 1707 ; and confequently, that under which the late Duke held. All the Settlements which the Duke himfelf had executed having been cancelled, he further contended, that under the Deed of 1759, he had a Right to claim as Heir whatfoever, the laft Limitation in that Deed, unlefs the Deed of 1761 flioukl be thought an Appointment of Heirs, wnder the third Limitation of the Deed of 1759. In v.'hich Cafe he claimed under the fecond Limitation of that Deed of 1761. The Earl of Selkirk claimed under the Deed of the 9th of March 1699, whereby failing Male Heirs of Marquis ''fames, the whole Eftate was limited to him. The Duke of Hamilton claimed as Heir Male to Marquis //7//wot, i. Under the Limitation to Heirs M.de in the Deed of 1630, which he infifted could not be altered in Law, and was not altered in I'acl', becaufe the Deeds above mentioned of 1630, and 1699, were obtained from Mar- quis fames by Fraud and Concuffion. 2. The Feodinent of 1707, ho faid, was void in Point of I'orm, but if Good, inuft be interpreted with Reference to the real Title, which was Tail Male under the aforefaid Deed of 1630. 3. ?Ie infifted alfo, that the Deed of 1744, was not fini- ply a Revocation, but a Settlement dt novt, according to the autient Inveftitures of the Family under BookJ. FOR THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS, &c. 23 under which he claimed. 4. He infifted, moreover, that the Words Heirs and AJftgm what- Joever in the Deed of 1759, muft mean Heirs Male ; becaufe if they meant Heirs general, the Duke mufl know that Mr. Douglas would be called by them ; and it were abfurd to fuppofe, that he meant to call him by the Deed of 1759 ; when there exifted at the fame Time the Deed of 1757, which directly e,\cluded him. 5. And to the Deed of the nth of July ij6i, he ob- jected Death-Bed. To both thefe Claims Mr. Douglas replied, i. That Marquis J^rw^ was not difabled by the Deed of 1630, from difpofing the Family ERate. 2. That the Deed of the 9th of A/arch, and 1 ^tho( June 1699, under which the Earl of SMiri claimed, were fraudulent in the Manner of obtaining them, void as flowing a non bahente, and incompetent to declare the Ufes of the Deed of 1697, '" ^^li'ch they did not refer, and which were aptly declared by the Deed of the i ith of March. 3. That the FeofTment of i 707 was regular in Point of Form, and in Point of Con- ftrudion referred to the Deed of i 699, and the Ufes declared in the Deed of the i ith of March 1699. 4. That both Prefcriptions, pofitive and negative, had run ag-ainft both Claims by the Pofleflion which the late Duke had under the Feofi'ment of 1707. 5. That the Words Hiirs and AJfigns, in the Deed of 1 759, mufl have their general Signification, and apply to himfelf, efpecially as the other Titles, to which they were fuppofed to refer, were gone long before. Lafl;ly,That the Death-bed Deed was not reducible but by thcHeir of Line; whertfore that Ob- jedtion was not competent to either of the other Claimants. — Whereupon the following Interlocutor was pronounced : " Having confidered the Brieves, purchafed from the C/;i3K«ry by the Duke of " Hamilton and the Earl of Seliiri, for ferving themfelves Heirs in Special to the deceafed /Archibald " Duke of Douglas, with the Proccfs of Reduction and Declarator, at their Inftunce ; the Cafes Dec. 9, 1762. •' given in for them and for Archibald Douglas, Efq; and heard Parties Procurators thereon ; and " having alfo confidered the Informations, Condcfcendences given in for the Duke of Hamilton " and Earl of Selkirk ; Memorials on the faid Condefcendences for the feveral Parties ; Replies ■*' for the Duke of Hamilton, and Duplies for Arch'tbald Douglai ; and whole Writs produced ; «« they find, that neither the Claufe of Return or Subftitution, nor the prohibitory Claufe in *' the Contracl of Marriage 1630, difabled Marquis James from gratuitoufly altering the Order "<• of Succeffion, appointed by the faid Contrad. Alfo find, that the Duke of Hamilton's Claim, " founded on the (aid Claufe of Return and prohibitory Claufe, is cut oS" by the negative Pre- " fcription ; and alfo by the pofitive Prefcription upon the Title of the Charter and Infeftment, " anno 1698, and Pofrcfiion thereon ; find the Deed of Nomination, the iith of March, anno *' 1699, ratified by the fubfequent Deed, dated the 28th oi October 1699, 's the Nomination re- •' ferred to in the Charter, anno 1707 ; and that the Earl of Selkirk's, Claim, founded on the " Deed executed by the Marquis on the 9th of March 1699, and the Deed, the i 5th Day of June " following, relative thereto, is loft by the negative Prefcription : Repel the Objection to the *' Seifin, anno i 707 ; and find, that the Charter and Seifin, anno 1707, and Poffeffion of the •' late Duke following thereon, intitles Archibald Douglas to the Benefit of the pofitive Pre- *' fcription, againft the Conditions and Reftriftions contained in the Contraft of Marriage, anno " 1630, and in the Deed dated the 9th of March 1699. Find, that the Deed of Revocation, ■*' anno 1744, v^'as no legal or proper Settlement of the Lands and Eftate belonging to the late " Duke of Douglas. Find, that from the legal Import of the Claufe, Heirs ami AJfigiiees what- ** fomever, in the late Duke of Douglas's Contratt of Marriage, dated in the Year i 759, Archi- *' bald Douglas, as Heir of Line, is called to fucceed to the faid Duke in his whole Eilate, in- •* eluding the Baronies of 5«//)£w// and IVandell. And find, that the parole Evidence, oiiered " by the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Selkirk, to the EiFetl; of giving a different Meaning to " the faid Claufe, is not competent. And alfo find, that it is not competent to the Duke of •' Hamilton or Earl of Selkirk to obje£l: Death-bed to the late Duke's Difpofition, of the 1 ith of •< July 1 761, as they are not called to the Succeflion by the lail: feudal Inveftiture, anno 1707, " nor by the Contraft of Marriage 1759. Therefore repels the Reafons of Piedu£tion, proponed *' for the Duke of Hamilton and Earl of Selkirk, and aflbilzie Archibald Douglas from the Re- *' du£lions and Declarators carried on by them, and decern. And find, that the Brieves, iflued ♦' forth of the Chancery, at the Inilance of the Duke of Hamilton and Earl of Selkirk, for ferving " them Heirs in Special to the late Duke of Douglas, cannot proceed, and remit to the Macera *' to difmifsthe fame accordingly," PART 24 CONDUCT OF THE PURSUERS Part I. PARTI. B O O K II. of the Condu6t of the Purfuers in the Redudion, &c. of the. Service of Mr. Douglas, as Heir in fpecial to his Uncle. I C H A P. I. Of the Motives of the Purfuers. ' T has been faid before, that Mr. Douglas has much to complain of the fingular Injiifticc with which this A£lion has been carried on, infomuch that (to adopt that Language which the S>qiiel to Purfuers call the Voice of the Many, the Tide of popular Clamour) " Their Conduct is Mem. p. 2. «' confidered as the EfFedt of a Plot, formed from the Beginning to turn the Defender out of •' his Birth-right, by any Means, right or wrong." Againft this Charge of what they call an infamous Combination, it is aUcdged, that their Mo- tives muft have been juft. ♦' It is not poffible to conceive any Motive that could aftuate the •' Tutors of the Duke of Hamilton, but a Senfe of Duty to their Pupil." But " Their Duty ta " their Pupil did not call upon them to endeavour to prove an Impofture, if there was no Fouii- " dation for it." After dating their real Motive, and placing the Teft of their Conduct there, they proceed very anxioufly to infift for the Tutors of the Duke of Hamilton (flill fpeaking of them in gene- ral) ; " That their own perfonal Advantage was in no Meafure concerned in depriving the De- " fender of his State; " and they will not allow it to be credible, " That they fliould have *' formed a Plan to prove an Impofture, where there was none ; the neceflary Confequences of " which would be, to jnvolve their Pupil and themfelves in a tedious and expenfive Law-fuit ; to " run the Ha%ard oi his Difapprobatio7i when he became of Age; and to expofe their own Cha- " ratlers and Conduct to publick Reproach, without any Profpett of their own Advantage." From all which they infer, ift. That what they call their real Motive did not prompt them to the Mifcondutt they are taxed with. adly. That they had no other Motive to aft upon, after which they defire to have it thought improbable, that they fhould have mifcondufted them- felves. That this Queftion upon their Conduct may, at leaft, be tried by Fails, (without any Idea of Improbability bearing againff them, if not with fome Degree of Probability in Favour of the Aplication which is to be made of them) it may be fit to confider, ift, with refpeft to all the Duke of Hamihon's Tutors, whether they really afted upon the Motive pretended for them, but which, it is believed, few of them will pretend. And, adly, with regard to Individuals, whether the Profpeifl of Advantage, or fome other Profpcdl, equally bad, may not be fairly imputed to them. The Motive pretended for them is Duty to their Pupil the Duke of Hamilton. Whether their Plan was to prove an Impofture with Truth or againft it, the aflual Confequence has been the fame, and juft what they- have fuppofed it neceffarily nnift be, i . To involve their Pupil, or, as it is rather hoped, themfelves in a tedious and expenfive Law-Suit. 2. To run the Hazard of his Difapprobation when he fliall come of Age; and a very prefFmg and imminent Hazard too, if the Duke has a Friend in the World to hinder his being furprifed into an Approbation when he fliall come of Age. ■^. To expofe their own Conduct and Charatters to publick Reproach, which will inevitably follow fuch Mifcondu6t, whatever Courts of Juftice may decide of the reft of the Catife. Tlie very Expence of this Law-Suit, enormous as it is known to be, and opprcfRveto the Duke's Fortime, as it appears to be from the villble Situation of that Fortune, and from the Petition for Sale of the Minor's Eftate, preferred in the Ye.u- 1 764 : This very Expence is a full Anfwer to the Pretence of Duty to their Pupil, unlefs they can demonftrate that he has an Inter cji in the Queftion fufficient to warrant fo amazing an Expenditure of his Money. The Nature and Extent of the Claim made for theDuke o{ Hamiltonufion the Eftate left by the late "DuV.col Douglas, has been fully explained already. He pretends no 'Pit I e to the Perfonality, for lie is not next of Blood— nor to the Purchafes made by the late Duke, for he is not next Heir.— He Book II. INTHEREDUCTION. He c!-.sims, ?.s Heir Mak to Marquis TVilUam, the Great-grandfather of the late Duke; and in that Character competes with Mr. Douglai (at tliat Time acknowledged the neareft Heir-general). It is HOW confeffed, by the Form of this Procefs, in which the Duke joins and co-operates witli .Sir Hew DaUympIe, that if Mr. Douglm were dead, or otherwifc cxtlnguiflied, there would ftill remain many diflereiit Heirs-general, with whom the fame Competition muft proceed, under the hcpc- leis Circuniftance of an unanimous Judgment agaiuft him, by a full Court, with the full Appro- bation of the ScottiJJ} Bar. The firft Article, therefore, of the Minor Duke's Intcrefb in this Aftion of Reduction is th,^t Claim, fo pevfeftly reprobated as to be extindl in Effcf}, though it lives by Means of a reclaiming Petition in Form. The other Article of Intercfl which he takes in this Aftion is, the important Obje£l of changing the Perfon of his Competitor in that hopelefs, extinguifhed Claim, without changing the ^uejiion. The whole Claim, for the Sake of which he maintains this Rediiclion, \i gone. If it lubfiiled, the Event of this Reduciion (whatever it may be) would not vary that Claim an Iota, for the Better or for the Worfe. But as the /«rOT of that Claim ftill fubfifts, Form gives the Tutors of Duke Hmnllton a Title to infift in this Aclion, and a Pretence to fjiend their Pupil's Money upon it : — How folid a Pretence, is a Matter to be difcufled between Pupil and Tutors, if the Duke fhould be well advifed. Such is the Duke's Interefl in this Suit : That Intereft which alone could make it Matter of Duty for his Tutors to interiTOfe in it : That Intereft without which the Expcnce made in this Law- Suit is unwarranted and unrighteous Profufion. Which of thefe Titles it deferves, the bare State of the Cafe demonflrates. Unfortunately Lord Dcuglai Hamilton had the fame Tutors with his Brother the Duke. Lord Douglas claimn (as has been feen) an Eftate in Tail Male, under the third Limitation iir thi Deed of the nth oijuly 1761 ; that Deed upon which Mr. Douglas made up his Title, and was ferved Heir under the fecond Limitation : And this was done out of pious and decent Regard to tlie lad Will of his Uncle. To this whole Deed, the Tutors of the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl oi Selkirk ohjeflied Malum Le^i. The Court of Seffion repelled the Objcftion in their Mouths ; " They not being Heirs of Line, nor called to the Succeffion by the laft feudal Inveftitures of the " Eftate in 1707, nor by the Marriage-Contradl 1759." And the Opinion which the Purfuers entertain of this Objeftion, may be feen in their fill Plainte to the Tournelle -, wherein they flatc that the Succeffion devolved upon the Duke of Hainiltoti, " Chef de la Maifon, & qui doit en *' reunir les Thres & les Honneurs ;" and upon Sir Hew Dalrymple, " qui a pareillenient det •* Droits fur cette Succeffion." The only End attainable by Lord Douglas Hamilton in this AcHiion of Rednftion is, to raife up fome Heirs of Line in whofe IMouth the ObjeiSlion is to be competent ; which muft refcind ih« only Title under which he has any Claim whatever to the Eftate of the late Duke of Douglas, and which it is evident they would immediately profecute. If the Intertjl which this Pupil has in the prefent A(£tion is to decide upon tlie Duty and gii»i Faith of his Tutors, the Account will ftand thus : If Mr. Douglas ftiould fuccced ut potius reor iSt potius Dii numine Jirment, Lord Douglas will remain juft where he would have been if he had never embarked in this Proceeding, entitled to take the Eftate under the Deed of the i ith of July i 76 i, \}\>ai\ the Death of Mr. Douglas without leaving IlTue. If Mr. Douglas fhould fail in this Aclion, his Tutors will be -anfwerable, in Confcience at leaft, not only for v.-hat his Chance of fucceeding imder the abovcmentioned Entail is now worth, but for what it was worth to be fold in the Year 1762. Such is the Intereft of Lord Douglas in this liaw-Suit, and fuch the exa£l Amount of the Duty which called upon his Tutors to bear a Share in t1iis Aclion, wherein their Pupil's Title •to fue ftands altogether upon that Deed which this very Aclion aims to render a Nullity. On the 7th oi December 1762, thefe Minors raifed Procefs of Redu£lion ; forefeeing, perhaps, that fuch unfubftantial Titles might at k;'.ft bear a Queftion. — Two Months thereafter Sir HiirJ} Dalrymple, one of the numerous Heirs of Line, was aflbciated, in order to raife him into the Pollure of claiming a (^i7«V/i;^ Title againft the Duke, and of Tcfcinding the i\o\w fubfifling, but the only Title of Lord Douglas. This fliort Narrative, it is believed, will aflbrd a fufficient Reafon for reforting to feme other Motive to explain the Conduft of Duke Ha?niltori& Tutors than Duty to their Pupil; and as far as tiie Probability of their having acled fairly dejiends upon tiic Motives affigni;4 for thein, there i* ;ni Jiud of any fuch Probability. f Perhaps, i6 CONDUCTOFTHEPURSUERS Part I. Perhaps, in tlie Sequel, there -will be Room to fufpect, at leafl, fome other Motive, not leading to any fuch Probability. It is faicl for the Tutors of the Duke of Hamilton, that they afted without any Profpeft of their cwn Advantage. Is Revenge nothing ? — was a Refleflion aftually made on this very Subject, and v.'hich (hould have been proved, if fuch Apology for the Conduct of the Furfuers had been fore- fccii. It was this fame Spirit which tried before to circumvent him by more adequate Means, when one cf the Tutors of tlie Duke of Hamilton, confederating with a Servant and another De- pendant, tried to inipofe upon the Duke, a reclufe Man, Falflioods invented by himfelf ; and priv..tely drevi/ from his Grace Deeds to difinherit an Infant Heir, upon Suggcilions which would not bear tiie Lisrht. It was this fame Spirit, which, foiled in that Attempt, prompted them to inftitute a Suit tor carrying off" the ancient Family Eftate. This fame Spirit, difappointed there, alfo reforted to the prefent Suit ; " not with tlie Profpecl of any Advantage," it mull be confeffed, to their Pupil, or lo m.orc than one of themfelves ; not with the Hope of gaining, but to wreak the MaliteofDifappointment upon an Infant who had never offended them ; which, if not Victory, " is yet Revenge." They could not rob him of his Fortune, but they could torment him for fome Years, at leait, in the Pofleffion of it. They cannot deprive him of his State, but they can involve it in tedious Calumnies, which require Attention and Impartiality to dilhpatc. Is it, at the fame Time, a clear Propofition, That rone of the Tutors of Duke Hamiltcn have aftetl with any Profpecl of Advantage J It is pretty obvious how one of them may have drawn Advantages from it, and, confequently, more than probable that he has. But this Idea will not red on mere Probability, when it fliall be feen that one of them purfued his Father's Plan i!ce ? Sir 'John Stewart, broken with Infirmity and Age, who never could liave weavcd or maint?.ined a Pl.m of Impofture ? Wretched Subterfuge ! Thofe were the very People he would have converfed with, if fair Dealing had made any Part of his Plan. Whom did he tacitly mean to infult with the Reproach of having lcf^ Honour than himfelf?- The Tutors of Mr- Dow^ki ? It is dragging down their Names too low, to bring them into Comparifon with his. This being all l^Ir. Andreiv Stuart's Apology for what he did, no Wonder he denies, and declares poiitively, " That though concealing his Intention was mofl: prudent and proper," his Intention was communicated to a Variety of Perfons of the firft Rank and Character, as v.'cll as to maiiv of his particular Friends in London : And Mr. Staart even wrote of his Intention to fome of his Correfpondents in Scot]a^d. What thefe various Channels of free Communication were, he is pleafed to keep a Secret. By the firft, perhaps, he means his Employers ; by the fecond, the A"-ents in London ; by the third, thofe in Scotland. But his Exculpation does not reft here r He aflerts, moreover, that his Journey was known to the Offices in Frame and England where he applied for Pafl'ports ; and even to Rlr. Minettf, who carried him over. With all due Refpedl to fo eminent a Character, it might poftibly happen, that neither the Officers who made out his Pafl'ports, nor the Pacquet-Maller who carried him over, had Occafion or Curiofity to alk what he was. He difclaims the Affetlation of Secrecy while he was in France ; and yet for his three firffe Months Refidence at Pans, though he reforted frequently to the Scotch College, it was not even whifpered what Errand he came upon ; nor did he mention it to Sir IVilliam Steivart, who he knew was Sir John and Lady Jane'R particular Acquaintance. But after having been five Months in Paris, he offered a Gentleman to fliew him an Account of his Proceedings, and the Memorial to be laid before his Counfel. If Mr. Andrew Stuart really made any fuch Offer, he might do it without difclofing anv Secret. That Gentleman was not concerned for the Defender : His Ac- count of his Proceedings, if it was the fame as the Journal now produced, was not calculated to reveal Secrets ; and the Memorial he laid before Counfel contained nothing lefs than an Account of lus Difcoveries : Therefore it is not very material that the whole Story ftands upon his own Word. The next Inftance he alledges of Candour is, " That in the Year 1763, he communicated* " with unbounded Confidence, to one of the Defender's Counfel, the Whole of his Difcoveries.** This alfo does not happen to be true ; for the fingle Thing he Ihewed that Gentleman was the Me- morial which was laid before his French Counfel, which did not contain an Account of the Difco- veries he had made ; and this happened as late as the Month of j^ne 1 763, when that Gentleman •was sbout to leave Paris. But, witliout fpendlng any more Time upon Mr. Andrew Stuart's Apologicr, it is fit to ex- amine, by Inftances, what his Conduft really was, fo far as it influenced the Teftimony pro- duced in this Caufe, or the Defender's Opportunity of proving his Cafe. For the reft cf his Cha- ra£ler let it take its own Chance. Mr. Andrew Stuart, before he fet out from Edinburgh, was poffcffed of all the Knowledge which the Service could afford. He had learnt that Lady Jane became pregnant at Aix, in the End of the Year J 747: Tliat her Pregnancy was obierved to grow by juft Degrees to a Size- which becam.e remarkable. That upon the I ft of July 1748, ftie went from Rheims to; Paris, to lie-in. That ftie went firft to an Inn, to which Sir John's I-etters were di- direcied to him while he ftaid at Paris, and was called the Hotel de Ckaalons, kept by Godefrci.— That fhe went afterwards to the Houfe of a Mad. Le Bnin, where file was brought to-bed of Twins, en the icth of July by a Man-Midwife, called La Marre : That ten Days after that of her De- livery, fhe removed to anotlier Houfe, having been driven out of her former Lodging by Bugs.. 'n,at after flaying fome Time at that other Houfe, where Lady Jane recovered flowly, flie w.is advifed by the Man-Midwife, who attended her, to go into the Country for Air ; and that fhe accord- ingly v/ent to a \'il!age near Pa^is ; where after flaying fome Days flie returned to Rheims. That during their Stay a'- ibis Village, Sir John went to' Paris to fe-; the younger Child. That the ekieft Child being ftrong, was taken along with them ; and the younger being weakly was left under the Care of the Man-Midwife, with v.'hom they held a punftual Correfpondence. That lie was broight to Rheims juft before they came to Er^iar.d. Thnt both Children were treated by her with fingular Tendernefs and Affection ; and that the Death of the younger, who is- »...iicJ''by every Body the very Pidure of her, broke her Heart, and fhe died of that Afflidlion. Thcie Book II. r N T H E R E D U C T I O NL Thefe were the Fcfts, which gave Mr. Ar::beiv Stuart his Prejudices in Favour of the Truth and Renlity of Mr. Douglas's Birth ; and he muft have had a Judgment of a very fingubr Make, if he had not believed that, which no Man in Satlund doubted at that Time, though feme very few have been pcrfuaded to think diiferently fince. Before reforting to any Man of the Law, the firft Agents which appear to have been employed by Mr. Andrew Stuatt, were one Buhot, an Infpetlor of Police, and one Duruiffiau, a Commiflary ; Men of great Opportunity, by their Offices, to bring Truth to Light ; or, if that vvcre more convenient, to advance Falfhood into its Place. La Marre was dead : Le Brun was either dead, or removed, and not to be found. But in the Autumn 1762, Mr. Andrew Stuart had converfed with Meff. Menager and Giiles, who both in- formed him, that La Alarre was a praftifed Man-Midwife, who had been much emploved in that Branch both at the Hmel Dieu, and before- That about fourteen or fifteen Years before, (in November 1764, he fays fixteen or feveiitecn Years before) tl-.is La Alarre had been engaged to attend the Delivery of a foreign Lady of Condition, who came from beyond Sea, and laft from Rheims, and defired Menager to be prefent at it on Account of the Lady's advanced Age, which fome Accident hindered. That La Morre ^o\A him after;* ards, that he had delivered her of Twins, of which one was ftrong, and the other weakly. That the weakly Child was left under his Care, and put out by him to Nurfe near Paris, towards Belleville, or Menilmontant. Monf. GilUs rementbered alfo (though it does not appear fo exprefly that Mr. yfw/rrw iS/war/ queftioned him to that), that this Delivery happened at Le Bruns. This Converfation carried him of Courfe to the Widow of La Marre, who lived Rue St. Anr.e^. Butte la Roche, in the fame Houfe where her Hufband had left her. Little feems to have been gathered from her, as her Husband was not ufed to talk with her of his Patients, and flie hai burnt his Papers : She remembered, however, that in thofe Papers, there was Something relative. to the Name of Stewart , and that her Sifter had told her, how in Walking out with La Mc^rre, he had bid her wait while he went in to pay the Months to the Nurfe of a Foreigner's Child cf great Diftinftion. As Mr. Andrew Stuart's Journal of this Date has not been publiihcd, there is no direft Evidence of the Converfation which palled at this Time ; but it feems highly probable that flie muil have told him then, what fire appears to have told him and HwJjUr de Bariemcnt . afterwards. Not difcovering Le Brun, he went of Courfe to Michdh. The Converliition at Michel's is flated in his Memorial for Counfel, but fo falfely, that nothing can be made of it. Slie had told Principal Gordon, that Lady Jane had kept her Bed feveral Days, on Account of her recent Delivery, fomewhere near Ferfailles, confounding tl»e Place of Delivery with the Abode of the Nurfe. She feems to have told Mr. Andrew Stuart, that Lady Jane had gone out foon after (lie came ; miftaking for it Mrs. Heivit's going out to fetch Home the Child. But the mate- rial Article, in Truth that which being milreprcfented gave Rife to the prefent Aftion, was, their Police-Book, in which there was this Article, " Mr. Fluratl EcoiffrAs et fa Famille, entre le " 8 Juillet, 1748." It was in the Hand-Writing oi Marie Audljfet, the Maid of the Houfe, who wrote a clear, ftrong, French Hand, and fufhciently remarkable. She had written for a Country- Pracureur. There were many other Entries in the fame Book, two in the fame Page, and two in the oppofite Page ; and her Hand wr.s well known, in Faft, as it might be expefted it Ihould, to her Mailer and Miflrefs. The Entry before it had a correcled Date, and wns either of the I2th, or loth of July : The Entry after it of the 31(1. From hence he went to Compiegne to Mad Favre's, the Houfekeeper ofMad. Z^^Psm^iWcar,. who had been Nurfe to the Defender. What her Converfation at firit was, can only be colle^Ttcd from v^hat flie was brought at laft to fwear, for that alfo is grofly mifreprefented. In the Memorial for Counfel, flie remembered a great Variety of Particulars : She lived in the Rue Scrpen-e, and was fetched by Mad. Michel, her Neighbou'r, to nurfe the Child of a Foreigner of Dilllnttion, who had been difappointed in a former Nurfe. The Child was a Twin ; and the Child might be three Weeks, or a Month old ; but Nobody woidd have taken him for more than eight Day?, only that the red Colour belonging to that Age was gone, and his Navel was untied : She nurfed him four or five Days at the Hotel D'Anjon, and remembers that the Lady ftiewed remarkable Allec- tion to it. After which, flie carried him Home, w here the Gentleman came to fee him tvjo or three- Times a Day, and ilie carried him twice or thrice to the Hotel D'Anjou, She alfo went w ith them to Dammariin, and ftaid till they could get another Nurfe : She did not remember- where the Lady was brought to-bed, nor by whom. This is what ftie depofed at laft, and, as ftie fwears, what ihe depofed at the Tourr.elle. He converfed alfo with M. BkinviUe ; but as her Depofition, which is not rery material, fe^n-.s- to be little more like Truth than his Memorial) there is 110 Way of guciling what pafied be- tween them,. Tke. 29 JO CONDUCTOFTHEPURSUERS Part T. The Memorial fays, that the Mademoifelles Hibnt at Rheirns told him, fhe was, accordins^ to their Memory, not lb big as to promife fo early a Delivery, and that Ihe did not iiicreaie in Bulk while ilie was in their Houfe. He converfed alfo with Mr. and Mad. Malllefer, who only dcpofed in this Procefs to Circum- ftances tending to coniirm the Trutli of the Story, as tar as Circumftances which happened at Rhelms could go towards it ; particularly, her keeping her Bed for a Mifcarriage, after which, flie, Mad. Malllefir, vifited her : But how much of this was told Mr. Andrew Stuart it is impof- fible to imaH:ine ; as flie certainly did not tell him what heafcribes to her in his Memorial. There are fome other Perfons with whom he converfed in like Manner; but as Notliing feeems to turn upon their Evidence, it will not be material at prefent to take Notice of them. It fliould feem probable, that thefe Difcoveries, made by Perfons who had not then heard of any Difpute, much lefs feen any Body on the Part of Mr. Douglas, who did not know of the Attack which was begun againft him, made while the Enquiry was carried on under the Veil of perfedt Secrecy, might tend to increafe Mr. Andrew Stuart's Prejudices, that the Story would come out as reprefented in the Service. As Mr. Andrew Stuart was induced to take this underhand Part only by being confcious of the honeAeft Piirpofes, and determined to make a fair Enquiry, and tranfmit a juil: Report, it may be fit to examine, in the Report itfclf, how he carried thefe laudable Views into Execution. In his Memorial of November, without other Date (wherein he offers to ftate " Les Decouvertcs <' faites depuis peu pour s'affurer de la P»ealitL- de cet Accouchement "), the Account he gives of La Marre is, that all his Enquiries had been fruitlefs ; particularly that he could not find fuch a Name in the Rei;ifters of St. Cojme ; that all the Phyficians and Surgeons of Ch?ra£ler had de- clared that they had never known or heard fpeak of iuch a Perfon in their ProfeOion : They had indeed difcovered the Widow of a La Marre, who was a poor Surgeon, and delivered Women fometimes ; but her Hufband had never been out of Par'n above three or four D.ays at a Time; and file never knew of his having brought a foreign Lady to-bed, or taken Care of her Child. Upon which Account, fliort as it flands of the Truth, they ftate it as a Thixig to be wifhed, that the Perfon who played the Part of Man-Midwife could be foimd, if there really was fuch a Perfon. Whoever will take the Trouble of comparing this Account with the real Difcoveries which Mr. Jndrew Stuart had made at that Time, will find it to be not what he promifes, a State of his Difcoveries, but a notorious and wilful Suppreffion of the moft: material and remarkable, by the INIedium of a direcl Falftiood, that all the Phyficians and Surgeons of Character had difclaimed Knowledge of fuch a Man. Of the Miehels, the Memorial pretends to have difcovered, that they had lodged in a retired * Quarter (viz. t)ie Heart of the Fauxlourg St. Germain), under a feigned Name, at a Perfon's whofe Name bore no Refemblance to Le Brun -, the Story of which Difcovery runs thus : On the 12th of Ocl'jher, Mr. Andrew Stuart and Buhat went to Michel'^; the Petit Hotel D'Anjcu, and de- manded their Police-Book for the Year 1748. Turning it over, they obfen-ed no fuch Name as Stewart ; but at the Time fought after, they found the Entry of Fluratl, a Scotchman, and his Family, the 8th of y«/'. . Hereupon they afkcd whether tlie yWn/;^/^ remembered that Per/on, who readily gave a full Account of them : And after giving this Account, upon View of the Book, they aficed her whether flie remembered their Names, and was fure they entered in July. They an- fwered, " V/e do not remember the Names, but you will find them in the Book ; and we believe " the Gentleman wrote himfelf what you fee there." Whereupon the Tutor of Duke Hamilton looked attentively upon it, and was perfuaded that it was the Hand of Sir John, whom he had often ken. write. She had alwavs heard that the Lady had not been delivered at Paris, and, in Fact, fire appeared in perfec.1: Health, with many other Circumilances, which will be taken Notice of hereafter, but make notliing to the prefent Purix)fe. Every Syllable of this Account is a dire£l Falfliood, and has been flatly contradicted by their own Witnefs ; particularly that Part which fuitains the Edge of their Charge, that he lived under P;P.86i.D. 3 feigned N;mie, in a retired Quarter. The Michels knew the Hand exatlly ; they therefore could not refer it to Sir J:ihn Stewart : The Hand bears no Piefemhlance to his. It is falfe, there- fore, that the Tutor of Duke //vot/V/w/, who had often feen him write, believed it to be his: And what marks the Purpofeof niiileading his Counfel more is, that he neither difclofed to them the Circuni- ftance of the Entry's being poiierior to one of a later Date ; nor did he ihew them the Book ; though in the Beginning of tlv.'.t Month he had got it into his Pofl'effion, in fuch Manner as Ihall be . mentioned hereafter. The Memorial favs; t. That Mad. Fnvre, then the Concierge of Mad. De Pompadour, la- meqted that fiie had milled her Fortune in iwt going with them to Rheims. 2. That they came without Book II. INTHEREDUCTION. 3* Tvithout the leafl Noife, and were extremely fecret in their Conducl:. 3. That the Child appeared to be tvvo or three Months old, and the Lady was extrcmdy well, and had no INIarks of recent De- livery ; and which did not furprize her, as the Child appeared at leaft two Months old. 4. That (he remembered well to have heard them fay the Lady was brought to-bed at St. Germain., and v-cre under DilEculties to find a Ninfe at that Place. 5. That they had told her one of tlie Twins was dead, as the Caufe of giving her fuch particular Charge of the other. WHien the Purfuers examined Mad. Favre, every Syllable of this turned out to be falfe. The P. P. 876, firlt is felf-evidently fo ; the fecond, though a material Circumftance, was a Queftion the Pur- fuers dared not put to her ; the third, fourth, and fifth, fhe exprefsly contradicts. The Memorial fays, that Mad. Mnilkfer, at Rheitns, told Mr. Andrew Siuart, i. That Ihe was at the Baptifm of Mr. Douglas -, ihe confidered him attentivelv, and was perfuailed that he was fix or feven Months old. 2. That flie teflified her Surprize at Lady Jane's not lying-in at Rbeims ; to which Sir yohn anfwered, that he diflruded the INIidwives at Rhcinis, and v/ent to Paris for better Afliibnce. 3. That Lady Jane keeping her Bed, flie enquired alter Sir John, who ex- plained, that at firft he feared a Mifcarriage, but it turned out quite the contrary ; meaning that (ritical Time when Women lofe the Capacity of Child-bearing. 4. That the remarked g^-eat Difterence between the two Children, and between the elder and his Parents, which gave her at the Time a Sufpicion of an Impofture. Every Syllable of this alfo was merely falfe. As to ttie firft. Mad. Maillefer fwears that ftie faw £>, p_ j^.^ the Child before and after the Baptifm, and he appeared fix or eight Weeks old : Mad. A-iayettc, who alfo converfed with thena at the i'ame Time, fays, that when flie faw him firft, he was a I\Ionth or fix Weeks old. As to the fecond, inftead of having tcftified any Surprize ih.it Lady jfaiie did not lye-in at Rbeims, flie gives an Account of the Rhiims Midwifery, which juftifies the Idea upon which Sir John a£ted. As to the third. Mad. Maillefer has fwoni, that after the Baptifm (when fhe does not otherwife recolleft, than by the Circumftance of its being very cold). Sir John told her of his Wife's Mifcarriage ; after which, flie lent feveral Days to enquire after her, and at length went to vifit her, and found her up, and, which furprized her, in Stays. She remarked to Lady Jane her Wonder at that : Lady Jane told her, flie had worn Stays all the While file was with Child ; and lliewed them to her, laced on both Sides, as the Stays of Women with Child ufually are. As to the fourth, the Difproportion between the Children, and her Sufpicions thereupon, Mad. Maillefer fvvears, that flie obferved the youngeft Child was very delicate and fair, refembling his Mother, as much as could be obferved at that Age. She never had, nor knew any Body who had, any Doubt of the Children's being Mr. and ]\'Iad. Steicari'i. LTpon this grofs Mifreprcfentation of every material Article, Mr. Andrew Stuart put two Queftions to his Counfel : Firft, Whether the Fa£ls abovementioned were fufTicient to dcftroy the Imprelnon of the baptifmal Extraft and the Pofleflicn of State, fo as the Defender might be de- clared an Intruder upon the Family, and he, Duke Hamilton^ be intitled to take the Succeflion to the Duke of Douglas. Secontlly, What Precaution might be properly ufed to preferve the Teftimo'.'V } Might they, for Example, be examined before a Conmiiflary or the Lieutenant de Police? Or, if fuch Depofitions would have no Force, might the fame Witnefies be hcaj-d anew on a judicial Examination.'' But though Volumes of Impertinence have been publiflitd in this Caufe under the Name of Candour, I\Ir. Andrew Stuart has thought fit to fupprefs the Anfwer of the Counfel to thefe Queftions, and the Date of their Confultation, for Ficalcns which vnM refult prefently. In the Month oi September, Mr. Andrew St'jart had applied to the Lieutenant for the Aid of the Police, to make his Enquiries after Zs Marre and Le Brttn; and obtained the Lieutenant's Warrant for his Agent Buhot to afford that Afiiftance. The Nature of that Order from the Lieutenant is fuch, that the Officer of Police fo deputed, muft return to the Oflice AccQunts of the Difcoveries he fliall have made. On the 1 8th of Oitober, Buhot made verba? Report to the Lieutenant de Police of his Difcoveries ; which, in fuch a Matter, was fomethjng extraordinary. Perhaps it was thought more prudent not to put it into Writing, if it could be avoided. The Lieutenant ordered him to make his Re- port in Writing from Time to Time ; and Mr. Buhot was tempted to take the infamous Part of reporting all the Dijcoveries gathered from the Widow La A'lorre, the Mubels, and Mad. Favrc, in precifely the fame Way as the Memorial had done. It was neceffary to take further Care of Michel's Book. The very Infpeftion of it would give the Lye to the Report and Memorial, with fome Danger to Mr. Buhoi, and no confiJtrable Ad- dition to Mr. Andrew 5/aari's then Reputation. Accotdingly/ 32 C O N D U C T O F T H E P U R S U E R S Part I. Accordingly, on the 5th of Novmber, ]\Ir. Andrew Slunrt prefented a Petition to the Lieu- tenant d£ Police, reprefenting that it was of Confcquence to 1i!j Pupil, to prove the Entry of Sir John, &c. to the Hotel D'Anjou on tlie 8th ol'July 1748 -, to which End it was neceffary that the JBook fliould be depofited fo as not to be altered : Praying, therefore, that it might be depofited i;i filth Hands as the I-ieutenant fliould order ; the Slate thereof being full made by Procefs ♦erbal before the Conimifl'ary of the Quarter. It was ordered accordingly. The Coramifiary of the Quarter was Mr. DurtJ^-au, a Man aptly chofcn for the Work he was to do. On the 8th he did make up the State of the Book by Procefs verbal ; whereby, among other Things, Aliehel is made to declare, that the H.md-Writing of the Entry is neither his ewn, nor his Wife's, 'hut, as far as he can ramcinber, of the Ptrfon called F/uralt (inftead of Fluratl.) Whereupon the Book was delivered into the Hands of Buhot for fafe Keeping. It will afterwards be fliewn, thst Michel never faid what is here put in his Name ; and that Du> uijjiau attempted to fupport it afterwards by Perjury. On the 20th of November, Mr. Andrew Stuart wrote to his Employers in Scotland a Eetter, of ■Aliich he has inflrufted his Counfel to give fuch Account, as he thought material to his then purjiofe. In the Cafe which he laid before the Houfe of Lords in the laft Appeal in this Caufe 17O4, he defcribcs it to be a Letter, " Containing a general Account of the Difcoveria he had " made, and dcfnirig Advice in wh.it Manner he ought to proceed." It bore alio, " That he " hsd flated the Caf..', and the Difcoveries he had made, in a Memorial, upon which he had taken « the Opinion of one of the moft celebrated Counfel in France, who had advifed, that there <■« (hculd be a Suit inftantly commenced in Paris." It is impoffible to colktl: from this, ^V'hether he fent the Cafe itfelf, much lefs the Opinion of his Counfel upon it ; or whether the Advice he alludes to was in Writing .' And to fpeak out, it is not believed that Mr. Jndreiv Stuart ever received fuch Advice firom any Counfel, celebrated or not celebrated. It may be prefumed, however, that the general Account of his Difcoveries had no more Truth in it than the INIemorial, becaufe it would have anfwered no End to miflead his French Counfel, without mifleading his Britijh alfo. This is the Kiftory of the Enquiries made by Mr. Andrnv Stuart ; a Man of Chamber, which fets him above the moft diftant Sufpicion ; a Man, who went over, perfuaded that the Fafts w(nild turn out as fet forth in the Service, and detemiined to make a faithful Report of the Re- fult of his Enquiries, in whatever Manner they fhould turn out. Mr. Andrew Stuart's Juflification of his Conduct is to be found in the Sequel to the Memo- rial of 1767, Ch. 3. entitled, "An Anfwer to the Defender's Objedion, that the Aftion was " originallv undertaken on flight Grounds." The Defender made no fuch Objection. He admits, raid always did, that the Grounds vktc /irong enough to begin upon ; but he infifted, and itill does, that every material Article of them are falfe, and were known to be fo by Mr. Andreiu Stuart at the Time he gave them out for true. He complains not that the Tutors of Duke Hamilton have been milled ; that is their Affair ; but that he has been dragged after them to defend his Birthright, at fuch monftrous Expence, againft a Suit begun and conducted falfly and fraudulently. Seq to Mem. ^^°"" '^ ^^^ ^^ "*'' fatisfied with Mr. Andrew Stuart's Apology. It runs thus: " ^Wi/? of the Fa(fls J, II, §4. " have come out in the Proof, in the fame Shape they appear to have been viewed in the Be- " ginning, making Allowance only for the Inaccuracies which might happen from the Manner " in which they were colletfed together in the Memorial. Tliis Memorial was drawn up from '* Alemory : For Mr. Stuart thought it improper to take down in Writing any Thing at his In- " terviews with the Witncfles. iVfter thefe Interviews, fometimes more and Ibmetimes lefs re- *' cently, he took Notes of what he recillefled ; and though attentive to make them as accurate " as poihble, (omt ftnall Errors mufl have been committed, as the French Language was not then " familiar to him." Now obferving that the Outfet is falfe, or that moft of the Fafts have come out in the fame Shape, every one of thofe mentioned above having been flatly contradidled, it is lelt with all the Advantage the Queftion can derive from that Apology, to be judged, AMiether it be poftlble that fuch gro's and total Mifreprefentations is referable. Let Mr. Andrew Stuart have been as in- attentive, as forgetful, and as ignorant of the French Language, that is to fay, as unfit for the Employment he went upon, as he chufes to have it Rippofcd, fo many Falllioods could not have crept upon the Meaneft of human Und;rftanding by Accident. CHAP. Book II. INTHEREDUCTI ON. 33 CHAP. IV. Of the ToMvucWt Procefs. MR. Amlreiu Stuart having acquired in this INlinner the Information neceffary for his Puijwfe, the Ufe he made of it was ctjually confident with the Characler of Honour he affumes. ^rhe prefent Aition of Redudlion, for fetting afide the Defender's Service before-mentioned, as Nephew and Heir to his Uncle the late Duke of Douglas, was commenced in Scotland on the 7th of December 1762 : And on the 17th of the fame Montli Mr. Andrew Stuart, in Conjunftion with Sir Heiu Dahymplc, one of the Heirs of Line oHViiliam thefirfl Marquis oi Douglas, thought proper to exhibit a Plainte to the Court of Tournelle, a ci iminal Branch of the Parliament of Paris, accufing Sir 'juhn Steiuarl and Mrs. Helen Hewit of the Crime of Suppofition ; reprefenting Sir John a* an Adventurer, and Mrs. Hewit as an abandoned Woman. To this criminal A£lion the Procureur-General gave, his Concurrence ; though it is not evident in what Blanner the public Law oi France could be affe(£led by a Crime which could only have an. EffeiS in Scotland ; and which was profecuted to convi6l Perfons, againfl whom no Decree of the Court of Tournelle could operate in any Event : But the private Advantages of this Profecution were manifold to the Purfuers. — The inviolable Secrecy that attends the Proceedings in the Court of Tournelle, and all its inquifitorial Forms, are perfectly calculated for fuch a Work as Mr^ Jndrew Stuart was carrying on. — He knew that the flighted Infpeftion would blow up his Sydem, founded on Michel's Book, as they would have been obliged to exhibit it to the Defender. The Book had been already configned to Buhot ; but there it was fcarcely fafe : If once within the Walls of the Tournellf, no human Power could ever releafe it, nor any human Eye fee it. Nor was this the only Advantage arifing from the Tournelle Procefs : — The Method of examining Witnefles in that Court is directly contrary to the edabliflied Notions of Equity and fair Dealing adopted in Great- Britain. — By making Ufe of the Power he had in his Hands, he imagined he would extort from the Witnefles, Depoiitions, which, if they did not ferve his Purpofe dire£lly, would at lead have the Eft'e£l: to over-awe the Witnefles, and lay them under the Neceflity of Iticking to the Tale al- ready told, when they fliould be examined in the civil Action. Another Effe£l of this Procefs was to prevent Sir John Stewart from going to Paris. — Tlie Na- ture of French Criminal Law is fuch, that the mod innocent Perfon would not willingly put him- felf on its Mercy: — Severe Imprifonment is the lead of its Rigours ; for upon the flighted pre- fumptive Proof, the Torture is called in Aid. Such Advantages, with the Sentiments of Ho- nour which directed Mr. jindre-iv Stuart in his Enquiries, prevailed with him to get over thatjplain Rule of Equity, which confiders as an infamous Fraud, the bringing of two Aclions in different Courts for the fame Subjett ; much more, a civil and a criminal Adtlon ; an Action in France^ and an Aftion in Scotland. It is to no Purpofe that the Purfuers fay, the Suit in the Court of Tournelle was competent, be- caufe Suppofition is a Crime ; and a Crime by the general Rules of Law may be tried in the Country where it is committed.— -The Court was indeed competent ; but it was very incompetent for Mr. Andrew Stuart to bring a criminal Action in France on the fame Grounds on which he brought a civil Aftion in Scotland ; to prejudicate the one by the other, and to conceal it with fo much Art, that though the Defender's Agents were in Paris about the Time this criminal Action was commenced, and converfed with Mr. Andreiv Stuart, yet it was not till after Michcl'a Book had been lodged in the Tournelle, and many Witnefles had been examined there, that they knew at lad} by a mere Accident, of the Exidence of this Procefs. The Ufe made of it in Scotland was this :---By the Forms of the Court of Seflion, a certain Number of Days are allowed from the Time of Citation, before an Action can be regularly called in Court : And no Proof can be allowed in any Cafe, until a Condcfcendence or Particular ofFafts is given into the Court, and the Import of them coniidered.---In the prefent Cafe, two Days after ferving the Writs or Summonfes, that is, on the 9th of Dtcembcr 1762, the Purfuers gave in a Petition to the Court, demanding a Proof to lie in Retentis. But before this Quedion was determined they made a fecond, and a vei\y Irregular Application, without the Notices or Informations required by the Forms, demanding the Examination of Sir John Stewart, upon an Allegation, fupported by the Oath of Mr. Archibald Stewart, that he in- tended to go abroad: This was granted very irregularly; and ^'njohnvfzs examined in the Manner which will be dated in another Part of this Cafe. —-His Declaration was fealed up to lye in Court Objeftions to till the Iflue of the Proof.---But the Purfuers defpifing this Sanclion of the Court, made it the La Marre con- Ground of anew Plainte to the Tournelle on the 4th of January 1763 : And to redargue the Par- ii'lereii,p. 185, tjculars contained in Sir John's Declaration, all the Purfuers Eiforts v.'erc hereafter applied, and all G • their . 34 CONDUCT OF THE PURSUERS Part I. their Demands of Proof from the 7<;«r«//fdire£ted.---y^/;(:Ws Books, GochfroW Books, every Ar- ticle of written Evidence was fliut up in the TcurneUe, whence nothing could pofTibly tranfpire to direft the Defender's People of Bufmefs in what Manner to ward againft this double and deceitful Attack. The Purfuers attempt to defend the TcurneUe Procefs, by faying it was expedient for them : That the Forms of the Court of SefTion are dilatory, and, by their Delay, they might have rifqued the Lofs of their Evidence. But thisExcufe aggravates the Iniquity of their Proceedings. ---Becaufe the Forms of a Court, which alone has a Right to decide, do not favour the Impetuolity of a Pro- iecutor's zealous Rancour, (hall he be intitled to carry on an inquifitory Aftion in a foreign Coun- try, whofe arbitrary Laws are incompatible with the Spirit of his own, merely becaufe it is ex- pedient and advantageous to the End he has in View .' Such Proceedings are obnoxious to Juftice; and he who cannot obtain Redrefs of a real Wrong by the Laws and eftablilhed Rules of his proper Court, forfeits all Title to the Protection of the Laws, fo foon as he recurs toindire£l: and under- hand Methods of acquiring his Piemedy- But the Apology is falle in Faft ; for the Forms of Proceeding in tlie Court of Seflion allow of the immediate Examination of Witnefl'es to lie in Re- ientis, upon the Profecutor's giving in a Condefcendente or Particular of the Facts he i» to prove, and the Danger of lofing their Evidence by Death, &c. But if Expediency had rendered the Tournelle Procefs neceflary, and that Juftice was intended. Why was it kept a Secret from the Defender ?---The Ordinances and Forms in that Court forbid, it is true, a Communication of the Proceedings to the accufed Perfons ;---but the Defender was no Party in the TcwnelL', the Action was only brought againfl Sir John Stewart and Mrs. He-wit, to prejudge indireftly the Queftion olhu State ; a Circumftance which renders the Matter ftill more flagitious.--If the Secret could have been kept till, upon the partial and perjured Evidence brought in the Tournelle, a Judgment had been obtained, it is eafy to fee what Ufe would have been made of that Judgment againit the Defender :--By the eftabliflied Rules of Equity, therefore, he ought to have known in what Manner it was carried on, becaufe the Confequences of it were to affeft his civil Intereft only, and not the Perfons who were nominally accufed.-- -If Juftice had been intended, Mr. Andrew Stuart would have adted in a ditTerent Manner : He would not have taken the Court of Seftion by Surprife; pretending to commence his A(ftion before it, and at the fame Time bringing another in Franee.---lic would not have concealed his real Purpofe of demanding Sir John Stew- eirt's Examination ; but he knew he could not have obtained it irom the Court, had he avowed that he intended to make Ufe of it to convidt him of a capital Crime in a foreign Court. It was an unfair Proceeding, had he made no other Ufe of it than in the civil A£lion, as the Court intended. ---But to bring it into the Tournelle, in exprefs Defiance of thefe Intentions, was perhaps the moft daring Ati of foul Proceeding, by which Juftice was ever yet attempted to be circumvented. Was it expedient for publick Juftice, that Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Hewit ftioukl be accufed of a Crime belorc it could be known whether a Crime was committed ? That the Plainte exhibitetf agaiiift them ihould contain a moft virulent Declamation to prepoffefs the ignorant WitneiTes, to uhofe Depofitions, by the Forms of the Court, that Plainte was a Text ?---That what Part of the In- formation Mr. Andrew Stuart had received, and which fupported the Syftcm of Michel'^ Bcoks^ fhould be there afterted as undeniably proved, while not a Word is mentioned of the Information which he had alfo received favourable to the Defender .'' not a Word of what Gillei and Alenager had told him about La Marre ; nor any other Circumftance that could lead the Court, before which he fo improperly pleaded without a Party, to form any other than a partial and unjuft Ji'.dgment of the Cafe. Happily, the Accident which difcovered this Work of Darknefs to the Defender's Agents, de- feated the great Objeft intended by it, namely, a capital Judgment agninft Sir John Stei'jan and ]\Iis. Hewit.-—^\x\. enough of Mifchicf was already done ; many Wimcires had been t?;amined. GoJt/roi and Mihel's Books were locked up from the Defendtr.---The Widow of La Jl'Ja> re v;:is known to poflefs fome of her late Hufband's Books, and immediately they too were hurried into the Tournelle. ---'ihe Ofticers of Police and Juftice were prepoflefi'cd by the fcandalous Falflioods con- tained in Buhot's Pieports to the Lieutenant cle Police, and the pofitive Afiertions that the Crime was undeniably proved ; and therefore refufed to aftift the Defender's Agents, or to communicate any Thing they knew, becaufe the Affair was en 'Jujiice reg'ee. Mr. Andrew Stuart's Candour and Reganl for Juftice goes fo far as to aflert, thr.t the TournelU Procefs was not only competent and expethcnt to Juftice, but alfo aclvantagtoiis to the Defen- der ; and why .-' Becaufe it was giving him two Chances for one. ---The Defender's State is chal- lenged in Scotland, and an Aftion brought at tlie fame Time in Fiance, and fecretly carried on there tx Pane to convift tht- Witn<-fl"es to his Birth of a capital Crime.---This is, no Doubt, a happy and favourable Circumftance to him ; and equally advantageous to his private Intcrcfl^ and conducive to promote publick Juftice I The Book II. INTHEREDUCTION. "fhe Purfuers fay, the To-urnelle Procefs ought not to have prevented Sir John Stewart from coming to Parh : If he was innocent, he ought to have braved it ; and his not braving it, proves he was guilty.-- Rut, on the other Hand, if the Purfuers had not been afraid of Sir John in P^ris, why did Mr. Jndrew Stuart give him fo good a Pretence to keep away ? Many Reafons may be urged why a ^1an of feventy-four Years, and withal very infum, does not chufe to ex- pofe liinifelf to unavoidable Imprifonment, and perhaps worfe Treatment. ---Tlie TourncHe is a formiilabie Court ; and though it woukl be abfurd to fay, there is not Jultice in France, yet the Forms of Proceeding in criminal Matters are not favourable to Innocence, when attacked by fuch Arms as Mr. Andrew Sitiart employed.- -But there can be no good Reafon given, why a Perfon, Avho pretends to be in Search of Truth, fliould furnifli a Pretence to keep away from the Scene of Action the Perfon from whom a Difcovcry of Truth could moft reafonably be expedled. If Truth had been Mr. Stuart's Motive, he would, inftead of deterring Sir Jihn Slnvart by the Tournelle Procefs, have invited him to Paris along with himfelf.— This good Confequence might have happened, that either ^n John, by fuch local Information as he could give, would hive gone near to fatisfy him, that his Sufpicions were without Foundation ; or, at leaft, have lielp- etl the Difcovery of the Impofture : And' it is very evident, that the Sanryi and the Migmns (lepofmg to the Identity of his Perfon, would have been intitled to more Credit than when they give the abfurd Defcriptions of his Perfon from their Leflbn the Alonitoire, and which neverthe- lefs apply to him jufl as well as they do to three-fourths of Mankind. All the Pretences with which the Purfuers would cover the Iniquity of their Conduifl: in this Tournelle Procefs are vain and fallacious. Such is their Aflertion, that they commenced it upon the Advice of the moft eminent Counfel in England, Scotland, and France.— 'V\\e ordered to be given in on that Point. — The Defender infifled on the Unfairneis of the Proceedings, and the Incompatibility of the Nature of Evidence in Fiance ; with the P>.ules eftablifhed in this Country, as has been ali-cady flated.— The Purfuers, on the other Hand, made an awkward At- tempt to vindicate the Tournelle Procefs, by the Arguments which have been alfo explained. TheCourt of Seflion pronounced the following Interlocutors, which, upon an Appeal to theHoufe of Peers of this Date, were varied and amended, and are here flated accordingly. j3Apnl,i764. " The Lords having confidered the three feveral Proceires,_ &c. before Anfwer, allow the Pur- fuers to prove the Fafts contained in the Condefcendences given in for them, and allow to the Defender a conjunft Probation, and both Parties to prove every other Faft and Circumflance which they may judge material in the Caufe ; and for that Effcft grant " a new" Commiflion to- both Parties, [" to be executed in the ufual Manner, purfuant to the Authority thereby given."] 27 July, 1763. p.^^ ^^^ Objeftion, That certain Witneflcs had been examined in the Tournelle Criminetle of the Parliament of Paris, not relevant to incapacitate thofe WitnelTes from being exa- mined as Witnefles in this Caufe, referving all Objeclions to their Credibility when the Proof comes to be advifed ; but find. That the Purfuers, before proceeding to execute the Commifhon now granted, rauft give in a Petition to the Parliament of Paiis, praying, That the Depofitions of the Witneffes taken in Confequence of the Plaintcs at the Liftance of any of the Purfuers, may be delivered up to the Commiffioner to be nam.cd by the Defender, that thefe Depofitions maybe cancelled; and alfo praying. That Infpeftion be granted to the Defender, oi tht PlairUes, Records, or Writings produced therein, and whole Procedure had thereon, with Liberty to the Defender to take Copies, Extra£ts, or Excerpts thereof: And in Cafe the Depofitions can- not be delivered up, lind the Purfuers mufl procure to the Defenders, or their Agents at Paris, free Accefs to and Infpedion of the Plaintes, Proofs,- Books, Writings, and whole Procedure had in thefe Plaintes before the Tournelle Crimmellc, and Liberty to the Defenders to take Copies, Extrads, or Excerpts thereof, ::nd this at lealt fifteen Days before the Purfuers examine any Wit- neffes that has been adduced before the Tournelle Criwinelle : And the Lords hereby difcharge the Purfuers, upon their Peril, to examine any more Witnefles, or to give in any more Plaintes relative to the Queftion in IlTue between the Parties in this Caufe before the Tournelle C) iiiiincllc, or any other Court in France, or to carry on any further Procedure in the Profecution of the faidvP/rt/K/fi after the lOth Day of Jugu/i next, and during the Dependence of this Caufe. And. find, That no Y/itneifes examined at the Inftance of the Purfuers before any Coiut in France, from and after the 10th Day of Augu/l next, fliall be admitted as Witnefliis in this Caufe. Find, That the Purfuers muft procure Infpeftion to the Defenders, or their Agents at Paris, of all fuch Letters to the Lieutenant-General, or other prefent Olhcers of the Police, relative to the Matters in Wiie between the Parties, as fliiall, between and the 15th Day of Auguji next, be fpc- cially condefcended on at Paris by the Defenders, or their faid Agents, and as iliall be extant at the time ; and alfo of all Books and Rcgifters of Police, or other Writings relative to the Mat- ters Book ir. I N T H E R E D U C T I O N. 37 ters in iflue between the Parties, which have been founded on by the Purfuers, or which have been cr may be comniunicated to them, and are iii the Cuftody or PoiTeflicn of (he Lieuttnant Ge- neral ds Police^ or other Officers of the Police, with Liberty to take Copies, or Extracts, or Excerpts, from them at leafl: fifteen Days before any Witnefs can be examined for the Piirfuers in France. [" But Thefe Words *<■ in Cafe the Purfucrsfiall in/if, that the . - -. . " be delivered up, or obtain Infpeftion " thereof, or of any Part thereof; o^ _ _ *' Poliee, or ether Officers of the Police for the Time being, relative to the Mutters in ^icjiion between " the Parties; and all Copies or Regijlers of Police ; and ainfritit:gs, Me7norandums, Entries, or Ex- " trails, re'ative to any Information or Tranfiiflion before the Cures in Confequence of the French Mcni- " toire, which are in the Cujiody or Power of the Purfuers, their Attorneys or Agents ; fuch ProduSiion " to be afceitained before the Court of Seffion, upon the Oath of the Purfuers, their Attorneys and Agents ; " and that the Pur fner s forthwith do everyThing in their Power to retraSl or difcharge the f end Plnintes /'/- " fore the Tournelle Criminelle ; and to procure the fame to be difmij/ed."] <' And the Lords hei'eby direft and require the Commiffioners to be named, to take down in Writing the Objeclions that may be made by either Party to the Witnefs or Witneffes adduced by the other, and the Aniwers thereto, and that previous to the Examination of fuch Witnefles ; and alfo to allow cither Party to crofs-examine and interrogate the Witnefs adduced by the other ; and to caufe the Aniwers to be made by the Witneffes upon fuch crofs-Examination to be fully taken down : And ordain the Purfuers, before extrailing the Aft and Comniiffion, to give in a particular Condefcendence of the Names, Defignations, and Places of Abode, of the Witnefles by whom they are to prove the Each contained in their Condefcendences ; diftinguifliing tlierein thofe who have been exaoiined before the Tournelle Criminelle : And in Cafe the Purfuers iball find it necefiary to prove anv further Fafts not contained in their Condefcendences, nor arifing therefrom, nor from the Examination of the faid Witnefles, or to adduce any Witneffes, other than thofe contained in the Lift hereby ordained to be given in before Extract, ordain them to furnilTi the De- fenders, or their Agents at the refpe£live Places where fuch Witnefles are to be examined, with a I.Jft of the Names, Defignations, and Places of Abode of fuch Witnefles, and a Condefcendence of the Fa£ls to be proven by them, at leafl fifteen Days before the Examination of fuck Witneffes: And ordain the Defenders to furnifli the Purfuers, or their Agents at the refpedtive Places as aforefaid, with a Lift of the Names and Defignations, and Places of Abode, of the Witnefles pro- pofed to be adduced by them, at leafl fifteen Days before the Examination of every fuch Witnefs : And ordain each Party to furnilh the other with a Copy of Interrogatories upon which each Wit- nefs is intended to be examined, three ]3ays at leafl before the Examination of fuch Witnefs ; with- out Prejudice to either Party to put fuch further Queflions as may appear necefiary in the Ccurfeof the Examination : And ordain the Parties, on or before the 6th Day of Auguji next, to condefcend upon the Places at which the CommiflTion is to be executed, and the Times propofed for the Exe- cution thereof at thofe Places ; and upon the Names of the Commiffioners, and of the Agents, who are to be employed by them at thefe refpe£tive Places : And the Lords recommend to the feveral Judges of the feveral Kingdoms and Places under whofe Jurifdiftion this prefent Commiflion Ihall be executed, if defired by the Parties, or either of them, to ifllie the proper Compulfitorics for bringing the Witnefles to be condefcended upon by the Parties before the Commiffioners, in or- der to their Examination upon the Points in Iflue ; and grant Diligence, at the Inftance of both Parties, againft fuch of the Witnefles as may be under the Jurifdi£tion of this Court : And ordain. the Seal of this Court to be appended to the fiiid Commiffion." But while the Quefliion was thus agitated in the Court of Sefiion, the Tournelle Procefs, under the Aufpices of Mr. Andrew Stuart, was carried on in Paris with amazing Zeal and Rapidity ; and though the Procedure in Scotland niight, at leafl:, have rendered him more cautious, it was- in the very Heat of it, that the Monitoire made its Appearance.-- -A Monitoire is an Injundllon,^. under ecclefiafl:ical Authority, obliging all Perfons to reveal what they may know of a Crime committed, to the Curate of the Parifli in which they live, incurring the Pain of Excommuni- cation if they do not comply with the Terms of it. ---The Defender has notliing to fay againfk that Manner of invefligating fecret Crimes, according to the Spirit of the French Law ; and if it is once fuppofed, that the Queftion of his State was fairly and regularly brought into the Court of Tournelle, a Monitoire, which fliould not exceed the Bounds of the Laws and Ordinances of France, could fcarce be called an irregular Proceeding : But, even in that Cafe, it was rather au- dacious to venture on the Demand of a Monitoire, at a Time when the Propriety of the Procefs from which it fprung v/as queflioncd ; and when the Purfuers muii have known tlie Indignation their Condu£l had railed in Scotland. But the Monitoire was no lefs contrary to the Laws and Ordinances of France, than Mr. AndTM Stuart's Condu£l in demamling it, at that Period, was contrary to Juflice and the Refp^rcl he owed to the Court of Seflion. It becomes ncceflary, therefore, to enter into a (hort Difculfion of it, that the Difadvantages which it brought upon the Defender may fully appear. It confills of four 38 C O N D U C T O F T HE PURSUERS Part I. four Heads : i. Under the Defignation of an quidom Ecofibis, fa Ffmme, fs" la DemoifclU ik Com- paonie, there is inferteti a very minute Relation of tlie Condiitt of Sir John Stnvart, Lady Jiwey aiid Mrs. Hc-wit, in Ho/land, at Jix, and at Rbeims, from the Time of their Marriage to the Time they finally left Frnuu: 2. There is an Account of their doub// Demcure at Godffroi's and at Michers, from July 8th to July 14th 1748 ; and that the Delivery at Le Brun's was a Suppofition, and an Impjhtre dcmafquee. 3. There is a pohtive AlTertion, that the eldeft pretended Twin was picked up at Paris, or in the Neighbourhood, in the Month oi July 1748. 4. It contains a long Account of the Enlevcnmit u( Sanrys Child, with all the Circumilances and Dates as they had been fettled between the Curate of St. Laurent and Mr. jindrew Stuart, and pofitively and folemnlv applied to, and charged upon thefe Perfons who had lived in Holland, at AV, or at Rlnims, ' in the Manner above defcribed. The pernicious Confequences of this Libel are glaringly obvious. The Hiftory of Sir John, I^ady Jane, and INIrs. Hnuit, in Holland, at Aix, and at R'nims, could be of no Ufe to the Perfons who might have loft a Child. For, if the Parents ot the Ifolen Child had known any one Circumftancc of die Journey and Refidence of the Perfons who itolc him, tlio Child would have been found long ago. But thefe Fads ferve to bring the Accufation Home to Sir John and Ladv Jane ; to point them out as the guilty Perfons to every one who might have been an Hour in their Company in the Courfe of three Years , and to intimidate weak Minds, who might here- after be called in Evidence to the Pregnancy or the Reconvalefcence. The fecond Particular mufl have the fame Eft'ecl:, to intimidate thofe who might have been pre- fent at the Delivery. It feems plainly calculated to prevent the Appearance of Mzd. Li B>un, fuppofing flie had been alive, and that the Monitohe had come to her Knowledge ; for fhe muit have thought that fome Impoftors had taken upon them the Circumilances of the Lady ^vho was delivered in her Houfe on the loth oijiuy 1748 ; as it could not be the fame, becaufethe Mo- mtoire pofitively allured her, that the Perfons pointed at were at Godefroi's or at Michel's on the iOth of July- She could not even have a Sufpicion that the Cafe in the Monitoire related to her, efpecially as her Guefts came from another Lodging in Parli ; and it is great Odds if ihe ever knew that they came from Rheims ; the rather, that they quitted her Lodging in Difguft ; not to return to Rheims, but to take another Lodging in Paris. Arguing on thefe Principles, (he mufl have neglefled the Monitoire as a Thing which no Way related to her, and with which {lie had nothing to do. Befides, if Ihe had revealed, how was the Defender to be benefited by her Revelation ? It would have been taken by her Parifh Cure, whofe Duty it was to fend it to the Procureur-General, and to fend her Name and Defignation to the Purfuers only. But from the general Tenor of the Purfuers Conduct, and by the Means of Francois La Marre, it is not improbable that they had taken efl'edual Methods to prevent her Ap- pearance. 3. The AlTertion, That the pre(e:ided eldefl Twin was carried off in the Month oi July from Pai is, or the Neighbourhood, confined the Enquiry and Revelation to that Month : It led the Evidence into a Coincidence of Time and Circumilances. Defect of Memory, or the lealllncli- nation to Biafs, would naturally induce a Parent to apply the Lofs of his Child, happening fome JS'Ionths before or after, to the precife Month pointed out in the Monitoire. It ferved to fix an in- determinate Evidence ; and it related the Circumftances of the Enlevirncnt of Sanry's Child, though that Difcovery was already made. To carry the Coincidence flill farther, it deprived the De- fender of the Means of proving many Fafts, which might have thrown Light on thefe Enleve- ments, by the Difcovery of others. If the Alonitoire had confined itfelf to a fimple Enquiry into Fa£ls— if it had contained no De- fcrintion of the Perfons, but in general enjoined all who knew any Thing of Madame Le Brun and Pierre La Marre on one Hand, or of the Enlevement of Children in 1748 and 1749 on the other, to reveal what they knew, it might have been juftifiable on the Principles of French Law.— - But even in that Cafe it could not be approved ol in the more liberal and equitable Spirit of the Laws of Great Britain. As foon as the Defender was informed of the Monitiire, he put in a Petition to the Court of Seffion the 31I of AnguJl 1763, reclaiming againfl the Interlocutor of the 27th of July, and com- plaining of the Publication of the Monuoire as irregular and unfair.---He concluded with praying, t^at their Lordiliips would alter the Interlocutor of the 27th of July, fo far as to find, that the Wit- nelles examined before the TaumelU were unhabile WitnefTes in this Caufe, and could not be exa- mined for the Purfuor ; referving to theDefender to examine them if he fliould feeCaufe.---2 cure a Pafs for their going into Holland, which he accordingly obtained. The Pafs was taken out for Lady Jane ; and befides Mrs. Heiuit and the two Maids, it comprehended Mr. Stewart and one „ „ James Johnjione, a Relation of Mrs. i/ctt'/V's, in the CharaiEler of Servants to Lady ^aw ; and who ' " '* paffed under the Names of James Kerr and John Douglas. The faving a Fee of two Guineas, which was exacted for the Pafs of every Gentleman, the avoiding Sufpicion of the Marriage, and a Pafs being more eafily got for a Lady than Gentlemen, were probably the chief Ilealons which in- duced the changing of Names and affuming the CharaGer of Servants. Upon their Arrival in Holland, they went directly to the Hague, where they were diverted from 35. profecuting their original Intent of going to Aix-la Chapelle, by the Picport of many Robberies hav- ing been committed on the Road, from that Country having become the Seat ot War. Lady Jane therefore applied to Mr. Ti evor, the Englijh Refident at the Hague, to procure her a Pafs to go to the W^aters of Bourbon in France, which was rcprcfented to her as a cheap and agreeable Place to live at ; but the Pafs could not be eafily obtained. While at \}ac Hague, they hired one of the Name oi Lambinon, as a Man-Servant, and they D. -P. 505. », became acquainte. P. i6i. e. Houfe, and Sir IVilliam Stewart and his Lady likewife left them at Spa, with an Intenticn of going into Italy, but they afterwards changed their Mind, and went to Paris. "When Lady Jane and Sir John Stewart returned to Aix, they lodged fome fhort Time at Mad. Champinoi's, and returned tQ. their old Apartments at Mad. TewJi's the 14th of September.. In OSlobir 1 747, Lady Jam became pregnant, which was foon difco\'ered by ^.Tad. Tewis^ 18. c. Mrs. Hewit, and the Maid-Servants, from Lady Jane's being afBidled with thofe Ailments pe- ■——4.85. G. culiar to Ladies in her then Situation, and from other fecret Marks which mud be known to her n'p'V'c ' -Attendants. Audit was likewife obferved hy ImyA Crawford, who h.-'.d come from the Army to P. P. 251. R..' reiide at Aix for the Winter, and who fpoke of it to Mr. Stewart ; his Lordftiip having been pre- vioufly informed of the Marriage. D. P. 24, B. On the 5th of January 1748, it became neceflary for hzAy Jane to leave Mad. Tewis's Houfe», as it was let to Lord Sandwich, Plenipotentiary from the Court of Britain to the Congrefs then to • 3. c. be held at Aix-la-Chapelle, and Mad. Tewis took Lodgings for her and her Family in the Houfe o£ Mad. Scholl. Although Lady J^ne found her growing Pregnancy, and herfelf in that State that it muft be dif- covered by every difcerning Eye, yet the Apprehenfion of additional Expence from making her Marriage publickly known, made her refolve to continue in her Plan of concealing it and her Picg- nancy as long as poffible : But her Endeavours as to the lafl were in vain, for her Pregnancy be- came fufpefted, and believed by almoft nil her Acquaintances. at Aix, and by Mad. 5t7jaA' among, others, although fhe was feldbm feen/by hxr. 2. B. The approaching Seafon of the Waters at Aix, and Congrefs there, had the Effert of raifing the Rent of Lodgings fo much about the End cf March, as to oblige Lady June to remove with her Family to very mean and inconvenient Lodgings in the Houfe of one Gilhjen, becaufe flie could not afford to pay the Rent that was offered by otliers for the Lodging fhe was then in. Lady Jane and Sir John Sltwart, diffatisfied with their Lodgings, and forefeeing the addi- tional Expence they mufl be put to, by living in a Town fo much crciidcd, and where all Kinds of Provifions had become exceedingly dear, they, by the Approbation of Lord Ciaivford, came to a Refolution of going X.o Geneva ; and his Lordfliip propofed to fend with thtm a Servant ami Horfes to his Relation Lord Garnock, then at Milan, and propofed when he went to the Army to get r. P. 5i£i. \\^tm. Pafl'es for going through a Part of Fril, rnd upon coming to the Army,. found it more diiBcult to obtain the neceifary Pafies than he had imagined ; which retarded their. carrying into Execution their Litention of going to Geneva : (hi the 30th of April the Prclimi- T>. P. 4.R5.C. narics of Peace werefigned, wliich opened the Roads every where,, and fuperfedcd the Nectfllty. 487.0. ofPailcs., c r ; r . g^2, i/<]. Before Lord Crawford's leaving Aix-la-Chapelle, Lady Jane came to the Refolution of makings her Marriage and Pregnancy l.nown to her Brother, wliich fiie did in a Letter dated the loth of Apry, and which Lord Crawford tranfmitted in a Letter of his own to the Duke, wherein he like- wife inforhied his Grace of the INIaniage and Pregnancy. W-hsis' Book r. THE NARRATIVE, 43 While Lady "Jane and Sir 'John Stewart'^ Intentions of going to Geneva were fufpended by the Want of Pafles, a Propofition was made to them by Mad. Teiu'is about procuring the Ufe of a Chateau, called BeJhaur, for their refiding in, and which belonged to the Count de Salme ; and D. P. i6. b. was diilant about nine Leagues Irom Aix-!a-Chalyelle. This Propofition was at firil agreeable, but as the LTfe of the C'ateau was to be procured from the Count's BailiiJ", who declined to grant it without the Permiilion of the Count himfelf, who was then at yienna, it became a Matter not to be relied upon, as the Pregnancy and other Circumftances prefled their immediate Departure from Axy and there'ore they recurred to their original Intention of going to Geneva -, but inllead of going by Luxembourg they propofcd to go by Rheims, where they were told they might ftop, the Event of a longer Journey being inconvenient. They accordingly left Aix the 2 ill of M,iy. At Lifge they reded fome Days, where they faw feveral of their Acquaintances, particularly Mr. and Mrs. Hepburn, with whom they had become acquainted at the Hague ; and the Preg- nancy was obfervcj by all of them.— -Amongit the Perfons whom they faw at Liege, was Chevalier Douglas, to whom .Sir John Stewart comnmnicated the Intention of Lady Jane's probably con- D, p. ,0, , tinuing at Rheims until (he was brought to-bed ; who thereupon advifed Mr. Stewart to carry her to Paris, as her Delivery might be attended with Danger at her advanced Time of Life : IJut the Advice was not much attended to at that Time. . Upon the 25th of May they left Liege, and proceeded to Sedan ; where Lady Jane finding herfelf fomewhat fatigued, continued till the Stage-Coach fhould go from thence the Week fol- lowing, when they proceeded to Rhetel, where Lady Janeioxmd herfelf ill upon her Arrival ; but recovering in the Morning, they proceeded to Rheims, where, by the Alfiftance of Mr. Andrieux, they were provided in a Lodging, which they took by the Month, and with a Refolution, it would appear, of continuing there. Lady JFigton came to Aixla-Chapelle fome Time before their leaving it ; and Lady Jane being intimately acquainted with her, prefled her to go along with them ; and after their Arrival at Rheims, Lady Jane wrote Lady IVigton, and again prefled her to come there, as a cheap and sei-v. p. it. c agreeable Place ---The Day after their Arrival, y\.'c. Stewart wrote Lord CVaw/^r^ of their Refo- p p " lution to ftop at Rheims, and requefted his Lordfliip to make good his Promife, by making Lady ' " ^''*' '" Jane a Vifit in his Way to the Waters of Barege : And Mr. Stewart, at the fame Time, wrote Mr. Florentine, at Aix, of his Frientl Mr. Andrieux having provided them in an agreeable Letter pro- Lodging, and that they would probably remain there a confiderable Time. duced.hutnot printed. After being fome Time at Rheims, Lady Jane learned from Mad. Andrieux, the Wife of Monf. Andrieux, to whom they had been recommended, that the Midwives and Accoucheurs of Rheims ■were reputed unfkilful ; and that People of Fafhion, when .apprehenfive, either fent for an Ac- g toucheur from Paris, or went to Paris to be delivered, when they did not chiife to be at that Min p 6 c" Expence. This Suggeftion, and the Advice formerly given by Chevalier Douglas, made them come to the Refolution, about the 25th of June, of going to Paris -, and they communicated _ _ their Intention by Letters to Mrs. Hepburn and Ludy IFigton, and afligned the Unflcilfulnefs of ■^•54'' the Accoucheurs at Rheims for doing fo. When at Rheims, Lady Jane and Sir John Stewart became acquainted with MdT. Maclean and Mackenzie, two Britijh Officers, who were Prifoners there upon Parole, untill thty lliould be leleafed or exchanged. And here again the Pregnancy was remarked. Sir John Stewart being uncertain, at leaving Aix-la-Chapclle, where they might ftop, took a Bill for what Money he had upon a Banker at Paris, which would be faleabie in any Town whatever ; and when at Rhrims he avoided felling of the Bill, as his carrying it to Paris might be a Means of introducing him to the Banker upon whom it was drawn, and of getting Credit, if he fliould have Occafion to draw for Part of Lady Jane's Annuity before it became due, which probably would be the Cafe. Not having a Sufficiency of ready Money for the Paris Journey, if the whole Family was to go tbere, and probably apprehending that the two Maids could not be ufeful to them upon their firll Arrival, or finding no Place in the Stage-Coach for them, they came to the Refolution of leaving them fome Time at Rheims , and they and Mrs. Hewit let out for Paris in the Stage-Coach upon the 2d of 'July, and arrived on the 4th at the Hotel de Chaalons, kept by one Godifroi, to whom they had been recommended by Mr. AAuillcfer, a Gentleman of Rheims, where they continued ^erv. p. 12, ». till the 7th. Upon the 5th of July, Sir John Stewart trrote to Baron Macelligot, Hufband to Lady Jf~igt-,n, in- forming him of Lady Jmei fafe Arrival at Paris ; and the fame Day he prefented In's Bill to the Banker, and received Payment of the moft eonfider.able Part, having only in his Pocket one Louis d'Or upon his Arrival at Paris : But the Banker refufed to advy.ncc Money upon Lady Jane% H 2 Ann nit \- $ -44 P.P.252.E. THE NARRATIVE. Part II. Annuity ; and Sir John Stewart^ finding or apprehending Want of Money, requefled Ulx, Andrieuxy by a Letter, to advance him 25 or 30 Louis d'On ; to which Mr. Andrieux., by a Letter in Courfc^ agreed, and foon after fent the Money. Sir John SlewarthtC'i.me. acquainted with one La Jldarre, an Accoucheur, and engaged him to attend Lady Jane at her Delivery. Godifroi's Inn being noify and inconvenient for a Woman in Lady Jane's Situation, they re- moved from it upon thi.- 7th oi July, and went to the Houfe of one Is Brun, to which it is pro- bable they were recommended by La Marre : And Lady Jane was there delivered by La Marrt terv. p. i». c. of the Appellant and his Brother, in Prefence of Mad. Le Brun and her Daughter, a Widow who lived in the Houfe, and Mrs. Hewit. The youngeft Child was very weak when born, and was ondoyed or fprinkled by the Accoucheur^ agreeable to the Cullom of France in fuch Cafes ; but having got a good Nurfe for him in the Neighbourhood of Paris, he did well, and remained there fixtecn Months, under the Direction of La Marre, the Accoucheur. The Appellant, being a ilrong and healthy Child, was kept in the Houfe, but was more unfortunate in his Nurfes ; however, at laft, a good one was got. Serv. p. 11. D. Mad. Le Brwi's Houfe liaving Bugs in it, they diftrefled I^ady Jane very much, which made P. P. i7> E' her refolve to leave the Houfe as foon as fhe could with Safety ; and accordingly, upon the 20th of Jufy, ike removed 10 the Houi D' Anjou, Ite^thy Miche/, a Wig-Maker. It appears, that on the 21 ft of July, Sir John Stevjart and Mrs. Hnuit vf rote Letters to feveral of D. P. 350. B. their Friends, giving them an Account of Lady Jane's Delivery ; and in thefe Letters they defcribe P.'p.'igS. D. the cldeft Boy to be ilrongand healthy, but unlucky in his Nurfes ; and the yaungelt Boy to be puny, Serv. 7. A. l,ut fortunate in a trood Nurfe. P. P. 372, E. " Lady Jane'A recovering Strength very flowly, by Keafon cf the Air of Paris at that warm Scafon of the Year, ihe was advifed by La Alarre to "o into the Country ; and accordingly they went to Daiamartin about the 3d or 4th of Auguji, where they ftaid near two \Veek$ : And Lady Jani having recovered fo much as to be fit lor a Journey, they went to Rhei/ns, and carried the Dcicudcr, gnd a Nurfe they got for him at Dammartin, along with them ; the Nurfe who went from Paris to Pammaitin ha\ ing refufed to go with them. P.P.63*'. On the 7th of A^z//? Lady 5'<"'^ wrote to her Brother the Duke, informing him of her Delivery on the 1 oth of July, of two Sons ; the one ilrong and promifing, the other weak, and little to be de- pended upon. And when at Rhcims they did, upon clid'erent Occafions, and to different Perfons, mention the State of the Children when born, the Day of their Birth, the Name of the Accoucheury V) P. 562. B. and the Place near Paris v.-here the youngeft Child had been put out to Nurfe under the Direftioa „■- 38S. G. of La Marre. I^ady IVigton had promlfed to be Godmother to the Appellant,, and his Baptifm was delayed till her Arrival at Rhcims, when it was publickly performed in one of the Churches of that Ciiy, upon Serv. p. ^^. G. ^\.,e 15th of September 1748 ; Lady IFigton and Madame Andrieux .afliiting as Godmothers ; Laid Blantyre and Baron MacelUgoi as Godfathers. D. P. 597. D, In Oiiiber following Mr. Steivart went to Paris along with Baron MactUigot, on Purpofe to fee the youngeft Child ; and carried Cloaths with him for the Child, which had been made in the Family at i?At7OT;.---Baron Macedigot was prevented from feeing the Child by Lidifpofition i la P A A but I\Ir. 6'/£'itw7 re{U)rted to him, after vifiting the Child, that he was; doing well, or upon the mend- ing Hand, as Baron Macelltgot has expreffed it. P. P. 34;.T. Lady IVigton went to Paris in Spring 1749, and promifeould write her a particular Aecount hr-w he was, and how taken Care oi.---Lady [l':gtcn was examined as a Witnefs in the Service upon Commiffion, when in a bad State of Health, and in Bed, and ihe died loon thereafter ; and no Queftion w.is put to her as to her feeing the youngcll Child ; and therclore her feeing of him refts Serv. p. 51. F. entirely upon theProbability of the FaCf. But hordBlantyre, who was in Fa: is about the fame Tune, did fee the Child. Mr. Haldane, a Creditor of Lady Joneh, believing the Duke's Obligation for her Annuity to be abfolute, attached the Annuity by Arreftmeut to operate his own Payment, which gave Offence to the Duke, and he withdrew the Annuity, which depcnot d upon his AVill.— -This threw Lady Jane and her Family into the greateif Dillrefs ; and the oniy Picfource {lie had was to apply to her Friends for a Loan of Money. ---This fhc did, and goc 350/. from Lord Alorton, and who advifed B- P- *+°' ^' Lady Jane immediately to come to Britain. ---They received tl>e Money at Rheims, upon the 2d of _^ \^ ' „■ November 1 749.— -On the 3d they fet out for Paris, to bring tlic youngeft Child to Rheims ; and on the 13th they returned with him to RJieims, from whence, after difcharging their Debts, paying and Book I. fHENARRATIVE. 45 and receiving all ceremonial Vifits of Departure from their Friends, who Irad ufcd them with great Civility and Refpecfk, they fet out for England on the 29th of Navemhr ; and after ftaying ten Days at St. Omer, and fourteen at Dunkirk, they arrived in London about Lhrijlmas 1749- Soon after their Arrival in England, the youngeft Child, who had only been ondoyed by the A- couchtur, was formally baptifed by the Name of Sholto, in Prefence of Lady IVij^lon and others. TheMoncy received from Lord Morton was foon exhaufted by difchsrging Debts at TSf^ic/wf, and de- fraying the Expcnce of their Journey. And as ^irjohn Stewart had formerly contrafted fome Debts in London, and was obliged to contraft more for the Support of the Family, he was, in a few Months after his Arrival in London, arrefted by his Creditors and imprifoned, where he remained for near three Years. In Augujl 1750, I,ady Jane was relieved from herDiftrefs of Poverty in Part, by his late Majefty giving her aPenfion of 300 /.---And the Letter fhe wrote to Mr. Pelhatn, folliciting that Penlion, p, p. ..g ^ affords Evidence of thole noble Sentiments (lie was univerfally believed to poflefs. Lady Jane knew that her Brother had long been difobliged with her, and had taken much Offence at her Marriage ; but ffie was entirely ignorant of the fcandalous Falfehoods taken Notice of in a preceding Part of the Cafe, which had been propagated to make the Duke believe that (he was not the Mother of the Appellant and his Twin-Brother, and of thefe Reports having made an Impreffion upon his Mind. In May 1752, Lady Jane was informed, by a Letter from Mrs, Carfe, that Jrchihald Stuart's p p ggj.f. "Wife had faid that the Duke would never own her Children ; and having received other Informa- tion as to Archibald Stuart\ reporting Stories to her Prejudice,"-fhe and Hh John Stewart firft thought of profecuting him : But upon their advifmg further with their Frieii of her Children, flie told him, that if he judged it necefl'ary, ftie would bring any Proof he fliould think proper, as Ihe did not doubt of the Man-Midwife being alive who delivered her. To which he anfwercd. That fhe need give herfclf no Uneafinefs as to that Matter ; for that as fhe and Mr. Stewart acknowledged the Children, there was no further Proof neceffary. Lady Jane, by the Advice of her Friends, went with her two Children to Douglas Caftle where her Brother refided ; as the moft likely Method of procuring an Interview with him, and of having thereby an Opportunity of cither removing the Imprefiions he had got, or learning what would be moft fatitfadory to him. — When flic came to the Houfc, flie fent a Meffage by a Servant, that flie and her Children were there ; but received for Anfwer, that they could not be admitted : And this now appears to have been oi^'ing to Advice given by ir'hite o( Stockbriggs, at a private Conference held upon that Occafion ; for that the Duke was inclined to fee them be- fore that Conference. Lady Jane paffcd that Night in the Town of Douglas ; from whence, in her deep AfBiflion, 971,8. flie wrote a Let'cr to her Brother that would have moved the hardeft Heart ; but there is Reafoii to believe, that H^hite kept up the Letter, which was one of the Practices he commonly fol- lowed to fupport his Government of the Duke. Lady Jane, finding it imprafticable to make her Way to her Brother by any Avenue, re- turned, depreffixl and difpirited, to London, to affift her Hufband, if poffihle, who ftill remained in Goal ; leaving at Edinburgh her two Children to the Care of her Friends. Soon after Lady Jane's Departure from Scotland, her youngefl; Boy died in Spring 175^. She informed her Brother of it by a Letter ; and it is in Evidence, that the Lofs of the voungcft Serv, fij. Boy afleaed h.cr fo much as to be judged to have been the Caufc of her Death, which happened in November following. As 46 T H E N A R R A T I V E. Part II- D. P. Sii. As Sir John Stewart's Imprifoiiment obliged Lady Jane io live feparate from him. Letters pafTed 900. between them ahnoit every Day ; a great Number of which hav^ been accidentally recovered 941. ^^^^^ ^j^^ Commencement of this Aftion. They are wrote in a Stile, which mult convince every Reader, that they contained the true Sentiments of their Hearts, and were never meant to be looked into by the World ; and they exliibit fatisfaclory Proofs of a genuine parental Afiedion, which none but Parents feel, and v^hich Parents only could exprefs. Lady Jane died in that State of Refignation and Contentment which affords an agreeable Sen- falion to eveiy virtuous Mind.— The oniy Solicitude flie expreiTed was for the Defender her Son, who Ihe was leaving an Infant upon the World ; and in her dying Moments, flie, in the Prefence cf many, poured forth her repeated Blefiings upon him, as the only Fortune flie had to give him. In Fram', no Perfon ever doubted of the Children being Lady J,7»e's. In Britain, any Doult, is to that Matter, was limited to a few, who were either Adherents to the Family of hamilwi, or who had been affecled by the falfe Reports which had been propagated by the Emiflaries of that Family : And after the Death of Lady Jane, Lady 5how, a Friend of Lady Jane's, moved with Coiiipallion at feeing the Heir of a noble Family left deftitiite, took the Appellant into her Family, and fupported and educated him while flie lived ; and after her Death, he was taken under the Care and Protection of a noble Lord while he had OccaCon for it. In 1759, Sir George Stewart died, and was fucceeded in his Eftate and Title by the Appellant's Fflther, Sir John ; who, having a high Regard for the Memory of Lady Jane, and having a warm Affection for the Appellant as the Son of their Marriage, and having a Defire to provide him as the Son of Lady Jane to the utmoft of his Power, did immediately upon his fucceeding to the Eftate, grant a Bond of Provifion to the Appellant for 50,000 Merks, which was a large Provifion for a fecond Son, in Proportion to the Eftate he had fucceeded to, taking into Confi- Serv. i+. E. deration the Debts he owed. And it is proved by the Writer of the Bond, that he had Diffi- • 3 "• culty in getting him reftrained from granting it for a much greater Sum. _ Sir John, during the remaining Part of his Life, continued to a£t with Affeftion towards the ■ ■+*7< Appellant as his Son ; and finding himfelf dying in June 1764, made a folemn Declaration of his being his Son by Lady Jam Douglas. In the preceding Part of this Cafe, an Account has been given of the Manner in which the Duke of Douglai's Eyes came to be opened, and of the Deeds executed by him in Favour of the Appel- lant, by whicli he was called to the Succeffion of the Eftate, and put by him under the Guar- dianftiip of many noble and honourable Perfons ; and of his having eftabliflied a Title to the Eltate, under the Authority of the unanimous Verdict of a very learned and refpedtable Jury. Thus the Defender has been eftabliflied in his State, as the Son of Lady Jane Douglas, by every Adl that can poiTibly occur for afcertaining the State of any Perfon whatever. He has the repeated Acknowledgment of Parents expreffed in every Manner that can carry Conviction to the Mind. His Birth was never doubted of in the Country where he was born, and never queftioned in Britain but by a few, which is well accounted for. The Pregnancy of his Mother, and his attual Birth, ftand fupported by better Evidence, than could have been well expected, or is in the Power of moft Men to give of their Birth at fo diftant a Period ; and to all this there Kiay be joined, not only an Acquiefcence in his State by tlie Relations of his Father, who had a llrong Intereft to diipute it, if there hud been Ground for difputing it ; but Duke Hamilton likewife, himlclf, at whofe Expence this Suit is c.uTied on, joined Iflue with him, to try the Claim made to the Duke of Douglas's Eftate, in vvhicli he infifted on the Duke of y^tia^/rti's firm Belief ot the Defender's being th.e Son ofjLady Jane Diu^las, as anfArgument againft him, until an una- nimous Judgment of the Court of Scifion had been given againft him rejecting this Claim. PART Book II. O N U S P R O 3 A N P I. PART II. BOOK II. of the Onus Proband i. CHAP. I. Of the Form of the Argument as jiated hy the Purfuers. A Queftion was raifed by the Purfuers, in the Courts below, in thcfe Words ; Cul incumbit A\_ Onus probandi F The iimple and obvious Anfwer feems to be, Alleganti -, and the natural Courfe of purfuing fo general a Propofition to any ufeful Conclufion, feems to lie in coii- fidering what are the Allegations in the Caufe, and by whom, and for whole Behoof, they are made. The Purfuers think otherwile, and proceed to explain their firft Qu^eflion by another, not fo general, but equally indefinite ; "Whether it is incumbent on the Defender to bring fatisfaftorv Evidence before this Court, that he is indeed iKtitled to the Charafler, he afllimes, of Son to Ladv fane Douglas ? Or if (meaning whether) the Purfuers mufi; bring demonllrative Proof of his NOt being her Son ? This Queftion alfo muft end in nothing. The Service, without Doubt, does and will en- title him to the Charadter he aflumes till it fhall be reduced and avoided. This muft be done, cither by Ihewing, that the Jury was miftaken when it declared and found him in Po[fejfion of the State he claims ; or by impeaching his Title to that Pojfejpon, by proving, in Point of Faft, that it was acquired for him by Fraud.. The Purfuers aft as if they thought otherwife ; without avowing a contrary Opinion, or even. ftating it for Argument. They fum up, what they are pleafed to fuppofe for the Purpofe, the Topics upon which the Defender relies for turning the Burden of proving upon them ; and find it eafy, by their Wny of Reafoning, to conclude in thefe Words : " The Court is tied to no precife " Rules of Evidence." The Court feems to have adopted the Idea, and decerned accordingly. The Form of their Argument, ifthey infift upon calling it fo, is this : Tlie Verdiftdeferves no Credit. None in Eftimation of Law, bccaufe the Suitor of the Writ may purchafe it or let it alone as long as he pleafes ; becaufe the Writ goes to the Judge-Ordinary of the Jurifdiftion ; becaufe it commands to impannel Perfons of Charafter and Integrity, who are to be put upon Oath ; becaufe it muft be proclaimed publicly ; becaufe nobody can be admitted to contradictory Proof who is not a Competitor by Writ, that is, who does not claim to be fervej Heir under the precife fame. Titles ; (the Reafon of which feems to be, that otherwife it is mere wanton Impertinence to inter- fere, which no Law allows, and yet Duke Hamilton was admitted to contradictory Proof, and i> now actually proceeding to reduce the Service, though he does not claim under the precife fame. Titles, but as Heir Male, and under a Male Entail, while the Defender only offers to take as Heir Female) ; becaufe the Jury are to find on their own Knowledge and Oath, as well as that of other Witneiles ; and becaufe the Jury, by the Law of Scotland^ is liable to be attainted by an Inqueft of Error for a falfe Verdidt ; in fliort, becaufe the Trial by a Service-Jury is no better regulated. and guarded by Sanftions in Scotland, than every civil Trial is in England, and only a little better than the Trial in criminal Caufes, wherein a Jury cannot be attainted for a falfe Verdict : And, laftly, becaufe they may be let afide, like all other Proceedings, for Delecl: in form, .or ior: Error in Fait. It deferves no Credit, in Fa£t, becaufe in ordinary Cafes, i. e. where there is no Competitor, it proceeds ex Parte: Therefore, in an extraordinary Cafe, where a Competitor, fuch as he is, w.;*: admitted, and kept a Bufinefs, which might have been done in two Hours, . in Coiitell for tw<>. Days, it is quafi ex Parte, and deferves no Credit. In ordinary Cafes, /. e. where there is no Competitor, it is faid to have been ufunl to pay little. Attention to the felefling a Jury ; they are impannelled of the Byftanders, or even of a Lift ven by the Party : Therefore, in an extraordinary Cafe, where ttieie was a Competitor, one is left to prefume, beyond what even thefe Purfuers aiTert, that the Competitor was negligent, the Macers, and the learned Judge, fpecially appointed their Aflelfor, partial. Over and above thefe Objedions, which go to all Verdicts alike, there are two which apnlv farticularly to this, namely, That Part o 1 the Evidence is foj-ged, Part perjured. 'Ihefe would avc been more logically applied to the Queftion Cui incumbit Onus probandi, if thty had fi- voured the Court with their Opinion, upon whom, by the Law oiS^itlard, the I'nirdcn of proving^ (utlt 47 48 ONUSPROBANDI. Part 11. rtich Charges as Forgery and Perjury lies ; and on which Side the Prefumption is, till they arc actually proved ; becaufe, without fome previous Inftruftion upon that Head, one is apt to imagine thefe to be Allegations of that Sort, where the Prefumption of Law falls in Favotir of Innocence, and the Burden of proving upon the Accufer : Nor would it ihockone, as extremely unreafonable, if fuch Accufers were bound to overcome fuch Prefumptions by forcible Proof, at the Peril of being punillied themfelves as malignant Calumniators. Having thus difpofed of the Verdi£l, as a Circumjlance which defcrves no Attention in the Quef- tion of reducing it, they apply themfelves to what they think the only other Articles upon which the Defender can rely for turning what they call, in their general Terms, the Burden of Proof upon them, namely, the Acknowledgement of the Parents ; which they defire mav for the future be called the Acknowledgement of Hu(baud and Wife, the baptifmal Record, and lire Hubite and Repute. Of the firfl: thefe are their Words : " It is plain, from the Nature of the Thing, that in al " Queilion de Partu fuppcfito the Acknowledgement of the pretended Parents can have very little " Weight. The xexy lAe-ioi z Partus fuppofitus \n\o\\cs that of the Guilt of the pretended Pa- *' rents. The Charge of a Child being fuppofitious, implies that the pretended Parents have ac- " knowledged as their own the Child of ether People. In the prefent Cafe the Queftion at Illue is, " Whether the Defender is really Son to Lady yane Dougles, or a Child fraudulently fup- " poled by her and Sir yohn Stewart as their own ?"' (This is certainly a true State of the IlFuc) or, in other Words, " Whether ^;ir JohnStcwart and Lady ^Jarie Douglas have acknowledged the " Defender as their Son, when he really was not fo V It is not feen how this " or" makes the Ground better. That flie acknowledged him is cer- tain. That he was the Child of other People, or a Child fraudulently juppofed, (as they vary the fame Propofition) remains to be proved. " This being the State of the Queftion, to maintain, that the Defender's having been acknow- ■*' ledged by Sir 'John and Lady ^j^^ as their Son isconclufive Evidertte of his really being fo, is *' in Eifeft to take for granted the very Matter in Queftion." The two Propofitions to be extra£led from this afFecled Confufion, and induflrious Loofenefs of Phrafe, are, i. That the Acknowledgement of Parents is not /"r/ma /V7<.jt- Evidence fufHcient to turn the Burden of Proof on the other Side, becaufe it is not conelufive Evidence fufficient to repel the other Side from any Proof at all. 2. That the Acknowledgement of Parents affords no Prefumption of Law, that the Fa£l: ac- knowledged is true; nay, " can have very little Weight ;" becaufe, ifitbefalfe, fuch Acknow- ledgement is an heinous Crime. As if the Law of S«//«;,v^ made no Prefumption in Favour of In- nocence, but would condemn the innocent Man without Evidence of his Crime, unlefs he could prove that he had not committer it. This Sort of Propofition has prefling Need of Authority to fupport it. Reference is made to Li. 6. C. de Tcjlamentis. " Neque Profeftio, neque Adfcveratio nuncupantium Filios, qui non funt, Vc- " ritati pra'judicat : &,qux utFiliisTeftamento relinquuntur, juxta ea, quK a Principibus ftatuta funt, " nondeberi, certi Juris eif." This Pafl'age is to be found inCod. Li. 6. Tit. 23. 5. de Te/iamentisi^ quemad?nidum Tejiatr.mta ordinentur : And the Cafe put to illuftrate it by Vivianus is, " Si litium »' Filiumtuum adfcverafti, nee erat, & eum, tanquam Filium, in Teltamento inftituifti ; an \alcat " Teftamentum, quaeritur? Refpon. quod non, nee Hseredis Inftitutio." It was an odd Place to look for an Authority on the Queftion where the Burden of Proof is to lie ; and accordingly, the Conilitution of the Emperors Valerian and Galiien goes to another Point. 1 hey take it for granted, that the Pcrfon fuppofed is the Son of Titius, and ordain that the AVill of Ad/iciiis fliall not difappoint the real Children, by calling the Son oiTitius, his own Son. The fccond Authority comes from an npter Place, and confequently makes more againft the Purfueis. Cod. Li. 4. "^rix. \<^.^. \\. de Prohationibus. " Non nudis Adfeverationibus, nee enientita " Profeffione, fed Matrimonio legitimo concepti, vel Adoptionc folenn', i ilii Civili Jure Patri con- *' ftituuntur. Si itaqi.e hunc, contra qucin fupplicas, aiienum efi'e probare confidis, per te, vel per " Procuratorcm, Adfirmationem ejus falfam c/rffj^ ; [the Note upon which, by C«n//aj", Va det(^e\ " cum ille quail pnHidtat ; oc Quxftio eft, utrum P'ilius fit iftius, aut alicrius." Tlie third Authority is Pcjfius : " L'bi 3g\t\ir principalitfr de Filiatione non operatur TraSatiis." This is cited, a-; it Vv.:' in FacV, an Obfervation upon the Cafe of Rujca, where Fraud was proved, by direct Evidence, upon the Truifatui. Tlie laft Autliority is iiotwAhfardus, Cond. 791. N°2. " Filiatio itaque quandoque probatur per " Nominationcm Parentum ; verum, quoniam, ut plurimum, per Nominationem folam non probatur, " idcirco no5 ncijantem co!)fliuiimus ConchiGoacni, diceniufijuc Filiationem ex fold Nominatione " no II Book I!. ONUS^ROBANDI. •• jion probari." The Words ut plurimum are left out of the Quotation, and the Conte?;t of tlie Argument, which will be cited hereafter on the other Side. In the mcanTimeit is tobeobferved, that this Paflage has no Relation to the general Queftion, upon whom the Burden of Proof lies : So far from it, that the fame Author, upon the whole Matter, determines that this fmgle Circum- ftance, Nominalio Parentum, turns the Burden of Proof upon the adverle Party. Much lefs does it app!)-, in the particular Cafe, to the Ground upon which the Defender offers to turn the Burden of Proof on the Purfuers, as will be fhewn prefently. This Argument upon tiie general Propofition is affifted by an Obfervation that the Defender difa- vows Belief in one of his Parents ; yf/V/Vf/, He thinks S\x John has confounded Circumflances in his Account oi La Marrt. What has that to do with his Acknowledgement of the Defender for his Son \ Ofthebaptifmal Record they fay, it is of no Avail, for the fame Reafon as the Nomination of tbe Parents is ufelefs. " To attempt an Impoflure of this Nature, without taking Care that the Child " fliould be baptized as theirs, would indeed be ridiculous ; but it would be no lefs ridiculous, ifaii " Artifice or Fraud of this Kind, which is of the EJj'ence of the Crime, ihould, by the Conftitutioii " of any Country, ferve to protcSl the Crime from Challenge.^'' This lively Paralogifm offers to infer, that, becaufe the Matter alledged is a Crime, the jfr~ afer is not bound to prove it ; and becaufe the general Prcfumption of Law in Favour of Inno- cence does not repel a contrary Proof, it does not require fuch Proof to fubvert it. The Authority upon which this new Propofition is attempted, is taken from the Cede, Lib. 7. Tit. 16. § 15. de Liberali Caufd, where the Emperors Diodetianui and Maximinianus have provided in Favour of Liberty, that the Imperfection or Falfehood of the Tahulee Cenfuales fliould not comiude the Claim of Freedom, but Proof by WitneiTes fliould be allowed againfl them. If only the fame Prc- fumption is allowed to thebaptifmal P^ecord in Favour of Pofleluoujas is allowed by thisConflitution to the Tabula Cenfuaks againll Liberty, it deftroys their Argument. The W'ords of the Conflitution are, " Nee omifla Profeffio Probationem Generis excludit, nee " falfaSimulatioVeritatem minuit : Cum itaque ad EsaminationemVeri, omnis Jure prodita debcat " admitti Probatio ; Aditus Prtefes Provinciw, folennibus Ordinatis, prout Juris Ratio patitur, ♦' Caufam iiberalem inter vosdecidi providebit."' The Cafe put upon this by Vivianus, is Gothnfred's Explanation, and runs thus : " Si de Poffef- " fione Servitutis in Libertatem provocafli, nonoh hoc tibi prajudicabitur, quod Inflrumenta Nati- <' vitatis tux non habueris, quo minus Lis fuo Marte decurrat, &, prout Juris Ratio diclat, decida- *' tur, aliis idoneis Probationibus adhibitis." For the reft they refer to a Number of Cafes printed in their Appendix, which will carry^ Con- futation of this extraordinary Argument to any Body who will be at the Trouble to read them, without requiring other Comment. Of Habite and Repute, it is argued in thefe Words : " As the Habite and Repute in this Cafe *' takes its Rife merely from the Aflertions of the fuppofed Parents ; fo it is, at beft, but Hearfay *' Evidence, at fecond Hand, of their Acknowledgements ; and if the Acknowledgement itfclf be " not fufficient Evidence, which has been already fhewn to be the Cafe, the Habite and Repute " proceeding upon it can defen'e no Regard." It would be tirefome Repetition to go over the fame Ground a thin! Time. If the Purfuers have really convinced any Body, that perpetual Treatment, exprefs Acknowledgement, and folemn Recognition of a Child by Parents (though criminal if falfe), afford no Prefumption of Law in Favour of its Birth, kt him go away v»ith this further Perfuafion, that popular Belief adds no- thing to that Prefumption. It is below even the Serioufnefs of common Senfe to argue fuch Propofitions. But the Purfuers fWl hang upon this Idea, and fay, that the popular Belief was not univer- fal. Caranza, Tit. de Partu fuppofito, S. §. 2. n. 79. gives them their Anfwer : " Facile eflet " cuicunque maledico Famam notare cujufvis honeftiffnnse Matronse, et in Vulgus fparjjere con- " fittam Subpofiticnem, eamque Adfertionibus Fide dignorum et ad credendum facilium com- <' probare." For this Part of their Argument, they refort to the fhr.nicful Conduct of one of the Tutors of Duke Hamilton ; and btc;;ufe he inv.ented and propagated Fallhoods (now de- tected) of Lady Jane, they dare to call the popular Belief lefs than univerfal : which if they could prove, no Argument would arife upon it, as fhaJl be demonftrated immediately. Having thus fet afide all which they think the Defender relies upon for ti'.ming the Proof upon them, they proceed to {hew, why they have been fo induflrious in agitating the previous Point, by fbting what Proof they have to produce, namely, Cinum^ancei and Prfjumpiiom. I This ^9 (( 59 ONUSPROBANDI. Part II. This is taking a very wide Field indeed. There may be Circumflances of fuch ftriking and dire*^ Inference, that it would be as hard to avoid that, as to repel any more immediate Tefti- mony : If one comes upon a lone Houfe, and fees a human Body weltering in its Blood, and another Man, the only one near, coming from it with Knife and Hands bloody, and the Itorrid diftrafted Countenance of a Murderer, that would be a pregnant Circumflance to be received againfl the Murderer. But what has this to do with the Burden of Proof ? Is the Cul- prit bound to prove a Cafe fo alledged againfl himfelf ? What Need is there for the Sake of fuch a Propofition to cite Mafcardui, Fan'fiadus, or any other Doi^or? What Need to cite their general Propofitions, without adding their Ampliations or. Limitations upon it (the Form of their Conclufion) ? the firft of which are an Analyfis of BoJJiu.i, the fecond Correftions of him , the firft ftating a Cafe itrong as that put before of Murder ; the ' fecond explaining, how the particular Circumftances may be avoided in Proof. Aliifcardus Concl. 1 147. lays, " Receptiffima eft in Jure noftro ilia Propofitio in his qux diffi- " cilia funt probatu, leviores Probationcs ut funt Conjefturve et Prsefumptionts admitti debere---ita " generatim locutus Bartolus" And yet that fame Do£l:or, Bartolus, laid it down, " Genera- tlm (1. Filium definimus nu. 2. verf. quajrunt Doct. fF. de his qui funt fui, vel alieni Juris) Patris,. vcl Matris Aflertioni non eft elTe credendum, fi deponat talem non efle Filium fuum ; quia Patris " vel Mutris Affertio proJelfe poteft, et non obeffe Filiis." Farinacius is alfo cited. Part 6. Qujeft. 150. Par. 10. nu. 245. " Cum Partus fuppofitus fit " difEcilis Probationis, ideo probatur Prefumptionibus et Conjcu Mrs. Grieg, Mifs Primrofe, Mad. MailUfer, and the reft, recollecl not a Syllable of the Matter; and thefe' Plots muft be applied to wound the Credit of fuch as had no Concern ia them. The firft Plot was to raife a Pieportof a Mifcarriage having happened in Holland: Tliis was to be done at Aix-la-Chapelk, where feveral Perfons refided who knew her in HoUand, though they knew nothing of the Mifcarriage. This was to be done to affift the Credit of Mad. Tew'is and others, who faw clear INIai ks of "Pregnancy about her at the fame Time, and the Manner of execu- ting it, was to be by a Whifper between Mad. M^ri.//;: and Mrs. Hewit : Sir /Vw and the Reft of the P'amily were 'to know nothing of the flatter: Mad. Nign-tie was not to report it in fuch Sort, that it fliould ever come round to them. In ftiort, it was to be quite a new thing, a limited managed Rumour. The Evidence of this deep-laid Schem.e is this Mrs. Hewit could fpeak no French ; Mad. D. P. 498. c. Ntgrette at that Time could fpeak both E'!g!lJ/j and French; Mad. NigreUe, llxtcen Years after, re- — 499. E.j ]-,tes a Converfation, in a Language which (lie had forgot, and which could never have been very familiar to her, with Mrs. Hewit, who fpoke herfelf fuch EigUjh as would have puzzled a Native of South-Britain ; and after hearing (it is likely) much of the Mifcarriage, which happened at Rheims, fhe feems to recolie£l: that the Diforder fhe talked of was a INIifcarriage. And upon this flight Ground is built the Imputation of a formed Plan of Fraud and Falfliood againft the whole Family. The fecond Plot was at Rheims : Tlie whole of this Nurfe Maugin has to herfelf; and the Pur- _ ^ fuers infift upon it as a Proof of her particular Falfehood. This rather derogates from the general ^ " ' Argument, that Lady Jane was in Ufe to give out fuch Falfehoods. It looks, however, as if Nurfe Meingin thought ftie fpoke Truth, for ftie takes no fuch Knowledge upon her of this as {he does of the former. She faw nothing but the Linnen rfwp/;i de Sang, pltn Sang quiiT ordinaire. It may have been an extraordinary Flux of Blood ; but from this Time Lady Jane is fuppofed to have gone then two Months and a half from the Time fhe was laid up : And other Similarity of Circumftances, it feems more probable that (he confounded one with the other. If flie had meant didioneftly, Ihe would doubtlefs have ufed a greater Variety of Circumflance, and affecled more particular Knowledge. The third Plot of the fame Sort was likewife at Rheims. In the Year i74-9> M:id. RutUdge was told by Mrs. Hnvit, Lady Jane was ill of a Mifcarriage ; but (he faw no more of it her- felf than this: Lady Jane was ill in Bed, called for a Napkin, and v/as in the Situation which Women are in monthly. This looks like a different Diforder from a INIifcarriage, and as if fhe had confounded it with the Story of the Mifcarriage the Year before, which flie might have heard from Mrs. Heivlt, efpecially as fhe fays flie never heard of any Mifcarriage but one ; and this is much more probable, as Mad. Rutledge's Memory is far from being accurate. She gives a particular Defcription of the Children, and tells a Story of a Vifit made her with the two Children at Marais, with all the Circumftances of who came in the Coach and who on Foot ; when in Truth both the Children were not at Rheims at the Time. The Purfuers do not believe a "Word (lie fays about the Children; but they are fure ftie is exatl about the Mif- carriage : Upon which they form their Conclufion equally fcnfible and candid, that Mrs. Hewit has funk this Mifcarriage, becaufe fiie grew afliamed of the Number of tlicm ; fo a Plan was laid by ihefe very fubtle People in the better Part of Life, while their Health and LTnderflandings were perfetl ; fuch as Mrs. Heivit was to be afliamed of, when her LTnderftanding, together with her Health, was broken with Age. They have forgot, however, to fettle whether ^^W /^a/A^r was afhamed, or quite left out of thefe notable Schemes. Tlic 608. — ■■ 609. Book ir. L A D Y J A N E's P R E G N A N C Y. 63 The laft Trick of this Kind was played upon Mrs. Maitland, who was tcld by Lady Jii'ie, that after I eirin J her Children, in making a Viiir to Lady Home, fhe ftrancd her Ancle, and was O- P- S^S- «• obliged to go Home, where flie parted with Child. This is plainly the Story of the Vifit at Rheims to Lady JVigton, mif?pplied in Mrs. Moitland's Memory to Lady H'nii' ; and the Time alluded to, after bearing the Children, denotes that Accident which fell out a few Months after flie was brought to-bed. This is a Specimen of the Purfuers Way of Reafoning upon Fafts Thefe are the Arguments by ■which the Court of SefTion was called upon to find the bafefi: Falfehood in Lady Jaiv, of whom no living Witnefs could be found to infinuate one evil Thought ; Perjury in three other Eye-Wit- nefles, who had no earthly Intereft to mifreprefent the Fa£l ; an unexplained Degree of Falfehood in two more, who flood in the fame Situation, and a Sort of Deception in the reft, which alone would have been fufhciently incredible; and they fliall all be given up, if it can be Ihewn that any Court of Juftice throughout the civilized World ever reafoned fo upon Evidence: But as long as it fliall continue theFaflTion of Jullice to afcertain Fa£ts by the Depoiltion of Witnelfes, that which has now been related muft be taken for true. PART III. B O O K IF. OF Lady "Janes Pregnancy. CHAP. I. Of the Motives affigned for Lady Jane's affuming Pregnancy^ l£c. . AFTER it has been fhewn tliat Lady Jane had the Capacity to bear Children, and that fhe was of a Figure and Temperament well adapted to it, and that {he adually bred at a Period- fubfequent to the Birth, it promifes to be a Work of very great Difficulty to prove that fhe was not pregnant of the Children flie is faid to have been delivered of on the loth of July, 1748 ; but that file afTumed Appearances of Pregnancy, which fhe had Reafon to believe might difappoint her own liTue. In fupport of this probable Syflem, they have, in the firfl Place, afTigned Motives which might have induced Lady Ja^^e to fuppofe Children: In the fecond Place, have examined a few WitnelTes who faw her in a Coach, or fome other accidental Manner, during her Pregnancy, and who did not obferve it ; from which they infer that the Pregnancy was aflefted, and that many WitnefTes who fwear her being wilh Child are perjured. The Motives affigned are, tliat Lady Jane finding herfelf deep in Poverty and Diflrefs,, flie wanted to be reconciled to her Brother, hoping to procure an Increafe of her Annuity: She obferved alfo with Regret, that his great Eftate and Honours were likely to fink into the Family of Hamilton, which flie abhorred. Whereupon to attain one of thefe Ends, and difappoint the ether, flie took up the Purpofe of fupplying the Houfe of Douglas with Children ; but as flie dcfpaired of bearing any herfelf, that is not knowing her own Capacity to breed, flie determined to fuppcfe an Heir. To that End flie married with Colonel Stewart, whom flie niiflook for an artful long-headed Man, and fet oiT from Scotlnnd \ii\.\\ a Defign to go diredly to Paris, a large and populous City, where the Scheme could eafily be exe- cuted, efpccially as the Colonel had the Language, and a perfeft Knowledge in the Laws and Guftoms of France ; which only the Purfuers have found out. But when upon her Arrival at the Hagur, file found it impofiiblcto get into France Auimg the War, flie repaired to Jix-la-Chapelle^ to wait for a more favourable Opportunity of carrying her Plan into Execution. Here the Moment fhe perceived the Peace to approach, fiie fet about counterfeiting a Pregnancy, that fiie might prepare the World for the Reception of her Children, and execute the Impofltion without Lofs of Time : And the Moment the Roads were open, flie went to Paris, the true old Place o£. Deftination, by Liege, Sedan, and Rheims, that nobody might know (he was going there. By fuch Means fhe hoped to enlarge her prefent Income, and fecure her SuccefTion to his Eftate,, at leaftto the Adminiftration of it aftjrthe Duke's Death ; and to have the Credit of giving Heirs to the Houfe of Dmglas. She had likewife in her Eye another coUateral Objeft, to difappoint the next Heir of the Eftate of Grandtully. Thefe, as nearly as can be collected, feem to be all the Motives and Parts of the Plan alTigned her, by thefe worthy Friends to her Memory — the Purfuers. I. Her Poverty is'proved by a Mortgage on her Bond of Provifion for 700 /. which fhe had bor-- rcwed to pay partly her Mother's Debts, which flie had- bound herfelf to difcharge j partly tbofe which . C4. LADYJANE'sPREGNANCY. Part III. which flie had neceflari.'y contraded by her Manner of living ; and alfo the Sums borrowed in 1 747 and 17+8. It is a ftrange Way of reafonlng, which makes the Poverty occafioned in the Execution of a Plan a IMotive for committing it. But, ftriking that out of the Account, flie was certainly poor, though not quite fopoor as thofe who, having much, wifli for more ; fhe was not poor of Soul. 2. Tliat {he wanted to repoflefs her Brother's Affetliion is alfo true. But it does not appear that {lie was inclined to attempt it at the Expence of her Honour, or even of her Pride : On the contrary, if her Expreffions on that Subje£l: prove any thing, fhe difdained fuch Attempts a little too much for her Intereft ; and of all poffible Schemes to regain his Affcftion, this was the moil unpromifing, and the moft unlikely for her to embrace, who had never yet (looped to take up any. 3. That either of them had any Averfion to the Family of Hamilten, or their Friends, at the F. ?• 524- c- Time in Queffion is nottnie: On the contrary, they expreil>;d thcmfelves with Kinuncfs, and Re- fpecft: of that Family, and Sir y^Z'« \ivolt io Archibald Stuart as an old Friend, in 1748; Lady Seiv. 41- P. jarie alfo confidered him in the fame Light in the Year 1752, till (he actually found he was u(ing the moft inhuman and unjuftifiable Means to irritate her Brother againft her. 4. It is going far indeed for a Motive to fuppofe fhe wanted to difappoint the next Heir of Grandtully: The Colonel had then a Son by a former Wife, grown up. And th.U flie ihoulJ go into fuch an Idea, is a Suppofition not worth an Anfwer ; efpccially, if it be alfo fuppcfed that flie married him for that Purpofe. 5. That (he hoped to encreafe her prefent Income, either by the Marriage, or the Pregnancy, or the Birth, is wholly inconceivable in any Period of the Project, or Execution of the imputed Scheme. She was fure to involve herfelf in much additional Expence. Her Income was ruined by it in Fafl : Such a A'larriage was the mofl: probable Means of fetting her irretrievably wrong with her Brother: It was ufed to that End by her Enemies: It had that EfFedl: ohe knew it muft have fuch Confequences : It was for that Reafon (lie fled and concealed it : If fhe had imagined other- ways, would (he have been two Years in revealing it to him ? If flie had flattered herfelf with anv fuch Hopes from counterfeiting a Pregnancy, flie would at leafi; have tried how it was likely to take, before undertaking fo troublefome and hazardous a Scheme ; ihe would have owned the Marriage, and have broke the Pregnancy to him by Degrees, at a Diftance, and by third Hands. Inftead of which, fhe does not tell him of either, till fhe iyabfolutely compelled to reveal both ; but if flie had e\er flattered herfelf in that Manner, the Duke's Conduce muft foon open her Eyes. She wrote him on the icth of April 1748, informing him of both. He made her no End of Anfwer, and the News flie had of the Reception her Letter met with was, that the Duke was in a Paffion, and threatened to withdraw her Penfion — What Inducement had fiie to perfift? A Mifcarriage was much eafier to counterfeit than a Birth, and no interefted Relation would have enquired after that. However, the Purfuers are obliged to fay flie does perfift, and in this defpe- rate Situation undertakes to produce Twins — though one, according to the Purfuer's Account, was hard enough to procure ; and all this to increafe her Income: One Child, it fliould feeni, would have been thought full enough for that Purpofe, efpecially after fhe had been diftrefled fo much in the Reft of her Plan ; and the whole Ground for putting this Interpretation upon her Conduct is, that when flie was a£lually with Child, and after fhe had Twins, flie gave that as an additional Reafon for begging her Brother's Afliftance, and held uptheir little Hands to implore his Compaffion. 6. That they expefled to fucceed either to his Eftate, or the Adminiftration of it, has fome further Improbabilities. Sir John Stewart was older than the Duke ; flie not much younger, but much weaker ; and Diftrefs is no good Promoter of long Life. The Duke had fliewn no Signs of being about to depart foon ; and yet (he muft be fuppofed, to take upon her a Plan of heavy and immediate Expence, for the hopelefs Profpect of living after flie fliould become too old to enjoy Life in the Face of certain Diftrefs, and immediate Hazard of Infamy. 7. The Motive arifing from the Credit of giving Heirs to fo illuftrious a Family, is an Impu- tation which is downright repugnant and deftruclive of itfelf. — Every Confideration of Blood, Family, and Honour, which could move her to wifli for Children (if indeed fhe had fuch Wiflies at laft, which never feem to have influenced her before) would make her revolt againft transferring the Eftates and Honours to the Children of others, efpecially to the Brats of Beggars j and that in Preference to many Lives adtually derived from the Stock of Douglas. The Plan of their original Dcftination was Psr/V, a large populous Town. - Lich Sir John, from his nitimate Knowledge of French Laws and Manners, knew to be of all ol'ut Places in the known World the molt commodious for executing fuch a Fraud. -It cannot be forgot, that ia Book II. L A D Y J A N E ' s P R E G N A N C Y. 63 in thirty-three different Publications, they have defcribed Paris to be large indeed, and populous i but under a Police fo accurately planned, and fo attentively executed, that no Individual of that great Multitude moves, or lives, but under the conftant and immediate Eye of the public jVIa- ^ giitrate. Admirable Order ! VOvdre unique peut-etre cbferve en Fiance ; whereby every Houfe, and every Inhabitant of every Sort, ftands recorded for ever ; and in Confequence whereof People might lie better hid, and be much fooner forgot in any fmall Market-Town of Great-Britain. It is not fair, however, to prefs them with this, becaufe this Ord7e unique is certainly an unwieldy Scheme, which no Induftry can execute ; for it does not depend upon the Officers, and therefore no Induftry is thrown away upon it. But how is it proved that Paris was their original Dertination I From a Letter of Sir John Sicivart's to the Dutchefs of Douglas in 1758, at the Diftance of twelve or thirteen Years; wherein he tells her Grace, that they meant to go to France ; coinp?,red with two Letters they have taken the Trouble of bringing into Procefs from Lady Jane to Mrs. Carjc, written from the Hague, OSfober 1746, and from Utrecl.i, February 1747. In the Firft of which (he mentions her Application to Mr. Trevor for a Pafs to Bourbon (a Town or Village in Champagne-Proper, famous for its Waters, which (he pro- pofed to drink) far enough in Diftance and Route from Paris. But it might have been expefted, that the Eagernefs which muft have belonged to fuch a View, would have been indefatigable in procuring a Pafs, which certainly might have been had by fuch Inftances as People embarked in fuch a Proieft would have made. But the Letters referred to by the Purfuers will beft explain that : " Though I am fomewhat mortified (fays Lady Jane) to find unexpefted Accidents arife to p_ p_ " prevent my little Scheme for Health taking place, yet my Vanity is fo much gratified in confi- " dering that the trifling Movements of Ladies are believed by two great and wife Courts to be *' of fo extraordinary Import, that I believe my Health will be better eftabliftied by fo flattering an " Idea, than by any other J.Iedicine, or the Ufe of the fineft Waters in the World, my Dlnefs " being moftly Lownefs of Spirits : What heightens them muft prove an effedtual Cure." In t"he fecond Letter (lie explains, that even her Purpofe of going to Bourbon was but fecondary, on Account of the Difficulty and Danger from Robbery in the JPtoads to Aix-la-Chapelie, as " Find- — — 34. 0} *' ing manymoreDifficulties than I could have imagined in obtainingfo trifling a Thing as Liberty to " pafs for medicinal Waters, even though they happen to be on the French fide, I have laid afide " my Defign of going there, though Mr. Keith, the laft Time I faw him, allured me, that if I ■*' inlifted upon it, I fliould get a Pafs to go wherever I pleafed." — Their own Evidence ftated is an Anfvver to their Argument upon it, when only referred to. — This String of Motives, no one of which can be ferioufly afcribed to her, is clofed with the ufual Argument : What fignifies the Want of Motive, if the Fact of the Impofture is proved ? Nothing ; but till it is proved, it is rather a ftrong, additional Pveafon for difbelieving it. C H A P. II. Of Lady JaneV not appearing pregnant. TH E Purfuers fay, that though it be true that a great Variety of Perfons have depofed that Lady Jane had all the Appearance of a Woman in the State of Pregnancy, and fome of them mark their Belief in a pretty ftrong Manner, yet this was all affedled, or falfe, for 'that fhe was feen in all Manner of Company, without any fuch Appearance. At firft Sight it feems extraordinary, that in counterfeiting Pregnancy, fhe fhould not have endeavoured at as much Confillency as poffible. — The Proof of this Propofition is as follows : Lady Catharine Wemys, the foremoft in this Clafs of Witnefles, left Aix about the loth of 41. c. February 1 748, when Lady Jane was four Months gone with Child ; and fays, ftie took no Thoughts of Lady Jane's being with Child, as fhe did not believe that fiie was married. The next Witnefs is the Countefs of Tyigton, her Friend. — She died before the prefent Aftion ; fhe was fick at the Service, and was examined in Bed. — She was with her the firft three Weeks in May, and yet took no Obfervation of her Perfon, at leaft none ocimrred to her ^^"- P- ^r- •*) Memory to mention in that Condition ; and yet Mrs. Heivit had told her flie was with Child, which proves four Things, I. That Lady Jane had then no Appearance of Pregnancv. 2. That it was a lying Trick in Mrs. Hewit to tell Lady IVigton fo. 3. Mrs. Hewit exaggerates in (aying all the Ladies fhe mentions took Notice of her Pregnancy, when it is plain Lady IVigton "' '^' did not. 4. She alfo exaggerates in the Defcription of her Bulk before fiie left Aix. And yet it appears in the fame Depofition, that Lady Wigton believed her to be pregnant ; and r- »?• ■*» that all the Reft of her ^Acquaintance thought the fame (which could not well have happened before her Marriage was publifhed without fome ftriking Signs) — That flie converfcd with Lady Jane on the Subjeft : And it appears from Mils Priinroje and Mrs. Grieg's Evidence, that ihe cxpreffed d. ?. 35S ». Fears for her on the Journey, on Account of her Condition ; and from 15aron Afae EUigot's, that Serv. 16. d. Are made him remark the Change in her Perfon, and told him of the Marriage atul Pregnancy, jj ,, L and " " 66 LADYJANE's PREGNANCY. PartllL S. P. 375- C- and frequently talked about it ; and from Mr. Gordon's, that Lady TFigton converfed with him about Lady 7a«f'd Pregnancy, and defcribed it : And it appears from almoft all the Witnefi'es,. that it was generally known, and many Times the Subjedt of Converfation ; and that in four Months after, l^dy IFigton flrood Godmother to the Child, which makes 'her an Accomplice, if fhe did not think her with Child, after ftating the Faft this needs no further Comment. ___ „ The next Witnefs is Mr. Fnllertoyi of Duclwiik, aged liighty-lix. — He was at Aix a Week ^ ' in /1/rty. — He faw her three or four Times in a Crowd of Company : It did not enter into his Head to imagine fhe was with Child, much lefs to talk of fuch a Subjedt, more proper for Women. — He thought " ihe looked very well, but fuller, that is, more jolly or plump." — This Negative would have been rather of more Confequence, if he had omitted the Fullnefs. — 36J. D. ^Ir. Gro'me faw Lady Jane at Leige, and either did not mind her then, or did not remember at his Examination to have feen her with Child. — He faw her at IMr. Hepburn's ; but not having regarded her with that View, did nut perceive fhe was pregnant ; and yet this was the Place where every Body elfe thought her Bignefs fo remarkable, that the Purfuers are forced in other Parts of their Arguments to revile her for her Affe£fation to fliew herfelf. P. P. 99». c. Mad. Lamp/on, the Landlady of the B/aci Eagle, does not remember her Perfon. — «97. A. ^^^- ^"^"^^5 ■w^o travelled from CharhvUk to Rheims with them in the Coach, and faw her ini her long Mantle, which covered her to the Heels, and did not know of her Marriage, alfo over- looked her being with Child. D. f, 363. General Maclean, at Rheims, does not remember to have obferved Lady yane vrith Child ; . but he refers that to the Diflance of Time and the Drefs which fhe wore ; and he does re- member that he and Alackenzie lifted her up into the Coach with both their Hands. ^^. c. Mr. Andr'ieux, a Boy then of Nineteen, does not remember to have obferved the Pregnancy. But it is fomewhat extraordinary that they ftill continue to place INIad. Andr'ieux among thofe piaidte 10 May, who did not obferve it. It is no Wonder that in their French Libels they inCft on fuch Falfehoods : Obfervat. 1763. Jt ^v'as the ufual Stile of thofe Writings ; but it is furprizing that they afferted it in their Condef- ^' ''* cendence to the Court of icITion, and have argued upon it fince ; for it appears that Lady Jane D. P. 65. 1. , applied to Mad. Anch-ieux to aflifl: her in getting Child-bed Linen : Now it muft have been incon- ceivable Folly to have done fo without even the Appearance of Pregnancy ; but Mad. Andrieux is dead, and they go upon the Dcpoficion of the Son, and upon that Part of it where he relates the above-mentioned Application about the Child-bed Linen ; and adds, that his Mother faid, in Reference to Lady Jane's Age, " This is fingular and extraordinary." Upon whicli they infer,, in dired: Contradiftion to the Witnefles own Explanation, that flic did not obferve her to be with Child. This Lady was afterwards Godmother to Mr. Douglas, which makes it impoflible to bc- Serv. 68.A. Y\cvq {lie had any Reafon to doubt from Lady fane's Appearance, whether flie had been within a Fortnight of lying-in. p. P. 902. E. The next Witnefs who did not obferve her to be with Child was Mad. H'lhert, at Rheims. It is not very material whether tlie adually remembered making fuch Obfervations or not ; and it is certainly poffible (he might not: She had few or no Opportunities of feeing h-iAy Jane : D. P. 52. G. She thinks nobody ate with them, though it is admitted that AJackenzie and Maclean did frequently : She thinks alfo, that flie did not know they were going to Paris, though they fet out in the Stage from her Houfe ; and there is great Room to think that her Pique againft them for leaving her Houfe has been ufed to force her Evidence fomewhat — '47- !• out of the Truth. It is certain her Brother talked to her about Lady Jane's being with Child, and that earlier than he now remembers to have made the Obfervation himfelf. In fliort, foon after fhe came, and before he was fo intimate with her as he afterwards was, the Stile of it runs fo : " Do you know whom you let your Houfe to? I perceive fomething." This was a Rlanner of talking which he muft have ufed before he became acquainted with Lady Jane. This muft have led her to take fome Notice, and it was inipollible to do that without perceiving it in fome Degree or other, though Lady Jane rather ftrove to conceal it. What proves this to have bcea the real Cafe is, that it appears from Mr. Stuart's Cafe in November 1762, that Ihe told him Mad. Stewart had all the Air of a Perfon with Child, as far as (lie could judge from her Mien ; but that fhe wore a round Hoop, which hindered judging exaftly of her Condition ; nor did flie fee her Breaftsj which v/erc covered by a Handkerchief; but fhe thought her only a few Months gone. At th:s Time it was not dreamt that Mad. Hibert could be brought to deny the Pregnancy to- tally ; lor on the icth of December following, in another Cafe, Mr. Stuart fays, " She feigned, *' it is true, a Pregnancy, during her ftay at Rheims ; but thofe who faw her did not think her " far enough advanced to be delivered in a few Days." And the Council, in fumming up the Evi- dence laid before them, fays, there was at Rheims the Counterfeit of Pregnancy ; but it ■i\ ill be proved, they fay, that it was not advanced enough to indicate the approaching Delivery. And Bxjokir. L A D Y J A N E's P R E G N A N C Y. 67 And the Plainteoi December 17, ftates that flie feigned a Pregnancy at pjielnn, and fo on in tlie Words of the Cafe ; and it was not till the twentieth of May^ ly^S* that they altered their Stile fo much as to aver that there was no Appearance of Pregnancy at Rhelms. At what Time, or how they prevailed with Mad. Hibert, to alter her Stile, does not appear. Mad. Prevoteau, the younger Sifter of this fame Mad. Hibert, then about Twenty-two, does P. P. Sgg. b. not remember whether flie obferved her big with Child or not ; but fhe does remember the Maids making Child-bed Linen, which is enough to confute the Idea that fhe (hewed no Signs of Pregnancy at Rhelms. Mad, Sautrez. fays, that fhe was recommended by Mad. Hibert to work for Lady Jane, and __ joS. c. e, took two Gowns to refit after the French Falhion, on which Occafion flie meafured her on the Tuefday, and tried the Gowns on the Friday, and at neither of thefe Times did (he'obferve her Pregnancy. That flie was recommended to Lady Jane by the Hiberts is attefled by them and by herfelf and Sifter : That Lady Jane had a Gown widened is proved by Ifabel JValker; but that the two Gowiis were altered to the French cut before they went to Paris, is rather doubtful ; not only becaufe Mrs. Hewlt remembers nothing of fuch a Pafi.-.ge, and Ifahcl IValker, who does re- member the Gowns being widened, has no Recolle£lion of this new fathioning them ; and Mad. Sitntrc-z!& Book, in which the reft of the Work done for Lady Jane is fct down, contains no Ar- ticle of Work be'bre fetting out for Paris : Nor is it eafy to imagine, that in preparing for fuch a Journey, they fhould want their Cloaths to be altered at Rhelms. But if it be true, it proves that Lady Jane'sY'iguxz muft not only have the external Appearance of Bulk under her INIantle, but bear the clofeft Infpeflion : P'or, on the very Point of going to Paris for a Child to be brought back to Rhchns, flie, who had either naturally, or with extraordinary Induftry, counterfeited re- markable Bignefs for fo many Months, would not on fo flight an Account, have allowed a Rhelms Woman fuch Opportunities of obferving. It was urged as a Mark of fraudulent Purpofe at /lix, tliat file did not fee the IMantua-maker when flie was not near fo far gone; and here upon the fuppofed Crilis of conipleating her !■ cheme, Ihe lays afide all that Caution at once. If one Sort of Conduft be a Proof of Fraud, fliall not the Reverfe be a Proof of its oppofite Innocence ? Mad. Sautrez however, Vi'ho with a Slip of Paper meafured her behind from the Shoulder to the Haunch, and alfo acrofs her Back, and who was prefent when Ihe put on her Gown, did not note her Bulk, nor the contrary; for though (he wondered fhe had not npon feeing the Children, flie had then recently no fuch Idea of her Perfon as excluded the Probability of fuch a Birth. But flie had fo little the Appearances of Pregnancy that flie lived retired at Rhelms, though Sir John got acquainted with the principal People of the Place ; and this is alTerted on the Angle Teflimony of Mr. Mallllfer, who has a Memory much like Sir John's own. He confounded their Manner of living after their Pieturn with the firfl three Weeks ; for nobody has been found at Rhelms to whom he was fo good as to introduce him, except that Mad. AlalHlfcr remembers his being brought to her once or twice. This Gentleman once gave much better Evidence for the Purfucrs, that Sir John had told him he was going to Fillers Cotteret without his Vv''ife, and d. P. 606. e» they thought that a ftrong Proof of their favourite Imputation, Myftery, and Concealment, till they found his Letter, which contradicted him, and then they were afliaraetl of it. Mr. Macnamara is cited to prove that flie did not appear with Child, becaufe though he does p_ p^ ,_ not remember to have diftinguiflied her Belly under the Hoop fhe wore, he thought her with Child from her Look and her Indifpofition. That flie did not appear pregnant to thofe who went with her in the Stage-Coach from Rhelms Monitor, p. 3.' to Paris, was an Article as much infilled on, as if one or two Perfons who never faw her before, Condefc.Art.ij,' or expected to fee her again, could, by their Memory of feventeen Years (landing, form a deci- *^""-° ™^. ^ five Negative. One would think, to hear them beat this Argument, that a Woman with Child was an Obiefl: in France enough to raife an Aftonifliment never to be forgot. She was dreft, as flie ufually was on Journeys, in a long fcarlet Cloak, which covered her from Head to Foot : Her Shape, therefore, was not open to any Obfervation. They did not talk of it, fays the Plalnte of 20th May, and therefore it did not draw their Attention. When they came to the Inns, they immediately retired to an Apartment of their own, which moft People would call Attention to Lady Jam's Condition : The Purfuers call it Myn:ery and Concealment, vIt,. The fame Kind of Concealment (though not fo (trong a Cafe) as going to Bed. If they had been impertinent enough to talk of it all the Way, and induftrious to bring her into e\ery publick Room, and tend her as a fick Perfon, it would have been called Ofkntation ; for want of which, the only Opportunity the Company had of being aftoniflied at the Sight of a Woman with Child was in the Coach, and in going into and out of it. As to the laft. The Plalnte fays, nobody was feen at Rhelms to lift her into the Coach. The Wit- ne(res not applying themfelves to Rheims in particular, did not obferve any peculiar Difliculty Ac had in getting into or out of the Coach. But it appears that flie was lifted into the Coach L 2 by 95a- «. 68 ' L A D Y J A N E's P R E G N A N C Y. Partlll. by two Gentlemen with both their Hands ; and Mr. Mackenzie defcribes very particularly her ' ■ ^^' ' Heavinefs and Bulk. In the Drefs which flie wore it was abfolutely impoiTible to obferve her Shape, and confequently. thofe who had no particular Reafon to examine, would be likely to remember little about it: Ac- cordingly the Piefuk of their Evidence is, that flie might be with Child, but they did not obferve it. And that they are right in faying Ihe might be with Child, though they did net obferve it, will appear by the flighteft View which can be taken of their Evidence. P. P. 919. B. Tl,e Witnefs whom they fet forwardeft is Mad. JuJry, the INIother of twenty Children— fhe is fo referred to in the Condefcendence— Mad. y/Wry defcribes her Face as exadly as if Ihe — 912. c. had remembered it herfelf; andfays, there was but one foreign "Woman in the Coach, and fhe could fpeak no Freich—-T\^c Plainte fays, fhe fpoke little or none— Mad. Fairy fays, 1 hat flie talked 3 great deal. She overlooked Mad. Hewit, though much taller and bigger than Lady yare. The Purfuers fay, this was owing to her fitting at the other End of the Coach ; by tlie fame Means al- fo {he miflook the Circumftance of the Lady's fpeaking French. Sir John, who fat in the middle, repeated what fhe faid, and the AVitnefs who did not hear her, took it for interpreting; but that the foreign Man told her, the foreign Lady did not underftand French ; that fhe had never i^ fc 919. r, been in France before, and flared at the Number of Coaches, when fhe came near Paris ; and to prevent Miflakes, (he was the only Woman. It may be doubted whether a Word of this be taken from her own Memory— She was a Tournelle Witnefs, and as their Ufage was to all their Witneffes, fhe was provided with a Prefent of all their Libels : After which her Defcription goes to fomething between Lady Jane and Mrs. Heivit, that is to fay, between two Perfons the mofl: unlike of the human Species. — — 9'S- Mad. Vairy gives no Defcription of Lady Jane's Perfon ; but fays, Mrs. Hewit was tall, and both wore long Cloaks. Defpommiers, her Maid, cannot think which was biggeft: of the two. Now Mrs.//^w/V,whowas very large and fat, under a Cloak muft have Bulk to hold half a Dozen Children. Codifroi and his Wife, at Paris, did not obferve her Bulk, which is proved by this, that nei- ther of them remember the Perfon of any of the three : Nor is it poflible, fays Mad. Godefroiy, after fuch a Length of Time to remember their Guefts, who ufually come but for a Day or two, till they get private Lodgings. This is the whole Proof which the Purfuers have brought of Lady Jane's not having the Ap- ■ pearance of Pregnancy during the Months preceding the loth of Juiy. — Some of the Witneffes referred to by them, fuch as Lady IFigton, did know and obferve her with Child : Thofe who did not were perfect Strangers to her natural Shape ; and all they fay is, that they did not obferve it ; and add, becaufe they paid no Attention to her ; and that Ihe might have been with Child, though, they did not obferve it. CHAP. III. Proof of Lady JaneV Pregnancy. THE Evidence of Lady Jane'f, aftual Pregnancy flands thus: Lady Jane died in 1753, and could not be examined on this Subjeift ; but it has been feen that all her Demeanour befpoke the Truth of it. The fame Obfervation occurs to Sir John Stewart, who was examined before his Death, only ex Parte, by the Purfuers ; and no Queflions were put to him by them, with refpe£l: to her Pregnancy. In Anfwer to one general Queftion by the Court, he only fays, " That when he carried Lady " [fane from Rheims to Paris, he is confident that fhe was with Child, by her having the common " Symptoms which attend Women in that Situation." Mrs.Heiuit relates upon her general Examination on the Service, That Lady ^aw fell with Child S«v p 11 c *" '^^ ^'^'^ of the Y(sir 1747 ; and that her Pregnancy became remarkable and apparent about the P. P. 251? A.'e. fixth Month : That Mrs. Hepburn of Keith, Mad. Obin, Lady fFigton, and Mifs Primrcfe, all con- verfed with her about Lady Jane, and took Notice of her Pregnancy : That Lady Jane waa about eight Months gone with Child when fhe left Jix-la-Chapelle, and at this Time both her Belly and Breafts, and particularly her Breafts, were fo remarkably big, that fhe was thought to be with Twins, and that Lady Jane was naturally flender, and had fcarceany Breafls at all: Tliat fhe was fo heavy when Ihe left Rheims that flic could hardly ftir, on which Account Lieutenants Alaclean znd A'facienz'e lifted her into the Coach. Mrs. Hetvit likewife wrote to Mr. Cclvilhe- — iqt ^^^^ '^"^y '^^"^ ^^'■*^' '^^'"- ^^'^Y "J'^"' ■^^•'S with Child : And fome Time after flie informed him by a fecond Letter, that Lady Jane was big with Child, and that they were going to remove from thence to fome Part in France; and that Lady Jane wasfo big and unwieldy, that they were much concerned about her. J/abel Die, 16. 1. Bookll. LADYJANE's PREGNANCY. 6g IfabelWalhr^ who was Lady Jane's Chambermaid during the whole Time of the Pregnancy, Miniites.p.n.H. has been frequently examined with refpeft to Lady Jane's Situation, fays, She obferved the Sup- Scrvicc,p. 18. c. preffion of Lady Jane's Menfes, and that fhe was frequently out of Order, and fometimes throw- ing lip, and mentioned thefe Complaints to Mrs. Tewls their then Landlady, confidering her as a Perfon of Experience ; upon which Mrs. Tewis told her, {lie needed not be alarmed about her La- dy's Complaints, for that fhe was with Child: That fhe foon faw that it was fo, for Lady Jane had all the Symptoms of a Woman in that Condition, which fhe had the more Accefs to know, as flie was the Perfon who fhifted Lady Jane in the Morning, laced her Stays or Jumps, helped her to her Morning-Drefs, undreffed her, and put her to Bed, and helped her out of Bed in the Morning, and faw her, on thefe Occafions, without any Cloaths : That Lady Jane became fo unwieldy in the feventh Month of her Pregnancy, as not to be able to go to Bed without AfFiflance, which fhe gave her ; and by Means of a Stool or Box, flie ftepped in and out of Bed : That Lady Jane was uncommonly big, and flie never faw any Woman with Child bigger; and from the Appearance of her Belly and Breafts, v/hich flie had frequent Occafion to fee, it was impoffible for her to have been miftaken or deceived of Lady Jane's Con- dition. Lady Ja'/e gave over wearing Stays in the feventh Month of her Pregnancy ; and her Mantua-Maker made her a Bone Waifl-coat or Jumps, which flie wore ever after, but wore no Bed-Gown : Tliat flie has had Occafion frequently to fee I^ady Jane's naked p. p. ^^ ^^ Breafts and Belly, both before leaving Aix-la Chapelle, and after fhe came to Rheirm., and has had her Hands upon Lady Jane's naked Belly (above the Shift) and found her with live Child ; which fhe would depofe if fhe was going to flep into Eternity, whatever Wretches might fay to the contrary: That Lady Janevf:\s naturally flat breafted, and very thin ; but when with Child, her Breafts rofe Service, p. iSg, to a great Size, hzdy Jane, about the Beginning of her Pregnancy, ufed to impute her fre- Minutes, p. 3. quent Complaints and SickneiTes to the Bile, with which flie had been formerly troubled ; and, upon Ifalel IFalker's finding the Child, or Children, move in her Belly, flie told Lady Jane, fl.e was now in no Pain about the Bile ; for if it was Bile, it was living Bile, as ihe was confcious her Ladyfliip was with Child. She never heard Lady Jane exprefs any Doubts of her being Mm. p. 4, », . with Child, after fhe was with quick Child. That flie and Effy Caiu began to make Cloaths for the Child of which Lady Jane was pregnant, before they left Jix-la-Cbapelle ; they bought fome Edgings, and other Things, at Liege, continued to make them when they ftopped at Sedan, and finiflied them at Rheims : That Lady Jane, after leaving Aix, remained fome Days at Liege, where Mr. and Mrs. Hepburn were, with whom Lady Jane was daily during her Stay at that Place.. On their Arrival at Sedan, their Landlady, who was a married Woman, and had feveral Serv. p. ig. *, Children, obferved, from hzdj Jane's big Belly, and her Face, that flie was near her Time. Lady Jane was taken ill at Rhetel, and put to Bed immediately on her Arrival by Mrs. Hewit, »• IJabel Walker, and Effy Caw, who were afraid fhe would have been delivered at this Place ; and Jfabel Walker fat up with her all Night, and confidered the Fatigue of her Journey, to a Woman in Min, p. 6. b. . her Situation, as the Caufe of her Complaints ; but having recovered towards Morning, flie pro- ceeded to Rheims. Ifabel Walker adds, That one Morning at Rheims, after fhe afliifted Lady Jane to drefs, and fhe Min. p. 34. c. being without a Hoop, in her Night-Gown, fhe obferved her to be every Way fo round, and fo bulky, and to a greater Degree than fhe had ever feen any Woman with her firft Child, ihe formed the Conjedlure of Twins, which flie exprefled to Mrs. //ifM,';V, who defired her not to frighten her, as flie (Mrs. Hewit) was frightened enough already. — This Converfation is alluded to in Mrs. Serv. p. 34. c. Hewit's Letter to Ifabel Walker, informing her of Lady Jane's Delivery. When Ifabel Walker D. P. 369. ». heard of Lady Jane's lying-in, flie was afraid flie would be much troubled with her Milk, as her Breafts were fo big : That flie communicated her Fears to Mrs. Htwit ; who anfwered her, that Lady Jane was much troubled with her Milk, but that the Dodlor had given herPlaifters, ■which relieved her. Effy Caw, Lady y(7«/s other Maid, died before the Service in the Year 1761. Slie had the fame Opportunities of knowing Lady Jane's Situation as Ilabel lyalker. Mrs. Teivis, in November 4S5. e, . 1747, when the firft Symptoms of Pregnancy was difcovered, informed both Servants, that Lady Jane was with Child. After this Effy drefled Lady Jane orcafionally, as well as Ijabel Walker : She was in her Apartment when flie went to Bed, and before flie was drefled in the Morning, at Aix ; put her to Bed at Rhetel, when fhe was taken ill, and had the fame Opportu- P. P. S95. i. nity of knowing Lady Jane's Situation with the other. She was difmii3td from Lady Jane's Service on her Return to England, and piqued on that Account. However, fhe told Mr. Piters, aBook- icWcr ill Edinburgh, who queftioned her on Account of the Reports which have been mentioned, d. P. r.^-.r o that Lady Jane had all the Symptoms of a Woman with Child, which flie had Accefs to know, by 338. a.. a, dreihng and undrefling her j and that fhe had no Occafion to fay any Thing but the Truth, as flie . had left Lady Jane, and would probably fee her no more. She entered, fome Time after this, into the Service of Mrs. Ricard Hepburn, with whom flic ,3^ ^, often talked of Lady Jane's Pregnancy, as a Thing which flie made no Doubt of ; and- of her be- ing. 70 LADYJANE's PREGNANCY. Part TIT, ing fully fatisfied that the Defender and his Brother were Lady Jane's Children, i^c. Mrs. Hep- hujn buing with Child at that Time, and complaining of the Straitnefs of her Gown, Effy advifed Service, p. 10. A. her to flit, and lace her Gown, as flie had done for Lady Jane, v.'hea (he was with Child, which (he accordingly did, and flie mentioned feveral other Particulars, which Mrs. Ricard Hefburn had forgot at her Examination. p. ic. A. Mrs. Hepburn of Ke'th, Mother-in-law to the atove Lady, converfed with Effy on the fame Subjecl ; and heard her declare, that if flie was Itepping into Eternity, (he would fwear that Lady Jiine was with Child. This was faid in Reference to the above-mentioned Reports ; and, on this Occafion, fhe wifhed that her Oath might be taken, and laid, that Ihe was the more pofitive of Lady Jam's being with Child, as fhe drefled and undreffed her at tliis Time; and Mrs. Hepburn had the more Piegard to this, as Effy feemeil to be a little piqued at Lady Jane for turning her from her Service. f. P. 50. G. Ifabel Walker fays, Tliat if Effy, the other Maid, was alive, (he would fwear in the fame Man- ner as fhe had done ; for fhe remembers, that one Day at Rheims (he told her, that on pinning Lady Jane's Robe, fiie felt the Child move in Ladv Jane's Belly. Lady Jane, fenfible of it, faid, Ihe would put in the Pins herfelf, and turned red in the Face ; upon which £^3 o^ferved that flie could not have been more bafhful if ihe had been with Child of a Ballard. Mad. Tewis, I^ady Jane's Landlady, 'obferved the firft: Symptoms of her Pregnancy, about D. P. 15. G. the Beginning oi November 1747, bv her frequent Vomitings and other Complaints ; and by her particular Food. And about the fame Time, at the Defire of Lady Jane aiid Sir John^ (he cau- fed a fecond Bed to be put up in Ladv Jaic's Bed-Room : aiid fays, that the Chamber-Maids made the fame Obfervations, and that after this, from one Month to another, fhe obferved the vifible 29. F. Licreafe of the Pregnancy. She told Sir George Coljuhicn, that during the Courfe of the Pregnan- cy, fhe had prefcribed to Lady Jane fuch Things as Hie had found ufeful to herfelf, v.hen in that Condition, and had caufed her Mantua-Maker to widen Lady Jane's Petticoats, in the Courfe of her Pregnancy: and that fhe had put her Hand upon Lady Jane's Belly, and found her with live Child ; and faid, that fhefafely coidd, and \vas refolved Ihe would, give her Oath, that if ever flie or any other ^^'oman was with Child, Lady Jane was with Child, when at Jix-la-Cbapelle. —— 33- c. Colonel Douglas, who was carried to Mad. T'ezcis, in order to hear her repeat what fhe knew about Lady Jane's Situation, has confirmed the Circuniftances mentioned by Sir George: And this La- dv, in her notorial Declaration, has attefted, that flie went unexpectedly into Lady ^''"''''s Apart- ment the Morning fhe left j^ix la-Chapelle, and found her in her Shift, rifing out of Bed, and obfeiTed her Pregnancy fo remarkable, that fhe was furprized at it. — 9. T. c. Mad. Therefe Tcwls, a Nun, Daughter of the above Mad. Tewis, mentions the great Intimacy which fubfifted betwixt Lady Jane and her Mother, fays, that her Mother never doubted of the Pregnancy or Delivery of Lady Jane, hecauk ihe w:iS well injormed, and knew it to be real. — 495. c. Mr. Jofeph Teu'is, Brother to the above Lady, fays, he never heard his Mother fay that fhe had the leaft Doubt of the Pregnancy or Delivery of Lady Jane ; but, on the contrary, always faid to him, that flie had no Doubt of the Pregnancy or Delivery. — ioc6. In a Letter which Mrs. Herbert, her Daughter, in London, wrote to the Duchefs of Douglas^ flie lays, that Mad. Ten'u, her Mother, wrote to her that fhe was as certain of Lady Jane's being with quick Child, as any Midwife at Aix, or as the Midwife who delivered Lady Jane, could be. — — 3S:-G. Mifs Primrofe, who went to /^ix-la-Chapelle with Lady Wigton in May 1748, heard Lady June's Pregnancy and Delivery frequently fpoke of by Mad. Tewis, and never heard her or any other Perfon ever exprefs the leaft Doubt of it. Mad. la Comteffe de BofftvUz. with v>'hom Lady Jane was very much conne£led in the Year 1747, returned to Atx in 1750, and had frequent Converfations with Mad. Tewis upon the Subjed of their common Friend Lady Jam Douglas, to whom Mad. Tezvis faid, that the Evidence Jerv.p. 73. file was in Condition to produce in Support of Lady Jane's Pregnancy was more than lufficient to fruftrate whatever the blackeft Malice of her Enemies could invent to the Prejudice of her dearTwins. ^- ^- '• Lady Jane removed from the Houfe of Mad. Tewis to that of Mad. Scholl on the 5th of January^ T748, in order that Mad. Tewis's Houfe might be fitted up for the Reception of Lord Sandwich^ Plenipotentiary from the Court of En land to the Congrefs at Aix-la-ChapelL\ This Woman was not told at firlt of Lady Jane's Marriage, but difcovered it fome Time afterwards. She never law Lady Jane but when drelTed in a Robe and Hoop, confequently had no Opportunity of ob- J ^ ferving her Shape; but fhe remembers that (lie was remarkably delicate and pale, and that flie was extremely careful of herfelf, from which flie fufpefted that Ihe was with Child. Some Time after the Departure of Lady Janehom Jix-la-Chapelle, Mad. Teiuis {cnt to inform thi^ Mad. Scboll that Lady Jane v/as delivered of male Twins, upon which flie went to fee Mad. Ttwii) to con- j^ratulate her on the News of Lady Jane't Delivery. Lord ■^"^ Book IL L A D T J A N E's P R E G N A N C Y. 71 Lord Crawford, -who lived z.t Aix-la-Chapelle from Osiober i'J4.y, tiJl the Middle of ^nV D. P. 963. c. 1748, was very intimate with Lady Jane, and vifited her often about the Beginning of the Preg- nancy. Ifabei l^alker fays, that when Lady ya«^ looked extremely ill, and had Fits of vomiting, Minutes, p. 5.0, his Lordfhip told Sir John in her Prefence, that he need be under no Uneafinefs for Lady Jane, as flie wns with Child. Mrs. Hcivlt fays, Lord Crawford was the firft Man who obferved the Pregnancy, from Lady p. p. i-i.i. Jane's Looks and Appearance: And upon another Occafion, when Lady Jane complained of a Tooth-ach, he obferved to her, that the Tooth-ach {lie complained of would give Pleafure to all her Friends---And in a Letter which he wrote to the Duke of Douglas on the -20th o( April 1748, d. P. 964. c. he requeftcdthc Duke to be reconciled to the Marriage, as there was fuch vifible Hopes of its being attended with Confequences fo much wiflied for by every Perfon who was fond of feeing the Name oi Douglas multiply ; and when at the Army he told Lord LirJores of his being cer- 37,. o,- tain that Ijady Jane was with Child. Lady Jane, when formerly at Aix-la Chapelk, had contrafted an Intimacy with Mad. Martely Priovefs of the Convent of St. Ann of that Place, and on this Occafion went frequently there to fee her old Friend ; and on thefe Occafions was feen by the Nuns. Mud. Alartet appears to have been informed of Lady Jane's Marriage, though the other Nuns were not. Among thefe Nuns 4SC. r,. however Lady Jane's Pregnancy was immediaely obferved ; it ftruck them the more, on Accouut 480. i.- of the Scandal, as they thought her unmarried. They fpoke of it to each other frequently, and 4i»3- c^ after confidering her Perfon attentively, they were fo much convinced of it, that they mentioned 193- •^•• it to their Confeflbr, as a Scandal which their Confcicnces obliged them to reveal. Some Time after this Mad. Alartel obferving their Sufpicions, told them, they ought to have no bad Ideas againft I^ady Jane on Account of what they faw, for fhe was married to Mr. Stewart. Mad Mejback exprefies her Ideas of Lady Jane in this Manner, That flie immediately fufpetled that Lady Jane was with Child, by the Bulk of her Body, by her Carriage, and by her Vifage, Tire et I'Air defait. Mad. Packenius fays. She obferved her to be with Child by her Appearance, and becaufe flie 13.- a. ■ was thicker than ordinary, like a Woman with Child. And Mad. Hagcns, the prefent Priorefs, %■>. c. fays. She appeared to her to be with Child ; and that the other Nuns fpoke to each other of Lady Jane as a Woman with Child. And Mad. Alartel told the Nuns, after Lady Jane's Departure from Aix, that fhe had learned by a Letter, that flie was delivered of Twins. Baron Adac EHlgot became acquainted with I-ady Jane about the End of the Year 1747, and 349. foon after contracted a great Friendlhip for, and Intimacy with her and Sir John : He was often with them at Breakfaft and Dinner, and fometimes walked out with Lady Jane. On thefe Oc- cafions he obferved that flie had Qualms, and was often obliged to quit the Table, and go into the next Pioom, where he more than once overheard her reaching and puking, from which he fufpefted that flie was with Child. I^ady Jane obferving this, told him, that fhe was married to Sir 'John Stewart, and that fhe believed herfelf with Child : But requefted him to keep it a Secret, for fear of difobliging her Brother, who might withdraw her Annuity from her ; and that before he was told of the Marriage, the Appearance of Pregnancy were fo clear, that it never came into his Head that they were affecfled or Ihammed. After Lady Jane's Departure from Aix, Sir John 350. s, correfponded with Baron Afac Elligot conftantly, and when Lady Jane was delivered at Paris, he requefted him and Lady IFigton to go there to be Godfather and Godmother to her Children. About the 20th of A/Iarch, IMr. and Mrs. Hepburn, of Keith, went to Aix-la-Chapelle, on a Vifit to Lady Jane, and remained with her there ten Days. — Mrs. Hepburn immediately obferved Scrv. p. 9. j,. ■ a very great Difference betwixt her Appearance then, and when flie had feen her at the Hague— That her Face was very thin, her Belly or IVaijl was very thick, her Cbcds thin, and her Eyes large, ' from all which fhe had not the leaft Doubt of hei being with Child, and told her HufLand fo that Night. — She alfo mentioned it to Mrs. Henit next Moining, and told her that fi;e took it ill fne had never acquainted her of it ; but that Mrs. Hewit told her Ihc wanted to furprize her, and try if fhe would find it out herfelf. — Both Mrs. Hruuit and Ifabel Walker remember this Convcrfation with Mrs. Hepburn. Mrs. Hepburn faw Lady Jane afterwards at Liege, whom fiie defcribes juft like zCke, with a 9- ^'• Capuchin about her, and that flie had no Affe£lation to difcover her being with Child. — That one Morni;ig, at this Time, flie faw Lady Jane fitting on her Bedfide without her Gown, and her Waiftcoat laid about her : Her Brealls were quite expofed, and that it was inipofiible for any Perfon who faw her in that Situation, to doubt of her being with Child ; and that Lady 'Jane's Pregnancy was the more remarkable, that when flie was at the Hague in 1746, flie v. as a ti in and flcnder Woinr.n, and icarce appeared to have any Brealls at all. This Lady was one Dav in a p. p. ,,3.5, Goach with Lady Jaw, Sir y^/is and Mrs. i/cw/V, when a Beggar, whofc Nofe was. flat in' his FacG;, • p. 13- G, p. iS. B, 72 LADYJANE'sPREGNANCY. Part III. Face, appeared at the Coacli-Door, and requefled Charity ; whereupon Sir John ruflied out of the Coach, and turned away the Man, leaft Lady Jane fnould fee him in her then Situation. $crv. 8. A. ]\j,-. Hepburn on feeing Lady fane at Jix, immediately obferved that fhe was thinner in the Face, and not fo well as when he had feen her at the Hague, and took Notice of this Change to his Wife ; who fold to him, Don't you ohferve fne is with Child? He looked more narrowly at her next Day, and faw that it was fo. — And when he afterwards faw her at Liege, (he appeared further gone with Child than when he fow her zt J^ix , and that ilie endeavoured to conceal her r. P. 337. E. jj-jg jigjjj, by a jQof^. Drefs which fhe wore. — His Wife told him at Night of Sir 7^/;«'sUnea!lnefs for Fear of Lady Jme's feeing the Beggar with the deformed Face ; and he underftood that Sir yohn had turned him away on Account of Lady Jane's being with Child. Mad. Negrette, then Wife of Baron D'Ohin, C»:cellier d'Etat de T Imperatrice Rcine et du Confeil Jupreim de Pais-Bas, was very intimate with Lady y'line in 1747 ; but Ihe lived at Hodirront during P. P. 497- B- the JFmter 1747-8, and returned to Aix-la-Chapeilc about the End of March i 748, and immediately went to fee her Friend Lady 'Jane.—Qw this Occafion fhe obferved, that Lady Jane was very much changed, and that her Face was very thin and long ; but as flie did not know that Hie was married, fhe imagined that this Change had been owing to her having been ill. Mrs. Hewit and flie having gone into a different R.oom, Rlrs. Hnvit alked her how (he found ray Lady ; to which (lie anfwered, flie had found her changed. On this Mrs. Heivit told her, that Lady yane was married to Colonel Stewart, and with Child ^, and that it was Time for them to leave ylix, as the Pregnancy, which was well advanced, would difcover the Marriage. Mad. Obin (now Nigrette) after this faw Lady Jane often during her Stay at yi'/.r, and obferved that flie had more and more the Appearance of a Woman with Child, having a big Belly. As Lady yane at this Time paflcd for an unmarried Woman, flie was obliged to do all flie could to conceal her Preg- 497. I. nancy, and for that Purpofe borrov,'ed a long Cloak from INIad. Ohin in order to conceal her big Belly, when about to make a Vifit to the Countefs St. Sevcrin, Wife of the Minifler from the Court of France to the Congrefs at Jix ; and Mrs. Hewit told Mad. Obin, that without the Cloak fhe would have an indecent Appearance, as fhe paflcd for an unmarried Woman. ---Lady 49S.11. y^;,'^ and this Lady one Day had a Converfation on the Subjedt of her, Mad. Obin's, being with Child, which fhe denied, faying flie was too old ; upon which Lady yane obferved, that flie was not too old, and bid her look at her, by which flie underfl:ood that Lady yane meant to fay that ftie was with Child, and older than her. About the Beginning of Jpril 1748, Mad. SchoH was offered a much higher Price for her Lodgings than Lady yane paid.-— She offered her the Preference, but flie refufed it, and therefore was obliged to requeif her Friend Mad. Teivis to lake Apartments for her in the Houfe of a very low Woman, one Mad. Gil'i/en.—Thek Apartments were mean, and the Landlady was never '^"^' once admitted into Lady y^w^'s Apartment ; and flie was not informed of the Marriage, or of ' Lady yane's being with Child.— -She was fome Time afterwards told of the Marriage, and that Lady yane was with Child, and that her Cloaths Avere repeatedly widened on this Account.-— She faw Lady yane once after this, and obferved from her Bulk and DifEculty of walking in coming down the Stairs, that flie was with Child.— She never faw her but this fingle Time. On the 5th of Afay 1748, Lady IVigton, Mr. Fullerton of Dudivick, Mrs. Grieg, and Mifs Primroje, arrived at Aix-la-Chapeile.—-'iAx. Fullerton (as formerly obferved) flaid but a few Days, and as he never faw Lady yane, but in a Crowd of Company, did not particularly remark her Pregnancy. That Lady JVigton too, as has been formerly ftated, obferved the Pregnancy with her own Eyes, as well as being told it by Mrs. Heivit, is very clearly proved by the Teftimony of Baron Alac El- ligot, to whom fhe mentioned it particularly. And of Mr. Gordon of Cowhardie, who arrived at Aix foon after I^ady yane had left it, and fays, that Lady IVigton had told him of Lady yane's being with Child ; and defcribed her Appearances to him fo naturally, that he had not the leafl Doubt of her being fo. And of Mifs Prirwofe and Mrs. Grieg, to whom flie exprclTed her Ap- prehenfions of Lady y(7«^, on Account of her Journey. Mifs Primrofe, who attended Lady yane, was then only fifteen Years of Age -, but as flie had heard, on her Arrival at Aix, that Lady yane was with Child, flie obferved her the more curioufly one Dav, upon being carried into Lady yane's Pioom by one of the Chambermaids, when flie was dreffrng, and fays. That flie did appear to her to be with Child, from her Bulk and Appear- ance '; and that when flie faw her afterwards at Rh.'ims, after her Delivery, fhe obferved the great- eft pofTible Difference upon her, infomuch that fl;e fcarcely knew her to be the fame Woman. Kcrv. p. 16. c. 'b.hs. Grieg, who was further advanced in Life than Mifs Pr/;nr(7/i', and whofe Memory was entire at the Time of her Examination, both at the Service and fince, fays. That when flie faw H. P. 343' 0- Lady yane at Aix fhe had all the Appearance of a Woman with Child ; and particularly, that her Face ■477. F. ■ 355- "■ ■575- c. 357- Book \1. L A D V J A N E 's P R E G N A N C Yi 7^ Face had that Appearance ; Infomuch that no Perfon, but one blind, could have doubted of her P.P.J43.»^ being with Child ; and was perfeaiy convinced and fatisfied that fhe was fo : And that, when (he heard of Lady Jaw's intended Journey to Rhelms, (he was afraid (he would not make out the Journey, and communicated her Fears to Mrs. Hewii and ffibel IValker ; and when ihe faw her afterwards at Rheims, after the Delivery, flie had the Appearance (he expeQed, after hearing that (he was delivered of Twins. ° Mad. r^iwV, the Nun-Daughter of Mad. Tewls, with whom Lady 7^w lodged for fomeTime was confined to her Convent, and never went abroad : But Lady Jan, vif.ted her frequently at her Convent; and this Lady fays, That Lady J<,ne had quite the Appearance of a Woman with °- ''• '^°- '=• Child ; and that, when (lie came to take Leave of her, (he had the Appearance of a Woman ready " in buying Muflin and Lace, which th;y told him was to make Child's Cioaths of. This ' Circumftance is particularly remembered by Ifabcl JValkcr. Mm\. Lambinon alio obferved her 508.*. to be very big with Child, and that her Pregnancy appeared extremely. Her Hu(band told her of the buying Muflin and Lace for the Child's Cioaths. Mr. Byres oi Ton ley, a Scotch Gentleman, became acquainted with Lzdyjane at the Hague in 1746, and faw herfrequently during her Stay at Liege: He obferved that (lie had the Appearance of a Woman big with Child, and that all his and her Acquaintance were of the fame Opinion ; and that he was as much fatisfied of her being with Child, and heavy with Child, as ever he was' with .any other Woman being fo, and (he made no Oftentation of her Pregnancy ; but the contrary. Chevalier Douglas, who had been acquainted with Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane in Scotland in 1746, accidentally met Sir John at Liege, who told him that he was married to his Coufin Lady Jane Douglas, anil that (he was in Liege, and inlifled that he (hould go and fee her, which he did: And fays, that on this Occafion her Appearances of Pregnancy were very vifibte both ■by the Features of her Face and the Bulk of her Body ; and that he never faw a Woman whofe Appearances were more apparent: That when he faw her in Scolhnd in 1745, (he was very thin, and as (he was little, her Pregnancy appeared to him the more remarkable. I'his Gentleman after- wards met with Lady Jane and Sir John at Dunkirk in the End of the Year 1749 ; and obferved that Lady June\\zA then an Appearance quite different from what (lie had at Liege, and that (lie was even thinner than when he had feen her at Edinburgh. IhtyMvLiege on the 25tli oi May, and arrived at Sedan on the ajth. They remained here nine Days. The Reafon of fo long a Stay here was, that the Stage-Coach for Rheims went only once a V/cek, and on the V/ednejday, and as they were not ready to proceed on JVednefday the 29th, they were obliged to remain till JVednefday thereafter, 5th of June. The People in whofe Houfc Lady Jane ilaid at Sedan have not been difcovered ; the Obfervation which the Woman in wliofc Houfethey lodged made upon Lady Janeh Perfon, is reported by Ifahel Walker. On the 5th oijune they left Sedan in the Stage-Coach ; they were joined by Guenet at CharU- ■villc, whofe Depofition has been already ftated ; and next Night they flept at Rhetell : Guenet confirms the Account given by Ifahel Walker of Lady Jayie's Iiulifpofition at this Place, and that Spr h flie was immediately put to Bed by her Chamlermaids, and by Mrs He'.vlt : And /fabcl Walker fays, . ' fhe fat by her all Night. She recovered a little in the Morning, and proceeded on her Journey, '^^""""> ?• '"'•»• and arrived at Rheims the 7 th of June. On Lady Jane's Arrival at Rheims, and for fome Time after, it appears, that fie intended to have been delivered at this Place ; (he was not in a Condition to go much abroad, or to fee many M People Z^T-*' 503. • 5<^i. P. P. 74 LADYJANE'sPREGNANCY. Part. III. People in her own Apartments. There were but few of the Rheims People who had Occafion to fee her, or obferve her Pregnancy: Several however did, p-;rticularly the Abhe Hihtrt, in whofe Father's Houfe they lodged at this Time. He had frequent Opportunities of feeing Lady ^(jw^, and when ilie went abroad to walk, which wa5 butfeldom, he attended her; he ebferved when fhe P. P. 5cg. D. was at Home, and in an Undrefs, that flie was with Child, and that it v:zsfort notable, as he calls it. It feems that this Gentleman did not know for fome Time that fhe was married, as flie retair.ed her Name of Lady yane Douglas; and, having notwith (landing obferved her with Child, he men- tioned it to his Sillers, and afked them what Sort of People they had let their Lodgings to, for though they did not fay they were married, yet the I^ady was evidently with Child ? LTpon which his Siiters faid, AVHiat is that to us, for they are Foreigners who are here To-Day, and gone To- Morrow ! What the Mifs Hibirts have faid on the Subjedl of Lady Jane'& Pregnancy has been flated. Mr. Mac Kaizie, one of the Officers mentioned by Mrs. Hewity who helped Lady Jane into the 53, Ai Stage-Coach, on her leaving Rheims, on Account of her being unable to ftir, fays. That he dined and fupped with her feveral Times before flie left Rheims -, and that on all thefe Occafions he ob- ferved that fhe was far gone with Child ; and that flie was fo remarkahly big when he lifted her into the Coach, that flie went into the Coach fideways ; and he heard that fhe was going to Paris, - — •363. B. to be delivered. The other Officer has forgot every Thing which paffed at i2A«V«^, except lift- — - 3*5- <^- ing Lady Jane into the Coach. f. P. 5. H. Mr. Mac Namara, an Irijh Officer then at Rheims, faw her often at this Time, and fays, fo far as he could judge from her Face, Looks, and Complaints, fhe had all the Appearances of being with Child ; but that he never faw her Shape, on Account of her having a Hoop on always when he faw her. r>, P. 517. B. Mad. Alayette met her in the Rue des Moris one Day, and obferved that fhe had a great Bulk, and the Pofture of a Woman with Child, and when file returned to Rheims flie was much thinner. Mad. Jndrieux, by whofe Advice Lady fane went to Paris, was dead before the Commence- P. P. »5i. G. mentof this Procefs ; hut from her giving her Advice to go to Paris, her making or caufing to be D. P. 525. B. made Child's Cloaths, and her afterwards being God-Mother to Mr. Douglas, it is certain flie not Serv. 68. A. only never doubled, but certainly obferved the Pregnancy. B. P. 515. c. Mr. ^erengal, an Officer of the Cufl;oms, faw Lady Jane a very few Days before fhe fet out, for Paris ; snd obferved, that fhe fat down and rofe up with Difficiilty, as a Woman with Child, and that Mr. Stewart gave her his Hand to help her to rife up again : That it appeared to him by her Manner of fitting down and rifing up, by her pale Looks, thin Face, and by her Shape, that fhe was with Child ; and he looked at her the more particularly, as Sir John told him fhe was going to Paris to lye-in. Such is the pofitive Evidence which has been recovered in the Caufe of Lady Jane's Pregnancy during the nine Months preceding her Delivery. The Purfuers make two Replies to this Proof ; Firft;, That many of the WitnefTes are abfolutely perjured and falfe ; and. Secondly, That Lady Jane's Conduft was inconfiftent with her being in a State of Pregnancy. Thefe two Al- legations muft be examined in their Order. PART III. BOOK III. CHAP. I. Obje^ions to the Proof of Pregnafuy. TO the Purfuers nothing is fo eafy as to impute all the Crimes in a Neivgate Calendar, for they give themfelves no Manner of Trouble to prove what they charge — Thus they maintain that Hewit and Walker infinuate, that Lord Blantyre was among thofe who faw the Pregnancy, tho' in fa£l he went away the Summer before ; and what is remarkable. Sir John Stewart refers to the fame Falfliood in the Scroll of his Letter to the Duchefs of Douglas. See 75 Sci-V, II. A. Serv. iS. r. P. r. 51". c Book III. O B J fe C T I O N S, &c. See what a little Truth will do for thefe Witnefles — Mrs. Hewit fays, at the fame Time, (viz. at the Time they were at Jix-la-Chnpelle, for fhe was then detailing what happened while they Jiaid at Aix-la-Chapelle) Lords Crawford and Blantyre were both there — It will be proper to look, at the Evidence, becaufe, in tranfcribing, it is broke into improper Paragraphs, which rather lead to the Mifconftrudlion — Ifabel Walker fays, that while Lady Jane was at Aix-la- Chapelle, fhe proved with Child ; that Ihe was vifited by feveral Britifi that were then there, among others Lord Blantyre — Sir John Stevjart refers the Duchefs to Lady Blantyre for what my Lord faid of the Pregnancy, and adds, that he and Lord Crawford exprelTed their Satisfaftion in feting it advance. In this Fait he was miftaken ; but he was more fo in his Reference to Lady Blantyre, if he thought it falfe, for there it muft have been contradiaed— If they had all fallen into the fame Miilake, it would rot have been wonderful after fo many Years, confidering how long Lord Blantyre lived in the Houfe with Lady Jane at Jix ; and that he actually flood God- father to the Child : Therefore it was fcarce worth while to impute it, without any Foundation in Faa. 2. Ifabel Walker (the Purfuers fay) has betrayed herfelf, by faying (hat (lie v/as in Ufe to converfe with Mad. Tewis on the Subject of Lady Jiuus Sicknefs, fe't. — iMad. Tevjis fpcke no Englifi, Serv. i8. ». Ifabel Walker no French, even at Rheims ; for the Mifs Hiberts fay, Ejf'y Cmv could fpeak a little French, but the other fo brokenly it was nothing— This is a two-edged Objeition ; it wounds lAzi^.Tevuis, who, without any Sort of Communication with //^^jZ/fw, fays, that ihe, Jvecles d. P. 15. r. Filles de Chanibre s'etoient apper^ues des premiers Indices de la Grojj'effe de Mi Lady. The Solution is, they converfed with a German Woman in Dutch-, who, as Ifahel Walker de- Min. p. 4. pofes, could fpeak both Low Dutch and German ; Walker, who had li> ed with Z)/*■ e. ■' rr & / D.P. IS- f . Some of the Symptoms they fpealc of are fuch as other WitnefTes had no Opportunity to ob- ferve, the outward Appearance not being fo vifible then as afterwards : Thole who only faw her drcit, had not fo good an Opportunity to obferve them. It is too fallacious to conclude no Witnefs took their Obfervations before A'larch.^ merely becaufe they were not examined to the Dates of them. It is probable that feveral other of the Depofitions do, in Fad, relate to an earlier Date: Particularly Baron A'(JCf///^o/, Mad. Scholl, and horA Crawford., certainly ob- fervedit long before this Time. It is not ufual to convidt Witnelfes of Perjury by the Silence of others ; but by their Contradidlions. Thirdly, She did not ftate Lady y^/jf's Lodging in any other Houfe, but infinuates the con- trary ; firft, by faying that {he obferved from Month to Month, the incre.afe of her Pregnancy ; ~~" "''• "• fecoiidly, by relating that the Cloaths were altered. Mad. Teivis, who notwithftanding the Purfuers allow themfelves to treat her thus, was a Woman of Senfe and Honour, contradled great Fricndlhip with Lady 'Jane, and continued to vifit her familiarly after {he left her Houfe ; Baron AlaceU'igot fpeaks of feeing her frequently. She had therefore as many Opportunities of knowing what flie fpoke of, is if Lady 'Jane had been in the Houfe, particularly as to the Alteration of the Cloaths, for fhe employed the Man- tua-Maker to do it : But what kind of Head can conceive that Mad. Teivh fliould, without the leaft Reafon for it, infinuate that Sort of Falfliood, which all her Neighbours could contradidt; and, probably, the Notary himfelf knew otherwife ? Fourthly,. Mad. Tewh has faid, that (he was at Lady Jane's Bed-fide nsoftly in a Morning, which could not be true after fhe went to another Lodging, as is proved by Mad. Gillefen and Stholl — They fwear that they never faw or knew any Body come to fee Lady 'Jane, before {he was dreffed ; but they alfo iwear that Phyficians, Surgeons, or Midwives, might have come without their knowing it — To be fure they might : Who, that lets I^odgings, can fpeak fo particularly of the Refort of People to the Lodgers, as to fay, negatively, that fuch or fuch Vifitswerc not made — Mad. Scholl, in particular, was much miftaken in her Account of Lady Jane's living fo much alone ; but it appears from both, that MaH. Teivis hired the Lodgings for them, and Mad. Gillefen thinks paid for them. It was Mad. Teiijis Ihe complained to of the Trouble ihey gave her ; and fhe remembers that Mad. Tewis did viilt there, and the hft Time, the Day of their going, between Seven and Eight o'Clock. Laftly, Mad. Tewis has faiJ, that iht frequenth had felt Lady J^a with quick Child, quelle avoit fenti la Vie. This could not be, becaufe Lady 'fane Wds too baflrful to fufter fuch I'ami- 33 liarity, even from a motherly old Woman, who frequented and loved her ; and if it had been fo, {he would not have been aftonifhed to fee her fo big thelafl Morning. Here is a Comment upon the Number of Times included '\n frecuently, as faid by one, and reported by another, upon the fuppofed Meafure of her Aflonifhment, and the Sort of View {he might have of Lady Jane ; as if this fmall War upon Words were enough to v/ork a Con- viction of Perjury. Her Declarations in Converfation to S'lr George Colquhoon and Colonel Douglas, it is faid, v/ere thofe v/tiich engaged her to depofe beyond her Knowledge — As if they had affually proved the Perjury ; a:-, if her notoriai Declaration '^id not ifl'ue before thofe Convcrfations ; a,s if her other Conveilations and Letters, v.'hich ai'e in E\idcnce, were not to the kur.c Kficcf ; and as if- tlicrc were a Jol better Reafons to fulpedt the Truth of her. Difcourfc tiuu of her Oath. jj, Thar zg. 75. r. 30. A. yft. OBJECTIONS TOTHE Part III. 13. Tlic next Falfliood is a Difcrepancy between Lady Jane's Pocket-Book, which faj's truly, they ftaid at Sedan nine Days : Whereas Mrs. Hewit fays two or three Days ; and IValkev, feme Days. This feems to require no Anfwer. 14. Mrs. Hewit IS falfe in faying, that Lady Jane feemed likely to be delivered at Sedan — It mart be confefled there is no Evidence of this ; the Diforder Mrs. Hewit alludes to happened at Rhetelh ; and fhe, who knew no French, and was ill at remembering Naincs, as appears b/ many VVitnefles, put one Place for another. Seiv. 19. E. 15. Ifabel Walker is falfe in reporting the Converfation between Lady Jane and the Land- lady, who dropped a Curtfey, and hoped her Lad)fliip had not far to travel, for flie obfervcd her to be near her Time ; Lady Jane faid, how do you know ? The Landlady anfvvered, that if file had not feen her Bulk, ihe knew by her Face. This IJabel partly underlfood, and found to be in part the Con\ crlation from Lady Jane herfelf. This, they fay, is falfe ; nrft, becaufe if Lady Jane had been likely to be delivered, the Landlady could not have obferved it as an extraordinary thing that flie was likely to be delivered, nor Lady Jane have anfwercd by fo vacant a QiiePd'in. As Lady Jane was not likely to be de- livered, there needs no further Difcuffion of tlie iolidity of this Remark. Secondly, as Ifahel JValker did not underftand x.\\z French, it is unlikely Lady Jane fho'ild have explained fo imma- terial a Converfation. As they have not faid vv-hy it is unlikely, it is not worth the Trouble of proving fo natural an Incident likely. Thirdly, '.his is like her converfing with Mad. Tewis, as that Converfation was in Dutch, which Ihe did underftand, and this in French, which (he did not pretend to know. The Purfuers are begged to (hew the Likenefs. Fourthly, If Lady Jane was really fo big as reprefented, why (hould (lie a(k the Landlady- how fhe knew ^ The bigger (lie was, the more Caufe fhe had to enquire anxioufly what Reafon the Landlady had for intimating that ihc couM not travel much further. The Trouble of ftat- ing fuch Objeflions as ihefe is the whole Dilficulty of anfwering ihem. „ 16. Ifabel IValker is falfe in the Account (he gives of Lady Jane's Diforder at Rhetelle, which fhe defcribes to be fo bad, that they were afraid of her being brought to Bed ; but having recovered, they proceeded to Rheims — Being examined to it more particularly afterwards, (he fays, that on Min. 6. D. her Arrival ac Rhetelle, (he was taken ill and diftrcfTed, and immediately was carried into a Bed- Room and went to Bed ; Ifabel corLtmund clofe in the Room by her, and fat up all Night, and confidered the Fatigue of the Journey as the Caufe of her lUnefs to a Woman in her Situation — Mrs. Hewit went backward and forward while Lady Jane was in Bed. ?. P. S95. 1. This is falfe, becaufe it differs from Gz^^w^/, who fays, that on her Arrival at the Inn, flie complained of being out of order, would cake no Supper, afked for Soup, which fhe took, and was then conducted to Bed — The Companion and Maid-Servants went with her, and ftaid till file was in Bed, when they came out and fupped at another Table- — Where is the Difference ? Unlets TihhylFalkerh perjured, in faying (he fat up with her all Night, whereas Mrs. Guenct fays flie came out to eat her Supper. Secondly, Walker means to convey that (hejiopt at Rhetelle. Quite otherwife ; her being taken ill alarmed them with the Fears of her Delivery, as in fuch a Situation every thing is apt to do, but it turned out to he only a Diforder occafioned by Fatigue ; and in the very fame Sen- tence (he iays, that Lady Jajje recovered it, and went on the Reft of her Journey — -This is what they call conveying, thatflie was taken ill and obliged to ftt>p at Rhetelle. Thirdly, Ntr. Gurnet heard nothing of her being likely to be brought to Bed — Wonderful indeed ! that the Women fnould let their firft Apprehenfions of that Sort go oft" without ex- plaining them to a Notary. Fourthly, no AlKftance was called in, which, if they really feared a Miiicarriage, they mu ft have done — If the Pains and ftrong Symptoms of a Delivery had appeared, it is moft probable they would have enquired for Afliftance, even in fuch a Village as Rhetelle, where, for aught to be feen to the contrary, the Midwives maybe as good as thofe of either Liege or Rheims ; but is any fuch Cafe pretended ? iMrs. Hewit, Sir John Stewart, and Walker, who all (peak of this Accident, though the two firft have confounded the Names of the Places, only fay that (lie was taken ill, and that thct feared a Delivery. An Apprehenfion, however ill-grounded to Peo- ple of Knowledge, was naturally enough the Firft to occur to them ; but no fuch Pains coming on, and Lady Jarc lecovering when file was put to Bed, that Apprehenfion vanifhed, and all the Neceffity of attending to it further. AgMtiTibby Walker is falfe in her'Defcription of Lady Jane, that fhe was too heavy to go in and out of the Coach bv herfelf, and Sir John lifted her : Whereas all that Mr. Guenet remembers is. Min. C. r. Book III. PROOFOFPREG NANCY. 79 is, that Sir John handed her, and fometimes he gave her his Hand on the other Side— She was wrapt up in a long Cloak, and he did not know fhe was married. 17. Mrs. Hewit is falfe in faying that Lady Jane\vz% too heavy for walking when at Rkeims, P. P. 151. r, and never walked in the Streets but once; and this Fahliood was meditated upon Sight of Mad. y^/fl>r//f's Depofition, who hapjiened to meet her once in the Sirect, and is proved by the y!hbe Hibert, who frequently walked with her ; and by Mr. ^erengal, who faw her out two or three D. P. 516. a. times. If Mrs. Hcwit had the Afljftance of Mad. Mayette's Depofition to fonn her Teftimony by, it is rather unaccountable that fhe fhould not have feen the Reft, which were equally accefiible. It does not feem to be very material, whether Mrs. Hnuit, at the End of feventeen Yeans, Tvas very accurate in her Accounts of Lady Jane's Walks ; but if that be material, it is poffible the may be pretty exaiSl ; in the Service ilie is giving a general Defcription of lier Bulk, and calls it too heavy for walking — it would be flrangely narrow to infer from fuch an Expreffion, that (he could not ilir ; for, fhe fays, (lie walked to the (.'each at the fame Time. — In her fe- cond Examination, fhe (ays, Ihe v/as not o/7f?/ abroad, and wAkcd in tlw Strfft k/t once ; plainly dirtinguifhing between her going abroad and walking in the Street : By the laft", (he poffibly meant her going to ^arengal's ; by the firft, her refort to the Garden, which was hard by, in which flie went to tike the Air, and refled herfelf upon the Benches which arc placed there; and this Circumllance alfo folves the Wonder which the I'urfuers affedt to exprefs at her- fevere Exercife in walkintr from fix to eight. 18. Mad. Mayette is falfe, and was bribed by dining twice with the Dutchefs of Douglas ; and alfo inftruifted by reading a Memorial publiihed for the Defender in France, in which there is not a Syllable concerning the Pregnancy at Rheims — This fiiews the Diligence of the Agents, who could employ fuch labo ious Means to bring a Witnefs up to the Point of fv/earing that fhe faw Lady Jane once in the Street, and judged by her Figure and Pofluie, that flie was with Child. What muft they have done with twenty or thirty Witneffes more, who give iuch pointed Ac- counts of her Pregnancy .? The abfolute Proof of her Falfhood confifts in this, that fhe fwears Mo.cnamara hired her Houfc for them after LaJy Jane went to Paris, whereas flie went from home the Beginning of — S'7. ». • July, and was abfent till after their return from Paris ; v/hich was upon AuguJ} 16, when the Kent commenced. All this is reconciled by only fuppofing that which is proved to be true, that the Houfe was hired to commence at Rent at an uncertain Time ; that is, when (he Ihould re- turn from lying-in, which is of itfelf a Degree of afcertaining of the Time : But it is faid Macnamara could have had no fuch Commiflion, becaufe one Mad. Vatry depofes that Lady Jane invited her to vifit her on her Return to Rheims, at Mr. i:^/i'^r/'s— Whether the Witnefs P. P. 913. fuppofed them at Mr. Hibert's, knowing they had been there before, or whether that was really- pointed out as a Place to enquire for them, is not worth difca(ring, becaufe it is abfolutely cer- tain they had left Hibert's altogether — The Maids were gone to lodge at the Couture ; and that they knew another Lodging had been taken appears from Mrs. Hewit's Letter to the Maids of Serv. 35. ». the i2th of Auguji, where they are ordered, without more particular Direction, to make Fires : From which it is plain the Houfe had been taken, though the Rent did not commence till the 16th, and confequently taken in the Manner mentioned before, for an uncertain Time — This is their Proof pofnive ; the Reft is Argument from the Improbability of her taking fo much notice of Lady Jane, as to remember her again, and obferve the Dift'erence of her Appearance two Months after. The other Improbability is, that fhe (hould fee that Pofture and Bulk un- der a Drefs which Abbe Hibert fays covered it from him ; or, to be more correft, which know- ing it before, he fays he never looked at. ig. Mr. Mackenzie is perjured in every Particular, which appears from his pretending to fee the Bulk of l^^xAy Jane, notwithftanding her Hoop, which Perjury is common to him, with Mad. Alayette, and about ten or twenty more WitnefTes. Secondly, from the DitTerences be- D. P. 53. i. tween his Depofitions and Mr. Maclean's ; but nothing better could be expected from him, who is but a Lieutenant in the D«/f/j Service, while Maclean is a Major-General in the Portugueze. They fay it is falfe, that Sir John Stewart told him Lady Jane was going to Paris to be deli- S3- ^ • vered, becaufe General Maclean does not remember to have heard it till after they went ; fe- condly, beraufe Mrs. Hewit, on the 12th o( Augrijf, gives the Maids leave to tell the Delivery Scrv. S6. D. to Mr. Mackenzie, as Lady Jane had now written of it to her Brother : His knowing wiiy they went would never inftrudt him of the Time of Delivery ; but that Leave to tell him of her De- livry, rather confirms that he knew why (he went. Again, General Maclean does not remember taking Notice of the Pregnancy, but he gives D. p. -63. r, . her Drefs, and the Diftancc of Time, as probable Reafons for that ; therefore Mr. Jl-'ackenzie muft go O B J E C T I O N S T O T H E Pare IIL mud: be perjured, who remembers Maclean's talking of it as they went Home from the Stage- Coach. •Mr. Mackenzie is alfo forlworn in his Defcription of LaJy fane's getting into the Coach with fuch Difficulty ; but he.Te. Maclean' i Defcription is fomevvhat itronger ; That they were obliged to lift her up wi:h both their Hands, which, though he does not undertake to remember her p"iu;ure, is a pretty {Irong Defcription of Unwieldinef-^. - This is alfo proved by Mrs. Hewit and ^'iliy IViilkir ; anti yet, in x^i\z\x Plaint eo'i May 20, they averred that Nobody was feen to help her into the Coach, on Account of her pretended Bulk, which they adl, Mrs. Hezvit had faid "did hot allow her to move, or alight out of the Coach — Upon what Authority they imputed that Sayins; to Mrs. Hewit has not yet been explained. r. 3ji. E. Mrs. Hciuit, they fay, is falfe in faying Lady "Jane had no new Cloaths made, or old ones altered m Rheims, before {he went to Paris., Mad. Saiittrz, the Mantua-Maker, having depofed the contrary : If'Mad. Sauirez be exact, which theie is fome Reafon to doubt, Mrs. Heiuit Tnuft have forgot it, which is eafy to imagine of fuch a Circumftance, or muft be fuppofed to fweara Fact, which fhe knew v/ould be contradifted by one at leafl, probably by many Wit- nefTes — This is not the Choice of Fafts which Perjury ufually makes ; but this is not all, fhe niu.t have denied a Faft which bore a Countenance for Lady "Jai-^e's innocence — The altering her Cloaths, and employing a Mantua-Maker about her Pcri'on, at fuch a Time, can never — 6S. H. be turned to Proofs of Guilt. L.idy "Jane's own Falfhood, relative to the fame Period, is proved in a Manner worth Notice — 'i'-Wk Margaret Primrofe^ aeed fixty, unmarried, andfolemnly fworn, depones that Lady 5/rt;> told her, that Lady Jane told Lady Stair that flie intended to have lain in at Rheims ; but that the Morning after Ihe came there, a Lady of the Place defired to fee her : Lady Jane fent An- fwer fhe was fatigued in Bed, and could fee Nobody ; the Lady fent Word it was a Matter of Confequence, fl'ie was admitted, flie begged Pardon for intruding, but it v/as Matter of Con- fcience, fhe heard (he v/as come there with the Intention tolye-in ; and that (he was obliged to tell her that there was Nobody in that Town capable of doing the OfSce of Midwife. Lady Jane faid (he had fent away her Coach, and her Finances were too low to proceed further; but that the Lady's Arguments were fo pathetic, that fhe perfuaded her to take a Poft-Chaifc, ia which Lady Jane and Mrs. Hewit went to Paris that Day : Lady Stair reminded her, that ia Paris there were always 5/ //^y/j People of Credit ; and that confidering her Age and her Enemies, ihe fliould have lain in royally : To which Lady ^(7?;^ anfwered, that it was not in her Power, as ■flie was but Half an Hour, or an Hour and a Half, in Paris before (he was delivered. This romantic Story, the Purfuers fay, was adopted by Mrs. Hewit, and applied to Mad. j^ndrieux ; but as fhe had applied it to Mad. Andrieiix, (he could not give it the turn of a flrange Lady — How Mrs. Heivit is confirmed in her Story will be feen elfewhere ; and if this be the fame Storv, it is fo flrangeiy difguifed, that it re on the 9th. Mr. /iTW wrote to him on the 16th ; and Sir John Stewart on the 17th, complains that he had been fo long without writing. The Plan was to go to Geneva through Luxemburg and the eaftern Part of France, which was to be done by Paffes ; for as to the Roads being open, that was not even dreamt of then : Lord — j6j. T. Cravjford had Occafion to fend two Horfes and a Servant to Lord Garnock at Milan, and they were to have taken them along with them ; and it was alfo fettled that Application fliould be made to Lord Sandwich for a Pafs. — 561. K. Soon after Lord Crawford's Departure, Sir fohn Stewart wrote that he was difappointed of get- ting a Pafs from Lord Sandzvich, who could not give one for Britons to pafs Southward, nor yet could the French Ambafliulor : He explains to him that Marflial Bathiani's Pafs would do better for paiFing through Luxemburg than even the Uuke of Cumberland's ; and that Marflial Saxe muft give a Pafs for what Part of France they fliould have Occafion to pafs through. He begs in my Lady's Nam.e for a P^fs from the Marfhal Bathiani or the Duke ; and he fliall think it ftrange if the French Minifter will not write to Marflial Saxe for his Pafs. On the jyth o( April be wrote again, expelling however that the firfl: would arrive at the- , j5,. c. fame Time ; in which laft he talks of fetting out in eight Days, and defires to know if he con- tinued in Mind to fend his Horfes and Footman to Italy with them. _- jfz. B. On the 28th of April hord Craiuford wrote to Sir J'Jm Stewart as to the PafTcs : He docs not feem to have found it cafy to procure them : He thinks they might venture through Luxemburg, as there feemed to be a Neutrality there ; but in all Events, a Paflport from the Imperial Ambaitador, or a. plain Letter from him to Marflial Nighhourg, would befuificient ; though he is perfuaded that Lady- yaw^, by her Acquaintance with Mad. La FtUt, Manhr.l Bathiani might get one from him : But he thinks the Name of Steivart would be an Objeftion, if he fhould mention that, and his Purpofe to go ihrouf\\ France. As to the Footman and Horfes, he had attunlly fent them, with Diredlions- that they ihould ufe them on their Journey, and then fend them on to Milan ; and aflures Lady Jane, that he would write to her by the Time flie arrived at Geneva, _ gg ^ On the 24th oi April Sir John Stewart writes to Lord Crawford, and tells him, that his Horfe* and Footman wDl be of great Accommodation to him on his Journey ; the more efpecially, as Lady Jane's, only Footman could not go with them, having been a French Defertcr. He thanks him for his Purpofe of writing to them at Geneva, and for the Pafles ; by which laft, he mull mean his. Lordlbip's Care and Diredlions how to procure them ; for, in Fad!:, the PafT^s were not got. He , 567. H. defires that a Watch, which was to come from Vienna, might be put into Florentine's Hands, a Wine- Merchant, that he might bring it to him in Oiioher following, when he flioukl come into Burgundy. In all thefe Letters Geneva is not mentioned as a new Thought, but referred to as Part of the Plan,, which was undcrftood between them before his Lordfliip's Departure from Aix. D. P. 965. D. On the i^ oi May "LovA Craw ford v,-r\\.e^ to Sir John Steivart, and expreffes his Happinefs that ■"" his Servants and Horfes were likely to be fo ufeful to hiri ; and he promifes that the Watch Ihall be lent as he defires; an.l in fpcaking of Florentine, recommends him as a good Man, who wiil coiinfel him for the beli as to his Journey, v\ hich he is perfuaded will go on extremely well by Lux- emburg.. On the 4th of May it appears by Sir John's Letter to Lord Crawford, that though the Prelimina- ! — 569. B. ries were in Fad figned upon the 30th of April, all tliat had tranfpired about them was, that a Suf- penfion of Arms was agreed betvv^icn the JJIjiricime Powers ; fo that the l\oads were not yet opened. Ott BooItlV. CONDUCT DURING THE PREGNANCY. ^5 On the 1 2th oi Mcjy, thouj;li he coukl get no Paffes, the Roads were apparently open, nnd the Day fixed for their Journey to the Pais de I'aux was thcThur/tiay following : He fays nothingabout P»P. 569.K. the Route he propoled to take ; but to be fure when it was open to him to chufe, the dirccft E.oad, which lies by Liege through Rhdrns, muit have been his Choice. Lady fane wrote a Letter of the fame Date to Mr. Haldane -, in which flie exprefles her Satisfaclion ■ 559. in being about to go to a cheaper Place and Fmujlant Country. In the latter End of Aprd Sir 'John Stewart writes to Rcbertfon, Banker at Rotterdam, through whofe ^oi- '< Hands their Annuity pafled, to defire he would furnifli him with Credit at Geneva, and aflureshim he fhould fet out from y^/A- the Beginning of the next Month. On the 3d oiMay Roberifon anfwercd the undated Letter of Sir John's, promifmg him Credit at ~~ °'' * Geneva. On the l^thoi May Floretitine wrote ioM.r . A:idi inix, his Correfpondent at Rhcltns, to t:;ke Care '^•'^ Letter of them there ; but in what Way, or in the Courfe of what Deftination, cannot be collefted, be- °°f P^^^^^^ • taufe that Letter is loft, and appears only in the Anfwer, dated the 22d, which fpe;;ks of it only as not mentioning either the Time they meant to flay, or the AccomnKxlation they wanted, or in any Refpeft the Kind of Care he wiflied might be taken of them. On the lixhoi May ^Ir. Khar, a Banker at Jix, gave them Credit on the Widow ToJf.muA Son, _„ 1005. c at Parii ; and in his Letter to them he fays, " The Lady will not go p. : iiaps to Paris ; but whenever •' llie wants the Money, will fend the Credit to fame Merchant, to be tranfoiitted to you, and will •' draw upon you for the above-mentioneii Sum, in the Whole or in Fait, atUf?nce,or a fhorterTime " after Sight." The Word perhaps, the Purfuers fay, is a plain Pi oof tli;,t Paris had at leaft been talked of as the Place of their Deflin.'^tion. How Mr. Khar might have cxprefled himfelf if he had ftood in Awe of fuch Critics, cannot be known ; but to common Undc ft-'.ndings it is a reafonable Way for accounting for giving Credit iipon a Houfe at Paris, to People who were not to go there to make L^fe of it : " She will not (perh.ips) go to Paris, but flie will draw upon you," is'c. Put the perhaps where it ought to ftand, in a Parenthefis, and there is an End of the Inference. A Draught upon a great Houfe at Paris would pafs any where ; on a fmall Houfe in a Country Town might have found Difliculty beyond the Reach of it ; and it was an obvious Convenience to have their Money as current aspofllble. It is a ftrange Argument that an accidental ExprefTion of Mr. Khar fhould be fuppofed to convey their Meaning better than all their own Expreflions, their Conduct, and that of their Friends, if the Expreffion could be fo turnetl : But that Mr. Khar did not mean it fo, further appears from another Letter of the 2gth of Al-iy to the fame Houfe, where the Credit is changed to the Name of ___ Sir John Stewart ; and it is defired, that when he lliall dijpcje of the Sum contained in it, they ^ will honour //, which muit mean his Difpofition, by Draught. Is this remote Inference (no better than probable, to fay the titmoft) if it were otherwife fupported, fufficient to eftablifli the Fact of an imputed Purpofe againft the common Faith due to the ProfefTions of Men? The whole Proof which Accident has preferved of their Conduft is inconfiftent with fuch Inference. One of Lord Cravjford's Horfes was taken ill, and unable to make a Journey ; and INIr. Chauvan had apprifed Sir John Stewart of the DifGculty of carrying Horfes through France : Therefore in a Letter of the 1 9th of May, he declines taking them. For as his Lordfliip's Motive for fending them this Way was their Convenience, he thought it unjufl to put that in Competition with the Safety of his Horfes.-— He promifes to feml him another Letter at his firft Halt, and calls upon him to perform his Promife of vifiting Lady Jane wherever flie happens to pitch her Tent. On the 2i{i ol May ihej ict out from /fix and arrived at Liege. Thus it appears, that till the Month oi May they had not the leaft Profpe£t of the Road to Geneva hj Rheims being opened ; and that during this whole Period, the Place of their Deftination was to go to Geneva by LuxcinhMrg .- That it was not till they had been detained much longer than they expe£ted, and that the Roads were unexpeiStedly opened, that ;hey thought of going by Rheirns , which it appears they begun to confider as a Place where they might ftop in Cafe ofNeceffity. CHAP. III. Li!dy Jane's Reafons for not flaying at Aix. 'T'HE Purfuers fay She ought to have ftaid at Aix, to have had the Company and Afflft- ancc ofher Friends Why fte ftiould not lie-in at Aix\^ very enfy to imagine:— The Con- grefs and Seafon were approaching :— She felt the Inconvenience of them already, thrult down from • %1°'P* ■ 3+- E. «6 CONDUCT DURING THE PREGNANCY. Part III. from better to worfe, into a little mean uncomfortable Lodging.-— Her Friends were many, People of great Fafliion, to whom fhe had not declared her Marriage ; though it began to be rumoured P. P.4-'' A. as early as the Month of February, when {he took up the Purpofe of going to Geneva.— -'i\\t Mean- nefs of her Lodgings made it impoffible to receive fuch Company upon fo ceremonious an Occa- fion.---The Expence would have been too great, if it had been otherways convenient ; and the Aw k- wardnefs of taking Joy on Deli\cry and Marriage at the fame Time was manifeftly difagree- able. Tliefe were Reafons, fpringing direftly and manifeftly out of her tben Situation, and yet were not likely to be given, except to her intimate Friends : But if ibe had affigned forty others to Peo- ple in general, thefe muft have been at the Bottom among the principal. And yet the Purfuers argue, that fhe muft have meant fraudulently in leaving Aix-la-Chapelle -, becaufe, they fay, fhe gave other Reafons to different Perfons.---If they had been repugnant, it would have argued nothing, confidering what real Reafons i'at had ; but they are neither. In talking of their Departure to Baron MaceUigot, and perhaps, though fhe does not fay lo, to JD. P. 351. D. laZ^Y IFigtoii, the Expence of Aix, and the greater Facility of meeting good Affiftancc, are 4.7+. B, given as tlieir Reafons ; which laft, the Purfuers fay, is falfe ; for good Afliflancc might be had at yf/,v, and (lie is reproached for not having confultcd them before: Therefore, what flie knew of the Skill of the Aix Midwives, does not appear any more, than what Occaficn fhe had to try them. It is plain, the Baron teftified no Surprife at their Expeftation to find better Affiftance ; and whether thatReafon alone would have determined them to go or not, it might add to their Satisfadlion in the Place which they had chofcn. The Purfuers infift, that Lady Jane told Mad. Teuiis that flie left Aix left her Marriage ftiould be known and give Offence to the Duke ; which muft have been falfe, as he knew it the loth of April: For this they cite Colonel Douglases Dcpofition, which is Evidence it feems for them, though not for the Defender.---Mad. ^itwii aflced 'L-d.Aj Jane, Why flie concealed her Mar- riage and her Pregnancy .? Her Anfwer was. She was afraid of lofing Iier Brother's Favour, and that he might withdraw her Pcnfion -, and added, that the little Money fhe had, made her un- willing to ftay at Aix on Account of the Expence.---Lower down in the Page, Mad. Tcvjis is reprefented as preiTing Lady yane to ftay at Aix ; and her Anfwer was, the Want of Money, and Fear of difobliging the Duke, were her Reafons for leaving Aix ■, to which flie alfo added an Objedfion to the Ceremony of receiving Vifits from fo many of her Country-People.---ln the firft Part, the Fear of difobliging the Duke is exprefsly referred to as the Reafon for conceal- ing her Marriage and Pregnancy, which was true as long as it could be concealed ; and it is plainly but an abfolute Confuiion that they were jumbled together in the laft Part. ---It is very unlikely, that Mad. Tciuis did not know of the Communication flie had made to the Duke, confidering how intimate they were ; but it is quite impolTible fhe fliould underftand that Lady »»— 30. B. J^'^^ meant to conceal the Birth of her Child from his Grace for ever : And Sir George Co'.quhoun, who converfed oftener widi Madam Tewis, and was prefent at the fame Time, mentions the true Reafon ; The aukwardnefs of receiving Vifits from fo many People of Rank, to whom fhe had not declared her Marriage, as the Reafon given Mad. Tewis for leaving it. But it is endlefs in fuch a Caufe as this to be criticifing the Forms of ExprefFion, and debating on fuch narrow Ground, an Article which, taken either one Way or the other, moves not a Hair's Breadth towards any Conclufion. She ought, they fay, to have lain-in at Bedbour \ in fhort, any where better than where flic did, or no where beft of all. Bedbour was an old uninhabited Houfe of the Comte De Salrne, approaching not a little nearer the Condition of a Prifon than a Palace ; but in Lady Jane's Opi- nion, any Thing was preferable to lying-in at Aix in her then Circumftances. In tbe latter End of the Month of April, it appears by their Correfpondence with Lord Craivford, that the Bufi- iiefs of getting PaiTes to go througli Luxemburg]) to Switzerland was laboured."-In Fa£t, they were not obtained before the Signing of the Preliminaries made them unneceflliry. About this — — 4E6. G. Time Mad. Tewis knowing I^ady Jane's Rcfolution not to ftay, and probably, her Difliculty to get away, wrote to her Coufm, the Bailiff of Comle De Sa/nie, to know whether Lady Jane might lie-in at Bedbour. Before agreeing to this Requeft, it was neceffai^ for him to afk the Leave of his Marter, and he wrote to him to I'ienna for that Purpofe ; but it being uncertain when he might expe£i an Anfwer, they did not think proper to wait for it, but fet out the 21ft of jMay for Rheims. The Road being then open, either through France or Luxembourg, there was no Doubt which to prefer. This Account the Purfuers by afide, and take no Notice of; but think they can make more j0. P. 30. c. of Mad. Teivis's Converfation, as reported by Sir Giorge Colquhoun, wherein flie is fuppofcd to fay, that Lady Jane was very happy in this Propofal for fome Days ; but at laft, after every Ob/lade was removed to her going there, Sir John infifted flie fhould go to the South of France. It BooklV. CONDUCT DURING THE PREGNANCT. 87 It is very confiftent with the former Account, that Lady Jane expreffed herfelf happy. The Profpedl of leaving A'lx was enough to raife that Demouflration. — It is very likely alfo, that Sir "John infifteJ on her going to the South of France, not as Mad. Tewh fuppofes, bccaufe good Wine was cheap there ; though fuch a Circumftance was likely to have its Weight with Sir John; but, becaufe fhe was too far gone to wait the Iflue of fo uncertain an Event, as an Anfwer from CcmU De Salme : For it cannot be true, that every Obftacle was removed, confidering it is in Evidence, that the Anfwer did not come till after their Departure ; nor is it very likely, that fhe fhould fo earneftly perfuade Lady Jane to flay before that Anfwer did arrive. — Such Miftakes are D. P.+gfi.c. very natural where a Perfon relates what is faid upon any Subject, without knowing all the Cir- cumftances, efpecially after an Interval of feveral Years. Tliey fay, that Colonel Duk^/u/s Account agrees with this.-— Nothing like it-— He only fays, 34- b. tJiat Lady Jane feemed happy in the Propofal of lying-in there, and Sir John perfuaded her off lt---both wliich maybe true; but he does not fay every other Obltacle was removed ; and Mad. 486. c, Tewis fays, that no Anfwer was come. ---Now fuppofe tlie Difcourfe of Mad. Ttiuis told more ac- curately than any Difcourfe ever was told fourteen Years after ; What does it prove, but that Lady Jane really wiflied to flay where fhe was .''---And by their own Argument it follows, that Ihe muft have been really with Child.-— Indeed, if Mad. Tewis is to be believed at all, (he was without Qiieftion pregnant. After which, what will it avail whether flie went to Bedbiur, or any where elfe .'' Their Idea is crofled by Lady Jane's ready, and (as Mad. Tewis is now fuppofed to fay) her joyful Acceptance of this Propofal. ---It looks prodigioully as if the Child, fhe thought of palming upon the World, was as obtainable in this lonely Caftle of Bedbour, as within the thronged Walls of Paris. But they have a Maxim for this ; " Whatever may have been falfe, was fo."- -No- thing was more natural than her Conduft about Bedhour, upon the Suppofition of an Impof- ture. ---Their Plan was to go to Paris at all Events, to which Place it was eflential to hold out an indifpenfable Neceffity of leaving Jix -, and in the Execution of that Plan, it was natural to em- brace the Propofal of flaying with Joy ; and thereby demonfhratc, they were under no Kind of Neceffity to go.---AVhatan Argument ! It is natural to lie. ---Her Condufl: is natural-— Therefore fhe lies.— -If every Term in this laborious Argument be juft, it will turn to fmall Account, un- le.s they can enelofe twenty or thirty People more in the fame Syllogifm, and refer rdl they have, faid, and all they have fworn, to this fame natural Trick of Lying. As a further Proof of her fraudulent Purpofes, it was aflerted in their numerous Libels publiflied in France, that " Elle fe defait en pafl'ant a Liege d'un Domeltique qu'elle avoit pris a Aix-la-Chapelle--- " Premier Temoin importune ecarte." A ftrong Circumftance ; confidering that they appear to liave been well fatisfied with the Servant, by the Character they gave him at difmiffmg him :---A Cond. 2*. Circumftance fo important, that it forms the whole Edge of the fourth Article in their Con- defcendence ; and it was induftricufly charged that they difmifled him at Liege, beoiufe it was proper thefe cunning People fliould feem to carry their whole Family away from Jix, and yet improper fo important a Witnefs fliould know any thing of them. Therefore it was publifhed as a Badge of Fraud, in that infamous Libel their Monitoire, to all France,, that they fent back their Servant from Liege ; and yet they had been at Aix, where his Wife lived; had even taken a Notorial Declaration from Mad. G/Z/V/^w, who knew that ^liiel had not followed them from Aix ; and his Reafon for flaying behind. In Proof it turned out, tliat Lady Jane v/as defirous to take him along ; that Sir John was fo D.P. 489. c. fond of him as to ofler to follicit his Difcharge ; reprefenting to him, that it would be eafy, as he had not been announced a Deferter, and woidd coft but fix Guineas ; and that in Fadt, his <3nly Reafon for not going with them, was, becaufe he had been a Soldier in the French Service, and had deferted.---When this was fully detefted, it was candidly given up ; but the Death of a fingle Witnefs would have enabled them in their Stile of Argument, to have kept Poireffion of this Fallhood. It would have been faid, " She may have difmifled him with a fraudulent Purpofg} '* therefore flie certainly did :---It is poffible therefore it was fo." C H A P. IV. Condutl at Liege. 'TpHE r.ext Ohjeftion to her Condiidl is, that flie did not lye-in at Z;V^c, this happening to be "■■ the hi ft Town fhe met with on her Journey : And they are at great Pains to prove what ex- p p „j,_«, cellent Midwives there were at Liege, and alfo that there are thirty-two Parifties in the Place, where Abundance of Children are fuppofed to be born. It is flrange the Defender fhould not be born at Liege ! Likely enough : But Lady Jane, who only paffed through in her Way to Rhciws, never learned one of tJiofe curious Particulars, as to the extraordinary Fame of the Midwives. No Occsfion. 88^ CONDUCT DURING THE PREGNANCY. P^rtlll. Occafion occurred to talk of it ; nor, if therehad, is theFaftinconteflible ; for it is in Proof, that the Midwives in thefe provincial Towns were in nothing near fo much Repute before they were brought to fwear to their own Eminence. To make this Objection look lefs ridiculous, the Purfuers aflert, tliat their only Pretence for leaving Liege was the Want of better AfTifbnce ; whereas they know the Trutli to be, that they never meant to ilay there, nor ever talked of flaying. The Purfuers here change their Attack, and fay, that Rhe'tim was now given out for a Blind to cover their real Deftination to Paris, as Geneva had been before ; and tor this they found upon rv. p. S. c. the Evidence of Mr. Hepburn, who fays, that Sir John told him Lady Jane was going to Paris to lyc-in, and that Paris xras the befl Place to get good Affiftance. It will be proper to fee the Extent of this Piece of Evidence, and then examine the Ap;iIication of it. It appears by the whole Evidence, that by the Time of their Arrival at Lieg^, di-ey liad in a great Meafure given up Thoughts of proceeding to Geneva, at leaft till after the Delivery.-— 'JTius Mrs. Hepburn, Che^'alier Douglas, Lambinon, and indeed probably the Whole of their Ac- quaintances here, were told of their Intention of going to Rhcims. Sir John Stewart, in Converfation with the Chevalier Douglas, at a Tavern, faid, that he was about to take a Houfe at Rheims, where Lady Jaue was to be delivered. The Chevalier adviied him much to go to Paris, for the Sake of better AfFdlance. Sir John exprefled his Inclination to this Idea, but was afraid he wanted Money.-— Both he and Lady Jane told Mrs. Hepburn they f.P. 340. B. were going to fettle at /2A^w-j ; Jiut Six John, it fcems, in Confcquencc of the Chevalier's Advice, which had flartled him for the Moment, told Mr. Hepburn he was going to Paris ; from which the Purfuers infer a fettled Furpofe of going to Paris. But it is impoffible to draw this Conclufion with any Air of Probability, That Sir John openly declared his Deftination to Paris to Mr. Hepburn, at the very Moment they were indulbioully concealing it from Mrs. Hepburn, in a cool Hour, and which he fupprelfed from Chevalier Douglas over a Glafs. Here alio the former Queftion recurs more flrongly, M'hy, if they meant to go to Paris, did they not avail themfelves of the Opinion which the Chevalier gave them, and which would at leaft have given them a Colour, if they had wanted it? They were then in the Road to Paris ; why not purfue it, inftead of going a dear contrary Road .'' Why do they go to Rheims, in or- der to undergo the Necelhty of Ex]il3uation ? It is impoffible.-— It is faid, that they gave out not only thefe two Places, Geneva and Rheiins, but various others ; the Paisde Faux, which the Purfuers will have to he a different Deftination from Geneva -, the South of Frame, m which they allude to Sir George Colquhoun'A Converfation with Mad. Tewis ; where, alter the Roads were open, and an Anfwer from the Prince of Salnie, about Bedbour, looked uncertain, fhe fays. Sir John infifted to go (for no Reafon fhe can think of, but good Wine, by which flie plainly means Burgundy,) the Road to Geneva. Monipelier, one of the Places, which Mad. Negrette thinks fell from Mrs. Hewit, which Nobody elfe fpeaks of, it is probable Mrs. Hewit never heard of ; but what may have occurred to Mad. Negrette as a likely Place, if (lie imagined they were going Southward. To give out various Places as their actual Deftination, could ferve no Purpofe but to multiply Queftions, which, if a Scheme of Fraud had been intended, was furely their Intereft to decline : And all for what .' To cover a Deftination which Nobody could have wondered at their chufmg. P.P.499-E' L CHAP. V. Zfliy Jane'j Jppearance'of Pregnancy at Liege, faid to he affe5ied, ADY Jane (they fay) affe£ted to fliew herfelf with Child at Liege, which is another Proof that fhe counterfeited it. — This is the firft Time ftie is charged with that Sort of Affecta- tion, and fhe is charged with it now only becaufe it is direttJy contrary to her Condition. She D. P. 3<*.D. '^'ore her ufual Drefs, which covered her Pregnan-^y as far as it could be covered ; in Confequence of which, Mr. Greme does not remember to have obferved it. P. P. 99s. G.T The Landlady of the Houfe they lodged at remembers Nothing of the Perfon of Lady Jane^ which, in another Place, ferves for a Proof, that fhe had not even thofe Appearances. It is now fuppofcd Oilentation. The only Perfons fhe faw were three or four Brltijh whom fhe had known before ; an old Servant and his Wife, who came to pay their Duty to her ; and a Lady of her Acquaintance, to whom flie thought a Compliment due, in paffing through the Place where ihe refided. Thus a Tenor of ConducH: remarkably even, and an Appearance altogether uniform, is at- tacked in four contrary Ways. — When her Pregnancy is obferved, it was Oftentation : — When not obferved, tliough at the lame Time and Pjuce, there was not even the Appearance of it.— It was BooklV. CONDUCT DURING THE PREGNANCY. 89 was downright impudent to allow the Maids, Mad. Tenis who took Care of her firft Difor- ders, and Mrs. Hepburn, who came in by Accident, to take fuch familiar Obfervation of her fwoln Breafks and difteuded Belly : Lord Craxvford''% was the Familiarity of an old and noble Relation, which Ihe could not help : It was mylterious Concealment that Mad. Scholl and Gil- lefen her Landladies, and her Mantuamaker, i^c. were not fuffercd to fee her naked : And as the Pregnancy is commented upon for eight Months together, Time by Time, and Place by Place, as the Evidence of it happened to arife ; thefe Arguments have the good Fortune to be often repeated, and much difperfcd ; by which Means this Cafe is enough involved to puzzle any Body who has a Mind not to underftand it ; and this feems to have been thought fufficient. CHAP. VI. ConduSi at Rheims. npHEY fet out from L'uge the 25th, and arrived at Sedan the 27th, where, after flaying nine •*■ Days, they fet out for RJjeims on the 5th of 'June, where they arrived on the 7th' ; and next Day, the eighth, they entered to their Lodgings at the Houfe of Mr. Hibert. Their Condudl at Rheims (hows, that by tins Time they had fully given up all Thoughts of going to Geneva, and that their determined Purpofe was to flay at Rheims till after the 901. d. Delivery. On the 8th of June they took Lodgings at Mr. Hibert'3 by the Month ; on the fame Day they wrote to Lord Crawford, the Letter is preferved, apprifing him of their Arrival, and p.p. (72, r, of Lady Jane's Purpofe to make Halt there for fome Time, in refpeft of the Agreeablenefs of the Place, and her Reafons againft fatiguing Journeys, alluding to the intended Journey to Ge- 7ieva ; and concludes with requeflLng to fee him in his Way to the Waters of Barege, if it fhould be neceflary or agreeable after the Fatigues of War ; referring to fome Difcourfe Lord Crawford had held of that Sort. And on the fame Day he wrote to Mr. Florentine, informing ■, . . p him, that his Friend Andrieux had procured him good Lodgings, and given them good Wine ; jefj ^^^ m,t fo that they would probably continue there for fome Time. — T hey alfo requefted Lady li igion printed. and Baron Macelligot to come and live with them ; and laid in Wine fufficient to fupply them for a long Time. It appears alfo that they wrote three other Letters at the fame Time to Aixy but thefe were not preferved. At Rheims the Purfuers afcribe a different Condulft to Lady Jane from what fhe is faid to have ob- ferved zX. Liege ; there {he oidyafFefted to appear big with Child to particular Perfons. — When fhe went to ^erengal's, fhe put on the Appearances of a far advanced Pregnancy ; but at home, where it was not eafy to carry on thefe Appearances for fo many Weeks, that is to fay, for ihree Weeks, fhe makes no Shew of it, but is conftantly drell'ed fo as to conceal her Shape. The Abfurdity of this Idea is only equalled by its Falfhood: After keeping up a conflant Appearance of Pregnancy for three Months as the Purfuers fay, for eight as the Witneffes fwear, fhe dropt it the lafl three Weeks, that is to fay, when it was moil eflential to her Fraud. ImpolTible ! And, in Faft, the Notice which Abbe Hibert took of it was in her own Apartment, and when fhe was in an Undrefs. — The Depofitions of the Witneffes to her Pregnancy at Rheims are as direiSt as thofe at Liege or ' Aix, {o far as they had Opportunities of obferving her: — And if fuch Conduft were not of it- fclf abfolutely impolTible, how could Lady Jane have deceived Effy Caw, by fuch a ConduoG:or Toung, the only Phyfician of praftical Ivnowledg'' in Mid- wifery, who has been examined; and are---Sicknefs and Reachings.-— .S'^7)/'r^y/^^| Afenfiu :•/.-— 'The Breafls Iwclled, the Belly gradually increafed in Bulk, and perceptible Motions in it — everyone of which are direflly proved in this Cafe, by a much greater C^'ncurrerc^ of eredibic '^''itnefles than could have been expected. And Do'ftor i'ouiig fays, that he never did hefitate in fuch a Cafe to declare the Woman pregnant.— So that, by the Teftimony of theii own Witnefles, Lady Ja:;e was moft certainly pregnant. The 96 CONDUCT DURING THE PREGNANCY. Part IIL *rhe Pvrfuers, after being forced out of this Syftem of a Deception, by the Teftimony of their own Witneffes, in the hft Place have infinuated, that though pregnant {he may have m.fcarried ; but they have not been pleafcd to bring the lead Proof of this, or aihgn any 1 ime or Place for fuch Mifcarriage, only that fhe m^^— therefore (he did. It is fcarce poffible to makeaferious Anfwer to may-be^s of this Nature, unfupported by the leaft Shadow of Evidence. The Defender maintains, that as his Mothers Preg:iancy is proved by clear and pofuive Teftimony, and his Parents have uniforn^y declared that tne Defender is the Oftspring of 'hat Pregnancy, he muft be main^med m the Poireffion of tha 5/^,. which he has enjoyed fince the Day of his Birth, unlefs the Pijrfuers could have brought direct Proof of her^ having mifcarried. PART PART IV. BOOK I. ALIBI at GODEFRO Is. 97 CHAP. I. Of the Faljhocd that Sir John'j Name zvas written in Michel'j Police-Book with his own Handy and the Ufe made of it, V THE firft Article of the Purfuers dire£l; and pofitive Charge is, that Sir "John Stewart, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Heivit, lived at the Hotel de Chaalom from the 4th to the I4.th of 'July ; and as this is their Coup cf EJfai upon pofitive Evidence, it may be proper to give the Hiftory of it, and trace. Step by Step, how that great Engine for the Manufafture of Witneffes, the Taurnelle, was ufed to produce the Sort of Depofitions they affe£ted to call Proof, for the firft Time, in the Year 1767. It appears from the Cafe they laid before their Counfel in November 1762, that they went to App. to Def, Michel s fo early as the 12th of Oilcher that Year ; and the Difcovery there reprefented is, that Sir Mem. p. ig. John and his Family had come there, all of them in extraordinary good Health, to a retired garter, on the 8th of July, to lodge under a feigned tizme ; and that the Name was counterfeited, not mif- taken, was proved from this, that the People of the Houfe remembered his writing it himfelf, and Mr. Stuart confidered it attentively, and knew the Hand of Sir John, having often feen his Writ- ing. Soon after, on the 5th of A'«w«':iifr, 1762, they ap'pVied to the Lieutenant de Police, to have D.P. io6x.a. the Book put where it could not be altered ; inConfequence of which, a Proces verbal wzs made up before one DuruiJ/eau, and the Book was lodged in the Cuftody of one Buhof, an Agent for the Purfuers, on the 8th of the fame November. In the Cafe laid before the Counfel (which without Doubt contains the fame Account that was fent into Scotland by Mr. Andrew Stuart's Letter of the 20th of November J befides a Falftiood, to be taken Notice of hereafter, in the Account imputed to the Michels of her trh bonne Sante ; and the falfe Account of the Houfe, as in a ^artier retire, there is one remarkable Falftiood which, in Order of Time, fliould be mentioned now, viz. that it was z feigned Name, written by Sir JohnStewAit himfelf, ivhich the People of the Houfe, as well as Mr. Andrew Stuart, obferved. The Entry was made in a clear, ftrong, good French Hand, by the Maid of the Houfe, who had gL- been ufed to write for a Country Procureur. On the fame Page there are two more Entries of the fame Hand-Writing ; and on the oppofite Page, then necefTarily open before them, there were two more. The Book was in their own Culfody at the Time of writing the Cafe for the Counfel ; and befides their carefully turning it over at firft:, they had had much Opportunity afterwards to fee , the fame Hand-Writing in every other Page of the Book. It was, therefore, abfolutely impoftTible iortht Michehto call it the Hand-Writing of Sir John Stewart, zndno lefs impoffible for Mr. Andrew Stuart to believe it, when he affirmed it in the Cafe, and in the Account tranfmitted to Scotland. Ex- aft Copies on Copper-Plates (or Fac f miles) of two Pages of this Book, and of two Letters of Sir John Stewart's Hand- Writing, are fubjoined to this Cafe. From the Manner of ftating the Cafe, the Writer feems to infinuate that the Michelt did not fee App. to Def. the Entry, but it was read to them out of their Book, and Queft:ions put, whether they remembered ^^n\. p. z8. the Perfons ; and on their defcribing them, whether they remembered the Names. The Adicheh are reported to fay, they did not well remember the Name, ♦' But you'll find them in the Book ; " for we think the Gentleman wrote it himfelf." Upon which the Tutor of Duke Hamilton con- fidered the Writing, *' and remained perfuaded that it was Sir ya/;« S//war<'s." If this be fo, the real Suggcfter of that Falftiood was the Tutor of Duke Hamilton ; for, if the People of the Houfe really thought itpoftible the Gentleman mighthave writ it himfelf, before they fawthe Book,it is im- poflible they could think fo afterwards. But it is highly improbable they ihould aim any fuch Guefs at it, without firft looking at the Book, after which they could not think fo : Therefore the Falftiood is referable, originally and fingly, to the Tutor of Duke Hamilton. But Mr. Stuart's Induftry did not ftop with inventing this Falftiood ; it was neceffary to fix it out of the Reach of Contradiftion. In the b'rocii verbal, mentioned before, the real Word Fluratl was p. p, i^Ci. a. altered to Fluralt, to bring it nearer to a Scottijh Name ; and the old Man Michel was repre- fented as declaring, that the Hand was neither his nor his Wife's ; but fo far as he can remember, that of the Perfon called Fluralt. ThisFalftiood, among many others, which ftiall be mentioned in thcirPlaces,madea confiderable Figure among the Badges of Fraud contained in that Cafe, which was plainly calculated to miflcad tbe Counfel; and yet it is much doubted, from the Circumftauce of the Date, and the Opinion P given ^ A L I B I at G O D E F R O Ps. Part IV- given upon it being fupprefletl, whether Mr. Andrew Stuart had taken any Opinion at the Time he wrote the Letter of the 20th of November to Scotland, bearing that he had the Opinion of One of the moil eminent Counfel in France, that a Procefs fhould be begun in the Tournellei and alfo, whether the Opinion taken in November, whatever Part of the Month it was in, was at all favourable to the Commencement of any Suit : and this is the more fufpefted, becaufe it does not appear to be the fame Counfel who afterwards figned the Opinion in December: They were five in Number ; whereas only One is faid to have figned the former, and he is not named. App. to Def. The firfl: Cafe is induflriouHy put between Regnicoles Franfois, and afks, What might be done ivieiu. p. 36. |j^ ^^^^ ^^ Inftance to eftablifh the previous Depofitions as Evidence, or at leafl: not to mar the Credit of the Witnefles ; and after flating that no Procefs was begun in Scotland, and that it v/ould be long before it went to ComniilTion, drops another Queftion, Whether fome provifional Examination might not be made by Order of the Magiftrates where the Witnefles live ? and, ss if to draw an Opinion in favour of fome Way of prejudicating the Witnefles, mifreprefents the Law oihoth Scotland TinA England. Upon this, no Opinion is publifhed, though it is faid in the fecond Page of the Purfuers Cafe in the Houfe of Lords 1764, to be that of One of the ableft Coun- fel in France \ from which it may be fairly inferred, that this is not the Opinion Mr. Andrew Stuart relied upon for the Juftification of what he wrote to Scotland, and of the French Proceed- ing which followed. ~~~P" 4'- The fecond Cafe of December the loth, puts only this general Queftion ; " What Part theTii- •* tors of Duke HamHton ought to take upon a general State of the Fa£ls which he pretended to " have difcovered r" The Counfel fet themfelves to confider, whether it be polTible for the Tu- tors, &c. to maintain that Mr. Douglas is not the Son of Lady Jane, and then how they may proceed to obtain judicial and authentic Proof of it. The Expediency of doing that is referved entirely to the Difcretion of the Parties ; and fo to be lure it ougl>t, for it was a Queftion of no Confequence but to the Scottijh Caufe, which it would have been abfurd enough to have afked a French Opinion upon. However, the Advantages they propofed to draw immediately from fuch a Proceeding, were flronger Inducements than the Opinions of Counfel could countervail for running the Rifque of that Proceeding turning out favourably, without the fraudulent Ufe of which they had no Prcf- peft even of raifing a Queftion. Accordingly, on the 17th of December, above a Fortnight after their Suit was inftituted fn 1>. p. I02I.C. Michel's to" be fo, or even that it was not of their own Hand -Writing, for fear the Witnefies p p fhould think that Article relative to their Teftimony important, and that they were called * ' * ■ ' upon to depofe to it. Accordingly, it appears by Madame Adichei's Depofition, that her Book was not fhewn her at her Examination : However, to fupply that Defeft, they prayed, that Aftchecs Book might be brought by Mr. Buhot (their Agent, in whofe Hands it was) to the Greffe Cri- minel of that Court, and tack'd to the Procedure on the Plainte, which was done accordingly on the 18th; and they carried into Court the Proces verbal, in which their favourite Falfliood was fraudulently inferted, without the Privity of Michel the Witnefs. To appropriate a Piece of Evidence, whereby they propofed to faften fuch fliamefiil Imputa- tion upon a Woman of the firft Family and Rank, and to deprive an Infant of his civil Ex- iftence -, to take that into their own abfolute Power, either to ufe or fupprefs as ihey fliotdd fee Occafion, was a Proceetling fo repugnant to the moft obvious Principles of common Honefty ami Humanity, that no Pretence of Ignorance is fulEcient to palliate the jufl Reproach which belongs to it. The Ufe, however, to which it was applied, in faft, ihews, that from the Beginning they meant neither to fupprefs it totally, nor uie it fairly, but to corrupt it by Mifreprefentation. The fame Falfehood was reported in this circumftantial Maimer to the Lieutenant de Police, to. engage, if poffible, his further Zeal in the Purfuit. CHAP. II. Cfthefirji Al tempt to impute te Sir John and his Family a Double Abode at Michel V and Godefroi'j. I T was clearly the Opinion of the French Lawyers, that the Day on which the Parents placed •* the Birth was but a Cncumjiance ; and that falfifying them in that Circumjlance, though it would raife great Sufpicion, was not the Kind of Pro^ which could deprive the Son of his State. For that Purpofe, it fecmed ueceffary to have diretl Evidence to prove, that his Mo- thtr 99 p. 39- 1>. 49. Paok r. A L I B I at G O D E F R O I 's. ifer was not Mvired; therefore, in the firft Memorial, they ftate the Day the Parents came (to Pans, ami the Day tliey returned to Rheinu, Avhich they fay could not be above fix or eight Weeks : All of thole they proceed to account for, except the firft four Days, viz. from the founh to the eighth, which they reprefent as the firft Time of tracing them, and confine the PolTibi. Lity of Delivery to them. They argue on the Impoffibility of her being delivered in that Pe- riod, and being able to appear at Michel's in the Way {he is fuppofed to have appeared ; they alfo reprefent it as a very defirable Tiling, to find where they lodged for the firfl; four Days ; "Jufqu' ici on ignore ces Chofes, quoique I'on ait fait toutes lesRccherches poifibles pour ies decou- '^ vrir." This was faid in November, on what Day it does not appear; but for the Reafons given before, it feems to be the latter End of the Month. They had learnt from Michel's People, as early as the 12th of Oaoher, that the Hotel de App. to Def Chaalom was a Houfe wherein Sir John faid he had lodged, and had complained of the Noife of Mem. p. ;q." it during the four Dajrs he had refided there; they mult therefore, (nor do they deny it) have gone immediately to Godefioi's ; but Godefroi had then totally forgot them. They had learnt alfo, that Godefroi's was the Houfe to which Rheims People ufually reforted ; but if they had ever honeftly fufpefted a Fraud, finding them alfo there was a Circumftance fuf- ficient to deftroy that Sufpicion. An, by StipprcJfion cf Michel's Book, which failed on fame Perjury being difcovered, ♦TTHE Purfucrs knew it was abfolutely in their own Power either to produce the Books ot Fac ■*• f miles of them, or to keep them clofe locked up for ever where they were. They knew alfo that Godefroi's Oath and his Wife's mud dill turn upon only a blank Article in his Books, and be in the Upfliot that very idle ineffccluai Thing it now appears ; with this againd it, that they ap- peared Book I. 'A L I B I at G O D E F R O I's. roi peared from the Papers of the Purfuers themfelves, to have had no Memory whatever of Sir yohn and his Family for the three firft Months, that is to fay, for all the Time the Books were in their own Hands, and probably long after. They, who hnd kcp: Mnh^l'^ Book fix Weeks in their own Hands, and had confcant Accefs to fee and confider it, knew at the fame Time that, if produced, it would fhew, i. 1 hat all they had averred fo folemnh, and fo frequently, in Scotland, about the Regularity of vifiting by the Officers, was a dired and wilful FalOiood. In- ftead of daily Infpection, v.'hich the Ordoniiances enjoin, and wliAh they had averred v/as regu- larly praftifed, there are but two yija in Alichel's Book, between j'Jpnl and September ; one on the 17th of May, and the other on the 12th of Jime. 2. That the Hand was nothing like Sir JcIm Stewart's. 3. That it was the Writing of the Maid, who appeared to have entered many other Ar- ticles in the fame Book. 4. That the Entry in Queftion was pofterior to another of die loth or 1 2th of July, and therefore could not have been made at the Time. 5. That the next Article was fo late as the 3111 oijuly, fo as to exclude all Conjetlurc when it was entered. Upon the Face of the Book, therefore, it manifeftly proved as little as Godefrolh L'lvre de De- penfe -, whereupon the Purfuers were driven by the Spirit, or rather the Daemon, of the Caufe, to take the defperate Refolution of fuppreffing the Book itfelf, and fupplying it by a meditated Per- xiie Perjury jury. FcJr this Purpofe one Duruijjeau was prevailed upon to take the following Oath, under Confi- of Dmuifleau. dence that the Purfuers, who had that in their own abfolute Power, would never fuii'er their Friend to be confronted with the Book itfelf. They have not ufed him well, but Necefllty is theirExcufe. 1. He fwore, That he had, by Proch verbal, ftated the Condition of the Book which was then p p gg (- produced and figned by him, as relative to his Oath. 2. That the Article concerning the Sieur Fluratl, Scotchman, and his Family, entered the 8th oijuly, 1748, the Date in Cyphers, "_ appeared in no Degree fujpkious, the rather as it had Vija of this Rcgijler before and after the Article in ^eflion by the Infpeilor." Did diis Gentleman 8S7. d. •nean the 12th of June, by before, and September, by after? or did he intend a more direfl: Falfhood ? The Sequel of his Oadi will fhew this. 3. That fo far as he can remember, the Article preceding that of Mr. Fluratl, is of a Date anterior to it. 4. He remembers to have afked Michel whofe Hand-Writing it was; and that Michel told ss-.h. him, it was neither his nor his Wife's, but he prefumed it to be that of the Perfon who called ' ' himielf Fluratl. 5. That the Book of furniflied Lodgings, which Michel brings to him every Month, as Com- p. p. ggg, b. mitfary of the Quarter, is pofterior to the Year 1750 ; and that he has never feen the Book which Michel had for the Ufe of the Commiffary for the Year 1748. 6. 'T'hat the Article Fluratl appeared of an Hand-Writing diftinfl and different from all the jgj. a, other A: deles on that and the oppofite Page ; as far as he can remember, the Letters were well formed, and the beft written of any on either Page. The Object of this Witnefs was to prove the Hand-Writing peculiar to the Article itfelf, and fjuite different from any o'.her, in order to make Way for another Falfehood, tliat Afichel had thought -it the Hand-Writing of Sir John Stewart ; and to prove- that it flood in fuch an Order as to appear an Entry of the Date it bore ; And the fame Idea v/as further confirmed by his Report of the Fifa. The Livre du Co?nmiJJaire ought regularly to be kept at the Houfe of the Landlord, and carried once a Month to the Commiffary of the Quarter, to be viewed and tranfcribed ; but the Cuflom is to leave it at the Comrniffary's, and take it Home once a INIonth to make the Entries ; and fomc- timcs to leave it altogether at the Comrniffary's, and make the E-ntries there. MicheVs Livre du Commiffaire had been for a long Time left with Duruiffcau. Tlie Defender's Agent, who fufpeftedhim, inftead of applying to him for a Sight of that Book, had prevailed on Michel to fetch it Home and fhew it him. He obferved that the Entry in Queftion was not in the Livre du Commifjaire, where it ought to have been, and where it would ha\e been moft probablv, if it had been entered on the Day of its Date ; therefore, before he fent it back, for Fear it fliould be deftroyed, he had as much of it as was neceflary copied over and examined. The worthy Com- mifHiry thought the Defender had never feen this Book ; otherwife he never would have fworn that it began after the Year 1750, and that he had never feen the Book of 1748. They were under the difagreeaWe Neceffity of examining the Michels afterwards, not to confirm the Book, the lafl refpectable Witnefs had done that, but to fill up the Story with what happened afterwards. Mad. Michel produced the Livre du Commiffaire, which appeared to begin long before 1748, and oppofed one flat Contradiftion to a Gentleman who fwore con- cerning a Book he had Occafion to view and fign every Monih. She alio fwore that tlie Article _^ j^g „_ 102 ALIBI at GODEFRO Vs. Part IV- concerning Flurotl wis written by her Maid, Marie Mnlijfet, who wrote mciny others in the fame Bodk, which did more than contradifl: the worthy Gentleman's Depoiition ; it proved that he fal- lified Michil's Evidence in the Prods verbal. It alfo proved that Mr. Andrew Stmrtw^s the fingle Author of that Falfehood with which he deceived his own Employers, Iiis own Counfel, the Lieutt- it.'int de Polite, and the Parliament of Paris -, for unlefs (lie had remembered that CircumRance be- fore the Book was taken from her, it is impolTible fhe fliould have recollected it afterwards. I' V S6i. 0. The next WLtncfs was Michel the Hufband, irpon whcfe Depofition the Proch verbal was made up ; who fwore that he had told Duruijfeaii., on that Occafion, that the Article concerning Fluratl w^s written by the Maid Marie. This faftens the original Falfehood on INIr. Andrao Stuart, and eftablifhes that the Evidence was mifreprefentcd in the Proces verbal. Godcfroi, who is now fuppofed to have an extraordinary Memory, and to have talked his prefent Ijanguage uniformly from the Beginning, was examined about it beiore in the TourneilCf and- frequently converfed on the fame Subject, only fays, that I\Ir. Stewart and two foreign I-adies came to his Houfe in the Summer 1 748 ; they went away in the Month of July, but where he does g-S. B. not know ; he only remembers that they iiad hired a Lodging which was not ready, bccaufe they — •- S30. F, wanted to clear it of Bugs: And what recals this to his Memory is, that Mr. Steiuart paid his Reckoning and thought to go ; but the Lodging not being ready for him, he ftaid fome Days longer, as appears by his Book of Expence. Was this all the Story he had been telling, according to the Purfuers, to every Body who enquired, for two Years together ? or all he then remembered, with the Affifbnce of the Mo- nitoire to refrefh his Mind .'' or did he fupprefs the reft for Fear of interfering with the Purfuers Plan .' It Ihould be remarked, that even this was faid in Ajifwer to the Defender's Interrogatory ; the Purfuers put no fuch Queftion to him ; they did not even then rely on fuch frivolous Evidence as they have been driven to fince. •—831. c. Mad. Godefroi only foys, that they lodged there in the Summer 1748. CHAP. IV. Of their Attempt to prove, after this, that Sir John and his Family remained at Gbde- froiV from the ^th to the i/i^h. THE Michels Evidence was given the 15th of April. Thofe who acted for the Purfuers ir» France feem not to have known for fome Time that their Fraud was laid perfectly open : It required Time to conBder whether this difgraced Plan of Evidence would hold Water in the Court of Seflion. However, by the 2otli of May the Neceffity of fhifting the Ground was feen, and a Witnefs, '— 7 34- * • M. Mortier, examined to pave the Way for changing the Date of the Enlevement of Mipion's Child. 55J ,_ The Defender's Agent had often applied to Mr. Andrew Stuart for a Copy of God.foi's Booksi or atleaft of the Articles, in the Months oi May, June, July, and Augufl J748 ; but on the 23d of May 1765, obferving that they meant to abandon the Refidence at Michii's, and refort to the difcarded Idea of a Refidence at Godefroi's, he applied more prefTmgly ftill for fuch Copies 7 reprefenting, that it was in their Power, by the Rules of the Tournetle, to obtain Copies of tlic Pieces »lepoilted by themfelves. This Requeft was made by Letter, to which Mr. Andrcvj Stuart was pleafed to return no Ajrfwer. In the Middle oijuly, when the Commifllon was near expiring, Mr. Aiidre^v Stuart was pleafed to produce thofe Books, in order to the Examination of Godefroi ; taking Care that the De- fender ihould not have Time enough to get Copies, much lefs to make the proper Enquiries after the Pcrfons contained in the Book ; and (which was ftill a wider Field, but withal more necelTarv) after thofe who were not named in it, but were in the Houfe ; a ir.uch larger Number than thofe who were, and more difficult to trace. Mr. Andrew Stuart fhewed that he had it in his Power to procure the Infpe£tion which the Court of SefTion ordered in 1763, whenever he pleafed ; but in Contempt of their Order, he with- held it, till it was too late for the Defender to fet on Foot any Enquiries about it. Mr. Andrew Stuart's Apology, as it ftands in his Anfwer to the Proteft, was, i. That he had given the Defender Copies of all the Extrafls he had taken from the Book ; therefore the De- fender, being put in as good a Cafe as the Purfuers, had no Reafcn to complain. Whether this hs true or not, every Perfon muft fee it is nothing to the Purpofc ; the Defender might, and certainly did, want more and larger Extracts than the Purfuers. 2. That the Laws of France, though it might give the Purfuers, as Profccutors, a Bight to take Copies, yet did not allow them to be communicated to the Defender ; as if Mr. Doug/as was the Defender to the Tour- mile Action. In Truth, his Father, the real Defender, was dead ; and if their Suit went to Heirs, \ .608. Book I. ALIBI at GODEFRO Vs. 103 Heirs, he had an elder Brother. It would be unjufl to call that an Evalion, feeing it is mani- feflly meant for an Infult, and a very ftrange and bold InfuJt it feemed to be upon the Court as well as the Parties. But in this .Stroke of Infult, Mr. 5/«(;r/ fecms to have been extraordinarily direct in fliew- ing Difobedience and Contempt to the Interlocutor of the 27th of Ju/y 1763, as amended in the Houfe of Lords. The Interlocutor finds, that the Purfuers t\mil prej'ent a Petition to the Parliament of Paris, praying that the Depofitions in their .Suit there may be cancelled ; and that Infpeclion, with Liberty to copy, may be allowed of the vhole Procedure ; and if the Depofitions cannot be cancelled, the Interlocutor finds, that the Purfuers nwji procure Infpcilicn, ivit/j Liberty to take Copies of the Plaintcs, Proofs, Books, Jl^rititigs, and whole Procedure, fifteen Days before examining any Tour- nelle Witiicf. To this Order the Houfe of Lords added, " But in Cafe the Purfuers fliall in/ijl that " they cannot procure the Depofitions or JVritiitgs abovementioned, to be delivered up or i'tilpeiicd, " then they fhall produce all Copies thereof, l£c. (here follows a great Variety of Articles)' which " are in their Cuftody or Power." Though the Order was relaxed, in Cafe of the Purfuers infifling that it could not be complieJ with, the Purfuers were not thereby authorifed to infiji on an avowed Falfehood, and evade it fo ; and yet Mr. Andrew Stuart has fliewn, by keeping this Book up from the Defender, and producing it ■when he wanted it himfelf, that he had it all along in his Power, and that his inft/iing was a Falfehood^ aiTerted only to evade the Order of the Court, and abufe the Indulgence of the Houfe of Lords. Again, the alternative Injunftion of the Houfe of Lords was to produce all Copies of the Book?, Writings, ISc. in the Procedure extraordinaire, in their Cuftody, or Power. A Copy thereof, which they were able to pt ocure, was in every Senfe in their Power, and moft particularly fo in that Senfe wherein, for the Furtherance of Juftice, indeed of common Honefly, thefe Words of the amended Interlocutor ought to be taken. Now Mr. Andreiv Stuart having owned, in his Anfwer to the Pro- teft, that it was in his Power to have Copies of the Book in Qu^eltion, and having refufed and eva- <1ed to communicate them by fuch a barefaced Equivocation as the calling Mr. Douglas Defender, h.as furely been guilty of Difobedience and Contempt. Thus, in Violation of common Juftice, and in pointed Defiance to the amended Interlocutor, Mr. Andrew Stuart precipitated into the Caufe a Piece of Evidence, which the Purfuers rely upon as the moft material-Article in their Cafe ; and at the fame Time openly wilheld it from the De- fender, on the exprefs Purpofe of hindering him from enquiring into the Condition and Purport of the Book, and looking after thofe who u/f/v entered there, and thofe who Jhould have been there, ta fubftantiate the Ufe made of it, in Argument, by the Purfuers. Under thefe Circumftances Godefroi and his Wife were a fecond Time examined, and this is the Effed of their Evidence, in both Depofitions : They kept a large Inn, in which there were fifteen principal Piooms for Guefts, hefides thofe for -p -p g p. Servants, four of the former being double-bedded. It was a 1 loufe of very full Refort then, as now, fays Madame Godefroi, very much frequented, infomuch that in order to be fure of a Lodging in her Houfe, it was often necefliiry to write before-hand to bcfpeak it ; but this does not hinder tliat VcG^\<:.fo!mtiwes find Lodging without having pre-engaged it. But her Rooms are commonly all full, from the Beginning to tlic End of the Year ; and {he fometimcs cannot receive all thofe who come. In the Year 1748, there came fometiifies £«|///i!), and other Foreigners. 1\I. Godefrci ^ ^ fays alfo, that in general his Houfe has always been very much frequented, and is fo ftill. The F.iiglijh come but fcldom, and ftay little While, except People of Trade, it being in the Quarter of Commerce. Ladies, alfo, come but fldorii, his Houfe having always been frequented more by JVIen th.an Women. At the very Time in Qncftion, it ii agreed, on all Hands, that the Houfe was thronged. Sir yohn Stewart told Mad. Aiichel, that his Head was almoft broke with the Noife of that Inn, du- ^pp to Def ring the four Days that he ftaid there ; and in his judicial Declaration he fays lie lodged but a Meni. p. 30! Night or two, by Reafon of its Inconveniency. — M. Godefroi fays, that there were a great many Peo- P. 1'- 852. c. pie then in the Houfe ; becaufe their Pioom, as he feems to recolletl, was only on the fecond Floor, 829. c. above what is now the Coach-Houfe. — This laft feems to be rather an Imagination, fpringing from his general Memory that the Houfe was fidl ; for Madame Godefroi, whofe Care wr.s more imme- 8-?i. u diately employed upon that Part of theBufinefs, only fays, after her Huftiand, that, fo far as flie " can rccolleft, they were lodgeil on a fecond Floor, in a two-bedded Room, over the Remife." They kept two Books of Police of the Kind which has been often mentioned ; and they kept them <;j-, „. in the Manner wherein Michel's Books, and fuch Books in general, are wont to be kept. Her own 8ji. a. Reprefentation of it is to this Eifeft: " That her Houfe being known, and unfufpefie/i, the Infpec'tor " iloes not come every Day, but is fometimcs eight Day;; without coming." Every Houfe in Paris has the fame Mark of being known and unfufpetTred ; and her fometimes would have been more accurate, if {he bad applied it ta a ForUiight, or to three Weeks, than to eight Days. In fiiort, there J04 ALIBI at GODEFROI's. Part IV* tliere is no Sort of Regularity in this, which is the Eafis of the whole Syflem of Police. As to her Way of keeping this Book, it fometimes happens, that it is only at the Inftant of the P. P. 831. F. Infpeftor's Vifit that they write down the Perfons who have been there fince the preceding Vifit ; fo that it may happen, that a Perfon is not written down till feveral Days after jhis Entry, (this is in Reference to Sir 7o/;/?'s being entered the 7th, flie fhould have faid, tif Jme Weeks) and Jviietiwes is even forgot altogether to be written down. It has happened, onee or i'Jice, when a Per- P. P. 830. c. f^n has been thus forfi;ot (viz. forgot altogether) not to write him do\TO till a Fortnight after his Entry, and ilten to write him down of the current Date. — Mr. Godefroi's Account of the Livre di rinfpe^eur is not fo paru how came their Names in the Police-Book .'' Is it to \>q fuppofed that in the lefs exacft Book, they vould put thofe down whom they did not think to infeit in the more exaft? The Purfuers y«y>- pofe they may, particularly Foreigners and Jlilitary, about whom the Police is more ftricl ; and yci it happens there are many Foreigners and INIilitary in the Houftiold Book who are not in the Infpcftor's. But what efteftually deftfoys this Argument is, that feveral of thofe Perfons who are allowed to have no Account in the Lloufliold Book, are entered in the Police-Book, by Mad'. Godefroi's own Hand ; fo they coidd not arrive after {he was in Bed, and te gone in the Mositing. Hitherto, proceeding even upon the narrow View of the few Names contained in thefe Books, great Na.r.bers have been pointed out which had not their Account at all in the Houfhold Book, and many others, whofe Accounts there, did not commence till many Days after their Entry. Many others of the laft Clafs have been demonftrably pointed cut from the Houftiold Book aloncj following Godifroi's own Account of it -, after which how is it pofTible to infift that all tlic Guefts, excepting none, are inferted in that Book ; and from thence to infer that a blank Account, no otherwLfe applicable, relates to any Perfons in particular ? But, upon a wider Scale, it appears, that if the Houftiold Book is fuppofed to contain all the Guefts -who lodged in this Inn, inftead of being frequented, it was never One ha f full. The Calculations fall much under ; and it is even Matter of Demonftraticn, that on the 4th of "July,, 1748, tliere were no more than two Perfons bcfidjs Sir 'John and his Family : The vifible Expence of the Houfe would have exceeded theirRcceipts; and all the Apartments in the Houfe, which appear from, the Books to have been poflefted, lett out, as theii'd were, at Ten Sols each 112 A L I B I at G O D E F R O I's. Part IV. each a Night, would have raifed Five Hundred Livres lefs than the Rent of the Houfe, which was One Thoufand Four Hundred Livres a Year. But it is agreed on all Hands, that this Hotel was exceedingly frequented, infomuch that many were turned away becaufe no Room could be found for them, and People ufed to befpeak Apartments there before-hand. In refpecl: of the great Rcfort there, the Houfe has been en- larged from Fifteen Rooms to Twenty-five, befides Clofets ; and the Rent from One Thoufand Four Hundred to Three Thoufand Livres a Year. — At the Time in Queftion, the 4th oi Ju!y, it was fo much frequented, that Sir John and his Family were beftowed in Two Rooms over a Place which is no v the Ranife. The Purfuers cavil upon the ExpreiTion of their own V.'itneffes, and affecT: to doubt whether/:/// does not mean half full; or, perhaps, a third Part full, may fatisfy the Word ; but their Comments upon this Part are not worth tranfcribing. It is impolfible that Godefroi would have augmented his Houfe Ten Apartments more, and as many Clofets, and paid fo high an additional Rent, if the Houfe he formerly polTcfl'ed had never been once near full for Four Years before, and he was fuftaining Five Hundred Livres a Year of Lofs bv the Houfe he then had. The Purfuers too know, that at the Time in Queftion the Houi'e was quite full, and that a refpeciable Perfon from Troyes, who arrived there on the ailt of June 1748, was lodged, on Account of the Fulnefs of the Houfe, in a Third Story, which he complained of till he was told it was the only empty Apartment in the Houfe. He left the Inn on the 6th of July, and returned again on the gth, when it is believed he w-as pTit into the very Room where the Godefrots fuppofe Lady Jane to have flaid till the 14th. But without going out of the Evidence, their own WitnefTes defcribe i: fo ; the Confequence of which is, that the Haiifliold Books, which do not contain Guells enough to fill One Half of his Houfe in ge- neral, and at the Time in Queftion but Two Gutfts befides Sir John, caimot contain the whole Number of their Guefts. To this the Purfuers fay, that it is impoffible to calculate the Number of People at the Table d'hote at any particular Time, becaufe many of the Accounts belong to thofe who took no Ex- traordinaries, and then there is but One Article, viz. that of their Entry : Tlie Account was paid without cafting up the Time, and confequently it cannot now be known how long they ftaid. Tofupport which it is neceflary to fuppofe, that People live at an Inn for fix Months together, ■which is not according to common Experience ; but the whole Obiervation is founded in a INIiftake, for Godefroi has pointed out a Way by which the going out may be come at pretty nearly. As far as he fpeaks Truth, the Date of the following Account marks the Day beyond which they could not have ftaid ; and by that Way of calculating, on tlie 4th there were no more than Three Perfons befides thofe who are fuppofed to be Sir julm and his Family. But, what- ever was the Number of People appearing to be in the Houfe by the Houihokl Book, on the 4th of 7«/v, they maintain that a Third of the Houfe fidl is a Mifreprefentation of the general Number ; to prove which they fhew, that on the 29th of July, there were Eleven Perfons in the Iloufhcld Book. This neither proves that there were more than Three on the 4th, nor that even tlie Houfe was more than a Third full tlie reft of the Y'ear. CHAP. vir. ObJerz'ations upon the AJJiJiance which Godefroi V Memory is fnid to have from the Books. THE Purfuers argue, that however the Godefrois may hare forgot all Sorts of particular Circum- ftances, and how improbable foever their Account may appear, thev yet muft know the Manner of keeping their own Accounts, that being Matter of daily Praftice and Habit ; and they have fworn that all their Guefts are borne either by Name or otherwife, on their Houftiold Books. It is a great Attempt to make out, by Argument, that any Witnefs is able to prove a Thing to be the verv Picverfe of what it appears. It would be full as eafy to prove a Camel to be a Horfe, (fliewing tl;t Animal at the fame Time) as to prove that this Houftiold Account is like the Thing thev reprefent, an Account taken inftantly of all their Guefts in fuch an Inn, fo thronged as they dcfcri'oe it. As 10 the NecelTity which they contend of their remembering \hc Method'm which their Books are kept, the firft Sight of the Books makes the Argument ridiculous. What is the ^a/f themfelves, that they really had no Memory of their Method of keeping their Scores, or rather, that they had no one Method of keeping them to be remembered ; for when they were examined in Play, all this exaft Keeping of a Memorandum Book was applied, in the fame peremptory and decided Phrafe, to one Book, namely, that which was depofited in the Office of the Tournellc. It occurred to the Defender's Agent, in the curfory Manner of running over the Book, which was allowed him at the Greffe Criminel, that the Articles contained in that Book could never amount to the Number of Guefls which apparently had frequented the Inn in 1 748 ; and he told Godefroi of the Circumftance, and defned him to fee whether he had no other Book, or Memoranda. Godefroi denied that he had any more ; but the Purfuers happening to think the ObjVftion worth attending to, prevailed on him to produce one Book more, in which there were other loofe Memoranda of Scores kept in the fame Way. Mr. Godef oi, in producing this Book, fays it was kept for Perfons who ate, but did not lodge ; and for Lodgers, who being his Relations and Friends, were charged at an under Price.— Who are Mr. Godefroi's Relations, or whom he honours with the Name of Friends, muft red:, as it docs, a Se- cret ; but in the mean Time, the Book proves that M. Godefroi was quite impartial in his Manner of charging them, for they ftand at exaftly the fame Rate as other People. From the Time of producing this lad Book, the Argument has been changed, and adapted to two Books inftead of one. — All the drained Inferences, whereby they offer to apply their Blanks to the Names in thelnfpeftor's Book, were made upon both. Even the Argument oiUfe, and Neccffttyy. was applied to both Books ; but not to both as they really appear, but as they were falfly reprefented by Godefroi ; by which Means it proved neteffary for them to keep, not only the Books which they produced, but others. For Inftance, the Purfuers find it nccefjciry, that Rlr. Godefroi fliould be cun- ning enough to conceal from one Sort of Guefts v/hat another Sort pays ; and to that Piece of Dexte- rity it was neceffhry, that his own private Memoranda of thofe ditrerent Accounts which are not {hewn the Guefts, ftiould be kept diJlinSt. Tlie private Memoranda are produced, and are found not to be differer,tly kept ; then, if Mr. Godfroi is right in this Idea, he has ftill other Books which are kept conformrbiy to it. And if he was lb cunning as to take this Method of concealing from thofe who paid three Livres, what others paid at a lower Piate; why fliould he not have been as dexterous to conceal from thole who paid more than three Livres, what his general Rate of charging was } The Purfuers fay, that v,'as not ncceffary ; but it was at leaft necejfary to keep their Score fomehow, which has not been done at all, unlefs he made fuch Memoranda on feme other Book or loofe Papers. It is remarkable, however, that though M. Godefroi produced the fecond Book, and gave a falfe Account of it by himfelf, his Wife, who actually kept it for the moft Part, was not (liewn it on her Examination, and fwears as if (he had never feen it, repeating the Account flie had given before. and applying it to the only Book before her, the fame (lie had fpoken of before. If the Purfuers argue that the Phrafe of her Depofitions muft be underftood with fome Allowance ; that (he did not mean to confine herfelf to one individual Book, but referred to fome Book or Books ; the whole Amount of her Evidence is, that flie kept Memoranda of current Scores, but does not remem- ber how. But here the Purfuers refort to a very curious Argument, namely, That if there had been any more Guefts in the Houfe than thofe who are contained in the two Books, the Defenders might have hunted them out. Really this feems to have been an old Idea of the Purfuers, and the very Thing they were afraid of, before the Examinations of Witnefles was clofed ; and this accounts for their witholding the Books fo long. It muft be acknowledged, that both Bc-ks were im- parted to the Defender by the Favour of the Purfuers. The firft Favour was a little ungraci- P^ oufly II: 9 114 ALIBI at GODEFRO Tj. Part IV. ouily bcrtowed ; for they rtiewed they never meant it till the Perjury, upon which their firft Hopes flood, was detected ; and then they put it ofFns long as jwlFible ; and (hewed it under luch Refbifticns, ns made it of the leaft Ufe pofFiblo : The iecond Favour came juft two Days belore tlie Production of it ; late on Saturday Niglit it was announced, and on Tuejday Morning G'dfroi was examined. But this was not meant for ferious Argument ; it was a Flirt of Triumph upon the Embarrafliiient they had been cunning enough to involve Juftice in. Perhaps if there had been Time for making fiich Enquiry, it might have appeared, from Tefli- niony more credible than the Godcfroi'^ that, at the Time in Queltion, the Houfe w as full, and that the very Room, he afFigns to Sir yohn and his Conipany, w as empty fonie Time between the 6th and the 9th ; and that a Gentleman who had been ill lodged, from the Throng in the Houfe, went away on the 6th, and was furnifhed w ith the Room over what is now the Remife on the gth. Perhaps Numbers of thofe who are named in none of their Books, might even now be found to prove that they were in the Houfe at diiferent Times. But really the Cafe does not require anv more Proof, that there were many Guefts in that Houfe, at funJry Periods, whofe Names do not appear in either of the Books ; and that the Memory, which the Godefroli pretend to, is, not only from the verv Nature of the Thing they fpeak of, fallible, but has turned out adlually falfe ; when what they fwore on the 3d of A lay concerning the firft Bock, \vas difproved by what Godefroi afterwards faid on the 30th of July, when he produced the other. If, after all this, there be that Man living who will infer that the two Accounts of the 4tlT and 9th belong to Sir "John and his Family, merely becaufe thofe loofe and impericcl Joltings in their two Books fupply no other, which does apply, it is not imaginable what Sort or Degree of Evidence would be fuflicient to correct fuch a Conceit. CHAP. VIII. Aafivers to Ohjcrvalions of the Purfuers., that the Contents cf the two Accounts make them api'licable to Sir John and his Family. T T is no Wonder the Purfuers argued the lafl- mentioned Idea with fuch earneft AfTiduity, and ■*■ wrote fo many Volumes upon it ; for as long as it is pofTible to fuppofe, that any other Soul •* as in the Houfe to whom the two Accounts could be applied, Nobody living will believe they apply to Sir Johriy Lady Jane, and Mrs. Heiuit. However, the Purfuers, who are ufed to argue what Nobody living will believe, undertake to proie, from the Contents of the Accounts, that they apply to them, and cannot poffibly apply to any Body elfe. Their Topics are, that they ar- rived on the Evening of the 4th ; were three in Number ; had no Servant ; and were entered in the Police-Book : On the other Side, no other fuch Company appear in the Police- Book. As to no other fuch Company appearing in the Police-Book, that cannot be thought won- derful, when that Book does not contain above one-half the Number of the Houfliold-Book, •which contains lefs than a Third of thofe which muft have been tliere, to make the Houfe full, as the Purfuers own Witnefles have defcribed it ; and there is no Difl'erence between the two Books (as indeed how could there be between any Books fo kept). They mention as a Circum- flance cf Surprize, that Sir John and his Family (hould be in the Police-Book, and another Company of three fliould not : But it iliould be remembered, that Sir John was not entered there till the 7th ; and it is abfurd to bid the Defender prove the Entry of another Company cor- refponding in thofe Particidars, when there are no Materials extant, whereby to prove, in any Degree, what Company did refort to the Houfe : But it appears from many Parts of the Houfhold- Book, compared with the Book of Police, that, of feveral Companies which came in at the feme Time, fome have been entered, and fome not ; owang, it may be imagined, to what happened in the prefent Cafe, that the Names of fome were known, as Sir John Stewart's, wa;, and of others not. The accidental Coincidence of Time, Number of Perfons, no Servant, is a Thing ot fuch frequent Occurrence, that it raifes not even a Sufpidon of their being the Company. But it does not appear from that Entry, that the Perfons to whom the Accounts relate ever were in the Houfe ; their Bill is exaftly what it would be if three Perfons had been living at a Lodging which did not furniftr Eating, and had eat at the Table d'Hote of the Hotel de Chaahm. Nor does it appear, if it were proved that they lodged there, that they had no Servant, but only that their Servant, inftead of being kept by them, was at Board Wages, as the Falets du Pl'ace, the ufual Sort of Servants to Travellers mSrance, always are : And this Want of Servants may be proved on many other Companies in the fame Way. Nor Bookl. ALIBI at G O D E F R O I's. 115 Nor does U appear that they entered oh the 4th ; for even in the imperfeft Books which remain, there are many Inftances where the Llvre de I'Jnfpeiieur fliews People to have come in many Days before the Livre dii Depenfe takes any Notice of them, becaufe their Scores were kept elfewhere. The People may have been in the Houfe many Days before the 4th, and do no Violence to the IMemorandum Book, which does not pretend to be the Account of all the Guefts. It appears probable enough that each of the Companies, to whom one or both Accounts relate, confifted of three Perfons, becaufe the Price of the Wine refers to the Piate of the Ordinary, as it appears throughout that Book ; hut if it were material to difpute it with them, they have no earthly Proof that the two Accounts relate to the fame Company. The only Gromul, they give out for fuppofmg it, is, that both Accounts relate to Companies confifting of three ; and if perfe£l Ac- counts had been preferved, fo might forty Accounts more, lliefe two Accounts, however, are difconnecled by every Note of Difference which fliews any two blank Accounts in the Books to belong to different Companies. The firft runs to the 7th, and has the common Mark of the black Line and Crofles, which prove it to be paid off then: Upon that, there is no Room to fup- pofe it current an Hour farther. The fecond begins on the 9th, and has no Reference whatever to the firil:, which ended on the 7th, and feems to have been clofcd before Supper, for they drink three Bottles of Burgundy every full Day ; two on the firft half Day of the 4Ch, and two on the laft half Day of the 7th. Again, the Company in the fecond Bill mu ft have paid their Account, at fooneft, after Supper on the 8th, but more probably on the 9th, when the Recommence is dated, which is connettecl Willi the PayL Now, if the Bill was paid upon the gth, it is certain the Account of the 8th muft have been fcored fomewhere ; or if it was paid on the 8th after Supper, the Wine furniflsed at Dinner muft have been fcored fomewhere : And both thefe Obfervations have double Force, as the Supper of the 7th is not marked. The Interval of a Day appears in none of the.numerous Accounts where the Guefts, who continued in the Houfe, paid his Score at different Times ; but the Score cleared ofF, connefls perfe£t!y with that begun again, which is not the Cafe here. The firft Article in the fecond Bill, is a Bottle of Wine, at the full Price of twenty-four Sols, which had been forgot on the 8;h at Supper. — If the Company in the fecond Bill had both dined and flipped at the Houfe, or had been in the Houfe before Supper, the Bottle woukl not have been faid to be forgot at Supper, becaufe the Price was computed upon the Allowance for the whole Day. The Article of Butter is thought by the Purfuers a diftinguifliing Proof, that the Company was EngUJl) ; if fo, thefe two Companies were of different Nations. But as there is no Pieafon to fuppofe, that either of the Bills relate to Sir ydm Stewart and his Family, this Qiieftion is not worth purfuing any farther : It was mentioned only to fhew how ready this Inn-keeper has been to combine Things which have no Connexion, in order to rear a falfe Cafe lip for the Purfuers. Every Circumftance confpircs to prove, that neither of the two Accounts can relate to Sir John, much Icfs both, which is n-ccellary for the Syflem now adopted by the Purfuers. They argue, that, becaufe one Perfon only appears to have paid, there muft be Women in Com- pany. — It is of no Kind of Confequence whether the reft of the Company were Women or not, un- lefs it be previoufly proved, that in the Month of July 1748, there were but two Women exiiting, and thofe in the PofTeflion of Sir John Stewart. And yet even this, if it be. a material Circumftance, does not appear ; for nothing is fo frequent inPraftice as for one Perfon, in the Company of feveral Men, to pay ;he Reckonings : And this PraGice, if it wants Proof, appears from Abundance of In- ftances in the Books now under Confideraticn. On the other Hand, whatever TJfe there is in fuch Memoranda, they require that different Perfons fliould be diftinguiflied by Defcription of feme Sort from each other. The Word B/lonfieur, apjilied to all, would amount to no particular Defignation, but leave it altogether uncertain to whom the Articles had been furniflied. Accordingly, throughout the Book, it appears, that, where the Name is known, it is put down ; where the Quality., Office, or Employment., and not the Name is known, that Sort of Defcription is ufed, as Monfuur Offcier dti Regiment dOrleam ; •where they are of different Sexes, that is put down Monfieur ct deux oii trots D«m^j;---where the Relation i:; known, that is put down Monfieur et fon Looufe, or fa S(£ur, or fa Fil/e.---Hundreiis of Inftances have been extradled to this Effeft, in the former Publications, with more Labour than the Occafion feems to require ; for the obvious NecefTity of foine Deftination to refer the Account to, proves that they muft have ufed it. Now S'njc/m was nddveffcdtoGodefroi hy the Defcription of " Colonel Eco/lcis et deux Dames." Fol- lowingtheiruniverfid Cuftom, they would at leaft have availed themfelves of that Defcription. Gode- Jroiweni to the Barrier to takeCare that their Baggage was not fent to the Cuftom-Houfe, which moft R a likely lift ALIBI at GODEFRO I's. Part IV. likelv inforrned bim of their renl Names. Their Sex was certainly known ; it was their conftant Praciice to mention that ; but neither of thefe Accounts fuppofe any Women. — On the 7th of 7///)', at latert, Sir John's Nime was known, and that La.ly Jane was his Wife: Following rheconftant Praiitice, it would have been inferted, had the Accounts been his. — On the gth, Sh yofin is fup- pofed to begin a new Score, in which Cafe the Name would doubtlefs have been put down ; yet the fecond Account applied to him is alfo blank; and the ficevelefs Rcafon given for it is, that Madame Godffroi might not thi.ik it v.-orth While to put down the Name, though (lie knew it, becaufe (he thought he was to ftay but little Wliile. If all the Books were produced, and if his Name really appeared in none, it might liave accounted for opening no Score for him at all, but wi'.l ii::ver do to pro .e that fuch exa£} People opened a Score for one whom they knew by Name, without ;i:uing his Nam.e at the Head of it ; and the paying and beginning again ratlier proves, that the Perfo:;- meant to flay fonic confiderable Time. The Purfuers have put themfelves to fome Trouble to {hew that I-ady Jave ufcd to take Tea Morning and Afternoon, and eat Bread aiid Butter with it; for which Purpi ic tl cy have gone to Aix for a Witnefs, though it was proved to their Hands much nearer Home, if tiiey were not ail'am.ed to go to Michel'^ for Proof; from which they argue, that the feconcl Account, which they aftcct to call the Second Part of the fame Account, muft relate to Sir yokn and Lady J 'tie, becaufe a Livre is dated for Butter from the gth to the 13th. So that fin;i!e Wori Butter is to fland for STta, Cream, Rolls, Wcod to bcil the IVater, fcfc. which make diltiiict /i tides in the Scores of thofe who breakfaflcd ; for it will be remembered, that the Rate cf the Oidinary did not include Breakfafts. Now if this Argument is well founded, it goes to exclude the, firfl Bill altogether, in which there is no fuch Article as Butter, and proves that their anonymous Company did not come till the 8th. The Argument is well founded, and proves that neither of the Accounts can relate to I^ady yane, by that very remarkable Difference from her conflant Habits: As tar as the Thing can be traced, fhe never difpenfed with Breakfafts, or Tea, both Morning and A:'iernoon. This is folved by the Purfuers with the utmoil Eafe, only by fuppofmg that ilie fent one of the AVaiters of a Houfe, where fuch Tilings werefurniflied, to fome Coffee-Houfe, that is, to a Houfe where they are not fur- iiifhed ; or, more abfurd ftill, that flie brought her Tea along with her. WTien the Argument runs fo low on the other Side, it is not worth preiEng it iurther. Many other Circumftances will fpring to every Perfon's Obfer\aucn. The Poftage of the 1/Ctters which were fent to Sir John on the loth, or at leafl the 18th of Jidy, com.ing when confeffcdly not there, muft have been put down to this Account. The Wine charged la the Scores, now applied to Sir John, are different from thofe he ufually drank, as appears by the Account of the 8th of JuguJI, where he treats himfelf with Champagne. CHAP, IX. Obfervations en the Memory of Godefroi cowbined with their Bock. ■y F the Books fall fo fhort of the whole Number of Guefts, and be fo inaccurately kept, and fo ill re- menrbered by the Godefrcis as to afford no Shadow of Prefumption that their Names mtiji be there, nor even of Expectation to find them there — if the two Scores which are put upon Sir John and his Family, inflead of feeming to fuit them, do, by their Contents, abfolutely repel fuch Application of tliem---if the Godefroh remember, after all their Diligence to recolleft, no other PafFages of that Pe- riod, none of the other Guefts then in their Houfe, not even what Servants they kept at the Time— what one Article had he to remember them by ? That they were Foreigners, is given as a Reafon for taking lefs Notice of them. That thefe were Ladies, if the G^^Ayrff/V really thought it lingular, is proved by their own Books to be an Inflance of wanting INIemory. That Mailkfer recommended them is flated by himfelf as a probable Inference, not as Memory ; nor does he recollect a Tittle of what happened inConfequence of it, nor even Maillefer's other Letters on the fame Subject. That the Bill is paid and recommenced, if it were true, which it is not, is no more th.ui happened in Abundance of Inflances more. And the Story of the Bugs, (which he has told in a Way that cannot be true) if it were true, contradicts the Inference he draws of connecting the Scores ; for the fecond Account begins at the fame Inftant the firfl, whatever it was, is paid. The Bill in Auguji could not be connedted, by Inference, with the two in July. It was a ditTerent Number of Per- fons; the laft was furnifhed v/ith different Sorts of Wine from the firfl ; and Sir John's coming from Daimiai tin, if Godefroi had remembered it, (which he certainly did not for thePieafons given before) has Nothing in common, or which connects in any Way, with the two blank Scores. Tlic Entry in the Police-Book is not till the 7th, and, as far as that goes, difconnefts the Accounts ; and yet that is the Caufe of Mad. Godefioi's Memory, though it was not found till the Year 1 764. They were examined to the other blank Articles, and without the Livre de I'lifpeiieur could not fill up one blank Article. Before that was ibimd, fome other Intimation wa6 necef&ry; net to mention, that wiJi Book L ALIBI at GODEFRO Vs. 117 with that Afliftance, he could fill up but two out of feventeen : Add to this, that from the Year 1 748 to the Year 1 762, he had never heard Mr. Shwart's Name. But thePurfueis ofier toraife his Evidence no higher than this ; That he had a general Memory of fuch Perfons in the Year 1 748, and refer to his Books for theTime of their Stay. How far the Books fall fliort of proving the lafl, has been dated ; and Mr. Godefroi's Memory falls fliort of the firft, if that would be fufficient. It has been {liewn already, from the mofc authentic Proofs — viz. the Papers of the Purfuers---that Godf/roi knev/ nothing of this for above three Months. Their prefent Syftem obliges them to affert, that Godefroi remembered it from the Beginning. But what Evidence do they offer of that ? None but fuch as prove the dire£t contrary. Godcfni, examined to it, fays no more than this ; Tliat, when the/ws Parties came to him at the Beginning of this Affair, and allied, Whether Mr. SteviartViiA lived at his Houfe in the Year 1748 ; and whether there was any Account in his Book for him and this Company ? he recolle£led that Mr. Ste-rvart and two Women had lodged at his Houfe in the Year 1 748, and fliewed him the two Scores of the 4tli and 8th of Aiiguft, as applying to them ; and gave both Parties Infpection and Copies of thofe Articles. MeiT. Stuart and Buhot came firft, and a little Time after three other People came on the Part of the Defender. It is not very probable that either of the Parties fliould alk after fuch a Book, before they kjiew ■whether he kept any fuch or not. He confeU'edly did not know how many fuch Books were then current : He acknowledges alfo that he had no Thought of them before fince the Year 1 748 : And the Purfuers ftate, that he fhewed it them before they thought of fuch a Thing. The Times he pitches upon, though defcribed indeterminately enough, muft have been at leafl three Months after he had denied all Memory of fuch a Circumftance to the Purfuers ; for the Applications, which he fpeaks of, by the Parties, were at nearly the fame Time (with the Interval of what he calls />^a(f« temps). Now the Defender's Agents were not called to France till the lafl; Day oi December 1762, nearly three Months after Mr. Andrew Stuart's firft Converfation with him ; fo that, confiftently with Godefroi's Oath, the Purfuers reprefented their Cafe right, when they faid it could not be found out where Sir John was from the 4th. But what fhakes Mr. Godefroi's Teftimony in this Particular much, is, that Mr. D'.fnjou fays Extrait de la Mad. Godefroi, when Ibe was examined in the Tourneile, depofed negatively to all but this, that Procedure there was no Delivery in her Houfe, becaufe (lie remembered nothing of the Perfons llie was Extraordi- queftioned about ; and in her Depofition in this Caufe ftie puts that upon her not having the Po- " lice-Book. Now the Police-Book expreffes them to have entered on the 7th, to have been only two, and was not pretended to be in the Way till 1 764. This Non-Remembrance on the Part of Mad. Godefroi, whofe peculiar Charge was the Care of the Houfhold-Accounts and Guefts, goes a great Way not only to Ihake the Faith to be given Mr. Godefroi's Memory, whofe Employment was generally all Day out of Doors, but introduces great Doubt as to the Time, when he pretends to have remembered ; and abfoiutely excludes the firft three Months. But what decides this Queftion, is, that the Purfuers, who had the Whole of this Part of the Caufe as much before them then as now, faw no Reafon from that, whatever it was which Gode- froi really told them at firft, to fuppofe that fuch Refidence had been at his Houfe as they now pretend. For this they have writ a long Apology of fourteen Pages, which they put at the End of their Memorial. They call it " An Anfwer to the Defender's Objedlion to their Conduit that fl/:/ *' have changed their Ground." They really miftake the Defender altogether : He does not, he never has made any fuch Obje£tion to their Condufl. If he had, the Objeclion would not be confined to this Inftance. There is not a Ground in their whole Cafe which they have not chang- ed. Nay, as their Cafe now ftanus, there are few Arguments, from the Beginning of it to tlie End, which do not find their Contradiction in fome other Part. He complains of the Faljliood, not of the Change of their Grounds : That after being beat out of one Ground, which they from the Beginning knew io he fal/e, th'i)' have reforted to another, which they l.iiew fo?>i the Begin- ning to be falfer ; and therefore preferred the frfl, till their Witnefs difgraced it. And this is the Anfwer to their whole fourteen Pages of Apology, which fuppofes that Michel's Ground had an Appearance, and fuppreffes their original Knowledge of the Failhood of it. They fay no- thing oi Andrew Stuatl's Failhood, nor ol Duruiffeau's Perjury. Now thefeare the very Ground";, upon which it appears that, knowing Sir John was not at Michel's on the lOth, nor eoukl be proved there but by the AffdT;ance of Perjury, they ftill confidered it as a more tenable Point than his Refidence at G«ir John refided thejirfi: four Days. 2. That one 7Vbbe Mancn was fet upon him by the Defender to fifli out a contradictory Story ; and for this they very folemnly refer to their own Proofs, Page 470. c. which, v.'hen looked into, is no more than an Aflertion of Mr. Andreiv Stum t, deierving as miitli Credit as his full Ptrfualion that the Entry in Mithcl's Book was cf H'n'Johii Stewart's own Hand. 3. Mad. Guy went to enquire after Mr. Godefro'i's Memory of Siry^Awand his Family in Summer 1763, at the Defire o[ Mr. AL-iil/efer. — Mad. Guy was fbruck with an Apoplexy fome Time after^ which impaired her Memory , but if fhe had recollefted, on the Examination, the Converfa- tion which flie reported immediately after it happened, it would have been no Proof of Mr. Codffroi's Uniformity. But left Mr. Godefrol's Credit flioukl ftill lie under Safpicion, they have the cleareft Argument whatever in Support of it, namely, that he miglit eafily have added the Word Stewart in the Blank after Alo'f. Then it feems Gode/roi fwears falfely, when he fays the Defender had Copies of thefe Articles from his Books. If that were true, it was impolFible to have mat'e fuch Addition. But their own Idea oi Godef rot's Confcience is enough to decide upon him, whicliis, that he might think Book I. ALIBI at GODEFRO I's. 119 i!iiiik he was doing no Fault in fiipplying the Blanii witli the Name of the Perfon to whom the Ac- count truly related. According to this Idea, Godcfroi might infer from the Book as it Hood, tliat the Score related to Sir 'John Stewart ; i. e. from the Book in a Condition to afford no fuch Inference ; and then might add the Name to fave all further Difficulties about making his In- ference probable. Of a Piece with this Obfervation is another, that Godefroi would have been detcfted by fliev.'ing Al/iillcfer's Letter, if he had not fwoni true, as to the I'erfon who recommended them: Whereas he has not fworn to the Perfon who recommended him , and if he had fworn falfe, would not have pi-oduced the Letters : So it is inlifted, that if any Body elfe had remembered Lady Jane to be pregnant, that would have fallified Godef?-oi, who does not remember to have feen her at all. But if their Witnefles had the Purity of Saints, fuch a Story could not find its Way to the Belief of one candid Enquirer: That they iliould take Piecommendations from the firlt Magiftrate of Rheims to his Agent, and live at the faid Agent's Houfe from the 4th till the 14th ; and be ac- quainted that fuch a Correfpondent had fent to enquire after him on the 13th: That he fiiould have all his Letters configned by a confiderable Merchant at Rheims,'M. Andrieux, toGcdefroi's Houfe, the whole Time he ftaid away from Rheims, which muif create a conftant Intercourfe with Gsdefrci, though, what Wonder ! is now forgot : That he fhould return to the fame Houfe again the 8th of Auguji ; and in fine, fliould go back to the fame Town of Rheim', giving out that Lady Jane had been delivered on the loth ; though he mufl expecl to meet at Mr. AIjii'l/e?-'s with Gcde/roi's own Letter, bearing that they were well at his Houfe on that Day : Not to mention that the Account of her Delivery on the lOth mud have been at Rk-ims within a Week of Ga^/f^ri^i's Letter, repre- fcnting them as very well ; at Rbe:?ns, a fmall provincial Town, where it appears as Fatl:, as might well be expefted it would, that the foreign Lady's Delivery was talked of within three Weeks af- ter fhe left the Town. They fay, what they could not perfuade Godefroi to fay, That he was never at Rheims in his Life 1 and which, if they could have perfuaded him to fay, would have made nothing to the Purpofe. They fay that Mr. Mai.'Iffer had no Notion of either Pregnancy or Delivery, only becaufe Mr. MailUfcr, who remembers Nothing, has not fold fo : But it Was notorioufly talked oi in the little Town where he lived, at Coftee-Houfes and Card-Tables ; and the univerlal Credit in which Lady Jane was there afterwards, could not have happened, if any Part of Godefni's Story were true. They fay, that going to Miihel's on the i8th or 19th, flie could not date her Delivery nearer than the lOth ; and (lie wanted to convey that the gth Day was over. But they are not pleafed to give even their Imagination why flie incurred fuch an Embarraflment. — Suppofe the Theft oi Mig- noB's Child, which they firit placed upon the nth, transferred to the 18th, where they place it now, flie might have kept it many Days as \\'A\ as one ; a Difcoveryof it could not be their Dread ; If that had been fo, they would not have kept it fo publicly, as they did a Fortnight together, in he Rue Serpente. Laftly, They infift there murt: have been fornething wrong at Godcfroi's, becaufe Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Hewit have Ihewn great Anxiety to conceal their being there. Sir John, they fay, did not mention it in the Note he gave Mrs. blapier in the Year 1756; and, what they hold more remarkable, after he had by Miflake mentioned the Street, he drew his Vcw Jlightly thro' it again: And Mrs. Hcwitiayr, in the Service, that after flopping where the Stage ufually flops, they drove to an Inn, but does not mention the Name of Godefroi. And thcfe they ttate as tlie only Mention made by either of them oiGodefroi's Houfe, till they were examined alter the Reduilion. As to the firff, Mrs. Napier's Queflion was " Where Lady Jane was brought to-bed ?" In Anfwer to which, it is Concealment that he did not fay Godefroi's, where flie was not brought to- bed. The Rue St. Martin was certainly a Miftake ; and, as certainly, one he thought immaterial, or it would have been full as eafy to take another Piece of Paper, and write the Account he was going to give, clear of it. As to the fecond, it is not at all likely that if Mrs. Hewit had conceived the Purpofe of finkinS Godefroi's Houfe altogether, flie would have fpoke of the Inn at all ; and that fhe faid no more of it was owing to the obvious Reafon, that flie did not then remember the Name. If Sir John has never talked oi Godefroi's Houfe to any Body, he has done that which has hap- pened to Thoufmds of People, who, in fpeaking of their llelidence at Bath, or ellewhere, do not make the Names of the Lodging-houfes as Part of their Narrative ; and it would rather tend to Ihew, thatheflaid there but little While: But whether he has mentioned Godefroi's Houfe often or feldom, can never be collected, as none of the Witnefles who depofed to more material Circum- ftanees, were aiked to this ; and it would not eafily enter into any Party's Head to lorefee fuch, SUi Argument, and provide agaiufl it, by an Examination on Purpofe- But 120 ALIBI at GODEFRO Vs. Part IV. But in ftating this as a Matter of Faft, it fhould not have been forgot, that, when Slrjohnhzd Oc- cafion to talk of Godefrci's, within a Fortnight after he left it, he told Mad. Michel, that he had been at the Hotel de Chaalom four Days ; which not only difproves the AJJertion of their Argument, but refutes Godefmi altogether ; for what he faid fo foon after the Thing happened, may furely be fet againft what Mr. Godefroi fays fo many Yf ars after, if liis Story were in any one Refpeft be- fides intitled to Belief. It fhould not have been forgot alfo, that the Houfe which he was thus defcribing, the Hotel de Chaalom, a great and noted Inn, was at the Dirtauce of about a Furlong from Michel's. The Teftimony of the Co.'^f/rij/j' amounts to this, They dare not pretend to remember any Perfony Circumjiancc, or Pajfage, oi'july 1748, but a few infignificont Particulars which relate to Sir 'John Stewart. Thofe which they do pretend to remember are all manifeltly iufvfed, and fome manifestly mi/applied. The whole Amoimt of their Memory, flated by the Purfuers, is, that fuch Perfons were there in the Year 1748; but the only material Points, oi zuhen they came,, how long they Jiaid, and 'tvhen they departed, is referred to their Books. The Books by themfelves prove nothing, being only a Parcel of unconnected Memoranda of current Score to help the Memory for the Time ; but they are reared into Evidence. Thus the Godefrois fay, they do in Fa£t contain every Gueil, without Ex- ception, who came into the Inn. They contain, however, but one Account on the 4th of July 1748. Sir John ccnfefictUy came in on that Day; therefore that Account is his; and, as it mns to the 14th, he {laid fo long. That the Scores run to the 14th, is far enough from proved; but let that pals. The Contents of the Scores, fo far from applying to Sir John, repel any fuch Appli- cation ; the whole Strefs of the Evidence, therefore, lies on that fundamental Propoiition, that th.e Books contain every Gueft without Exception. In Mny 1765, the Godcfrcis hid, that one of thefe Books contained all the Guefls without Exception. It fell grofsly fliort of the Number of Guefts which notoriouflv reforted to the Houfe ; and, in July 1765, another fuch Book, of the fame Kind of Memoranda, was produced ; and then they faid, that both together contained the Scores of ever)' Gueft: without Exception. Both Books together turn out to be notorioufly fliort of the Number of Guefls which aftually reforted to the Houfe, particularly at the Time in Quef- tion ; and the Bafis of their Evidence now, is an Article of Memory, which is admitted to have been wrong in A/av, and is proved to have been fo in July. This is literally the whole Evi- dence to eftablifli a Propofition which is otherwife fo improbable as to revolt Belief ; and this im- probable Inference, bottomed upon an Affertion convirted of Error, is aU the Evidence where- upon Twenty-fcven Perfons who have fwom to the Pregnancy of Lady Jane are to be convi£led of Perjury ; and Three or Four or more, foj the Purfuers have not even yet fettled the Number,, are to be convifted of the fhameful and capital Offence oifuppofwg Children. 121 PART IV. BOOK II. of the Taking away Mignon's Child. C H A P. I. Olfervations on the Witnejfes, and the Manner of obtaming them. ^HAT Mr. Douglas is the Son of Nicolas Mgnon and Mary Guerin his "Wife, and was P. P. 155. a, •*• baptized "Jacque Louis. ii4..i. 190. F. The Purfuers introduce this Part of their Cafe with an Apology for not proving it, and cite Purf. Mem. the Cafe of one Piquet, to prove that Mr. Douglas fhould be fent to the Foundling Hofpital, be- P'- 3- ?• ^^o* caufe they don't know whofe Son he is, if not Lady Jane's. If it was their ferious Perfuafion that proving him to relate to another Family was totally unne- cefTary, it would have been an Act of Chriftian Charity to have faved fo much Perjury as they have employed in attempting it. Every Step of the Purfuers, in leading their pofitive Proof, is marked with fo many Inflances of foul Pradtice as never concurred, it is believed, on the trying any one Caufe of Property be- fore. Indeed this is not a Caufe of Property to the Purfuers, who are fpending their Zeal and their Money in this Purfuit ; and, perhaps, the Difference between the Zeal of Rancour and the Zeal of Intereft, may account for the ihameful Peculiarities which difgrace the Purfuit in this Caufe. When the loofe and uncertain Recolleclion of flale Memories is worked upon by the hardy Aflertion and authoritative Publication of concerted Falfehood ; when even the clearer and more precife Memory of little People, is daunted by confident Menaces of being confuted, and falfi- fied ; when the Imagination of bad People is led by a formed Story, calculated on Purpofe to fet their Evidence ; when bafe People, guilty of one infamous Offence, refort to Lies for the Sake of covering it, and at length are corrupted to advance further in Falfehood ; when fuch Prafticcs are happy enough to light upon fit Subjects to work with, the Labour of feparating the littk'Tiuth from the much Falfehood, becomes imxneafurable. But that Labour is doubled upon the Hands of a Defender, when the Charge againfl him Is made up of the falfe Pveports of Hearfays originally falfe, and of the falfer States of Evidence, which one App. to P. P. Party wrote on Purpofe to Ihew about, and eftablifli a popular Cry againft the other ; and yet even P- '°97. thefe lafl are cited by the Purfuers as Evidence. This Article of pofitive Proof was introduced into the Caufe by the Monitoire, a Method which is preferved in the criminal Juflice of France for Reafons of State ; but the Abufe it is obnoxious to is retrained by Laws made for that Purpofe. The Purfuers being fure of meeting no Party in France to challenge it, no Regard was had to the Ordonnances, nor any Meafure fet to the Abufe. The Monitoire does not forbear, as the Ordonnances enjoin, to name or defign the Perfons ; it is not con- fined to fuch Revelations as the Church could enforce or receive. It Itates the Hiftory of the Per- D. P. 1009. fons accufed, for three Years, from Scotland,m the Year 1746, to London in the Year 5749, and the tAvo firft Years in Germany, where the Authority of the Archbifliop of Paris is not yet acknow- ledged. It gives a circumftantial Detail of a fuppofed Impofture, which the Authors knew to be falfe. It ftates a double Abode from the 8th to the 14th of Jtily, which was given up on the Detec- tion of that Falfehood, and which they were confcious of while they were writing it. It further ftates, that on the loth Lady fane gave herfelf out as delivered of two M;ile Children, and that the Purfuers had pofitive V>:ooi oi thtfuccejfive Suppofition o{ both, the firft whereof is dated in fuly. It will be feen in the Sequel, how much of the Evidence takes its Bent from this very Reprefentation. In the Fauxbourg St Anioine, the eaftern Out-fkirts of Paris, at the Sign of tlie Alcmdi.'l, a "wretched Cabaret, even in that wretched Quarter of the Town, was the Nell of fi\c I'amilies of Wit- iiefles which have been called forth to fupport this Part of the Puriuers pofitive Proof. The reft, are much of the fame Pvunk, and they are in all twenty-two. Of all thefe Witnefles, onlv three affeft to have any Knowledge of the taking away the Child. Of thefe three, Mignon and his Wife are coiivicled of direcl Perjury ; and the third remembers little or Nothing of the Matter. The reft of the WitJielfes do but repeat the Converfation of thofe, who being reproached for their Daienefs in felling htunan Flefii, invented Falflioods to colour and cxcufe it. S It 122 OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part IV. It may be proper in this Place to difpofe of one Article ftrangely enough introduced into this Cafe ; namely, Parts of Mr. Andrew Stuart's Journal, fupplied by a formed Memorial of Mr. D'Anjou. Tlie Ufe which the Purfucrs make of this in Argument, is no lefs than to reftore per- r. P. ^97. jured Witnefles, by flating Avhat is faid to have paflcJ between them and him, the Agent on the Part for which they are fo perjured : There is no Need of Argument to fliew, that no fuch Ufe can be made of thofe Papers, if they were intitled to the Credit of fair Reprefentations in other Refpedls. But it is impoffible to read D' Anjou's Paper, which Mr. Andrew Stuart induflrioufly fubflitutes in the Place of his own Journal from the 8th of Auguji I'l^^l-, without obferving that it was drawn up with the clofdl Attention and Care to digeft, arrange, and colour the Story ; and there are fome pretty broad Falflioods in it, if the Witnefles gave liim the fame Account which they fwore --— 1099.H. to afterwards ; particularly in that Article where the yl. P. 22«. D, P. P. 213. c. It appears that the Monitoire was publiflied on three fucceflive Sundays, the 24th and 31(1 of J'(l), and the 7th of AugtiJL Baudouin fays, the Mignons went to Revelation on a Thurfday; but whether that was Thurplay the 28th of 'July, or 4th of Auguft, is imcertain. Baudouin, who fent to DP o 2Ppr'fc Madame Mignon of the Monitoire, thinks from his Memory, that the Monitoire was not affixed at all the Churches the firft Time he faw it ; but the Cure, who fpoke of it to the Arch- blfhop of Paris, on Friday the 5th of AuguJ}, fayr., the Revelation was then recent ; and defcribes the fccond Time of the AJign^ons coming in the general Terms of fome Days after the ilril, which implies a fliorter Interval. There was therefore a Period of four, if not eleven Days, between the Monitoire, which rtTived the Talk of A^Iignon's Child, and her Revelation. Add to this, tliat • . 19 • c. Guin'tte, another atlive Inlf rument for the Purfuers, has depofed that Mignon came from the Cure to iend her, and that fhe went there after : Guinette told Kemper tlut flie went to Revelation on the Aimday, and fwears herfelf that file did fo on Tuefday. It is probabloi, that it was in lefs than tea Days Ihe obeyed the Summons. But whether the Purfuers faw her before Revelation, or not, it appears that they had Notice of ft 59 • B- on Fiiday the 5th of AugujI. Mr. Dentremont was at the Archbiihop's in the Afternoon of that Day, and heard what the Cure\v^<\ faid on the Subjeft. On Saturday the 6th of Aiiguj}, Mr. An- jj p drew Stuart went to the Cure to learn the Names and Abodes of thofe who had betn in Reve- lation : The Cute doubled. Whether he ought to difcover them ; and faid, he would not advife any Body to fee the Perlons on this Occafion, till the Revelations had been tranfmitted to the Procurew -General, for Fear of weakening their Teitimony. However, being convlnceil of the Interefl whicli Mr. Stuart had in the Affair, i. e. being fatisfied that he was really the Purfuer, he read over the P»evelation to him, in which there was Mention made both of their Names and Place of Alxxle ; though he can't fay whether Mr. Andrew Stuart attended to them, or remem- bered them. — What did he fuppofe he was attending to, when he came on Purpofe to alk after them ? The Car/, however, to prevent all Inconveniencies, fent the Revelation that very Day to the Procui cur-General. P. P. 55)8, E, On A'londuy the 8th of Auguji, Mad. Alignon came again to the CurCy to defcribe the Perfons, Figurej and Age, of the Perfons, who had taken away their Child. The Book II. M I G N O N's C H I L D. laj The Cure fpeaks of exa£lly three Vifits from Madame Migmn -, the firft when fhe came by herfelf to offer her Revelation ; and he fent her back to fetch her Hufband : The fecond, when flie and her Huiband came together, and aftually made her Revelation : And the third, when fhe came to add the Defcriptions of the Perfons. He fays, that fmce her Revelation, Mad. Mig- D. P. ^^%. b. non told him, that fhe had feen Mr. Stuart, but did not mention in what Place.— It is clear, tliat what he calls their Revelation, was that in which they had not defcribed the Perfons ; it was that lie mentioned to the Archbifliop ; it was that he fent on the 6th to the Prociireur-General. It is clear alfo, that he knew nothing of her, but from her coming to reveal ; and he has mentioned no more Vifits than three.— -Madame Mignon ftates the two firft Vifits, and denies that fhe had ever gone back to him fince ; " Pour ajouter ou changer aucune Chofe." Now her returning P. P. 231. c. to the Cure would have been a very innooent Event, far from demanding the Aid of Perjury to ^- ?• *3'' *• conceal it, if there had been Nothing in the Occafion of that fecond Vifit which wore a different Complexion. CHAP. II. Ihe Mignons were induced by Promifes and other IVays to believe themfelves Parties in thi Suit ; and perjured themfelves in Support of what they believed their own Caiife. IT appears alfo, that, from the Beginning, the Mignons took a very aQive enger Part in Pleading, •* as the Witncfles call it, againft the Defender, whom Madame Alignon claimed for her Son, and 230. E, was buoyed up with rich Hopes from the Event of the Caufe, which flic called Her Affair. It was a"! early as about the Time of the Monitoire, that flie began to diftribute their Pamphlets. She promifed Lorette to fend him one. On another Day fhe brought the Pamphlet, and talked, as that Party did at the Time, that they had taken her Picture to confront Mr. Douglas in England; and that he went away for Fear fhe fliould know him to be her Son, which fhewcd how much he was in the Wrong ; and told him, that her Gentleman, as flie called Andrew Stuart, had promifed to do Good to her and her j-,, e, Hufband for the reft of their Lives ; and that he would get her Sons made Watchmen, whereby they might fet up their Trade of Vintners without Fees ; and the youngefl was to be Apprenlite to an Ivory-Turner. She appeared in great Agitation upon the Occafion ; wiflied the Thing over; and fiid, flie fhould tremble to appear before the Judges : Upon which Lorette told her, if flie had Nothing to reproach herfelf with, flie had Nothing to fear. She lived in fome Familiarity with one. Hubert, whoteepsa little Cabaret in her Street, the Sign of the iSt. Hubert; and in that Houfe flie was frcquentlyheard to talk of thefe Pioniifes wliich bad been made her, and that her Son, at the Thirteen Cantons, would have a Stock of Wine given him ; and D. P, iio. s, when her Affair, as fhe called this Procefs, was over, Things would go well with her, and the Ihould =53- 1. live there no longer. ~" ! 'g' « " She told Lorette alfo, that Mr. Stuart'' s Secretary had lent her Son Eugene 30 Livres; and in tliis — — 231. d. flie is confirmed by Eugene, who proves, that M. d' Anjou had advanced that Sum to Eugene upon his Note. She told him, alfo, that Mr. D' Anjou was to procure her Son a Loan of 2000 Livres, '" p p ,,„ ■which fhe is alfo confirmed by Eugene, whom this Purfuers examined, and wiio proved that M. d'Anjou ordered him to get two Securities, and wrote letters about it into the Country ; after which, be faid to him, that as he was Attorney in this Procefs, it would beobjefted to him if he fhould negotiate the Loan for him, and that he would recommend him to fome other SoHicitor, who would do bisBufinefs. M. Lorette gave Eugene a Certificate of Chara£ler, on the Occafion of this Loan, which Madame Mignon put into the Hands of Mr. Andrew Stuart. Their conftantWay of talking of this Procefs was confidering it as their own Affair, and as the Sub- D. P. a-jT b. jeft of great Expeftation of the Good which was to happen to them from it. They were eager to dil- 258. e. jierfe the Purfuers Pamphlets, as appears from their lending various Copies of them to feveral Per- __ — .40. d. fons, on the 30th of September, in her Son's Cabaret in Faubourg Adintmartrc, which mull have come from the Purfuers themfelves. In Truth, Mr. Stuart's Clerk had given her foinc, and Ihe hrul a great many to difpofe of; for if ihe had knov.'ii the Company fooner, (lie promifed they Ihould ail have had of them. When flie was examined on the Subjects of having fpoken of fuch Promifes, and difperfed the Pamphlets, fhe faw her Conducl wo'ald tlepreciatc her Teftimony, and fl.e flatly denied it. After which, fhe went to Madame Po^flli; and begged Ihe would not fpeakof it to any Body; and to Lorette fhe faid, that flie heard he was upon the Lilt to be examined, and begged he would net p^ p i^,..,. fey (lie had furnilhed him with fuch Pamphlets, becaufe flic had denied it upon Oath, and would D. P. 140. o. therefore pafs for a Liar. This was a Precaution in which thofe who gave fuch Information about -49- c. the Lilt of Witneffes, had their Share. "^*' *^" S 2 J'^any 124 OF THE TAKING AWAY Part IV. Many other Articles hare been picked up in her Converlation which, at the fame Time that they (hew her Keennefs in the Purluit, rather refer to the Quarter tVom which they originally fprung. D. P. 661. B. Mr. Dcuz':i!, Ihc faid, was in Mourning for his Father ; but tlie would llrip him of it. It was an obvious Remark made by thofe who heard her talk fo violently, that if flie were really the Mother, it was Itrange flie (hculd take fo much Pains to ftrip her own Child of his good Fortune. To which P. P. 749. c. (he anfwered, " He had Fingers, and could fcramble as well as his Brothers," It is not very conceivable how any Woman, who really thought herfelf a Mother, could take fo eager a Part againfl her own Child, unlefs the Profpecl of fome confiderable Good had been held out to her. But if any Truth could have been drawn from her after flie was once embarked, there is Reafon to think that flie knew Mr. Doiiglai was not her Son, nay, that ihe had by fome Means heard of the Death of that Son which flie fold. For before the Mciiiiotre was publilhed, or either n. P. 653. c. Side had any Thing to do with her, flie ufed to bewail that the Child fhe had loll was dead, or elfe 665. c. ^jg would have been in a very different Situation ; ftie lolt her Fortune by lofing him. When fhe 670. B. ^.gg reminded ofthis after the Account flie had given to the contrary, flie was difconcerted, and re- 66:. B. fj,pf£(j jj to the Death of a Nurfe-Child ; but that was no Explanation, for it was the Child of a very poor Body, who owed her ten Livres flill for rurfing it. V. P. 750. c, 'Yo prevent any Sufpicion, that her Evidence was made up in Concert with Mad. Guinette, flie '°9" ^' fwore that fhe had not feea Guinette, relatively to this Affair, before Guinetie's Revelation : Whereas Ihe went from Revealing herfelf to tell Guinette the Story fhe had K\ta\ed.—Mignon the Hufband, who talked of the Caufe in the fame Stile himfelf, and was prefent and concurring in the Con- 75'i- H. verditions of his Wife, and who ran about difperfing the Papers, and often talked by himfelf of the 7 is- B. Good he expetted, and the Promifes which were made him to that Effect:, joined alfo with his \rife in a peremptory Denial of the Whole ; and confirmed her, in denying her Return to the Cwe^ to change or add to her Revelation ; by which Means he involved himfelf in the fame full Meafurc of Falfehood. The Purfuers feem to think their Cafe not a Jot the worfe for the Deteftion of Perjury in their' Witneifes. Tliey fum up the Teftimony of the Aligncns, and rely upon it as firmly in Argument, as if they ftood clear of all Reproach.— So far as the Story indicates Subornation, they look upon it as an Article which rather requires Explanation ; and for that they refer to a Paper they call a Sequel. Here they fupprefs three-fourths of the Imputation, and give no Anfwer to the reft, unlefs a fulfome Panegyri'ck upon Mr. Stuart's Integrity, which every Part of the Cafe refutes, and no one Witnefs offers to fupport, is to pafs for an Anfwer ; unlefs it be an Anfwer to fay Mignon was tied down be- fore flie was corrupted, without fliewing when fhe was corrupted, or how flie was tied down ; un- lefs it be Argument, either fair or wife, to infift, that a Man's detetf^ing Perjury is as bad as the originally fuborning ; unlefs calling M. Lorctte perjured, and Hubert a Suborner in the very Face of the Evidence which cleared them from the Obloquy of the Purfuers, be enough to fetafide five other AVitnefles ; and except alfo that bright Eflay in Argument with which they conclude their Apology.— Some of the AVitneffes have fpoken of the Promifes which Mignon faid had beea made her, without naming the Perfon from whom fhe received them ; while others, fpcaking of the felf-fame Promifes, have named Mr. Andrew Stuart as the Perfon who made them. Upon which the Purfuers infer, that the Promifes were made by the Defender's Agents, whom fliefliun- ned and defcribed as her adverfe Party, and not by the Purfuers, whofe Cafe fhe had been made to think her own. Of all the Wretches whom they have brought up to be WitnefTes, thefe Mignons feem fo he the worft ; for befides the Bafenefs of the Thing they charge themfelves with, they, /. e. the Father and his two Sons, were driven out of the Glafs Manufacture for Pilfering. 'I he Purfuers, whofe Cafe D. P. 667. r. lies wholly on the Hufband's Charafter, and his Wife's, labour to fhcw that there was no Convitliou. It is, however admitted, Tilings were miihiig. He and his Sons ufed to fi:ay after the reft of the Workmen ; they were charged with one Voice ; they were difmifled, and the Pilfering ceafed.— This is all that the Director can alledge to juftify his Difcharge. P. P.-.vS. H.I, ^rhe Mignons fwcar in round Terms, that the Pveafon of their quitting the Glafs Manufatflure was bccaufe the Wages were lefiened. Mary Guinette, who is brought only to prove the Hearfay of the Lies which thefe bnfe People invented, to fcreen themfelves from Reproach and Funifliment, was engaged, by forr.e Means or other, to take a no lefs aftive Part than the Adignons. She ran about to beat up for Witnefles ; fhe told the Story with Eagerncfs to ferve the Purfuers Purpofes ; flie prepared the People they went to, for their Reception; fo that at Charhn's, where fhe met them, the People about pointed them to ^_ J jj the Houfe ^' par Jcelamation." She was aware how difcrediting fuchFonvardnefs mu ft appear, and fwore, believe her who may, that it was not by Appoinrm.cnt ; and yet fhe thought herfelf a Creditor on Mr. Stuart, who pleads, belicic him who may, in that Memorial which heaffeib to, cdl a Journal, that he gave her Nothing. It Book II. M I G N O N's C H I L D. 125 It would be endlefs to tranfcribe all thofe little Artifices, which the Evidence is full of, ufed to prejudice and engage the Tempers of Witneilcs againfl Truth, by thofe who, while they pretend to have gone in Search of Nothing elfe, have employed, as far as their Conduft is in Evidence, only thofe Means which the lowed Pradtifer iu this Part of Great Britain, would hide his Head and be afhamed of. CHAP. III. The Mignons fold their Child-, and were therefore undir the Neceff.ty of inventing Falfe- hoodsy at the Time of the Enlevement, to cover their original Crime. BU T the Prejudice and Falfehood, infufed upon Occafion of this Procefs, is nothing near the Whole of what the Cafe labours under.---The Cafe was, that Mignon and his Wife fold their Child by the Intervention of G«/V;f/ff, an old Bifcuit Woman, and fome Participation oi Edouarct, who fold old Books on a Stall. The Crime was puniftiable by Law, as well as fliameful in com- mon Opinion. The firft Thing to be done was to invent a Lie to colour the Parting with the Child. Their Story gained no Credit in the Neighbourhood, and old Gvinetle's Defence was, not that they had been cheated, but that (lie had waflied her Hands of it.-— If they had joined in the P. P. 706. r< fame Story, they would have been intitled to no Credit ; and the only Confequence of their varying in their Defence has been pointing out the Falfehood of both, in more glaring Particulars. Tliat the Child was in Fa£l fold out and out, glares through all the Falfehood which, from the firft, they endeavoured to throw over it. Old Guinettc firft applied to one Charlati for her Child, who carried him to the Gentleman at Notre Dame to be viewed, and he gave her three Livres for her Trouble, and feems to have ap- 706. b. pointed her when to come again ; but having underftood from Guinette that the Child was to be given quite away, and fhe never to fee it again, when flie came Home her Mother perfuaded her 703. b. not to give her Child ; and this is confirmed by what follows, that Cbarlan in chiding her Child, ufed to fay, flie wifhed flie had given him to the Gentleman when he defircdhim, for it would 703. c. have made his Fortune, and difincumbered her Family of him. It appears alfo, that Charlati told the fame Story to the Purfuers ; upon which Guinette, who was by that Time become a Purfuer, 708, h, offered to correct her, and faid, her Mother told her, fhe would have given her Child, if it had fuited the Gentleman : But what Credit Guinette delerves againft the three former Witnefles, may be collefted from her contradiftory Ways of telling this Story. She faid at firft that the Gentle- man's Reafon for refufing the Child was becaufe he had not blue Eyes ; but it turned out that Charlan's Child had blue Eyes. Then her Reafon upon her Examination was, becaufe he was too ^j,,. ^_ old : This was no lefs repugnant to what fhe had faid before ; for Mr. D'Anjou himfclf, in his Me- 706. a. morial drawn up at the Time, reprefents that (he (aid. Char/an refufed to give her Child ; and in '003- '• Support of this, refers to the Teltimony of Charlan herfclf. The Converfation which is fuppofed to have palled between Giiinettr, the Woman AJignon, and her Hulband, fufhciently proves that it was underftood between thein the Child was to be given quite away. Gj//«^»t' recommended it as a Thing \vhich would make her Child's Fortune, and ^ perhaps her's too : This muft mean changing his State. She was peifuaded to propof^" it to her -c,'./. Hufband ; who faid, that if it would deliver him from his Labour, which he thought too hard, and do the Child good, he would confider of it. But the univerfal Opinion which prevailed at the Time, among thofe who beft knew the Mignons, is ftronger Teftimony than any fmall Detail to be picked up, now at the End of twenty Years, and efpetially under the Inliuence of fuch a great Subje£l depending, what the real Condu£l of thefe bafe I'eople was. Their Accounts of every Step in tliis Bufinefs are fo various to different People, as from thence ^^, p_ alone to prove the Falfliood : Tlie Woman Mignon fwears that ihc went twice to Notre Dame ; the 751. n, Hufband and the reft of the Witneffcs defcribe her as going but once ; and ihe faid that the Per- _,._ c. fons who took away her Child came three or four Times to her Houfe, p:oniifing her a Conipen- fation, and to take Care of the Child. It is pretended that Bourgeois forewarned her not to give up her Child, without knowing thc~ Gentleman's Name ; and Mignon afTured her flie would take Care of that, and afterwards told Bcw- geois that flie knew where her Child was carried. Guinette fays, upon the Gentleman's declining to 715. i. tell his Name, her Mother advifed her againft letting the Child go ; and yet flie and the Huilsand, 'y^^_ t. in. their Examination, deny that they aflvcd his Name : And fhe dropt a pretty extraordinary Reafon 747. c. for.it^ becaufe fhe expefted to be deceived ; which ihe afterwards corrcded : And yet they pretend 753. a. that the Hufband carried a Difguife along with him to run after the Coach in ; according to which they muft have given away the Child, inider an Apprehenfion that it wss to be carried quite off. With thefe Apprehcnfions Ihc received three Guineas, and twelve Sols to her Boy, 126 OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part IV. P. p. 743. K. Boy, for the Child. Sometimes the Child was to be returned in eight Days ; fometimes in fix Weeks ; and the Gentleman was to pay them fo much per Week if he kept it longer. The Child was carried off in a Hackney Coach : The obvious Qiieftion was, Why did you not take the Number ? They were (tunned with this Queftion, and could only fay they did not take it : Afterwards they did not know whether it was a Hackney Coach or another. 744. F. Somttimes Mignon did follow the Coach ; fometimes he did not, becaufe he was too tired : D. P. 654 E. Sometimes he atlually knew the Houfe where the Gentleman lived who took the Child away, 668. D. and had been at it ; at another Time, flie had been to fee the Child, eight Days after parting 654. E. with him, but the People who took him were gone: At another Time, AUgnon followed them into a Patlage in Ma'z.artn Street, and they fhut the Door upon him ; fometimes he did not follow P. P. 744. G. them into the Paflage, but flopt at a Cab.irct oppofitc to it, and afterwards difcovered that it went — - 707. D. into another Street, and fo the Child was loft: : Sometimes this Thorough-fare was difcovered the 744. H. fame Afternoon when he followed the Coach ; fometimes he and his Wife went and difcovered it the next Day : Sometimes he and his Son went the third Day ; fometimes all three went : 756. c. Sometimes he went up two Stories into two different Houfes, the Afternoon of the Day when the — — 716. c. Child was taken away ; at otlier Tiir. :s, he only noted the Paffage, and came the next Day, or, as he fays on other Occafions, the third D.jy, to purfue the Family which had taken his Child. 745' c. Then {lie had Maffes faid in four or five Churches, which fhe names; and that the firfl; Mafs {lie caufed fay, was at the St. Ejprit, before giving her Child, the Day on which flie gave him, D. P. 719. A. to knov,' what God would infpire her to do : And this Mafs is found on the icth of March 1749. The whole Family was employed four Months together in fcarching among the Midwives and all the Hotel garnlei in the Quarter. Nov/ there was an Hotel garni at the Diltance of two fhort Streets from that where the Coach is fuppofed to have flopped, and not half a Furlong from the Parvis oi Notre Dame, where the Child is faid to have been taken : In that Hotel lodged a foreign P.P. 850. E. Lady, with her Hufband, who had been lately brought to-bed of Twins ; in another Houfe in 873. B. the fame Street one of her Children was luirfed in the moft public Manner : It was Michel's, in the Rue Sirpente, near to which Nurfe Favre lived, and where Mr. Douglas was nurfed. If fuch En quiries were made, Lady Jane and her Child were heard of, and, probably, feen. Sir Jchn Stewart too, if he had been the Gentleman, went every Day to the Cajfe de Malthe on the ^uai Pelleticr, which is ftill nearer to the Church of Notre Dame, and which he mufl: pafs hard by, in going from the Rue Serpente to the Caffc de Alalthe. But if there was a Spark of Truth in this iStorv, their A}>plication would have been to the Police, and that would have led them Imme- diately to the Child, if he remained a Day in Paris ; fuppofing it pofhble to imagine that he could cxifi; a Day in Paris, and efcape the Refearches they pretend to have made. Either, therefore, they made no fuch Refearches, and then all Idea of Truth vaniihes ; or, they did make them, and then the Story is thereby totally removed from Sir John Stewart : P'or no Man who meant to flay a Day in Paris, and fiill more, in the fame Quarter of Paris where he got the Child, would have apprized them of Circumftances which mufllead direftly to Detection. And the Purfuers now fay, he gave in his real Name, in his own Hand-Writing, to be inferted in the Regifters of Police, almofl the very Hour he is pretended to have committed this Crime. If he had afted thus, Detedlion mult have been the immediate Confequence ; which Circumftance alone, as againft fuch a Story as this, feems fulficient to prove that he was not the Man who had taken the Child, nor Mr. Douglas the Child taken. But it fhall be fhewn prefently that every Article in their Defcription, even with the Helps they have had, inftead of applying to him, Lady Jane, and Mr. Douglas, carry Sufpicion quite on one Side of him. r- ,^r. D. There is not one Article, in her own Story, which does not make diretftly againft the Truth of • 714. it, except the Story of her fuckling Flon's Child to preferve her Milk ; and that falls as naturally into the Idea of Fiction as of Truth. It was i>eceffary, in Support of the Story Ihegave out, topre- tejid to expect that fire fnould have the Child again, and to endeavour to preferve her Milk for it : She might, like wife, wilh to do it, in Hopes of getting a Nurfe-Child. But the Sorrow fhe is fup- pofed to have affected for the Lofs of her Child ; nay, the very Sufpicion that he was lolt at that — _7oo.r. Time, contradicts all the Story ihe told on her Examination : For the Gentleman was to keep it fix — 743. H. Weeks, and to flievv it her in eight Days ; fo that till the Expiration of that time fhe hadnoRea- fon to think it loft ; or at leaft no other Reafon than flie muil have had before fhe delivered it, to think fhe was to fee it no more. It is clear therefore that they meant to give away their Child altogether ; and that all their Ac- counts of themfelves, from thence forward, were but fo many Lies to cover the Crime they had been guilty of: And out of the Depofitions of thefe two perjured Witneffes, and the Hear-fays of their Falfehoods recollected, at the End of many Years, and the flale Memory of them pointed by the A'loriitoire, and particularized by warm and leading Converfuions with the Agents of the Pur- fiiers, the Story of (lealing a Child is to be picked, and applied to fupport fuch deep Confcqucnccs as Book II. M I G N O N's C H I L D. 117 as thofc of convicling Sir John Stnvart, Lady Jane Douglas, and Mr?;. Hewit, of a fiiameful and capital Crime; conviding the many Witnefles who have proved her Pregnancy, of Perjury ; and. ftripping Mr. Doughs of his Name and civil Exiftence. Their Excufe was, that they were tricked out of their Child. The Gentleman wanted to bor- row the Child, not to buy him out and out. He wanted Twins to (hew his Wife, jufl brought to-bed of Twins, who were both dead ; and it was ncceifary to have them with blue Eyes, that P. P. yos- "• they might correfpond with thofe fte had loft: And which is very remarkable, the Gentleman 743. c. told her what he meant to fay to his Wife, namely, That though the other Child was too weak to be brought to her, that this ought to be kept in the Houfe, becaufe the other was fo weakly, that it was neceflarv to take Care of this. — Now it is abfolutely impolFible that any Body alive Ibould think of telling a Lying-in Woman that one of her Children lliould be taken Care of becaufe he was ftrong, and the other not, becaufe he was weak. — She had read in the Monitoire, that the weakeft of Lady Jane's Children had been fent into the Country for frefji Air ; and her Way of weaving in that Story was to fuppofe, that the Reafon of keeping the ftrong Child with them was, becaufe he was worth Care, and of fending the weak one out was, becaufe he was not. CHAP. IV. The original Account by the Mignons, of the Manner of lofttig their Child, totally different Jrom that invented fince the Monitoire. '■ TJ OW to diftinguifh the Fragments of Truth at the Bottom of a Story, which has under- ^-^ gone fo much Perverfion, from the firft Lies to the laft Perjuries, furpaffes common Induftry and Difcernment. It feems difficult to deny, that fome unknown Gentleman did, at fome Time, employ old Gui- nettt to procure him a Child, with blue Eyes, as all the WitneiTcs go to that : But at what Time, what Sort of Perfon, and how old the Child was, are Articles which there is very little Light upon. That this fame hicognito defired a new-born Child, is an incidental Part of the original Pretence, that the Child was lent. It was neceffary to give fome Pvcafon for defiring it ; and Ihewing it to a Lady juftdelivered, occurred as the moft obvious : But to prevent Miftakes, this was again prompted by the Monitoire: And this Part of the Story favours the more of Invention, becaufe Mignon told Ods- 7' J- c- neau, another of their Witneffes, that the unknown Gentleman would not tell her for what Purpofe he wanted the Child, which gave her much Trouble. Odeneau alfo fays, that flie never knew for what Purpofe the unknown Gentleman wanted a Child. That he defired Twins is another Circumftance which partakes of the Story told in the MonU toire, but is rather inconfiftent with the Reft of the Hiftory, as the Witnefles deliver it. Old Gui- Tteite applied firft toCharlan for her Child; and it was but in Confequence of being dif.ippointed 706. a. there, that flie applied to Mignon ; and upon obtaining Mignon'?, Child, fhe applied no further. — This proves fufficiently, that one Child was the wholeCompafs of her Employment. Old Edo- 7,0. h. uard, in whofe Houfe the Drcfs was changed, and who is the only Witnefs to the Tranfacfion unconvicted of Perjury, fpeaks only of ff«f Child being wanted ; -ixiA Odencan, Flon, and Fa/z'/o tell — — 711. h. their Story of one Child only being afked for : And Mr. D' Anjou, in that Memorial fo often men- ?'+• d. tioned, betrays manlfeft Confcioufnefs, that the Circumftances reclaimed againft the Idea of ''°+" °' Twins being alked for ; for he takes the Trouble to mifreprefent the Evidence. He fays, that on Twins being alked for, old Guinette propofed it to two Women, as if there had been no Interval or Occurrence between ; that both liftencd to it, and both were appointed to the Church of Noire Dame ; that Charlan came there firft (infinuating it happened by mere Accident), and re- fufed to part with her Child ; that Mignon alfo came to the fame Place, and did deliver her Child ; ftii! conveying that one Appointment brought them both there ; and xkvACharhmi Refufal was the only Reafon of their not producing two at once. He leaves the Queftion to ftiift for itfclf, Why, when they had got one, and found it impoffible to have another, they chofe to give out Twir.s at all. When Mr. D'Anjou had once fhaped his Plan of Evidence, he had to do with People who were enough prejudiced and engaged, by fome Means or other, to propagate their RecoUeClion of the Story in any Form he pleafed ; and this will account why, after fuch a Length of Time, fome of the Witnefles on their Examination fancy, or fay they fancy, to have lieard the Story told fo before : And why others, who yet muft have been more in the Way of hearing the Story which was firft given out, remember no fuch Circumftance. But the Evidence of the Thing itfelf, which is contrary, deferves more Attention than the Witnefles to the loofe Circtmrftances of it, after lb 4ong''rimej and under fuch prefTing Influence. 'CHAP. 6%z.¥. 6X3. t. ,38 OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part lY. C H A P. V. 0/ ibe Age of MignonV Child, when he was carried off. THAT anew-born Child was either required or obtained, may well be traced to the fame Source ; and is alfo oppofed by the Evidence of the Thing itfeli. It is now manifeft, that the unknown Gcntlemaii would have taken Chorion's Child, who was five Weeks older than Alignon's ; and, if the Time were well eftabliflicd by the Witnefles, was juft feven Weeks old when he was offered. — Odoneau fays, that the Sort of Child aflced was a very r, P. -I J. H. blne-eycd Child, of three, four, or five Weeks old ; and the whole Idea of New-born fprings from the Nature of the Excufe invented. * As to what Sort of Child the unknown Gentleman got, there are three Witnefles, who had net the Honour to be of Guitiette's Acquaintance : They frequently faw Migncn, and the Child in her Arms, and fpeak pofitively to his being three Months old before he was taken away. — The Mafs which fhe fpeaks of faying for him, the very Day flie gave him away, but which flie did not 715. A. forefee would come in Evidence againft her, was on the nth of March 1749; svuh-Odeneau con- „ ^ feffes, that when ftie heard the Monitoire, flie had no Thoughts of its relating to Mignon's Child. y. P. 713. F. But thev argue that it could not be fo old, becaufe it was taken away before the Feafl: of St. Clair ; Tlirce of the Witnefles have faid fo, Guiiieite hcmg one. Now, if this be their own Memory, which in a Caufe fo condiiCled may well be doubted, there is nothing fo fallible in a Country where fo many Feafts are celebrated, as any particular Feafr.— It is much more probable that it was the Feaft of St. Louis, which being the King's Day as well as the Saint's, is more folemnly kept in Public; all King's Houfes and public Gardens being then thrown open, and all the Peo- ple, to the very lowed, make Holiday. It will be feen hereafter, that even an Ecclefiaftic, Abbe — 163 E. O'-Neily reckening by a Feaft, was miilaken, though he fliould be more likely to know the particular Holidavs from his Office, than fuch ignorant inattentive People : And the Time fixed by the odier Witneifes lofes much Credit by following the Lead of the Monitoire and Guinette. At the Time of writing the Monitoire, the Purfuers whole Plan of Evidence was to prove, that „ _ the Child was too old to be born on the lOth of July ; and therefore they ftate, in that fliameful Pub- ■'' ^ lication, that he was fix Weeks or two Months old ; and /!//>««« follows the ^ffwfj/W fo far as to V P -46 E. fwear that any Body would have thought him three Months. When the Sale of Mignons Child was difcovered, that Propofition which had been fo folemnly averred in Fraud of the Religion of the Country, was given up for falfe.— It will be remembered that . gg p their Plan, at this Time, was to prove, by Means of Duruijpau, that they came into Michel's on the 8th of July, and got their Child, during their double Refidence between AJichel's and Gode- -, froi's.-—Thurfday the iith was pitched upon as the Day, becaufe that was the Day when the 75'' "•- "Work was given up at the Manufactory ; -AnAAlignon faid, that he went earlier than ordinary to give up the Work, that he might attend his Wife. Accordingly the Mignons fay the Child was twelve or thi;teen Days old, as he was born the 28th ofjuue, and given away the icth or nth of July—-Flon, twelve or fifteen Days o\A— Guinette^ a Week or Fortnight before the Feaft of St. Clair— Baudouin fays, it was twelve or thirteen Days old, as flic heard from Mignon—Faillo thinks her Sifter C/;(jr/ii';'s Child was fix A¥eeks old, which it was on the 4th of July---Ejiompes, two Months at the moil, which in the Mean between her outfide Account and Fai/lo'a, brings it toabout the icth or i ith oijtdy, the Time prefcribed by the Monitoire. Odeneau {?.ys, it was fome Days before St. Clair: Guinette, a Week or a Fortnight .• Du>noni,he- fore the Feaft of St. Clair, on the loth or nth of July, when the Child was fixteen or fcventeen T>. P. 683. E. Days old .• Jamboii, about the Feait of St. Clair ; but Ihe adds, that the Child was two Mo:uhs old. When the Plan of fixing Sir John and his Family at Michel's on the 8th was blown up by the Deteftion of the Perjury upon which it proceeded, and they hatl reforted to a contradictory Idea, namely, that they had ftaid at Godefroi'stWl the 14th, it became ncceiliiry to poitpone the Time of the taking Alignon's Child, to make it accommodate. But unluckily their Witnefles had all been examined, or elfe, widi fuch Witnefles, there would have been nothing fo eafy. . The only Circumflance in the Evidence they could lay held on, without imputing Perjury to their "Witncffes, was the Preference made by fome of them to St. C/i7;V's Day. It falls orditiarily FwP. 734, F-. upon the i8lh oi July annually ; but they produced, after Durulffiau had failed them, one Morticr to prove, that it was in Fact celebrated en A'londay the 22d of July 1 748 : And they argue, that the Child was taken upon 'Thiufday\!'.\z\%'^^, on the Authority, as they fay, of fcvcral Witnefles, vvho mark it by St. Clair's Day. Tlie 7+6. B. 707. r. ■730. B. ' 70+. F. 701. H. ....» ■71;. 0, 718. C. I2j) Book II. M I G N O N's C H I L D. The feveral ■Witneffes are four, out of whom Gutneite fays it was a Week or a Fortnight before St. Clair, which flill keeps it back to Thurfday the nth. Jambon, the fecond, only fays about St. Clair ; but fhe is fure the Child was between two and three Months old. Dumont, the third, mentions St. Clair ; but is withal pofitive to the loth or nth. Odeneau, the fourth Witnefs| slfo refers to St. Clair's Day : But Odeneau fays the Child was five or fix Weeks old. So that two of the Witnefles who mention St. Clair are given up, becaufe they have flrained too clofe after the Monitoire, which was written upon a Plan now abandoned ; and the other two fpeak to a Cir- cumftance lefs fallible, the Age of the Child, which places it long after St. Clair The Feafts kept in France by all the labouring People are too numerous to make them certain Epochs. Therefore the parole Evidence will fix it jufl; where it did upon their firfl Plan. The beft and cleareft Part of it carries the Event forward to September. Thofe who infift upon an earlier Date abfolutely confine it to Thurfday the nth of July : And, which-ever Set of Witnefles gain Credit, the Event muft have happened too foon, or too late, to fuffer an Application to Sir John Stewart : And the Entry in the Records of the Church of St. Efprit fixes it to have happened in March 1749. And yet this is the Purfuers whole Argument, to flrcw that in Point of Time it may, not that it actually does, apply to Sir John Stewart. CHAP. VI. Of the Perfons who carried off MignonV Child. 'T^ H E Purfuers next endeavour to (hew, that the Perfon« correfpond in Defcription to Sir John *■ Stewart ; and they do not fay whom elfe, the Lady being fo totally unlike both Lady Jane and Mrs. Hewit, that it is not convenient to infill; upon either. The Difficulty of recolle£ling Looks and Figures was fo much encreafed by the Monitoire, that they could not, at laft, diftinguilh between a Man and a Woman. Mignon told Lorette, that old Guinette introduced her to two Gentlemen at the Parvis of Notre Dame -, D. P. 6 54, c, and that thofe two Gentlemen, without any Woman, took away the Child. She fometimcs faid {he had been impofed on, becaufe they would not tell their Names and Abode: And at other Times fhe faid (lie never afked their Names'; becaufe if flie had, they would have deceived her. ——Faillo alfofpeaks of Gentlemen with whom her Sifter tranfadted. Flon heard the Report as P- P- 704. c. of three Perfons ; D'Eflampes, Odeneau, Bourgeois, Anne Kanper, Canivet and his Wife, heard ^-P-^^^.b. only of a Gentleman. ' ^' ^- ^°*- ^ ' The Height of the Gentleman was, as they pretend, exaftly noted. It was a little taller than ^^ ^'|" ^" Mignon's Hufband. Mignon fays he was five Feet and an Inch or two. The Wife fays, he was of a _Z He! f.' ftrong Make, a white Face, a little tanned, in good Plight, and pretty full : The Hufband, that 753. g. he was white-faced, a little tanned, fair Eye-brows, and blue Eyes, between fifty and fixty Years old : Odeneau, that he was fat and ftrong. His Drefs Mignon defcribes to be a maron-coloured 71-. d. Coat, quite plain ; wearing a Wig, does not know whether in a Bag ; a large plain Hat : The Hufband, a plain cinnamon-coloured Coat, large plain Hat. Odeneau fpeaks of his Waiftcoat .,, d. being all Gold. The Woman who was with him, fays the Woman .M/|no», was well drefTed, about thirty-four ,.5 „ or thirty-five Years, a little taller than herfclf, who was four Foot ten, below the middle Size, and well built, which fhe explains d'une bonne Corporance, and of a full white Face. Mignon agrees with his Wife, that fhe was thirty-five at moft, of a white Complexion, in good Plight, pretty full, and near as tall as the Gentleman. There are but three Inches between the Height of Mignon s Wife and the unknown Gentleman, therefore alnio/l as tall as the Gentleman in Mig- non's Mouth, is pretty much the fame as a little taller than herfelf in his Wife's. As to her Drefs, her Hair was quite full of Powder, fo as tjiere was no Diftin£lion of Colour. .Her Head- 748. i.' Drefs one fwears was Fri'wfZ', the other Foreign. Bourgeois, another of their WitnefTes, fays flie 746. '. was defcribed to her as looking like a Chamber-maid. Flon fays the Woman who came to Mig- 753- '• non'& Houfe two or three Times was well drefTed, and looked like a Chamber-maid. ^ '!' °' Now Sir John Stewart was of a clear Complexion, and was above five Feet ten Inches high ; ^'*" '' a Sort of Difference which makes the moft ftriking Part of any Man's Appearance. The Dif- ference between fome Inches above, and fome Inches below, the ordinary Height of Men, whofe Height happen to have been the Obje}-*^' But their own Witnefles examined as to the Age, and Make, of the Child which was nurfed at Michel's, demonfb-ate, that it could not be the fame Child defcribed by the Aligmns, who might have palled for a Child three Months old. Fame hys, he7nigl}the. three "Weeks or a 881. c. Month old ; that he was in fo bad a Condition that one would not have taken him for eight Days old ; but that he had not the red Colour which Children retain the firft eight or ten Days ; and that his Belly was not in Bandages, and that his Navel-String was off: And one other Witiief;, 869. f. after being led through the Toumelle with fuch pointed Averments as have been mentioned, ad- vances as far as three Weeks, or a Month ; adding, that his Skin was fair, as Children are at that Age, the red Colour, which lafts from four to eight Days, being gone. If the Children's Ages, which in Fact differed but eleven or twelve Days, feem to approximate, recolle£ted after fo long an Interval, and under fuch unfair Examination, the Condition they were in cannot be brought to any Degree of Piefcmblance ; for a Child fo ftrong and fat as Mig- nons, if abfolutely ftarved for twenty-four Hours, might have died ; but it would coft much longer Time, and bad Nurfing, to bring it down to the State Nurfe Favre found the Defendant in; who gives no other Reafon for fuppofing him more than eight Days old, but that the red Colour was gone off, and his Belly was not tied up in Bandages. Nurfe Mangin fays, that when D. P. 596.C, Ihe took him about the 8th or 9th of Augujl, he was very little, and appeared to be about a Month old, which was his real Age. All the Witnefles agree, that with Nurfe Favre % Care and Milk, he recovered and throve ; and yzt Alangin thought him a little Child of a Month, with black Hair and Eyes, who ought to have been a large Child of fix Weeks, with fair Hair and blue Eyes, to have anfwered their Dcfcription. CHAP. VIIL Of the Drefs of Mr. Douglas founded en by the Purfuers. A Nother Point of extraordinary Refemblance is found in their Drefs. The Drefs of Mr. Dou- ■^~* g/flf is thus defcribed by their Witnefles. Aliehel finds Nothing in it to remark, but that P. P. S53.1. the Linen upon its Head was like the Child of a Bourgeois. Her Teltimony they drop, and refer to that of Nurfe Favre, to whom, being in a ftill lower Situation, the Linen appeared very 88j.d.--i, fine, and the Lace magnificent : She defcribes it to be Edging of Muflin, about an Inch broad *. Her Hufband, who was a Joiner, fays, the Lace was about half an Inch broad ; the Linen, how- p p ^gi. r. ever, appeared to him fine, and the Lace magnificent: But even to him the Cloaths did not ap- 591. v. pear magnificent, but middling. His Wife was not aiked to the Cloaths. —I/aiel IValkcr fays, ,^0. a. the Cloaths, which were made before going from Rheims, were fuch as any Gentleman would provide on fuch an Occafion, not remarkably fine ; they were of Cambrick, with a narrow Edging. The Drefs which the unknown Gentleman brought for AFignon's Child, as it was conftandy p p -00. t-. defcribed without Reference to Particulars, was magnificent indeed, fit for the Dauphin, and 713. d. worth a thoufand Livres. It is impoffible to coUedt: a Refemblance in the Drefs from thefe De- 7'9' ^'. fcriptions. If the laft deferve any Attention, they were moft ftrikingly unlike. The Purfuers have the Happinefs to be furprifcd with the Conformity between the Drefs of Mr. Douglas, as oLferved by Nurfe Favre, and the Drefs of the Child which Mignon fold. Migiion obfervcd, that the Gentleman had brought Waiftcoats of Linen, and alfo Dimity. He brought too Child's Cloaths, and Swaddling-Cloaths ; but among thefe fiie obfervcd, that in • This Paflage, and the following;, from Mad. Favre'^ Oiitlis, are'erroneoufly printed in the Puilliers Proof, both in French and in the Irajillatidn ; but is corrected in tlie Detender's Memorial, p. 459, 460, T 2 Place r32 OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part III. Place of a quilted Swaddling-Cloth, he had brought one of double Linen, like a Pillow-Cafe, which flie thought not fufficient to fupport his Reins ; wherefore fhe put on her own Swaddling- Cloaths, and her own Roller, which was ftronger than theirs, to fupport his Reins : And Mr, D'Anjou has improved the Child's Drefs with the Addition of her BqJn. By this Time A'ligmn has marked the Child fufficiently for her own : Her Swaddling-Cloth, whether it was made of Sackcloth, or other fuch fuitable Material, it was fuch as Bourgeohy another Matron, who lived at the ALrmald, had lent her ; it feems as if fhe had none of her own : Her Roller, as dirty and as ragged as poflible to imagine ; and her Beguhi, or Cap, put amongft a Drefs of a ihoufand Livres : A Dauphin's Cloadis would run no Hazard of be- ing overlooked. The Evidence of Mr. Douglas's Dreft, which applies to it, is an Obfervation made by Mad. Fa- we, one of their Tourndh Witnefles, that in Place of a Dimity Swaddling-Cloth, he had one of quilted Linen ; and in Place of a Swanlkin Swaddling-Cloth, he had one of common Flannel. Of the quilted Linen, fhe fays no worfe than that it was in Place of a Dimity ; Avhereas, if Mignon had furnHhed any Swaddling-Cloth, or if hers had been of quilted Linen, Nurfe Favre would have had many more Remarks to make upon it. The Swaddling-Cloth of common Flannel, is fuppofed by the Purfuers to be the Part of Mr. Douglas's Drefs, which he borrowed from Mignon ; but it happens that Favre found the Upper- Garment of Flannel ; whereas the Swaddling-Cloth, whatever it was, which Mignon furniihed, was put underneath, next the Shirt. ITiis was called in the oral Pleading, " a dirty old Rag ;" which it certainly would have been if Mignon had furniflied it. But Nurfe Favre does not call it fo ; on the contrary, fhe faw it was of Linen, which fhe and her Hufband defcribes as fine : Nor does Mignon pretend that fhe furnifhed any fuch Thing ; and if flie had, it is too ridiculous to fuppofe they would have kept it an Hour after they had brought the Child Home. In alledg- ing that Mignon furnillied the Swaddling-CIoth of Flannel, the Purfuers feem to forget that they are fcarching after Nothing but Truth; for they happen to know from no lefs Authority than M. jindiieiix, who was unhappily dead before he could be examined in this Caufe, that this very Swaddling-Cloth of Flannel was made at Rhcims, under Madame Andiieux's Eyes : Befides that, they have mifreprefented AJignons Words to alledge it at all ; and if they had not, Mignon is con- victed of Perjury. Nurfe Favre makes no Obje£lion to the Roller, which her Nofe would have objedled to, if it laad been there ; nor to the Night -Cap, which was probably a Degree or two worfe. And after all, Nurfe Favre feems to be mifapprehended ; for her Objeftion was rather to the Arrangement of the Drefs, which was after the EngliJJj Fafliion, than to the Materials of it. In undreffing a French Child, according to Richekt, flie would have met with a Swanlkin, then a Dimity, and then a quilted Linen ; in the Place of which, according to the EngliJI} Faflrion, af- ter opening the outfide Coat or Robe, fhe firfl met with a Flannel Swaddling-Cloth, and then quilted Linen over the Waiftcoats. This is a Solution of all the Surprife fhe expreifed : But it does not fignify a Rufh whether the Surprife be folved or no, as it certainly turned upon a very diiTerent Subjedl than any Part of a Child's Drefs furniihed by Mignon. P. P. S65. T. It feerrs to be forgotten alfo by the Purfuers, that Blninville, another of their WitnefTes, un- dreiTed and drelTed the Child before it was delivered to Favre ; and if any fuch fdthy Difpropor- tion, as they now fuppofe, had been found in the Drefs, Ihc mull have obferved it. Another Topic upon which they infift, is the Unlikenefs of Mr. Douglas to Sir "Jolm Siezuarf,. and his Likenefs to the Woman Mignon, admitting his Unlikenefs to the Man Mignon. His Unlikenefs to Sir yohn Suiuart is proved by an AfTertion of the Purfuers, that it is believed Sir 'Johns Eyes were blue ; but of this there is no Evidence in Procefs. His Hair and Com- D. P. 410. F. p'exion were changed with Age ; but his eldeft Son has a very remarkable and flriking Refem- &c. blance to Mr. Douglas, as feveral Witnefles in Procefs have fworn. His Likenefs to the Woman Mignon is aflcrted in a Memorial which is ftill lefs correcl than the lail ; it is printed under the Name of " Mr. Stnvan's Journal." 'i'he feveral Perfons are re- ferred to, as capable of proving the Likenefs; but thofe Peifons have let the Memorial fliift for itfelf, lor no one of them has offered to prove any fuch Thing. r. P. 748, H, Infiead thereof, they have endeavoured to keep up this Rumour another Way, by getting a D. P. 231.11. Piftiire done of Mignon. What is become of that Pidlure, which they grew afliamed of in Framr, the Purfuers bcft know ; but if it be preferved, and contains the leal!; Point of Refemblance to Mr. Douglas, it belies the Original, (whofe Face is fcarce human) and is, to ipeak of it in the miUlefl: Way, a very mean and iujiuious Infinuation of that which they dared not attempt to prove by WiUiefTcs. PART Book III. S A N R Y's C H I L D. 133 PART IV. BOOK Iir. of the Taking away Sank y's Child. CHAP. I. General Remarks on this Cafe. THE next Article of dire£l Proof attempted by the Purfuers is to eflablifli this Propofition, That the Parents of the Defender and JMrs. Hewit ftole away a Child from the Family of Sanry, in the Month oi November 11^^, and gave him the Name of Sholto. The Plan of this Argument aims at no more than to eftahlifli, to a certain Degree, a Coinci- dence of Time and Circumftance, and to prove from thence, that Sir John could have ftolcn the Child if he would: That he aSiually did, is to be proved by a Sum in Arithmetic. In the mean Time, that Sir John would have ftolen a Child, in his then Circumftances, ex- ceeds the Power of Imagination to fuppofe. He had one Child, which if it was ftolen, as the Pur- fuers fuppofc, he muft have heartily wiflicd to be rid of. The Duke of Douglas had ftript them P. P. 532. a, even of Lady Jane's fmall Penfion, and left them involved in Debt, and almoft without Re- D. P. 60. d. fource ; Lord Mari Kerr had refufed to lend her wherewithal to difcharge their Debts at Rheims ; ' ' ^°^^-°' they had even burnt their Laces for Neceflaries ; Lord Morton, the only Friend they could think of D.P. 975. applying to, had lent them but juft fufficient to pay their Debts at Rheims, and come away : It was a hopeful Profpeft they went upon, to fteal a fuperfluous Child, beyond even what the Views im- puted to them required ; and they muft have fet about it with great Spirit and Alacrity. — This idle and improbable Story, which would not deferve Belief if maintained by direft Evidence, ftands upon no better Ground in the ilrained Argument of the Purfuers, than this, that it might he fo. — It might well be left upon their own Argument, giving them all the_ Fadls and D.ites which they alliime, in Defpite of the Evidence to the contrary, that it could not pofllbly be true : But the leaft Attention to the Evidence is enough to fliew, that it is abfolutcly, and phyfically, impoffible. It is not true, as the Purfuers alledge, that Sir John Stauart, Lady Jane, Mrs. Hewit, or Shcltot were at Paris when Sanrys Child was ftolen. It is not true, that there is any Refemblance between the three fivfl, and the Perfons defcribed as the Ravilhers ; or between the laft and the Child carried olT. C H A P. II. Cf the Time cf Sir John's Journey to Paris in November 1749 ; his Stay at Paris and Return. TTPON the firft Head, it will be neceflary, ift. to fettle, as nearly as maybe, the precife Time Sir John Stewart went and returned to Paris : 2d. The Time when the Child of Samy was in Truth carried off. Tliat P^rt of Sir John's Story, which they labour to bend and inter-wcave in Point of Time, at leaf!:, with the Period in which Sanry's Child was fubtilifed, is fliortly this. In the Month ol July, in the Year 1749, the Duke of Douglas v/as perfuaded, in the Manner p.p. ^3-. which has been mentioned, to withdraw from Lady Jane that Penfion which he paid her in Lieu of her Portion. — The Event embarrafled them beyond Meafure : They were at that Time in Debt at Rheims, and had fcantily found the Means of Subfiftence. To continue there any longer was impoffible ; and to go away without fome Relief was impoffible : Lady Jane applied in vain to Lord Mark Kerr for a Sum of Money to clear her of the Place ilie was in, and bring her home.. Lord Morton had Compaffion upon her Situation, and fent her a Bill, drawn the 15th OSJokr 1749 by Mcffrs. Couits oi Edinburgh, upon Waters of Paris ; and wrote to her at the fame Time a Letter, which fhe received fome Time before the 29th of OHaber, and advifed her to come over to England direftly. She, in her Letter, dated at London the 26th of Decejnher, : either of them be exa£t in the Time. It is certain, however, that after having lodged three Nights in the Hotel garni, where they alighted, they paid their Lodging to the Servant ; Mrs. Hewit thinks the Miftrefs not being in the Way ; and fet oiF to take up the Child and carry him to the Place where their Chaife waited. *J7- '• Lady Jane\ Head-ach came on with the Jolting of the Coach, infomuch that fhe could not proceed, but was fhown into a Houfe in their Way ; whether an Inn or private Lodguig Mrs. Hewit cannot be particular, but it was a good Houfe. Here Lady Jane was obliged to go to- bed, and Mrs. Hewit attended her, while Sir John and La Marrt proceeded to fetch the Child. After '5^ OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part IV. After fomc Hours, Sir 'John, La Marre, and the Nurfe, returned with the Child, who was elrefltd clean in a Calico Frock, the Drefs in which he was carried to Rkeiws. They left Par'n on the fourth entire Day, and were three or four Days on the Pioad back, by which Means their Journey took up ten or eleven Days. The Purfuers are fond, at every Turn, of faying, without Proof, that their Tranfadlions have been all along with the fimpJc View of fearching for Truth. After the Inflances to the contrary, which this Caufe affords, the Defender imagines few will tah.e their Wonl for it. li this had been fo, they would not have concealed what they have long known, that Sir jihn Stewart paid a fniall Sum of Money to Mr. Benoijl, at Rhc-iiiu, on Account of Mr. Hay, Merchant in hculognc, on the 14th of November; which Payment is entered in Mr. Benoljt's Books thus: In one, " 14 gbre, 1749, Pvegu de Mr. ^irc/w S/f iu(7?7 pour le Compte de Mr. TXtW^r^ " ^ayde 5Wi;/^« vingt deux Livresdix Sols. "---In another, " gbre 14, Retju par '^louL Stcivart " — 22 Livres — loSols." And in a third, " J4 9brei74g, P>.e9U de Mr.'Jeaji Sfciuart Ytonv " Ic Compte de 'M.r.Theodore Hay de Bouloign vingt deu:: Livres dix Sols."---Thefe Entries the Y)\:- tender has only come to the Knowledge of within thefe very few Weeks, though he is allured the Purfuers were informed of them before the Proof in Frawf ■\\'as concluded. ---However, the Want of this Piece of Evidence has done no Harm, as it is fully proved, independent of thefe Entries, thnt Sir John muft ha\e been back by the i ^ih oi November ^t latefl. This Journey, while it Rands thus dated, carries the Family quite out of the Reach of any pofhble Application of the Enlevement of Sanry's Child to them, though the Purfuers have carried it near two Months backwnrder than the Evidence does, to make it accommodate. CHAP. in. the Purfuers firft Syjlemwas, T^hat Sir John and Lady Jane arrived at Paris about the iS:b cf November, ami took a dotibk Abode, as pretended ;« July 1748; that they jlaid nine Days at Paris, and returned abciit the Beginning of December. 'T'HE Purfuers IManner of applying the Enlrjement to Sir John Stewart muft, like all the reft of their French Cafe, be traced through the Hiftory of their obtaining their Evidence, to make it in any Manner intelligible ; and this is dill more necefliiry to {hew, in their proper Point, the Palfhoods of which their Witneffes have been eonvided. From the Moment that the Enlevement of Sanry's Child was difcovered, all their Induftry was employed in applying it to Sir John, and every Art ufed, that is, every one of thofe fair Arts which occur fo often in the Courfe of this Caufe, and which ferve to diftinguilh it from all other civil Pro- cefl'es.— The clearell Story imaginable was given out, and had the good Luck to be fupported by the clearefl Evidence— a Piece of good Luck, which mud attend any Story where fuch Evidence as fills the Records of the Court of Seffion in this Matter is admitted to apply. They averred, in their Plainte oi' June 28th, and in their Condefcendence before theCourt of Sef- fion, (one being a Plea in the Tournelle, and the other in the Court of SelTion atone and the fame Cond.p.ij.K. Time) and m their Monitoire, which was affixed in all the publick Places in Paris by the 24th of July, That upon their Arrival at Priris they put up at a Lodging-Houfe of one Renauld, in the Place D-P. 1013.B. St. Michael, which is the further End oi Paris (xom Rheinu on the 19th oi November, by their real Names of Colonel Steuart, a Scotti/h INIan, and his Wife : That they (laid here but two Days, and then went to an Inn kept by the Widow Sdlc, the Sign of the Croix de Per, Rue St. Denis, where, by a Repetition of very remarkable Circumllances attending their firfl Journey, they went under the feigned Name of Duverne, Gentilhomme de Kcrgue en Ireland, avecfa Fe/mnc&fa Socur : That they ftaid in this laft Place from Friday the 2ilf to Saturday the 29th : That they applied on Sun- diy the 23d to the Cure oi St. Laurent, to be informed of fome Family who would be glad to have a Child reared for them by a charitable Lady that Wav difpofed ; but not caring to difclofe the Name of fuch Lady, the Cure refufed to affift him with any Information : That the next Day, or at leafl: foon after, (for indeed the next, which was doubtlefs the Day, croiTes the reft of their Story) he applied to the Sijhrs of Charity, who fent him to a M^oman called Le Gris : This Woman went to four feveral Houfes ; in tlie lafl of which he found a Child to his Mind, after refufing Girls and many other Childten : On the next Day he retiuned with a Lady, who alio approved the Child, and bargained for it, giving the Parents eighteen Livres to buy Clo.aths, and fome Money for them- k-lves : That the next, or third Day, they took the Child home to the Croix de Per : That the fourth Day the Parents grew uneafy about having parted with him, and returned with a Ilefolution to take him away ; but finding him fo well taken Care of, tliey (Ull left liim : But on the fifth Day their Difquietude Book III. S A N R Y's C H I L D. 137 Difquietude returned upon them, and they went, rcfolved to have him : But on the Evening be- fore, «'. e. on Saturday Night, the Gentleman, his Wife, and Sifter, decamped at Midnight, pre- tending to go to St. Germain en Laye, but they went in Fa£t to Rheims; for the Boy of the Inn wondered they (hould pretend to go to St. Germain, and talce the Road of Champaigne. This circumftantial Story required for its Application to Sir John, that he fliould have fet out on the 15th or 1 6th from Rheims, i. t. three or four Days after Sir John was come back ; and it required alfo that he fhould return-to Rheims about the 2d oi December. The Purfuers had the good Fortune to make confiderable Intereft with an Irijh Abbe, one O^Neil, who then lived at Sir IValtcr Rutledgeh, in the Neighbourhood of Rheims ; and as the Nature of the Procefs they were carrying on with the Effedls of their Pupil, and without Profpeft of Advant- age to him, required they (hoidd be great CEconomifts, they ufed this Abbe both as a V/itnefs and an Agent ; and the Fruits of his Zeal for their Service were thefe : He undertook to know very particularly Sir John and his Family ; to have invited him to celebrate P. p. 259. l. Martinmas with him ; and that he excufed himfelf on Account of preparing for his Journey, tho' it happens, as hefwears, that the whole Preparation was made by himfelf ; he lent the Chaife, and hired the Horfes : He adds, that it was about that Time they went away. He undertakes alio to 160. b, know that they were abfent about eighteen Days ; and that they returned about the 2d Day of De- itii, r. cember ; at leaft, he faw them immediately after their Return on the Evening of that Day. He will not allow it polhble to be miftaken in this, becaufe it was the Feaft of St. Xavier, which is highly celebrated by the Jefuits, with whom he had dined that Day : And he knew alfo that it was five or fix Days after this they fet out for England. To make out the Number of Days eighteen, it was neceflary to account for the Time beyon^ what fuch a Journey would require ; therefore he remembers alfo, that the Driver told him he had ftaid nine Days at Filletie. That he ftaid at Villette Sir John had depofed : The Time is fupplied i6i. s, by the Abbe's Attention to his Syftem ; and the Driver added, that being uneafy about it, he went in Search of him on the 6th or 7th Day ; and that Sir John iatisfied him, and told him the Day he meant to fet off, as he accordingly did. The Purfuers went upon very good Grounds, in fuppofing that this Teftimony of Abbe O'Neil's would want Support ; and they difpatched him in Quell of more Evidence. He, from a Motive i6i. k. of pure and difinterefted Zeal to Jultice, travelled near three Hundred Miles in Queil of more Witnefles. The Driver himfelf was dead, but his Place was fupplied by one Fuyet, who was the Son of that Fuyet whom the Abbe feems to have called by Miftake Loyer ; and tlie Account he has been prevailed on to remember, as told him, he docs not fay by whom, is : That the Abbe hired his Fa- js^. o, ther at Marais, in the Prefence of the Gentleman and Lady, at the Piate of tenLivres a Day : That tire Day being fixed, he vv^as to have driven them, and reckoned to have been back from Amiens Time enough ; but the Gentleman chufing to go fooner by two Days than the Time he had fixed, at his Re- turn he found that he went the very Day himfelf returned. From thefe Circumftances he calculates, that he muft have let out between the loth and the 15th of Nove?nber ; that being the State of his Memory as to the Time. He returned from his firft Journey to A?niens.—Hc made a fecond Jour- ney to Amiens, and upon his Pieturn met Leverm'e at the Garenne de Gueux with the Chaife, a»d a Gentleman fitting on the Box with Leverm'e, and three Women, whom he alfo undertakes to de- fign ; that one was the Lady, the fecond a Lady's Companion, and the third a Nurfe with a Child : And this he fuppofes to be towards the End of November, but he cannot charge his Me- -^-jflr. i, mory with the Time. He follows O'Neil in reporting the Converfation of Leverme about the lime he ftaid at Paris. This Witnefs has confounded the Story, in which he follows O'Nei/. The Memory he afFcds of meeting Leverme, who muft have been going to the fame Place with himfelf and three Women, is plainly a purpofed Falftiood blunderingly told : He contradifls G'^Neil altogether in the Pallage about his Father being hired ; and, if any Reliance were to be had upon him, he confirms Sir John, Mrs. Hewit, Jfabel Walker, Mad. Maillefer, and Mad. Mayette, as to the Time of Sir yoA'j's going ; for by placing the Tranfadtion between his Father and the Abbe antecedent to his firft Journey to Amiens, he carries it to the latter End of Oiioher or Beginning of November : And the Abbe having reprefented his Application to ri/yet, and his engaging Leverme at the fame Time, it would follow that both muft have been at the fame Time, correfponding to that on which Sir John really fet out, the 2d or 3d of November. Sitnone is brought only to depofe the Converfation of Leverme, much as O'Neil had done before. 26S. 1. Thus ftood the Proof ; That they had fet out fome Time about the Middle of November from Rheims; had arrived at Renaud's, m the Rue Franchourgeois, on or before TVednefday the 19th; had gone to the Croix de Fer on or before Friday the 21ft, keeping, as in 1748, the double U Demeure -, 138 OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part IV. Demeure ; had ftaid there till Saturday the 29th of November ; and had come back to Rheims on the I ft or 2(1 of December. It wanted nothing but another Abbe to fwear that Leverme had com- plaiiied he was knocked up at Midnight ; to lupply which, the A'lonkoire puts in the Alternative, that they had fet out either in the Night or very early in the Morning ; and the Condefcendence, before the Court of Seffion, changes it altogether to the Morning. It was owing altogether to Accident, that fuch as can think this a Species of Evidence fit to be attended to, have not convicted Sir yolm and Lady 'Jane of itealing a Child on Saturday the agih P. P. ;4i. I', o'' November ; before which he had been at Rheims a Fortnight, and was adlually one Day's Journey on the Road to St. Outer's. CHAP. IV, Col. Stewart 0/ Ardfhiel claimed one cf the Lodging:-, and the reft of this S\Jlem over- turned by the Difc.very of a Letter from Sir John to Mad. Andrieux. "Y/'EllY luckily it was difcovered that Col. Sleiuart oi ArdJ^iiel and his Wife had been at Parti D. P. jSj. F. about that Time : The Colonel was dead, and his Wife could not remember the Name of the Houfe, the Landlord, nor of the Street. In fliort, flie was as profligate as Sir fohn Steuiart and Mrs. Hewity the very fame Myfterioufneis and Concealment, and there is nothing wanting but a Plot to charge her with. She remembers none of the Houfes in which her Hufband lodged ; flie remitted him Money to Paris, and does not know w hich Way ; and the only Way flie had of getting to her Houfe was by driving to that of one Nunez, in the Rue de FoJJle le Prince, where fhe had direfted her Hufl.)and's Letters, from whence fhe had been in Ufe to pafs and repafs to her own Lodging : Alighting from the Coach there, flie found her Way to the Houfe of Renaud, in the Rue Fiancbourgeois. This double Abode is now given up by the Purfucrs, who are content: with exprefling their Refentments to the Witnefs by calling her bribed, becaufe the Defender's Agents had advanced her fome Money, as a Loan, without which fhe could neither have tra- velled from or to Boulogne, nor exifted at Parh ; and what is ilill worfe, the Duchefs of Douglas having hired a Veflel to come to England, brought Mrs. Stewart over, without charging her^ as. fhe ought, with her Share of the Expence. This, and another accidental Difcovery of Sir fohn's Letter of the 1 oth of December abovementioned> P. P. 24.1.. E. which was produced after Abbe O'AWs Examination, altogether diffipated the Whole of the Story r Andthe Defender was not more fortunate in the Difcovery than in the Time of its Produ6lion ; forif the Purfuers had called for a Production of Letters three Months before, none of their Witnefles would have been catched in any of their Falfhoods, no more would have been heard of St. Xavier's Day, or the eighteen Days Abfence ; for other Dates and other Converfations of Leverme would have been in Proof, and it would have become more difficult to feparate Sir "John, in Point of Time, from Duverne. That fuch would have been the Cafe, is aflerted fo pofitively, not proceeding upon bare Probability, fpringing from the Character and Tenor of Andrew Stuart's Condudt in the Caufe, but upon exprefs Evidence, that he did exactly the fame Sort of Thing. The Cure of St. Laurent h;>d been milled by the Converfations of the Purfuers Agents, not like O^Neil, to take upon him the ICnowIedge of Falfhoods, but to make Conjeftures upon Dates and »73.E. Times againft the Truth. A Letter of his own was traced, which fervcd to mark the Time DP. 170. B. exa(flly ; and Mr. Andrew Stuart, who, unluckily for Juftice, got Notice of the Difcovery, went direftly to apprize the Cure of it, that when he fiiould be examined on the Subjeft again, he might be able to fence the Conclufion. But, notwithllanding every Pradlice of the Purfuers, as the Proof ftands, there is nothing oppofed to the Evidence of Sir 'John, Mrs. Heivit, Ifabel Walker, Mefdames Affl/7/^r and iWay^/Zf, but the Teftimony of two Witnefles, O'Neil zj\A Vuyety who are refuted in every Article which they pretend to the Knowledge of: And their Falfhoods are further marked with the Intention to accommodate to the evil Purpofes of the Purfuers. LTpon this Part of the Cafe, therefore, the Weight of Evidence preponderates, decifively to eftablifh^ that they went from Rheims on the 2d or 3d of November, and returned on the 12th or 13th. C H A P. V. Time of the Enlevement. 'T' H E Evidence of the Enlevement of Sanry\ Child has fufFercd various Diftortions, to be ap« ■*■ plied to Sir "John Steiuart. P.P. 590. K. Tlie firft Information they had of this Paflage was from one Recicourt, their Agent at Rheims ; who heard oi an Event which was nearly at the Time they were anxious to get Information about : He heard it from Abbe Poute^ who had heard it from the Cure of St Laurent. The Boole III. S A N R Y's C H I L D. 139 'jriie Cure of St. Laurent had no Knowledge of his own of the Month or Day, but, before his Examination, had been hjd by Converfation and Enquiries to make Conjectures about it. All he fays of his own Knowledge is, that on fome Sunday or Holiday, a (ientleman came to p. J>. j-o. e. fpcak with him, and told him that a Lady of Contlition wilhed to do Good to any poor Families who were burdened with Children, and begged a Lift of poor Women in this Situation ; but on his declining to mention the Name of the Lady, he refufed to give him fuch Liii: : He then en- quired where the Sifters tf the Charity lived, v/hich he anfwered in a vague and indefinite Way- He heard no more of it till fome Days after the Child was carried off; nor does he remember by whom he was informed of it ; but imagines it was by the Sifter i2«»t' or her Companion ; as they, or one of them, had told him before of the Gentleman's diflributing Alms while he was with them : Whereupon he fent for the Woman Saury, to learn the Circumftances from her ; who told him, that f!ie had carried the Child to the Croix de Fer, Rut St. Denis, and left it there v/ith a Gen- tleman and two Ladies : That (ke went the next Day to take it back, b'.it finding it well taken Care of, fhe fiill left it : That {he returned the Day following, and found that the Perfons to whom fhe had given it were gone. It was faid they went to St. Ger^nain, where Sanryweni him- felf in Queft of them ; and not having found them there, he ran over fevcral other Places in vain. The Cure informed the Lieutenant de Police of it by Letter, to which he thinks he received an Aiifwer. In the OfRce of Police was found a Book, called a Regijlre de Renvoles, beginning the 15th of July 1 749, and ending tlie iiAoiJanuary 1750 ; and therein is the following Entry : " Letter from the Ctv e 275. e. " of St. Laurent, upon the Subjeft of one Duvernay,\v'ho has carried off the Child of one Sanry, under *' Pretence of placing him v/ith a Lady of Condition, who would educate him. He has given a " falfe Addrefs," dated the loth oi January 1750. On the Column which contained the Date of the Renvoi, this Date of the lOth ai January 1750, relates to the fourth, fifth, andHalf of the fixth Page, D.P. 270.*, and the Entry is on the fifth Page. This Book was then kept by one HamecoitU, Secretary of the Cabinet to the Lieutenant de Pclice ; and this Secretary wrote every Day in his Book, all Memoirs, Placets, and Letters, which were fent to the Lieutenant de Police : And the Cuftom is, every Day to make two Tranfmiffions from the Cabinet of the Lieutenant to the feveral Ofbces ; that in the Morn- ing, of all Papers fent after the preceding Afternoon ; that in the Afternoon, of all fent fince the Morning. Chaban and Htiguenin were then the firfl: Commis, to whom the Tranfmiffions were made. The firft, fecond, and greatefl; Part of the third Page is figned Chaban -, the reft of the third Page Huguenin ; and feeing the fourth, fifth, and Half the fixth Pages are figned Chaban, it is the Opi- nion of M. Hochet de la Terrier, the prefent Secretary, that this Letter did not arrive till after the firft Tranfmiffion of the loth of January had been made to the Office of Chaban. The Ufage alfo is, that each of thefe firft Commis, to whom fuch Tranfmiffions are made, diftri- butes his Papers, lb fent, to different Secretaries of his Department ; and accordingly, in the Office of M. Laurent,oncoi\.\\c Secretaries of M. Chaban s Department, a Regiftcr was kept, beginning the 20th December 1749, and ending the 29th of O£iober 1750, in which is found of the fame Date, the lOth oi January 1 7 50, an Entry of the Letter from the Cure of St. Laurent, againft one Duvcrnay, _ _ who has ftolen a Child : And it appears alfo from the fame Book, that the Letter was put into the " ' °''''" '' Hands of Mr. Pcufot to make Enquiries; who does not appear to have made any Reports upon it. — Thus it is proved in the moil authcntick Manner, that the Cure's Letter was fent on the Afternoon oi Saturday the. 1 0th of yawwary 1 750. As to the Time of the Enlevement, Dumenil fays very pofitively, that it was late on a Saturday ^g, - Night when the Child was carried away. He f lys he opened the Gate of the Inn to let them out „ " ^ at Midnight ; his Wife fays flie lighted them to their Coach betwixt eleven and twelve o'CIock ; 25, " p' the Widow Selle fays they went away early in the Morning before fhe was out of Bed. Four Days were taken up in procuring and carrying the Child away. On the firft, the Gentle- 175. d. man went round to the fevcral Houfcs to look at Children : On the fecond, he c;\mc in the Af.er- noon, as the Woman Sanry fays, and gave her Eighten Livres to drefs the Child ; as Lugris fiiys, lie came in the Morning, and he and the Lady in the Afternoon, when they gave the Moiiey; add- ing, as they reprcfent, that he had a Houfe in St. Gcnnain, where they might come and fee their Child : On the third Day, they took the Child to theC;W;«- de F^r : On the fourth they went with a ., Purpofetotake him back ; but finding him well taken Care of, they left him : On the fifth Day, v.hidi, according to DumenU, was the Sunday, they returned with the fame Purpofe, and the Geiulcm.ui and his Women were gone. The Cure, and the Sanrys having been examined before the Letter of the loth cf Janu- ary 1750, was difeovcred, were not led by any Queftions to fjx-ak precifely of the Dates of their Ap- plication to the Cure, or of his to the Lieutenant de Police. All that he had faid about it was, that he had heard from the Sjlers of the Charity, of the diftributing of Alms before the Enlevement, and tliat they had alfo told him of the Enltvement -, but at what Time jtreci.cly, he doss not fay, p p , U 2 only :90. I, 140 OF THE TAKING AWAY Part IV only ty.nt it wa? fome Duys after the Event of the Cliild's being carried off. The Woman Saury ^ -gi. G. telJs the Stoiy of the Child being taken away; of tiie Addrefs to St. Germain ; of her Hufband's go- ing there on the iJay after, whiLh was the Monday ; of his Difappointment, and his fctting out on the loiirney, which the Witneffes defcribe to be of fix or eight Months ; and then proceeds to fpeak of her Application to the Cive : Upon which (lie fays that ihtCwe fent for her two or three Days after» which niuf}, in the Nuturc of the Thing, mean two or three Days after the Event happened. For if it was after the Return, it would have been in the Summer 1750 : Nor is this difputed ; for in the. Turfuers Pleadings in France, the Hufband is ftated to take the Journey, and the Wife to have ap- Cond.p.15. F. lied to the Cure. In their Condefcendence to the Court of Seffion, the Application is faid to have been made to the Cure foon after; and every Circunillance fpeaks, that it nniil have been while the Aflair was frelh, and probably, as they ilate it thenifches, in two, three, or four Days after it hap- pened.— -On the Difcovery of the Letter, the Cure was examined again, from an Anxiety to fix his Memory more precifely by the Date of that Letter ; but unluckily for Juftice, Mr. Stuart had Notice of the Difcovery and Accefs to the Cure, and went to apprize him of it, that he might fliape his Anfwers accordingly. However, he could not change the Date of Duwrw's Application to him, nor could he much poilpone his Application to the Lieutenant de Police. He was obliged to confefs, that D. P 26S B. the Afi'air re([uired Alertnefs and Difpatch ; and fays, that he cannot, at this Di fiance of Time, fpecify the Number of Days which intervened exadly ; but it could not be more than three, four, or five Days, and perhaps lefs. But though it was impoflible for the Cure to change the Dates, after what he had fworn before» that the Sijlers of the Charity had converfed with him before the Enlevement concerning the Gentle- man's diflributing Alms ; and that he heard of the Enlevement itfelf fome Days after it happened, and fent for the Woman Samy, which the Woman herfelf confines to two or three Days ; and after declaring, (as the Nature of the Thing fliows) that it was a Matter requiring DUpatch^ and confequently was not delayed: Though after this he could not alter the Time, the Purfuers contrived to draw from him a ConjedJure delivered with exprefs Diffidence and Sufpicion of it* , jgj. ,, That he had remarked in the Letter to the Police, that the Perfon who took away the Child had faid he was going to St. Germain, and from thence to Rouen ; but that he was to be found in neither. This doubtful Conjefture of the Cure, they fay, is fupported by that PafTage in the Entry, that he had given a falfe Addrefs ; whereas the natural Inference is, that if he had given two falfe Addrefles, both would have been expreffed in the Diredions to the Officers to make Search, and have beea noted in the Record of fuch Dirc£tions. But they further fay, it has a wonderful Correlpondence ,— _j7i. F. with the Story ; for "James Goube fays, that they went ftraight to Rouen from St. Germain. That the only Addrefs the Gentleman ga\x was to St. Germain, if the Purfuers have proved any Thing in that Way, is eftabliflred beyond the Reach of Contradidion. p p -85. B. The Woman Dumenil, and 5(7wry the Hufband, have fworn to the Converfation of the Gentleman 154. H. at the Inn, who told the Mother that he had a Houfe at St. Geimain en Laye, where they might come J. 6. ,. and fee the Child ; and Sanry told he Gr/V, that her Hufband was already gone there. This was up- on the Monday, the Day after the Child was miffed. —— i$8.B. The Widow Selle liivs, that the Gentleman told them he dwelt in St. Germain, where they might find him at any Time. Dumenil fays, that Sanry the Woman, told INIad. Selle, who re- proached her for parting with her Child fo, that the Gentleman had told her, he had a Houfe at St. Ge>7nain. And the Purfuers, in their Condefcendence of F-ifts ft.xte themfelves, that he pretended to refide generally at St. Gumain en Laye. After all this, which is faid to be univerfaDy underflood at the 'lime, how can the Cure he ne.ir the Truth, in conje£turing that he reprefented the Gentleman as going to St. Gtrwai)?, and from thence to Routn, when the Pretence was, that he had a fixed Refidence at St. Germain, where they might at any I'ime fee their Child. Nor would inch a foolifli Pretence have at all anfwered the Purpofe : St. Germain, within eight Miles of Paris, v.'as a Place where they might fee him whenever they pleafed ; but Reueny eighty Miles off, was jufl as convenient to them as Confiantinopte. But it does not reft here. ---All the Evidence goes to prove, that the Father went .nlone to 5)t- Ger.-riin: That he went on the Monday, the Day after the Ciiild was mified ; and that he re- P. P. 486. c. turned that Night. £):/ot<'w// fays, that on coming back the fame Day, he told him he could find nothing ; and Selle, that the Woman told her, her Hulband had hccn at St. Germain, to make Enquiries, and could difcover neither the Child nor the Name of the Pcrfons. Dumenil the Woman fays, that they came back in the Evening of the fame Day they went to St. Germain, and faid they could learn no Tidings of their Child. Dumenil, the Hufband, fays, that upon his coming back to the Inn with that Story that his- Searches at St. Germain were in vain, he Dumenil, being a Havre Man, advifed him to go there and to Deppfy becaufc taking them to be Englijh or hifi % (they had fo writ themfelves in the Livri dt I' Infpedeur) -, and as they faid they were going to St. (/^rwo/wj he imagined they would go on ta Havrf Book III. S A N R Y's CHILD. 141 Havre or Dieppe: After which he never faw him till his Return from Havre.-— Lanutt « DaOgh- te r of the "Womzn Satiry, fays that he fet otF upon his Journey, which lafted five or fix Months, a Week or a Fortnight after the Child was taken away, having borrowed Money in the mean Time. — James Goube, her Brother, who went with him, fays likewife that it was a Week or a- Fortnight after the Child was carried away. This Journey was in Fact a Circuit of Rope- dancing, the Trade of the Family, which lafced five, fix, or, according to fome, eight Monthj. The fecond Journey which proceeded to Havre lay through St. Germain and Rouen -, and "James Goube fays, that they went to St. Get mam, as they I'id, and from thence to Rouen, as they did ; D. P. 171. «, and adds, contrary to all the Evidence, that the Gentleman had faid he had a Houfe at Rouen. Upon this th« Purfuers fay, notwithfianding the contrary is proved, that it is probable he gave them an Addrtfs to Rouen : and in the Teeth of every AVitnefs, that Sanry continued the firft Journey from St. Germain to Rouen : And from the Faift fo dated they inter alfo, againft every Witnefs, that the Child was not confidered as loft upon his not being found at St. Ger?nain. And thus it is proved, th;it the Cure did not hear of it till fix Weeks after the Time of his being taken away, though Sanry was fcnt for to give him an Account in two or three Days, in Confe- quence of his Converfation with the Sifters, who appear to have converfed with him frequently. The Refult of this Evidence is, that the Gentleman applied to the Cure on Monday the 29th of December. The Cure hyu it was on a Sunday, or Holiday. — Alonday the 2gth was the Feaft of the Holy Innocents. That on Tuefday the 30th, or IVednejday the 31ft, the Purfuers fuppofe it to be the fecond Day after this Application to the Cure, he applied to the Sij'ers of the Charity, and faw the Children : On Thurfday the 1 ft of January, he and the Lady came back, approved it, and gave Money to the Parents : On Friday the 2d, they took the Child to the Croix de Per : On Saturday the 3d, they returned with the Purpofe of taking him back, but were perfuaded to leave him : On Sunday the 4th, they returned to the Inn, and found he was carried away ; and on that Day, or on Monday the 5th, went to St Germain. On Tuefday the 6th, being the 2d, or IVednefdoy the 7th, the 3d after the Enlevement, the Woman Sanry went to the Cure ; and on Saturday the loth of January the Cure wrote to the Police. This being the Refult of the only certain Piece of Evidence, fupported by fuch concurrent Teftimony as has been fecn, remains uncontradifted by any other Part of the Proof, which is all too uncertain to build upon, if it ftood alone, and much more whenfo oppofed. Thofe who fpeakof the Time, by fuch Rccolleftion as they can raife of the Seafon, put it at p.p. ^^j. g, the Vintage---the Autumn---the Winter ; which Quarter begins on the 20th of December— z good — "- 190. e. long Time after the Fair of St. Laurent— {i\ Weeks after it— two Months— before Chriflmas— cold ■^7^- h. Weather— they had Fires— and fo forth. ***• ^' Thofe who fpeak from the Age of the Child, leave it in the fame uncertain State : Twenty--- ^g, (,_ twenty-one— -twenty-two Months— -from twenty to twenty-one---from twenty to twenty-two. The 290. e. Mother gives him tv/enty Months. The Sifter, who was above twenty-one Years at his Birth, gives p. p ^.j. p^ him twen!y-one Months: The Father, from twenty to twenty-two. Twenty-tv.'O carries it as , ^ much too iorward into the Year 1750, as twenty leaves it too late in the Year 1749- Following the Evidence above ftated, he was twenty-one Months old, and was going fome few Days in his next Month. It may be M.itter of Wonder to fome, that they were no nearer to the exacl; Time required ty the Purfuers, as it had been particularly pointed out in that Reproach to the Juftice of a ci- vilized Country, the Monitoire ; and three of their Witneffes are detefted in Perjury, to ac- commodate with their Story, Legns, Sanry, and his Wife. Their Cure only conjectured his Falflioods ; and, to deal candidly, this Wonder is ftill encreafed, if Mr. Andrew Stuart, when fie went round to apprife his Witneffes of the Difcoveries which were made from Time to Time, informed them, that they could not be convifted of Perjury for what they fwore under no French Authority. But the Truth was, they were afraid of defcending to more Particulars, for Fear of meeting ftill more dired Contradictions. CHAP. j^2 ©FTHETAKINGAWAY Part IV. CHAP. VI. Of the Record of Police taken front Widow Selle'j Livre d'Infpedeur. THE only Ari'ck of Evidence which remains to be confidered, is the Entry in tlie Record j of Police, y.hereby Diivertif, to which Name the Fafi: is imputed, is tound at the Croix de Fer P.P. 53. B. on the 2\{t oi Nimetnbe-. Finding him there on that Day, the Purfuers fuppofe he ftaid eight or nine Days, p.nd no longer ; for which they refer to the WitneiTes, who fay four or five. And »-_i«^.F. thty fuppofc it impollible he fliould have been there in November, and have returned again in - — 185. D, Decenhcr. In which Cafe he would not very likely be found a fecond Time in the Books of Police ; for in x former Part there has been full Evidence, that not a tenth Part of the Guefls reforting to thcfe Inns, ever have their Names in the Books of Police: And particularly, that ■when even a Foreigner has been put there once, he is not put there again upon his Pieturn to the fame Houfe, as happened in the Cafe of Sir fohn Stewart himfelf, who lived at Godifroi'^ in Augiijl 1748 five Days, and yet is not found in any of the Police-Books. — Now fuppofing this Duvern'e either a Foreigner or a ProviacialiR, nothing is fo likely as that he fliould alight at an Inn on his firil coming to Pans, and remain fome confiderable Time before he could pre- pare for executing any Purpofe he might have in taking away a Child, or return to the Inn to carry it into Execution. At any Rate it would be a very unequal Manner of weighing Evidence, to raife the Inference From Books fo imperfeiflly kcpL as the Livrcs des Logeurs and du Connnijfalre, againft the precifc r.nd certain Teflimony of thoft Books, which are kept with unwearied Regularity in the Clofet of the Lieutenant de Police himfelf, fupported by the Oath of the Secretary who kept them. And yet, in the Judgment of all thofe who do not weigh the Evidence in this very unequal Scale, Sir John was returned to Rhiims on the 1 3th of November, and Sanry's Child was taken away in the iaft Week of December. But the Argument does not refl: even here. It will be fliewn, that if all the reft of the Evidence ■were blotted out, and their own Period, as it appears on the Book, allowed them for the £«- kverneni, they can do nothing with it. They have tried two feveral Ways, and both fail. Their firft Hypothefis was, that Sir Job?! came to Paris on fome Day before the 19th of 'No~ vembcr, tiud lodged in the Rue Francbourgeois : That he weiit to the Croix de Fer, Rue St. Denis, fome Time before the 2i{t : That he carried away the Child on Satwdoy the 29th of November, and returned to Rheims on Tuefday the 2d of December. And while no Dates whatever were in this Caufe, they did triumphantly ; they did as much as they think it neceifary for them to at- temot in this Caufe ; they left it poflible that Sir John Stm.an might have taken the Child as well' as any other Man, who was then within feventy INIIles of Paris : That is, he might, if he would; if, with three Children to provide for, and without a Farthing to buy them Bread, he "had found himfelf in a Difpofition to vvifh for the Increafe of his Family. After this admirable Plan of E'.idence was formed, and the Witnefles had fworn up to the p.p. 3^9- Poffibility of its being true, his Lodgings in the Rue Francbourgecis were feized by another Man ; tlie 29th of November, when he iliould have ftolen a Child, was employed in his firfl Day's Journey from Rheims to England ; and the Enlevement of Sanry's Child was pinned down to the laft Week in December by authentick Proofs. CHAP. VII. LafI Hypoth.'fis of the Furfticrs as to the I'ime of the Enlevement. 'TpPTE Purfuers have taken the Liberty to publifh aPaper, called " Mr. Rte\.\tn'sjcurnal," which -*• can be looked upon in no other Light than a concerted Falfliood, which was made r.p appa- rently tobefliown, either to millead his Employers, or to inihudl: the Witnefles, or to ferve both thefe honeft Purpofes. It is averred in this Piece of the Purfuers Evidence, that Mr. D'Jnjou told Mr. Stvart, that the Cure de St. Laurent told Mr. D'jinjou, that the Widow Selle had told the Cure, that Dumeiiil told her, that the Gentleman, though he pretended to go to St. Germain, had taken the Route de Cha?npa:gne. This was a Falihood invented for the Meridian of Scotland, far no Frenchman would have inferred that People; were going to Chawpaigne meerly becaufe they went out of the Port St Denis, which leads to Calais, to Peronnr, to Bru//els -, and Champatgne is the lead confiderable Deflination it points at. Accordingly vilien Widow Sede was examined, fhe denied flie had faid fuch Words ; fo did Dimtcnil and his Wif; ; and fwore on the contrary, lliat S97. A. Book III. ■ S A N R Y's C H I L D. H3 that Duvern'e went the oppofite Way to the Port de Paris, which is at the fouthern End of the Rue St. Dcn!<, a long Street, of wlJich tlie Port St. Denis is the northern Extremity. This was in the Number of thofe Falflioods ufed to draw his Employers into a LaA'-Suit, which they had no earthly Concern in, too far to get back. Givini:; up a Cafe, meerly becaufe it was broken and diffipated, was the worft Thing which could happen to it. The Purfuers were obdurate, fet thcmfelves to weave it anew, 'llie £r- kvement, on the 28th of December, wi'.s an impra(Slicable Part, ajid, v, hat was worfe, was the hcil proved of any Article in the Caufe.— That Evidence, however, was to be rejected; and, ridicu- lous enough, the Inn-keepers Books are fet np in Oppofition to the moit regular Records in the World.-— The Lodging in the Rue Ft michourgeois is given up as an unneceflar^' Part of the Cafe, and thofe fame Inn-keipers Books are to do the Bufinefs againft all the reft of the Evidence. --- Thus the Cafe is ftattd. Sir JohmwA his Family fet out from Rheims for Paris on Tuefday the nth, or IVedneflay the \7.Xk\o{ Novanbcr ; they arrived there on Friday the 14th, or Saturelay the 15th. On Sunday the 1 6th he went to the Cure of St. Laurent; on Monday the 17th, or Tuefday the 18th, he vifited the Poor-Houfes. Two or three Days were taken up in the Tranfa£tion about the Child. On Friday the 21 ft or Saturday the 22d, they fet off again for Rhiims ; they would arrive at Rheims hy Tuefday ihe 25th, and then they would have three Days at Rheims to adjuft their Depar- ture :---But it happens that this Story clafhes in fo many Points with their own State of ihti Evidence as to be totally impracticable. The Enlevement of Sanry's Child, indeed, flript of the only Date which fixes it, will apply •with equal Precifion to any Week between Michaelmas 1749 and Lady-Day 1750; and without- more Spraining than the Purfuers commonly ufe of Evidence, will cafdy take in a Year or two more : But the Dates their Argument fixes (after their Witneffes are refuted) to Sir Jokn-i Journey, caimot be fo bent. That Sir fohn fet out for Rheims later than the 3d of November, is now contrary to all the Evi- dence which remains credible, as has been feen before. That Duverve entered the Inn fo early as the 14th or 15th, is fupported by no Evidence ; and fuch an Imagination is crolTed by every Species of Probability. To maintain this Imagination a Moment, they are obliged to fuppofe that an Ofiicer, whofe p. p. 555. h. Duty it was to vifit the Inn every Day, omitted it for feven ; which, once fuppofed, it becomes poffible only that his Entry may havelseen on the 14th or any Day fubfequent to that, without being returned till the 21ft. This Imagination is founded fimply on the lad Return bring on the 14th. The Records of d.P. 174.C, Police are made up in three different States ; Regnico/es, Military Men, and Foreigners. It happens that the firft State is loft ; fo that if the Officer did vifit the Houfe every Day, and did make daily Returns thereof to the Police, unlefs fome Foreigner or Military Man had entered in the fame Week, his Name would not appear in the Records. Thi s Duverne, who defigns himlclt a Foreigner^ does not appear returned till the 21ft ; and the Probability is, that he did not entar- till then. It Ihould alfo be obferved, that no Entry will do for their Plan, but on the 14th in the Evening or 15th ; becaufe their Cwrt has fixed that Duverne applied to him on a Sunday, or Holiday of the Week in which the Child was taken away : Now there was no Holiday, but two Sundays be- tween Tuefday the I ith and Sunday the 30th oi November. The Qmrier ol St. Jajue de /a Boucherte, in which the Creix de /vr lies, is the fmalleft, and App. toDcF. confequently the eafieft to be regularly vifited in all Paris. — In the fame Quarter, the only Houfes Mem. p. i4i» which were found to have preferred their Books of Police, were the Couronne d'Or in the Rut ^t''- ^incampois, and another in the Rue Alariveau : And it appeared from thefe Books that the Of- ficer had been round to vifit them on the i8th, though no Report appears in the Piecord ; becaufe the Perfons found on the Books appeared to be Regnieoles ; and of thofe, as has been faid, the Publick State is loft : Therefore, if the Entry of this Duverne had not been fubfequent to the 18th, his Namemuft have been returned and recorded as a Foreigner of that Date, the i8th. But the Purfuers fay, the Entry in the Book may have been pofterior to the Entry in the Houfe. — To be fure it may 5 but this is alfq to be prefuined : And is it thus they prove by Books? — The Books may he irregularly kept ; in which Cafe their Dates prove nothing : From t'r:ence it is inferred that they may prove any thing. And if this Imagination wis allowed them, in the Face of all adlual and probable E\ idcnce, it would not do ; becaufe, as Dumcnil fays, this Duverne (whenever he came to take avv'.iy a Clnld) in two Days Time cnqiured of the People in Widow SelU's. Kitchen, if they knew any p. p, jj^, j^ poor 144 OFTHETAKINGAWAY Part IV; poor Pcrfon who flood in need of Affiftance ? They advifed him to apply to the Cure of the Pa- Appendix to rifh. The Purfuers alledge that he did follow this Advice, and apply to the Cure oi St. Sauvtur^ P.P. 1073. E. the Pariih where the CrwAT ^< /Vr is ; that this Cure refufed to alTift him; that he alfo applied to one Sicur Marie, who prevented tlie poor People of the Parifh of St. Sauvcur from being impofed upon : If fo, Duverne had done a great Deal of Bufinefs before he applied to the Cure of St. Lawent, and miift have been in the Hoiife long before he applied to him ; conlequently the Enlevement could not happen the Week after the 14th ; which is fufficiently difproved by thefe Confiderations, if there were no more direft Evidence againft it. p. P. 170. c. The Purfuers fay, two or three Days were taken up in the Tranfadlion about the Child ; 286. c. jjjgjj. "Witnefles fay precifely feven, after the Application to the Cure of St. Laurent. 1S6. c. The Purfuers fiy, Duverne fet oft' on Friday the 2ifl: or Saturday the 2 2d ; their WitnefTes, whom they refer to for that Purpofe, fay it was at Midnight on the Saturday ; and yet that remarkable Circumftance of being called out of Bed at Midnight on the 22d of November, is no Part of the Converfation reported fo particularly from the Driver. If they fuppofe Sir John and the Family drove about the Streets till a reafonable Time in the Morning, and fet out upon Sunday the 23d, he could not be at Rbeims till Wedntfdity the 26th ; and as he fet out for England on Saturday the 29th, not only Mefdames Maillefer and Maytttc are perjured, but their favourite Witnefs the Abbe has another Faliliood to be added to his Lift ; for they can get Nobody to confine their Stay at Rheims to fo fliort a Time as that. ---It has been formerly flated that Ijabel Walker, who mentions three or four Days as the Period of their Stay, upon taking the Whole of her Evidence together, agrees with the reft of the Witnefles, arid allows fourteen or fifteen Days for their Stay at Rhehns after their Pieturn. ' Not to mention that one of their Witnefles fays, that Sir John appointed tlve Driver his Time, «— t^i.c. fome Days before he fet out, which is altogether inconfiftent with their whole Story ; but there is no End of multiplying Negatives upon a deteifted and manifeft Falfliood. This being the State of the Purfuers Evidence, the Defender has no Reafon to complain that the Entries in Benoifs Books, which prove that Sir yohn was at Rheims on Friday the 14th of A'ai/^OT^^r, has been kept up. Let the Purfuers enjoy the fecret Satisfaction of having purfued the Truth, as they boaft, with fo much Candour, as to attempt this kind of Proof with a Copy, of that Book in their Pockets. After having eftablifhed, that Sir John had in Fadl left Paris full fix Weeks before Sanry's Child was carried off, and that the Dates of Duverne's Tranfa£tions exclude every Application which the Purfuers can imagine to the Parents of the Defender, the Attention due to the reft oftheCaufe requires that little Time fhould be employed in fhewing that Duverne and the Women he brought with him have no Refemblance to .Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit j and that Sanry's Child was in many Particulars remarkably different from Sholto. CHAP. VIII. Circumjiances with regard to the Perfons of Duverne, and the Ladies who were with him ; and the Child which Sanry loft. 'TP H E Circumftances which apply to this Tranfa£tion are : 1. That which they call a remarkable Coincidence in Point of Time, there being but fix Weeks between Sir Johns leaving Paris, and the Fa£t of taking the Child away. 2. That the Perfons yvere preafely three ; a Circumftance remarkably applicable to every three Perfons then in France. 3. That they were Foreigners ; a Circumftance rather more r^wor/fijWi? in the Application than in the Proof of it. The Gentleman had defigned hinifelf in the Books of Police an hifiman, and was confd- quently accepted for fuch by the Family, and by all thofe who rcforted to the Houfe on this Occafion ; and this the Purfuers call a Confirmation, that they were really Subjects of Great- Britain. That this Defignation may have raifcd or confirmed that Idea in the Minds of thofe who weac concerned with Duverne, is not improbable ; but it operates juft the other Way v/iih any Pcrlon capable of beftowing a Moment's Pielledlioii upon it. The Man who difguifes himfclf, generally aflumes a Defignation as different as may be from that v.'hich really belongs to him ; and that of a liriiijh S\ibjcct, is tiie laft Defignation a Uritijh Subjed would think of difguifing himfelf under. Tliis Book III. S A N R Y's CHILD. M5 This Notion, fo ralfed, may have given Rife to fuch another, that his Accent was foreign ; which the Curcy however, did not obferve: Not to mention the great Eafe, with which any Body who has an Ear, may break their own Language fo as to give it a foreign Accent, if that was the Sort of Difguifc they chofe, nsDuvenie appears to have done. And the //(tw^ Language muil have been at heart very familiar to them all, if not their native Tongue ; becaufe, when the Ladies ihewed Surprize upon the Woman Dumenil's coming into the Room while the Gentleman was talking to P. p. 283. d. them, he laid in French, that they need not be afraid, it was only the Maid of the Houfe : Now, if this is fo, French had been extremely uppermoll with them all. The Probability furely is, that if they were Foreigners at all, which remains very uncertain, at leaft they were not HritiJI}. Of that there is not the leaft Veftige but the Entry in the Book, which feems to prove the contrary. It appears alfo, that the Gentleman knew fo little of the Country he aflumed, that in the Name of a Town in Ireland he had heard of, he ivrote it, as he had heard it pronounced, Korgtie ; and fo of the Name Verney, he wrote it Diiverne: Now it is impoffible for any Man Avho wanted to aflume the Defignation of Irijhman, and who underflood the Englijl) Language, to have wrote thefe Names. 4. The next Article of Application is the Agreement of the Perfons : But as this does not happen to be true, the Argument runs, That as the Enleve7nent and the Opportunity of the Witnefles to fee the Perfons are not denied, the Difcrepcmcies in perfonal Defcriptions form no Objeftions ; which is as much as to fay, they may be the fame Perfons, though the WitnefTes fay otherwife. Another Obfervation made upon thefe Difcrepanciei is, that it fliews the Witnefles were left to their own Recolleftion ; a very extraordinary Piece of Candour indeed, for the Purfuers to aflume. Nejcis quid Mali portat hac Purgatio. The Truth is, that all thofe who defcribe Duveme's Perfon, with Reference to any Body then prefent, prove it was not Sir John, but a Man remarkably lower and fatter ; two Articles which _'Z.^i*^-' mull take the Obfervation 4 'Die reft are Terms altogether indefinite— tal!, thin, fat, robuft, jg^'. p* ftrong, fwa*thy, military. The only txvo who attempt his Drefs, arc Dumenil (ho. Waiter, who faw him write bis Name t??. u and Defignation : He fays, be had a Coat du Coleur de Canelle, and a Wig a I'Angloife, which is their Term for a Bob-Wig ; which means that he difguiied himfelf like a Briti/!} Subjeft : For Sir "John is proved, when he was not difguifed, to have worn a Wig with a Bag or Tail to it ; j-n c and yieille, who knew Nothing of his Defignation, gives him a Tye-Wig, and white Coat, like a French Officer. Tlie Women who came along with Duverne, according to Dumenil, were Loth tall and thin; one Forty-five, the other Thirty : The firft and eldeft was the Gentleman's Wife ; he acknow- ledged her, he treated her as fuch : She appeared to be the Miftrefs, and the Younger ap- peared to be her Attendant by the Sort of Services {Soins) flie did for her. Dumenil the Wife defcribes their Perfons in the fame Manner, except that flie adds of the eldeft Woman, that flie was fuller than the youngeft. The eldeft Woman carefled the Child, 483. c {■(he being to appear as the Mother) the other looked at it with Indiflcrence. Le Grts, Sanry, and his Wife, perjured themfelves in the Dcfcription of the Child ; and they defcribed the Ladies fo, as to account for the Purfuers anticipating the Charge they expected of leading the WitneflTes, £if •• ■'^as to ferve as theBafis of the French Procefs. The Purfuers have alfo produced Lady Jane's pri- f. P. 851. c. vate Pocket-book, from which it appears that they began with Duchcnois, the Traitcur, on the 20th. This is the Perfon whom all the Michels fay furnilhed them with Vicluals during the whole Time of their Refidence in this Houfe. But all this, it fccms, is Falfehood and Perjury : i. Becaufe the drunken Maid at Michel's wrote him down as entering on the 8th. Now it was the Method of her Drunkcnnefs to miftake ten Days, neither more nor lefs This judicious Obfervation, though in other Refpefts not at all beneath the Purfuers, does not bear them through ; becaufe he might have taken the Lodging two Days before he entered. 2. Lady Jane's Pocket-Book confirms them in their Hypothefis ; becaufe they wanted nothing the firft Night, viz. the i8th. On the 19th they went out ; and as they returned in the Evening, they wanted nothing the fecond Day, the 19th. The 2Cth, there- fore, was the Day on which they commenced, according to this Syftem, with the Traiteur. It will be feen hereafter, that they did not go out : But as the Argument admits their beginning with the Traiteur to be an ^ra, and only doubts whether it happened on the firfl or the third Day ; Mad. Michel proves it Irappened the firfl, for flie fpcaks of their fupping the firfl Evening ; and if flie had not, the Probability of the Thing would have been Ground enough to prefume fo much in Favour of all they have laid and fworn : This is fomething like the Suppofal at Godefroi's, that they wenf without any Breakfafl for ten Days together. — 3dly. Mrs. Hevcii wrote a Letter on the nth oi January, 1763, to Mr. Harper, in which the fays, they went away on the fixth Day after her Delivery. This is rather infinuated, than infifted upon, becaufe it does not conform to their prefent Syflcm : The Ufe they make of it is, on another Occafion, to fliew that Mrs. Hnvit fwore falfe. She wrote that Letter broken with Difeafe, and in Contemplation of Death ; and fhe meant honeflly^ but her Memory failed her : And if this is to be underftood as a more ftrious and deliberate Aft, let them take the Whole together, and, then flepping into Eteruity, fhe flakes fier Soul on the Truth of Lady Jane's Delivery. But the Purfuers will not take even this for a ferious or deliberate A£l ; it was a Trick to make her Evidence conformable to the Difcoveries which fhe had juft then heard Mr. Andrew Stuart had made at Michel's. If flie had followed the grofs Falfhood in Mr. Stuart's Letter of the 20th of November prccedingj flie would have made it the 8th ; if the 18th had been the real Day, fhe would have conformed to that ; and if fhe had meant to confirm Sir John, who was then very recently examined, fhe DccT. ». I, would have feen that her Oath on the Service was conformable to what he had declared. It can 5erv. p. 3j. therefore be brought to nothing but Infirmity, and mere Error. At the Foot of this Letter the Purfuers refer to her Letter of the 22d of Ju'.y 1748 ; which being writ recently, ferves to cor- rccl the Miftake ; and to her Examination aftenvards in the Month of June 1763, where fhe made no Mention of her fuppofed Miftake ; which proves, that it was no more than temporary. 4lh!y. Mrs. Hivuit wrote to the Maids on the 22d of Julyy xh-nfome Days after Sir John found the Book IV. SITUATION at MICHE L's. 149 the Nurfe drunk ; which fhews, that they mufl have entered the 1 8th. — Whoever looks at the Words immediately preceding, will find thofe fome Days to be not after coming to Michel's., but after fending the Child to the Nurfe, who was found drunk : This Mifquoting is rather a dex- terous, than a folid Way of arguing. They fay alfo, that this Letter imports the Child to be in the Hands of Nurfe Favre ; which did not happen till the fecond Day, at leaft, after their coming there : True, and therefore it was not Nurfe Favre fhe fpoke of, as will be fhown more at large hereafter. — They remark alfo, that fiie calls him tl Jlurdy Piece, which was not fo till he had been a Night or two in Nurfe Favre's Cuftody. According to their own Idea, he had been but one Night in the Cuftody of his then Nurfe, viz. the Night of the ioth ; fo that this makes Nothing to their Purpofe : 'J'he Obfervation will be material hereafter. This being all the Proof of their Falfliood, it ftands undifputed, that Lady Jtsfie entered to Michel's on the 2oth ; and this leaves an Interval of thirteen Days, which they purfue with no Kind of pofitive Evidence. The Story which the WitnefTes have told of that Interval is on- ly pelted with Obfervations, which will be confidercd hereafter. C H A P. III. Lady JaneV State of Health at MichelV. 'T^HE firfl: Topick by which they difprove Lady Jane's Delivery is, her Appearance and ■'■ Habit of Life at Michel's. •- The Evidence on that Head flands thus : After being uneafy the Night of the gth of July, and her Diforder becoming obfervable next Day about ten o'Clock, flie was taken with La- Serv. p. ii.c- bour-pains about twelve, and delivered about four of two Children, with the Interval of Half P. P. »5».k. an Hour between : From which Time Mrs. Heivit writes, that fhe recovered as well as it was to TT"; '54- ►'• be expe£ted, without one back-going Hour. ^^^^' jV ,' Sir Jchn Stewart, in a Letter of the aifl of July to Lord Crawford, fpeaks of her recovering P. P. 6x. f. wonderfully ; and of his Hopes, that now the ninth Day, being that which the wife Women call Critical, is over, {be is out of Danger. Mrs. Hewit, in her Letter of the 26th, fpeaks of Serv. 35. c. herjas recovered to aWonder, not indeed without the greateft Care ; but fhe is ftill very weak, and ordered by the Doftor into the Country in eight Days, to make her fit for her Journey to Rheims. This being Lady Jane's Condition when fhe came to Michel's, the Purfuers undertake to prove, that her Appearance and Habit were fo abfolutely incompatible with it, as from thence to draw a Difproof of her being delivered at all. Mad. Michel, their firfl Witnefs, fays, that fhe was tall and thin, extremely white, had a p. p. %,q a fickly and melancholy Air, but before her Departure fhe looked a little more lively ; but flie 853. c! cannot fay whether file grew ftronger or not. Michel, the Hufhand, fay.";, that flie was very pale, and had the Look of Sicknefs ; that her s-S. h. Head was dreft en Neglige, like a fick Perfon : And he remembers alfo, that his AVife told him at firft, file looked like coming out of fome Sicknefs, without faying what ; which can only mean, j,, ' as will be feen hereafter, that he does not remember what. Breval, their Son-in-law, who lived in the fame Court, fays, that (he was pretty tall ; that g 5 d. file was thin, and delicate, and pale like a Woman coming out of her Lying-in, or fome great Sicknefs. Blainville, another of their Witnefles, fpeaks of her as very pale, and extremely thin, with the Look of a Woman newly brought-to-bcd, or coming out of fome Sicknefs: Both fiie and Breval obferved, that her Windows were always fiiut, even while her Room was in Sweep- ing, which they looked on as a further Sign that Ihe had been brought- to-bed ; for they rcafoneil with each other, that the Air was bail for Women who had lately lain-in. Mad. M'c/W remembered in the Year 1756, that Lady Jane had kept her Bed on Account of 4.. r. her Lying-in ; fhe kept clofe within; but Nurfe Favre does not remember her going to Bed 883. d, fooner than ordinary ; and Mrs. Hcwit thinks fhe did not keep her Bed much at Michel's on Ac- count of the Heat. Mad. AJichel could have meant no more, therefore, in 1756, than her ^'" lying down upon the Bed, and the Clofcnefs with which Ihe kept herfelf up ; and this alfo agrees with the Habit ftie was obferved to be in at Dammartin, and in the firft going to Rheims, of ly- p p . ing down upon the Bed. '^^ '^' 594" A. Favre defcribes her as very thin and lean, and the Air of ill Health ; that fiie always drank p p gg, n warm Things, in a filver Goblet which the Tratuur had lent her. This agrees with Mad. __"„ ' * Michd'i ' • 868. G. ^50 915. c. SITUATION at M I C H E L's. Part IV. MicheTs Account, that fhe took a great Deal of Tea throughout the Day -, and that {he was much fatigued with boiling their Water on Account of the Heat. The warm Drink which Lady Jane took throughout the Day, (he, who had no Opportunity of didinguiftiing, called all Tea. Thus far their own Evidence feems to run quite counter to their Objeft ; but they fay, that thus far it proves Nothing, becaufe, as to Lady Jmies Appearance, Ihe was always pale. — The habitual p.p. soo. F. Palenefs of Lady 7(7»;/s Complexion, as it is defcribcd by Lords yJ/Zor/a;; ^rvX Cathcarty was fuf- -^ 85. E. ficiently diftinguifted from Unhealthinefs; and it is very remarkable, that on her Journey from Rheims to Paris, they have laboured to prove her Look fo healthy as to be remarked by their Wit- ncffes ; nay, one of them goes fo far as to impute a red Colour to her Cheeks. Their own Wil- li, neffes have eftabliflied a fufficient Difference before and after lying-in, if indeed it is imaginable, that People, at firft Sight, could not diftiiiguifli between the habitual Palenefs of a Perfon in Health, and the faint Complexion of one fick. And though the Witneffes they rely upon had no Opportunity to make the Comparifon, yet others, who had better Opportunities, had confirmed them in their Idea of its being the Complexion of Sicknefs and not of Habit. Befides, it appears, by the Teftimony of the Witneffes above referred to, that fhe recovered her Looks and Appearance during her Stay in their Houfe, which could not have been the Cafe if all her Palenefs and Weaknefs was natural to her. g j,_ %. They fay, that three of their Witneffes defcribe her with flat Breafls ; which is inconfiflent S49.' B.' with her Situation. The fame Witneffes defcribe, that (he was always dreffed in a large Handker- 858. H. chief up to her Chin. The Stay flie made there was from the i ith Day after her DeUvery, to the 868. H. 2^|.|^ . gj^j fj.Qjj^ ^^Yizt Period they date their general Obfervation of her Thinnefs and Flatnefs, en Gorge et Ventre, which they always put together, is impoffible to be afcertained ; nor in Truth, in the View wherein it is now applied, is it at all material. A M''oman's Milk is ordinarily at theHeight on the 4th or 5th Day ; and if it be difcuffed then, as it always is when fhe is not to give fuck, it will fometimes go off about the 9th or roth Day ; or if it be longer in going off, it will difcufs gra- dually, fo as to fink the Breafls, all the While, to their natural Size : And yet this was once infifled upon fo high, that it was imputed to Lady Jane, as a Mark of Fraud, that fhe did not fuckle the Child on the nth Day when the Nurfe was found bad ; as if there could have been a worfe Nurfe than a Woman in her Situation. The befl Thing to be wiflied was, that fhe had no Milk ; for if file had tried, and if any had remained undifcuffed and ftagnating, it would have gone near to kill D.P. 396. the Child.--And Ifabel Walker fays, that Mrs. Heivit wrote to her, that though Lady Jane had been at firfl much troubled with her Milk, fhe had got Relief by the Plafters which the Do£tor prefcribed to her. 3. They remark, that flie did not go to Bed earlier than ordinary. It has been explained before, that fhe did not lie much in Bed on Acount of the Heat ; but neverthelefs fhe might lie down on the Bed, and take the Repofe which her Weaknefs required, as it is proved fhe did afterwards at Dam- martin and Rheims. 4. They fay that the warm Drink fhe took, being only Tea, neither that nor any other Circum- ftance diflinguifhed her Habit of Life to be that of Ailment. This is faid on Nurfe Favre'sEvi- P P 881 E, dence, who in the very next Line, if it had been convenient to look fo far, fays that fhe was better at Dammartin, and eat and drank as the other People did; pointing out that fhe fpokeof two different Habits of living, one referable to her former Sicknefs, the other to Health. 5. Thatlvlrs. Hewit lay in the fame Bed with Lady Jane, is alledged as aProof that fhe had not re- " ^°' ' cently lain-in. The Incident feems at firft Sight indifferent ; but confidering their Situation, it is the — 8c;- F. ftrongeft: Article of circumftantial Proof which Accident coiJd be expecletl to turn up, of the Truth of the Story. It is in Proof that Michel's Houfe was at that Time full, every Apartment being occu- g . pied. The Nurfe with whom Mr. Dci/^/flj then was, was found drunk by Sir y^/w, when he went to fee him. Lady Jane's Anxiety to have him under her own Eye returned upon her, though fhe had been prevailed upon fo far as to fend him out before, flie was now determined, as Mrs. Hewit £^ wrote at the Time to the Maids, that he Ihould go no more out of their Sight. To keep him there- fore in Sight, it was neceilary that the Nurfe fhould have Mrs. Hewit's Bed. And this is the Ac- count of Mrs. Hewit lying in the fame Bed with Lady Jane. Such is the Argument to prove that Lady Jane, at coming to Michel's, had not the Look, and did not ufe the Habit of a Woman recently lain-in.— The diftinguifhing Features of the Cafe upon ' which that Argument proceeds, are the Figure of Sicknefs, warm Drinks, Rooms clofe fhut up in July. All the Witneffes deliver their own perfeft Convidion, that flie was a real Mother of that her real Child. But the Witneffes, it is faid, are partial to the Defender. It has been feen that is no Fault of the Purfuers Agents. They were indeed partial before either Party went to France, while their Memories were frefh, and even later than that, before they were preffed with confident Menaces, that their Accounts were to be difproved and refuted ; and it will be difficidt to perfuade, that Book IV. SITUATION at MICHE L's. 151 that fuch cavilling Inferences as thefe, made at the End of feventeen Years by interefted Strangers, is a jufter Account of what they ought to have thought, than the Reflection made by themfelves, at the Time, and retained, after Thoufands of Circumftances which gave Rife to fuch Reflections, are lofl and effaced by Time. Upon this very Decay of Memory Half the Argument is built. The Purfuers think they have a Right, in the Courfe of fair Argument, to prefume, that what the WitneiFes have forgot, no fuch Circumftances ever exifted ; and of all they mifremember, that it is correctly told. CHAP. IV. It was known at Michel'j, that Lady Jane had been delivered of Twins recently before her A'Tival there i and that Jhe was vifited by the Surgeon., or Accoucheur. FROM what the WitnefTes have forgot, they infer. That Lady 'Jane was vifited by no Phyfi- cian, Surgeon, or Midwife ; that it was fupprefled from the People at Michelh^ when, and of how many Children Lady Jane was delivered. That the People at Michel's have forgot many Circumftances in which they had no Sort of Con- cern, or were of no Importance, is undoubtedly true ; but it is equally true, that they were all known to them ; ay, and talked of by them at the Time. Madame Michel fays, that fhe remembers well hearing from Blainville, at the Time, that a Phyfi- p. p, Sji. i, cian or a Surgeon, fhe forgets which, vifited them : Nurfe Favre alfo remembers, that a Gentleman, gg,. c. drefled in Brown, dined with them, whom flie took to be a Shopkeeper. It is not very likely, that a Shopkeeper would have dined with them. This ferves to fliew what is the Weight of the Michels now forgetting that any Body came to vifit them. That the Time of her Lying-in, and the Twins, were the Subje£t of their then Converfation, is plain from this : On the 2 lit, which is the fccond Day of their Arrival, Mrs. Hewit wrote to the Maids, that Lady Jane was delivered of Twins on Serv. p. 3^. the loth. Nothing is better proved in the Caufe, than that they prefled Nurfe Favre to go with them p. p. g^^. o, to Rheims. They gave her the Cloaths which they had provided for the former Nurfe, in order to 881. a. take her with them to the fame Place ; and [gave her Hufband Cloaths, and offered to efta blifti D. P-59'-c. her Hufband as a Mafter Joiner there, if they would go. Sir John thought he had prevailed, 59*- *• and went into a violent Paffion with them when they refufedtogo. This isattefted, not only by p p g„.B. Favre and the Hufband, but Madame Michel Mo remembers the Propofal being made to carry her to g , g^ Rheims. Now is it polTible to imagine, that they would attempt to conceal the Date of the Delivery, and the Birth of Twins, from thofe very People, who muft hear of it the Moment they went to Rheims ? or that the Appearance and Habit of Lady Jane's Life didnot correfpond to fuch Accounts, when they wanted fo earneftly to take along with them a Witnefs who mult have betrayed them, if they had any Thing to betray .'' — But this is not all: i^2^'r^ told Mad. Z>(J«r, at Dammartin, at the Time, that the Lady had been brought D. P. 594. u. to-bed of Twins ; and fhe recolleCted it at the Time of her Examination, tho' with much Confufion. She thought fhe had collected it from Mrs. J%iy//, who dropped the Word c/^i-r and theWovd/Ieux. This, if it ftood alone, might be called a very faint and obfcure Source of Memory, if the Purfuers had not thought it worth falfifying the Evidence to combat it. They mifprint the Word deux, p, p. j^j , h^ doux in Italicks, and then argue it to be an abfurd Way of making an Inference in the Nurfe. But what will be faid of the Gentleman who went over to France in Purfuit of the pure Truth, if it ap- pears, that before either Procefs began in ScrAland ox France, he was told by Nurfe Favre, that flie B. P. 747. bad been apprifcd of this Circumftance ? In the Memorial oi November 1762, and in that fliame- ful Pieport which Buhot, in Fraud of his official Duty, was prevailed upon to make to the Lieu- tenant de Police, he reprefents, that Nurfe Favre told him, that he had heard the Child fhcnurfed was a Twin ,- though, among other Falfehoods, which have been taken Notice of in their Places, he adds, that fhe told him the Brother was dead. That was the Shape originally intended for this P. P. 351. b. Part of the Story. It appears further, from the 1 )epofition of Madame Michel, that Madame Favre, on her Return from Dammartin, told her, that fhe had ftaid with them fifteen Days— that her own S53. b. Child had died there — that they preffed her to go with them to Rheims ; and upon her RefuflU, that they had taken for Nurfe the Wife of a Reaper found at Dammartin.— h is certain flie would alfo inform her of what was notorious at Dammartin, that the Child was a Twin, though Madame Michel has now forgot the Circumftance. The Obfervation that Le Brun did not vifit them at Michel's deferves no Anfwer. What fhould being her there ? They had left her Houfe in Difguft. V/ould flie come to renew her Apologies for her Bugs ? In fliort, all Argument from what Witneffes do not remember after feventeen Years, is too idlci It is futficiently unfair to prefs what they mifremember. < Where 152 S I T U A T I O N at M I C H E L's. Part IV. Where do all thefe Objeclioiis tend ? It is fufficieiitly plain that Lady Jant gave herfelf out at M'l- chel's as a Woman who had been delivered of Twins, eleven Days before, and driven out of the Houfe by Bugs. If the Imputation of a Fraud were well founded, it would follow, that fliewoikl keep it up, by diflembling Appearances conformable to the Story flie had invented. It alfo app' ars that ilie took warm Liquors for Diet, which, as the Goblet fhe took them in came from the Trai- Uur's, would likely be fcnt from the fame Place: That {be kept her Apartments remarkably clofe in July, and wore the faint Look of a very fick Woman ; and that Ibe recovered during her Stay in this Houfe : lliat flie prefled Nurfe Favie and her Hufband, gave her high Wages, and made her and her Hulband Prefents of Cloaths over and above, who were Eye-WitnelTes to the Whole of her Conduct at Adichil's, to go with them to Rhdms. After this, how is it pofTible to believe, upon the Faith of any WitnelTes, but particularly on the Memory of thefe, fo worn out on one Hand, and fo laboured on the other, that ilie acled any Part inconfiftent with the Idea iTie gave out, and which was univerfally known at Rheims ?---Thofe who diflemble are rarely caught in under-afting their Parts : And yet the Purfuers undertake to prove the Delivery counterfeited by Articles inconfiftent with the Pretence of it. Their Argument upon this Head is made up fo that if the Conclufion, the Diflimulation of a Delivery, were admitted, it woidd fubvert all their J^Ieans of Proof; and if their Means of Proof were allowed, they would intercept the Conclufion, and difprove every Species of Diflimulation. The very coming to the Houfe on the eleventh Day is what might very well happen to a Woman really delivered, and actually peftered with fo odious a Nuifance as Bugs ; but it is the Sort of Thing which no Body who meant to diilemhle would dare. This Obfervation, at the fame Time that it fubftantiates the Accounts of Lady Jane's Delivery and fubfequent Appearances, goes far to difcufs the ftrange Accounts the Witnefles have been pre- vailed upon to give of the reft of the Incidents which are fuppofed to have happened there. Confidering how improbable thefe Accounts are, it were very much to be wifhcd, for the Sake of Juftice, that a little more Delicacy had been ufed in the Manner of treating theWitnefTes before they were examined : For if they had not been brought together to patch up their w^ild Stories, and make tliem as confiftent as pofTiblc, many more Contradictions, and ftill more exprefs, muft _ p , have appeared. But in the Profecution of that fraudulent Procefs in the Tournellt, Nurfe Favre — — Ss'-.G. was brought to live at Michel's, at the Expence of the pretended Profecutors, for fifteen Days ; at which 1 imethey thought it more convenient, notwithftanding, to fend her back without Exami- nation. They afterwards fent for her again, and kept her ten Days at Michel's in the fame Manner ; and when they had led her, by Means of their falfe Accounts of Michel's Book, into a Miftake about the Time fhe had kept the Child, they ventured to examine her ; and Btainvilh; another of their Witnefles, was brought to Alichel's, to be examined by Buhot. But notwithftanding all this honeft Precaution it will appear, that however the WitnelTes have been milled into it, they have totally miftaken in their Memory of the Incidents tliey relate. CHAP. V. Lady JaneV pretended Journey to St. Germain the 2 i/? 0/ July — and the Manner of bringing the Defender to MichelV. g^„_ (._ HP H E firft Incident the Purfuers infift upon as repugnant to the Story told by Mrs. Hewlt and Sir S59. D. .T"^" Stcivatt, and inconiiftent with fo recent a Delivery, is that of the 21ft of "July, the twelfth Day, when Lady fane is faid to have gone to St. Germain's to fetch the Child. It is ftill more repug- nant to the Accounts of the Witnefles than to the Circumftance of fo recent a Delivery, and little lefs repugnant to the Accounts of the Purfuers Witnefles, than of the Defender's : Thofe all agree to her drinking warm Liquors, and keeping her Windows clofe fhut up, the Air bekig bad for ly- ing-in Women, even when the Room was fwept. It muft have been at the Time Matter of great Surprize to thofe who obferved fuch Circumftances, to remark alfo that the Lady went a Jaunt of twenty Miles the firft Day of her coming there. ThisCircumftance, if itwere true, is far enough from difproving the Delivery: But in confi- dering the Evidence, tlrere feems to be no Colour of Realon to fuppofe it true. ici.L. ^'■^*" ^^'^''' aflerts that Sir Jshn and flie never went into the Country to bring either of the Cetl. 9. E. Children ; and Sir John aflerLs, that the eldeft Boy was never fent into the Country. Her Letter Scrv. p. 34. D. written at the Time, and her Depofition, runs thus : About the Time of leaving Le Brun's, the eldeit Boy was fent to the Houfe of a Nurfe in Paris, where he ftaid forty-eight Hours, or p p ^ ^ thereby, as Sir John fays; as Mrs. Hewit fays, two Days. How he was iiurfed before this Time has been liated before, and muft be refunisd hereafter, in Anfiver to another Objeftion. This fend- ing him out happened on the 1 9th, the Day before they left Le Brun's ; as appears not only from — 86 -. B. '^^ Teftimony juft mentioned ; but from the Account of Blainville herfelf, who favs Sir John came on one Day to look at the Lodging, on the next Morning came back to enquire after Bugs ; and on the fame Evening they all came to occupy the Lodgings, wiiich has been fliewn to be on the 20th. Mrs. ?ook IV. S I T U A T I O N at M I C H E L's. 153 Mrs. Hew'tt fays, in her Letter of the 2 2cl of July, that upon finding how well Sholto was nurfcd, Serv. p. 3^. i>. they were fond of fending out the eldeft ; and in her Depofition, that he was fent to the Houle P- P- ^s;- l. of a Woman in Paris. Sir John and (he both recolie£l that this Par'iftan Nurfe was recommended by Le Brun : Mrs. ^55- s. Hewit fays fo exprefsly ; and he fays, by one of the Landladies: But the Context fliews it muft hr»ve been Le Brun. He was to have continued with her till a proper Nurfe was got. But on the 21ft; Sir t'^o^w, in vifitinghim, found the Nurfe drunk. This Circumftance appears Serv p. 34, b. Ir Mrs. Hewit's Letters, written at the Time and afterwards, and in her Depofition. This alarmed him, and drove him to the NccefTity of feeking another Nurfe, and bringing the Deri. 9. v. Child home. The Nurfe provided on this Occaiion came from St. Germain, and was drcifcd P- P- ii^■'^^ like a Pcafant Woman. The Manner in which the Chikl was brought to Micbfl's, is particularly mentioned in Mrs. Serv. n. 34. iif^w/V's Letter to the Maids, 22d yji/y ; that en Sir ytf/;«'s finding the Nurfe drunk, he had fent the Coath for her, and that they had got a Woman to fuckle him, till they flioiild get a right Nurfe.---In her Depofition of 1763, after flie had been much impaired by Age and Infirmity, (lie fays, this Milk- Woman was got by Mad. Michel -, and that the Nurfe who afterwards turned out to p p •• 54. b, be bad, was hired after the Child was carried to Michci's.—'SiXit. the Miftake is certainly immate- rial, and amounts to no more than this, That Sir John hired this Nurfe immediately before going to Adicheis, which ilie thinks was immediately after.— -All that Sir Jch>i remembers of the Matter is, that the Nurfe to whofe Houfe the Child was font, on leaving Le Bru/i's, turned out to be bad ; on which flie was difmifled, and a Nurfe got tor him from St. Germain. It is probable, however, that on the Occafion of the Woman turning out fo ill, whom Le Tirun had recommended, he would refort to her : It is alfo probable that he would confult her in theChoice of another ; and that the Nurfe who came from St. Germain was taken with her Approbation at lealt. The Micheh, in the Account which they give of this l^anfaftion, fay. That the very Day after their Arrival at the Hotel D" Anjoit, they all three went to St. Germain for the Child ; that they fet out in the Morning between fix and feven o'Clock, and returned that Evening or the next: And 849.11, Mad. Michel fays^hat they told her over-night where they propofed to go, as they had not paid Ear- '^^" neft for the Lodgings. 5rwa/ alfo fays, that they went to St. Germain eight Days after they came: Upon which it is fit to remark, ^^S- ^' 1 . That Nurfe Favre, who is much the clearefl: Witnefs they have called, ne^-er heard of their going to St. Germain at all; nor did her Hufliand. Blainvdle fays exprefsly, that next Day i7~p*^''*' after their Entry, and for feven or eight Days, flie obferved Sir ycA^i go in and out of Lady Jrtw's p." p.' sir." d.* Apartment ; and during this Time (he never faw the Ladies ; and that the Ladies never went abroad till after the Child was fent to Nurfe Favre's. And Breval puts it eight Days after their Entry ; — — S70. c. when it is admitted it could not have happened. 2. That the Micheh doubt whether they returned that Evening ; but at all Events it was but in the Evening. Now five Letters were written on that very Day, and after the Child was in the Houfe, which abfolutely refutes one Idea, and goes a great Way to difcufs the other. If to this ^erv. p. -,4.. be added, the Circumllance of the Alarm the Family is fuppofed to have fufl'cred from difcovering Pocket-book, that ver)' Evening the Infufllciency of the new Nurfe, the whole Story of Mad. Michel, whom her Hulband, an infirm old Creature, follows, is not only contradidtory to the Account flie herfelf gave in 1756, but is abfolutely impolTible. 3- The Idea of going to St. Gennain fecms to have been derived altogether from the Circum- ftance of the Nurfe having come from thence ; and this, recolleded'at fo great a Diftance of Ti'-"^'.'"^ produced the prefcnt Mifreprefentation. In 1762, when thel'urfuers firft difcovered Micheh, they had no Remembrance of this pretended Journey ; and faid that the Nurfe who was ^PP' *° ^*^- difmiffed from their Houfe, feemed to have been found by Chance in the Street : And Mrs. ^ ''"" ''' ■^°" Hewit fays. Sir John told her, he had found her in the Suburbs, or fomewhere elfe; but where, is ^" *^''' ^' not pofitiye. But when SirJiiA^ hadfaid that thisNurfehadcomefrom St. Gcrw^-/?;, there was noDanger of Its being forgot, becaufe the Subltance of his Examination widiout Oath, to lie ;;.- ReUvtis (but, widial, to ferve for Expifcation, and applied to commence a French Law-Suit), was fent over to Mr. Andrew Stuait in 1762. 4- The Converfaticn Mad. Michel \s fuppofed to have had with them, is exceedingly unnatural. If flie trufledto their coming there without demanding Earned, it is not verv prot.ible tluit after they and their Things were in the Houfe, any Talk fliould be about Earnefl. It is much more hkely, that ihe confounds this with fuch Convcrfetiou as might have happened when Sir Jj/.'n hired the Apartment ; which he did the Day before he entered ; and mav have made feme Apo- logy for not giving Earnefl: ; or what happened ten Days later, when, Living hired tl,e Apart- n:eiit for a Moitth, fome Talk might naturally arife about paying for the lall entire Fortnight. y 5. The 154 S I T U A T I O N at M I C H E L's. Part IV. 5, The Repugnancy of this is remarkable to the Account from the fame Witneffes, of her T. P. 4. r. keeping the Room fo dofe, as even to give Mad. MicM Occafion to think that flie kept her Bed during her Stay at her Houfe. 6. E>:chifive of the Tmprobabilities and Inconfinencics of this Event with the reft of their own Story, furdy more Credit is due to the Accounts written by Mrs. Heivh at the Time ; which ftand, confirmed by her Depofition, by Sir Jahri's, and the Tcflimony of Favre and BlainvUU themfelves ; than to the ftale and uncertain Recoile£tion of thefe two old Witneffes. The Purfuers general Anf^-er to Mrs. Hewit and Sir John is, that they are Accomplices. The obvious Reply to that is. That they neither are nor ever will be proved fo. And there can be nothing more abfurd, than to make that which is to be pro^■ed, the Bafis to fupport the Proof. But what Inducement could Mrs. HewU have to fupprefs, in her Letter to the Maids, the Place where the Child was nurfed ? The Objecfl wliich the Purfuers impute to her is, to fupprefs the (^ircumihnces of Lady y^K^V Itirring out: If that were funk, it was very immaterial where the Child was mirfcd. CHAP. IX. Of the pretended Jaunt to Ver failles. TH E next Licident to difprove Lady Jane'i Deliver^■, is the Jaunt flie is fuppofed to have taken to rer/ailies. The Purfuers, proceeding as ufual without their Witneffes, fix this upon the 18th or 19th Day after her Delivery: Not that flie went upon tliat Day, but that (lie mull have gone then, or never. There is no Pier.fon upon Eartli why, ordinarily fpeaking, 3 Woman fliould not have gone to Verfailles at that Diflance of Time after Lying-in ; confequentiy, if it had been true, and Sir John and IVIrs. //«wV had remembered it, there could be noRealon upon Earth for fuppreihng it^ nor, on the other Hand, is there any Rcaion for infilling upon it, but becaufe it is either not true, or, if true, they do not remember it. This, therefore, is rather a Conteft about the Me- mory of the Witneffes than about any Thing materi.il to the Caule. At the fame Time, it happens to be true, that Lady Jane, though (he recovered very happily, yet from being driven too early out of her firft Lodging by Bugs, and being tired with the Change of Nurfes and the Condition of her Children, did not get Strength, or at leaft Spirits, fail enough to take that Journey. In Purfuancc of their general Memory ot her Condition, the Dcpofitions of Sir John and Jilrs. Heidt run, that Lady June did not go to VerfadUi., nor even out of the Houfe, wh'de Ihe was at Alichel's. In this Sir John and Mrs. HewU are fupported by Nurfe ^_ jj ^ FavrsnnA her Hulband ; who fay, that Lady Jane never came to fee tb.e Child at her Houfe, but D. P. 591. B. had it always brought to her ; and that they never heard of her going out till Ihc went to Dain- martin. Brcval^ w\\a law nothiirg of it himfelf, though he undertakes to know thdr Motions by the Situation of his Shop, took it only by Report from Blainville. , ggg g On the other Hand, B/ainvil/e, a Chambermaid, fpeaks very particularly to the Journey to Virfaiiks : But a pofitive Manner and a particular Detail are Circumllances her Stories never want: liidccd the lalfer they are, the more pofitive and particular. She would be perfcftlv un- intelligible if the Date of her Entry to Rlad. Gour/s Ser\ ice, and of Sir Jobiii Arrival and his Departure from the //^/(!/£)'^ny;:/, were not now unalterably ii.i^d. In the Entry it is to be obferved, that this bufy and fclf-important Witncfs was firft led through, the Tcuru:' Ic with her Storv> when the Purfuers Syllem was, that Sir John and Lady Jane arrived at Michel's on the 8tli of ju.'y, and remained there till after the 8th of Au^ujt, If this had flood- fo, there would have been full Tim.e for the uliole Incidents mentioned bv Mad. hluinville. Put as this Syftem is now abandoned by the Purfuers, and it is certain that Sir John and Lady Jane did not arrive there till the zoth ; tl-.at the Child wa& brought to that Houfe next Day, tho 21ft ; that the bad Nurfe was difmiifed the 22d ; and that Nurfe 7'flxir^' continued with the Child, in the Hotel D'J'jou, from the 22d to the ^6th of July ; during which -Time tlicrc is no Pre- tence for Lady Juru's going abroad ; and that it is certain and admitted that this Mad. blainvilU left the Hot-d D'Ji.jou the 2gth ; theie only remains two Days, the 27th and 2Sth, for the whok; CircumftanccE which palled befivixt her, bir John, and Lady Jane. By keeping ilicfe Circum-^ llantes in View, it will be found that her Account is abfolwtely inipolLble. Mad^ B/oiiville kncws nothing of the Child being brought to the Houfe ; but, on the contrary, P.P. $6$. CD. relates, with her ufual Variety of Circumflances and Detail, how the firil eight Days paffed before the Child came. — All this is now confeffedly pure Imagination. Thefe eight Days, from the 21 ft oijuly, carry her Home to Mad. Gcuryh : But allow her to. flrike them out of her Hiftory, and call her back again to the 31 ft, when Ibe was defired to * examine, Book IV. SITUATION at M I C H E Vs. 155 examine the Nurfe and the Child, her Account of what happened after fhe faw the Child is im- poirible. She gives a particular Detail of her having examined the Nurfe ; that f!ie had no Milk ; ^' "• *^S- *• that Sir jfohr?, in a violent Paffion, inftantly difmifled her ; and that at her, BlainvUle'sy earneil Requefi: and a3 it was then half an Hour pail %e.n o'Clock at Night, and the Nurfe had no Money, he gave her forty-eight Sols, and turned her otit of Doors ; that Nurfe Favre was in- ftantly procured by iVIad. Michel, who carried the Child home with her that very Night. Every Word of this is abfolutely falfe, or purely ideal. The Nurfe was not found infufficicnt and dif- mifled till next Day, the 22d, when flie was paid her Wages ; and Nurfe Favre was fpoke to by Mad. Michel, for the firfb Time, on the Forenoon of the 22d, and took the Care of the Child, after advifing with her Hufband and his Brother : And inftead of carrying home the Child, as fo particularly mentioned by Blainville, (he remained vidth him at the Hotel D' Anjou till the 26th of Tuly, or later, during which Time flie never faw nor heard of Blainville. Again, Blainville fays, that the next Day after the Child was carried to Nurfe Favreh, or the Day after, Lady Jane went to Nurfe Favre's to fee her Child, that is, on the 27th or 28tb ; after gg^, p, which, (he herfelf alfo went to fee the Child, and found the Child very well, and the Nurfe very angry at Lady Jane, for wanting to treat the Child in the Falhion of her Country. All this Hiitory and thefe Vifits have no Foundation in Truth, becaufe neither fhe nor Lady Jane ever faw the Child in Nurfe Favrc's, as is proved by Mad. Favre, her Hufband, bir Jah/i and Mrs. Hewit, and the whole Family of Michel. Thefe two Days after the Child was carried to Favreh bring her Hiftory down to the 29th, the very Day on which flie left the Houfc. However, fne goes on, as ufual, with a very par- ticular Account of what paflvjd after thefe Vifits to the Child at Favre's. She fays, that after this flie did not fpeak to the Gentleman or Ladies for two or three Days, in the Courfc of which Ihe '^'as engaged to the Sen'ice of Mad. Goury, to which (he was immediately to have entered : But — — a Sir Jolm having propofed to carry her to Ferfailla, fhe returned to Mad. Goury's, and requefted 1, that flie would allow her eight Days, in order that (he might make this Journey : And that a Day or two after having obtained the Refpite, they took Coach at the Carcufel, which is a Mile from Michel's, and went to Verfaillei ; that is, about the 3d of Augujl. — In this again {he is contradicted : ift. By Mad. Gouty, who has declared that fne entered to her Service the £>_ p_ -jj_ j^ zgth of Ju'y ; which was the very Day, or the Day after, flie was engaged; and that flie neither alked nor obtained any Delay of entering after flie was engaged. — 2dly, She is contra- diCled by herfelf in another Part of her Depofition, wherein flie fiiys veiy particularly, as ufual, that Sir John and Lady Jane prefled her to go with them, and that they would carry her to p.p.gg.,. d, England: To which fhe anfwered, that ihe would willingly go, but that flie had two Children, whom fhe would not abandon. — If flie was then, as flie fays, engaged to the Service of Mad. Goury; and if they had olTered to engage her, as fhe alfo fays, Ihe certainly would have given the true Reafon for not accepting the Offer. — 3dly, Lady jane was not able to have walked from Michel's to the Caroufel ; and no Perfon pretends that ever flie went abroad on Foot. Laftly, When this Journey is fiiid to have been made, flie was in the Service of Mad. Goury, and Lady Jane was gone to Dammartin. •She goes on, however, and fays, that next Day or the Day after her Return from Ver failles, flic •went to fee the Squares, and gives a particular Account of the Route fhe took and the Places fhe ■ faw ; and that flie ftopt at Mad. Gtury's to inform her that flie would enter to her Service next Day ; and that the next Day flie went to fee the Child, and then went to Mad. Gcury's. — All this Accoimt too is diilindly contradicldd by Nurfe Fcivre and her HuiLand, who fay, that Lady Jane never faw the Child in their Houfe ; antl the whole Michel People declare, that Lady Jafie never went out with this V/oman but once ; And the Route ihe defcribes of coming from the Place cle ' Vicloire to the Hotel D'Anjiu by t>he Font Touraht, Pont Royal, and ^lay cle Thcatins, is abfolutely ' inapoiLble.— In FacI;, Lady Jane was at Dammartin before this Excurfion is fuppofed to have been 'ttiade. It is very remarkable that this Journey to Verfailles was applied to Lady Jane vAx Time, when this"Woma^ fiippofed flie hid rcmt»intd In the 'M)/^/ D'y^nja:/ till the 8th oi Augujl ; and her alk- ing a Leave of Abfcnce for eight Days from the 3lfL o( July, when flie fuppofes Sir John invited her to this Party of Pleafurc, agree. had been got from St. Germain, for Fear it fliould caufe Sufpicion. Upon this Occafion Ifabel Walker ceafes to be an Accomplice, and that Letter of Mrs. Hewifs is the Plncjfe by which flie is tobe impofed on. If it be remembered that Mrs. H^tt;;/ wrote on the 21ft, and that the Nurfe was not changed till the 22(1, it will account for no more Nurfes being mentioned ; and it was at lealt late in the Evening that the Child began to be difordered by this Nurfe, who, though in- fufficient and difcharged for that Reafon, was certainly not fo in the Degree that wild Witnefs Blainville reprefents her, or it would have been difcovered fooner ; and after it was difcovered, fhe would not have been kept another Night. But it founds ftrange, to hear Mrs. He-wit charged with fuppreffing the bad Nurle, in a Letter wherein Ihe mentions a former Nurfe to have been found drunk ; and when, in a Letter of the 26th, flie fpeaks of bad Nurfes, of which the very Nurfe in Queflion was one : And from the Turn of the laft Letter it is very clear, that fiie re- ferred to an intermediate one, in which ihe gave a particidar Account of that third Nurfe, who' turned out bad in fo fliort a Time, after flie had defcribed her as a fine Milk- Woman. CHAP. XI.. Pretended Contradi5iions between S/r John and Mrs. Hewit in the Account of Nurfes. 'TpHE Purfuers have likewife argued, from fuppofed Differences in the Accounts given of tlie Nurfes ■*• , by Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit, that their Story had no Foundation in Truth. There is no Argument fo improbable as that People who concerted a Fraud flioidd give dif- ferent Accounts of it. Such Differences, if they really exifted, would more naturally infer an in- nocent Defect in Memory of Circumftances, which were not thought material at the Time : And now, when the Evidence of the Nurfes has flowed in from all Quarters, it is not eafy to imagine- how. Accounts, which correfpond in every Particular with that Evidence, can be mifreprerentcd. Surely the Purfucrs did not imagine, that the Refinement of printing the Accounts of Sir John and Mrs. Hewit in oppofite Columns, fo as to place what ihe fays of one Nurfe againft what he fays of another, and leaving Blanks as if there were a total Want of correfponding Account;; to others of the Nurfes, would pafs without reading the Evidence ; and it is impofhble to read the I^viilence, without unravelling the ingenious. Contexture of this Argument.— It would be unjuli to the Merit of this Performance not to mention another Article in which it deferves PrEife ; namely, tranfpofing Sir Johns Depofition, fo as to make what he fays of one Nurfe feem to re- late to another. A very "fhort State of what has been faid by all the three will fet this hlifappre- Lenfion quite right $ for if there be any Pioom for introducing Confufion into their Accounts, it t«u3; 158 SITUATION at MICHE L's. Part IV. miiflbeby the Change upon the Words Nurje zni Milk-TP''omen, which are indifcriniinately ap- plied by Airs. Hnvit and Lady Jane, efpeci ally when they are fpeaking generaDy of the Hands through which the Child paflld. In fuch Accounts it would have been a very affedted Particu- Jarity to have fet down fo many MilkA\'omen, ib many Nurfes following them, in their own Ufeof two Words, which are abiblutely indiftincl. The Child will appear to have had five Nurfes, or Milk-Women, no Matter which. 1. The firft Nurfe, or Milk-Woman, is fpoken of nowhere but in the Sen'iceby Mrs. Hewit, who feys, that Lady Jane had a melancholy Conceit that fhc Ihould not bear a living Child, and would have no Nurfe befpoken. Thofe Women who have not that Conceit, have frequently another, which comes to the fame Thing ; they will not befpeak a Nurfe beforehand, becaufc they will have the Opportunity of giving the Child the frelhelh Milk. — That flie had befpoke no D.P, 555. B. Nurfe may be true ; but it is ilill more certain that La Alarre iiad befpoke a Nurfe, the very Wo- man to whom Sholto was fent : She, however, being employed, it was the fame Thing to jirchihald, whether a Nurfe had been befpoken or not ; and he, according to the common Courfe, was fed by a Milk-Woman taken for that Purpofe. 2. The fecond Nurfe they had is mentioned both by Sir John and Mrs. HcW'.t, and they both P. P. 254. A. mcnti 'U her as taken about the Time of their leaving Le Brun& -, Mrs. Heivit fays, as they were changing their Lodgings : She was recommended alfo by Le Bnm ; and of her Mrs. Hciiit fays in another Place, that fhe was the firft Nurfe. And that ilie muft have faid fo in that Senfe, ap- Serv. p. Ti. c pears not only from her fwearing in the Service that he was firfl: in the Hands of a INIilk-Wo- Serv. p. 34^ I'nan ; but from her Letter written at the Time, where flie exprelly reprefents, that fending this Child to Nurfe was in Confequence of finding how well Shoito v.as taken Care of. During all the Time it took to make this Obfervation, and form this Opinion, Archibald was in the Hands ' of a Perfon flie calls a Milk-Woman, in the Service ; and upon making that Obfervation, they were fond of putting him alfo into the Hands of a Nurfe, a permanent Keeper. How long this laft Woman, the Nurfe, had been about him before he was trufled Home with her, does not appear ; but from the reft of the Hiftory it could not be long, becaufe from thence it ap- pears, that out of eleven Days, the Milk- Woman muft have fiaid five or fix ; and he was two Days at the Houfe of the Nurfe. 3. Sir John, in vifitinghis Child, found this fecond Nurfe drunk, and immediately brought him Home ; on whicli Occaficn it was necelTary to provide a third Nurfe. Sir 'John favs, that the Landlady, who had carried the Child to the fecond Nurfe, brought the Nurfe and the Child to jWchel's ; which makes it look probnble, that Le Brun recommended the third Nurfe alfo. Mrs. Hewit, in her Depofition in 1763, had confounded the Date of the Story, and fuppofes her to have been taken after Nurfe Favre -, and upon her Difmiffion Nurie F.:zr€ Was refumed : But Nurfe Favre never took the Child but once, ard kept him till fiie gave him up at Dammarun to Alan- gin, his fifth Nurfe. It fhoidd be remembered, that this is the only I'^Iiitake Mrs. Hewit has fallen into, which muft in its Kind be ianocent, and cannot he Matter of Wonder at the End of fo many Years, and under fo much Infirmity ; and which leaves her Teftimony an extraordi- nary Example of Correftnefs, when compared with the numerous and irrcconcileable Errors Blainviile and the other Witnefles for the Purfuers have fallen into. She was a Country Wo- man, and came from St. Germain ; but flie Was found at Paris, the Purfuers fay in the Street, par Hazard ; Mrs. Hewit in the Suburbs, or fomewhere, ;'. e. fhe did not remember where. The mofl probable Account, as was faid before, is, tliat flie was recommended by Le Brun. She ftaid but one Night, being difcovered to be infufiicient. The Purfuers reprefent her as one who never had Milk. Sir Juon, who flew in a violent Pafiion, and abufcd her, has, perhaps, added another Circmnftance to her Charatler, that fiie was a Thief ; for Mrs. Hewit fays, that fl-tf had the King of France's Mark upon her : But as all the French Witncfli^s onlit that, it is not at all likely that Mrs. Heivit, who, probably, could not have told, if (he had been aiked the Quef- tion, what the King of France's Mark i,;, fliould difcover that which efcaped the Michels, and Blainviile herfelf,' who was the Perfon that examined her : Though fiie is fulEciently lavilh in de- Icribing her as quite deftitute of Milk, which looks monftroully aggravated. Confidcring how many Trials they are fuppofed to have made, the Breads muft have had the Appearance of Milk, at leafl ; and confidering that the Child was fullered to remain with her that Night, it is pro- b:il)le, that they did not dtfpair of her Milk returning till the next Morning, when Ihe was dif- mifled : And as Mrs. Heiiit, on the Day before, defcribed her as a fine Milk-Woman, it can- not be iuppofed flie would have been taken without having the Appearance of Milk, though the Quantity of it could not be known but by Trial. 4. The fourtli was Nurfe Fanre, who took him on the 22d of July, and kept him to the 6th or 7th of Augiijl. She was the Wife of a Joiner, who lived in the Rue Serpentc, three Doors from the H.iel D'Jnjcu: But Sir John, with his ufual Accuracy, calls her the Wife of a Taylor, and Mrs. Hewit, who could not tranllate Menuifar, follows him. Tiris is ftated byihe Purfuers ;but it i« not feen what they mewi to infer from it. ■-p. 36. A. Book IV. SITUATION at MICHE L's. 155 5. The fifth is Nurfe Mangin, who received'him from Nurfe Favre, and kepthira till he was weaned in jlpril 1749. The Purfuers fay, it was AffcGation in Sir John to pretend that he had forgot the Name of the Nurfes, becaufe at the Bottom of a Note he had given Mr. Loch in 1759, he wrote the Words P.P. 159. ii " Madame Le Fevre" without applying them to any Part of the Story. From this Writing in 1 759, they infer, that he muft have remembered the Names of all the Nurfes in 1763. The Account before given, without more Comment, explains all the Objections which feem at firft Sight to arife from the ftrange Tranfpofition of their feveral Letters in the Columns ; ex- ~-" 54=5. g. cept that in a Letter of the 17th of February, Lady Jane fays, he had changed three Nurfes, when, in Faft, he had changed four : And if there be an Indance throughout the civilifed World, where a Court of Juftice took fuch an Article, falling in the current Stile of a Letter, againft other Let- ters, wrote by tiie fame Perfon, which mentions that he had changed four; and againft the fo- knin Oaths of the Parties, as fufEcient to prove a deliberate Falfliood, let this be fo taken, in Defiance of common Senfe and Experience. The 6th of Juguft 1748, Sh John writes to Mrs. Hepburn, that he was under Lady y^^^'s Sci-v. p, 31D, Eye with a fine Nurfe, having changed three. — He was with them at Danmartin in the Hands of Favre, the fourth Nurfe. The 7th of O^aber 1749, Lady Jane writes to Lady Mary Menztes, that he had changed jj p jg ^ four Nurfes. — He had had five. Mrs. FLwit's Letter of the 21ft: of Jufy is cited; but it does not mention the Number of Serv. p. 5?. his Nurfes, only gives an Account of taking him away from the fecond, and of the good Opi- nion fhe then had of the third. The 26th of July, fhe writes, that he has had ill Luck to his Nurfes, but has at laft got a „ . ^^ fine one ; meaning, that his fecond and third were bad : But his fourth, in whofe Hands he then was, Nurfe Favre, fhe commends. The 1 2th of AiiguJ} 1748, Mrs. Hewit writes, that he was fo unlucky as to have had no lefs than five Nurfes. He was then in the Hand oi Mangin, the fifth : But the Purfuers, perhaps they know why, fay this means fix Nurfes. There is no Language from which Cavilling may ex- tort more different Meanings than from ISIrs. Hewit's ; but 'to fay fiie fpeaks of fix Nurfes, when flie exprefsly confines herfelf to five, is beyond meer Cavilling. But upon this Letter the Pur- fuers remark, that Mrs. Hnvlt deferibed all the Nurfes as good Milks ; and obferve, that fiie mufl have had Somediing to conceal, or fhe would not have fuppreffed the t' o bad Nurfes.. About a Month before, Mrs. Hewit is fuppofed to be fo fliarp as to corrcft a Date Eleven Days- after writing it, in order to impofe on the Maids. Here, after writing two Letters, which have been preferved, (befides thofe loft) in which flie fpeaks of the fecond and third Nurfes as bad, flie is fuppofed to have contradifted both induftrioufly, by defcribing them all as good : And this confiitent Way of arguing is upheld, by taking the Freedom to give Points to Mrs. Heiuit'a Letter, who never explained herfelf that Way. The Words upon which this Meainnfr is put, are, " lie has been the moft unlucky poor Dear in his Nurfes no lefs has he had than ^ " fixe all good iVIilks but bafe Jades would not come along with us for Love or ?*!Ioney." ^*^^' P" ^ His Unluckinefs confided in having no lefs than five in all, in fo many Changes, the refl; cf the Inconvenience was theirs, which, however, as fire exprefles it, was fimply this, That the good Milks, mentioned in Nurfe Fame and her Hufband's Depofitions, and who were requefted to n p „ go to Rheims, were fuch bafe Jades, as to refufe to come with them for liOve or Money. It is ridieuloufly hard to argue from her Grammar which ihe wants, agair.!! her Veracity which f!ie has, and which has never been qucftioned till now, efpecially when the Falflieod cculd not be meant, as the had writ the dirctt contrary but a Fortnight before. Such are the Repugnancies and Contradictions they rely upon : But forefeeing thcfe would va" nifii upon Examination, the Purfuers have another Objection ready, that there ii too much Conformity in their Accounts. It is extremely remarkable, they fiy, that in all their IjCttcrs there is a conflant Repetition of the fame, ox fimtlur ExprefRons, concerning the Strength of one Giiild, and the Wcaknefs of the other. It is fomewhat ditticult to conceive, how tbe Strength of one Child, and the Weaknefs of the other, rtiould be deferibed at all, if they are forbidden the Ufe, not only of the fame, but oifimilar Expreflions. It is not worth looking into the numerous Letters referred to on fuch an Occafion ; but whoever does, will find all the Variety of Plirafe v.-hich: good and bad Language can afford, ovl]j /miliar in refpecl of their all defcribing the lame Objects. LTpon the Whole, the Evidence at Michel's, perverted and tortured in every poffible Way,. muft ftill refult to this ; That Lady Jane, fo far from having there an Appearance inconfiftent with the Suppofition of Delivery, fo recent as the 10th Day of "/"(v preceding, fhewed every INIark and Chara£ter which could ferve to denote her Piecovery from a recent Delivery. In flating. Vbich tail Propofitioa fo largely, Reference is had, not only to what the Jileniory of each Wit- ncfs ,io SITUATION at MT IE Us. Part IV. nefs is now in a Condition to derofe, but to taofe other /i^pearances which appear from Circum- ftancES and Converfalions at the Time to have been knov - The enpag'.ng Nurfe Favre to go to Rheiws proves, that Nothing which was writ to Rbt. j could, or was meant to be, con- cealed in the E.ue Ssrpanc ; and that Nothing winch happened in the Rue Serpsnte was meant to be concealed at Rlnim:. •- Lady yane had been reprefented as a "Woman who came there on the eleventh Day from her Deli- very of Twins, driven out of her Lodgings by Bugs : Her Habit of Life was conformable to it, with clofe fliut \VinJo\vs, and warm Soaps : Tlie Child mult have correfponded to the fame Ac- count ; and no Circumib.nce could have intervened, in any Degree, inconfiitent with it. 'I'hofe who fufpecl: a Fraud, fhould be the Lift to believe in fuch Circumftanccs. The Perfons who were there had the fulleft Perfujfion, from their pcrfoml Obfcrvation, of all the Circim-.ftances ; and the Firmnefs of fuch Perfuafion was fuch, that when they were loaded with unanfwcrable Objections, they flill retained dut Belief. How much ftronger is that Belief, now the Objec- tions v;hich prelTed it at firfl are fuiiy anfwered ! 'Fhe Belief which fprung from Obfervations made at the Fime, is the beft Proof of what ought to be believed ; and it is ftrange Argu- ment to urge the nnccrtjin IMemory they nov.' have of particular Paflages, againft the certain Be- lief they then formed from aclual Obfcrvation. And the Obfervations which thefe Witncfles made at Paris receive great Confirmation from what happened afterwards. She wont to Dammartin on the 3d of Aumft^ as nearly as the Sff\-. p 35- c. Evidence cr.n fettle the Time. On tlie 26th 'July Mrs. Hcwlt fays, that flie was to go in eight Days, which ended on the 3d of Au7ujl. Nurfe Fa'vre fays, that immediately after her Arri- P. P. S!o. n. rxl at DiKiniaylin, her own Child was taken ill, and died in four Days; he died on the 8th. 350---50. Thz M-tbils h)', that flie flaid feven or eight Days after BlainvilU; but there has been too 858. r. much Occafion to fee the little Reliance to be placed on their Memories. Clovares took their 8;2.r. Chamber fo early as the 3ifl of July ; but he did not enter till fome Days after, which corref- yonds to the Time of Lady 'Janes going. CHAP. xn. Lady JaneV Appearance at Dammartin and Rheims. Reel. 12. B. AT Dummartin, Sir John reprefents her as ftill weak, and lying dovm often on the Bed. Serv. p. 35. c. x\ j^^j_ Hejcit lins, in the Letter above referred to, that (lie went by the Advice of the • 594 B- DoQor for Air, and to make her fit for the Journey ; and Mad. Daux heard fhe had come to Dammartin on Account of the Air. On the 12th of Augujl Mrs. Hetvit reprefents her as flill weak. Serv. p. 36. D. On the 7th of Auguji Lady Jane defcribcs herfelf in the fame Manner to the Duke of Douglas. P P «* *''' •'^"■'f"^ Favre fpeaks of her Recovery at Dammartin, to the Degree of changing her Habit of Liv- ^' ' ing ; Hie began to eat and drink like the reft. Daux obferved her Appearance to be ftill that D. P. 596. D. of recovering ; and that after fome Stay at Dammartin fhe appeared better. Mangin fpeaks more particularly to the Progrefs of her recovering during her Stay at Dammartin. To this the Purfuers objeft it, as an Inconfiftence, that fhe walked upon the Ramparts at Dammartin , that is to fay, upon a Turf-walk ten Yards from the Houfe, in the Month of Ju' giiji, to fee one of the moft agreeable Profpetts in France. ^- ^- ^3- ■• At Rhcim;, it appears, from Sir John Stewart's Letter of the 25th of AugvJ], flie ftill kept to D. P. 367. F. her Milk-diet. IJabellValker irjs, that fhe ufed to lie down on the Bed once a Day ; that flie had ftill a pale and weakly Look; and is very explicit upon the Difterence of the Appearance, extenuate and. thin, from very large, as {lie was before Ihe went to Paris. Mayetie fays, that 5'7- F. ^1. obferved the notsble Difference in the Size of her Perfon ; and that ftie was thinner in the " Ss*"' E. pjce, and had a fatigued Air. Mifs Primroje fpeaks generally of the Alteration as very ftriking, P. P. 343. F. fo [j,2[ fjjg y^;j3 fcarce to be known for the fiime Woman. Rlrs. Greig, that it was the Sort of Difference to be expedled between Pregnancy and the Time after Delivery ; it was what fhe expected, upon having heard that fhe had been brought to-bed of Twins. Baron Macelligot p. P. 350. D, fpeaks to her being paler tlian ufual, and very weak, and to the vifible Difference in her Shape antl Looks, from what he had obferved before ; in a Word, to that Difference always obferva- ble in a Woman lately brought to-bed. LTpon which the Purfuers remark, that his Obfcrva- tion relates to a Diftance often Weeks after fhe was brought to-bed, and muft therefore be in- applicable to the Cafe of a Woman lateU delivered. — The obvious Anfwer is in the Context of the Depofition, where he compares her then Situation with that he had feen her in before , and fays, die Difference was fuch as is always obferved between them. The Ccrrefpondencc of Lady Jane's Appearance in the Eyes of thofe who had feen lier preg- nant, with V. hat they expected to find after her Delivery of T\vin>, adds much to the other Application, and Strength of the Evidence of her Appearance before, in the Eyes of thofe who had not known her in both Situations ; and makes tlie very Propofition ridiculous, that her fub- ^qucnt Appcai-ance was inconfifteiU widi her fuppofed Delivery. PART Book I. E V I -^ ' ": E of th€ D E L I V E R Y. 1 5r P A R T V. B O O K I. Evidence of the Delivery. C PI A P. I. GeKeral Obfervations on the Evidence of tie Delivery. IT lus been feen, that there is an Interval of four Days, as the Furfuers fay^ as the Witneflcs fay of thirteen Days, between the yth and the 20th of July, to whidi no Evidence applies but that of Sir John Steivart and Mrs. Hewit. They depofe, that in this Interval Lady Ja7w was brought to-bed of Twins ; and, in this, conned their Accounts with the great Multitude of Per- fons who had the Opportunity to obferve her Pregnancy gradually forming ; and v/ith thole who faw her afterwards in a Condition diftinguiihed from her former State of Pregnancy, in that peculiar Manner which a Delivery would naturally lead them to expeft. But the Purfuers, without the Affiflance of Evidence, undertake to difprove the Whole of their Hiltory of thofe thirteen Days. — For this Purpofe they attempt to lay Hold on their Ac- counts of fome particular Circumflances ; and taking it for granted, that thofe have been erro- neoufly told, they conclude that the principal Hiftory itfelf is falfe. In arguing thus, they feem to miftake their Place in this Caufe. As Purfuers, it is their Undertaking to evi<£t the Defender from the Condition he is now poflefled of; which muft be done, either by fliewing what his Condition was, before he was found in his prefent State, or, by demonftrating, that he muft have been in fome other Condition, from the utter Impoffibili- ty of his being born in his prefent State. — If they have not fuccecdcd in proving Mr. Douglas the Child of Mignon, and alfo in proving his Brother the Child of Sanry, they have fallen ftiort of fixing upon him any other Condition prior to that wherein he finds himfelf. If they have not proved Lady Jane at Godefroih and Michel'Sy at Times, and under Circumftances, which infer a demonftrated Impoflibility of her Delivery ; it is altogether in vain for them to infift on thefe circumftantial Objeftions, which aim only at difcrediting the Teftimony of the Wit- nefles to the Birth, without going one Step towards proving any Ground, or Propofition, whereupon the Negative of his Birth is to be demonftrated. But Whoeverwill examine even this remoter Part of the Cafe, making fiich Allowances as the Diftance of Time, the Age, Infirmfty of the Witnefles, and the utter Ignorance of one of them in every Thing French, calls for ; and fuch as the reft of the Evidence fhews to be a£lually due to the Witnefles in this particular Inftance : — Whoever will attend to the Cafe made by the Evidence in this View ; will fee Reafon to think, that inftead of having falfified the Accounts given by Lady Jane, Sir John Stewart, and Mrs. Hewit, in the Circumftantial Part, the Weight of the Evidence is in the oppofite Scale, and proves their Accounts to have been founded in Truth, and, generally fpeak- ing, correcT; in the Detail. Tliethrce principal Circumftances to which Objcdions are offered, are, the Houfe wherein Lady Jane was brought to-bed, the Man-midwife by whom the was delivered, and the Nurfe who Brought up Sholto. It will be proper to take each of thefe Objections by itfelf ; but as they are all founded in ftrained Comments upon the Perfons of the Witnefles and the Terms of their Depofi- tions, the Difcuflion of them will be more intelligible if fome general Account of the Evidence is premifed, efpecially as that goes to all the three Circuinftances at once. To meet all the Comments of the Purfuers, it will be nccclTary to mention the Times and Occa- fions of the Converfaiions and Correfpondcnce which Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit, held on the Subject of the Delivery, as well as the Subftance of fuch Converlraions and Correfpondcnce ; not imperfectly, as the Purfuers do, for the Sake of commenting upon its Deficiency, but as they actually fell out, that it may be feen whether they are fuch as, confidering the Occafions and Circumftances, might be expeiLted from the Perfons who fpoke or wrote. CHAP. II. 0/5/>John, £^4" Jane, ani Mrs. Hqw'm's Accoiuits of the Delivery, ami ;?/ ShoUo the yow'gejl Child. I N the Letter? of tlie loth of J'Jy to Lord Crawfcrtl, Lady Jane is rcprefented as in hourly Ex- p. p. <;,. ,. * pei^ation of being delivered. * ^^ Z in ,62 E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. Part V. Serv 54 A. In the Afternoon of the fame Day fhe was. accordingly delivered, in the Houfeofone LeBrun, P.P.254.F. hy one La A fdtre, a Man-Midwife, ofTwins: Tlie eldefl; was kept fome little Time at home, and 50. L. then lent to a Nurfe in Town : The youngeft, who was born infirm and puny, was immediately Peel. 5. B. ^g|,j jj^jQ jj^g Comitry, to a Nurfe recommended by La Marre. The Lodging wherein Lady June Se-rv. 14. c. foj,j,d herfelf being pellered with Bugs, which were particularly noifome to her, fhe removed to BHOther Houfe, as foon as it was thought fafc, which was on the tenth Day after the Delivery. It has been feen that the Nurfe to whom the eldeft Child was fent, turned out bad, and that^ he was brought home to them at Michel's, their fecond Lodging, on l;he 2ifi; oi July, the Day after they came there. Upon this Day, the firft Letters after the Delivery which are now extant, are Mrs. Hewit's to the Maids, and Hit Jabn's to Lord Crawford. In the lirfl JNIrs. Hewit informs ffabel IFtiiker, that after the laft Letter went off. Lady Jane, who had been ill the whole Night before, but fo as to 'Scrv, p. 34. bear it without making Complaints, was taken, about Twelve, in fuch a Way as (lie was forry to be Witnefs to, though many, as flie believed, had been worfe with one, but Lady Jane had produced two Children. " You may believe, (fhe proceeds) the Confufion I have been in fmce, having no " Thoutiit of more than one ; though Tibby ITalker wus fo much a Conjurer, as to tell me flie " thouglu (he was with two ; but Hill my Thoughts joined Effy's." She then adds a Defcriplioii of the Children: " They are two lovely Creatures, but the youngeft fmall and weakly." And flie ctefcribes the Nurfe to be one of the cleanlieft befl Women (lie ever faw, a Farmer's Wife: She adds the Account which has been obfervcd upon before, that upon linding the Nurfe of the youngeil to agree, they (tut out the eldeft alfo to nurfe in Parii, but were difappointed by finding the la(t Nurfe drunk : They took him home in the Care of a Milk- Woman till they could geta right Nurfe» being determined to part with him no more.— -This Milk- Woman too, upon further Trial, was found infutncient, and one Fnvre engaged in her Place on the 22d, whole gooti Rsha\ lour and Character induced them to allow herto carry the Child to her own Houfe about the 26th or 27th oijuly. P P. 6j. E, Sir yi;/!)/; tells Lord Cr«?c/or^/ of the Delivery, on the loth, ofTwins. He defcribes the one promifing, the other puny ; but he hopes that Country Air and a good Nurfe will make him. do well: " The firft under her Eye does well, and my Lady recovers wonderfully." Above twenty * Letters more have been preferved, from the Time of the Delivery down to their final Departure from Rheims, in which they fpeak of the Delivery, and the Condition of Lady Jane and the Children, from Time to Time, as the Occafion feemed to call (or ; and it may be worth While to read them, in order toobferve the conftant Attention which they hzAio Sholto, as well as Archi- bald, and the natural Manner in which they make Obfervations upon little Circumftances, which it is difficult to imagine they could invent, even for thofe who fee any other Reafon to be inclined to impute to them fo long, minute, and circumftantial a Train of Falfliood, and Fraud : In one of them, dated November 1748, Sir John writes to his Son in Scotland, earneftly folliciting, nay» T) P 6 E conjuring him, by every Kind of Perfuafion, to come over to Rbcirns and be acquainted with his Brothers. He there propofes Rhcims to him as a Place of cheap Living, where it (liould coft him no- thing to fare as they did. The Purfiiers affcft toinfift, that the Accounts which have been thus preferved indajirioujly omit the Names of the Man-Midwife, the Landladies, the Nurfe, and the Places where they lived. W^hether this was induftrioufly done, will befl: appear by going back to the Time and Occafion of writing. It was very natural to fend their Friends News of the Event of Lady Jane'A Deli- very, and of her Health, and her Children^ becaufe thofe were Circumfhmces which their Friends. would take an Intereft in. It would have been extraordinarily induftrious to have added the Names. • Letter, Mrs. He'u.ii to IfaM ITalier, 7,6. July, 1748. - . . Serv. p. 35. Sir Jo/ii! Ste-iuart to Mrs. Hepburn of Keit/i, 6 Augujt, - - - Serv. p. 31.. 'Li.Ay Jane to the Vluke of Douglas, 7 Augnf, 1748, ... P. P.» 63*. Mys. He^vit to IfahelU^aUuT, \z Aiiguf, 1748, - . . . Serv. p. 36. hir 'Jo/in Setti'ar! to Lord Haining - - - - P. P. 63. — &\r JoAk Stc-i'.'art to My Keith _- - - - -P.P. 893. Sir Join' to Mad. Teivis, 3 September, "1748. - - - P. P. 67. Sir 'J oliri to Mid. Tezvis, b January, 1749, - - - -P.P. 67. L-iidy JanetoMr. Halilane, ib September, 1748, - - -P.P. 64. Lady 7««f to Lady C/;. A't/T, i<} September, ... - P. P. 66. hady Jane to 'L2Ldy Mary Menxies, ■; OS'.ber, 1-^% ... D. P. 8S9. Lidy Jane to Ijidy Mary Hamilton, -j OBober, 1748, ... D. P. 983.. Lady 7a«f to Lady Mary Hamilton, 5 June, 1749, - - - P.P. 985. Lady 5'<7^f to Mrs. //f^/i«™, ii Oilobcr, 1748. - - - - Serv. 32. — Mrs. j-Iexvit to Mrs. Hepburn, 21 December, 1748, . . .' Serv. 33. Lady Jane to Mr. HaUane, z December, 174!, - - . . P. P. 540. Lady Jane to Mr. HaUiane, 1 7 February, 1 749, - - - P. P. 540. — S\r John tohts Son, now Sir John Stezvart, ig September, 1748, - . D. P. 1065. — .'— — Sir^'&Aiito his Son, 11 November, 1748, - - - - D. P. 996. ~-'~— L^dy Jane to Mr, Hamilton, 26 March, 1749, .... Serv. p. 37.. of Book I. E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. ,65 of Nurfes, Landladies, &c. to thofe who would not have taken an Intereftin fuch Information, nor even have colleaed a fingle Idea from it. For Inflance, if Lady f^rw had been brought to- bed at Edinburgh, and the Child fent out to Nurfe in the Neighbourhood of that Place, it might have been Information, though not of a veiy material Sort, to Ijahel IValker, vfrho was intimately acquainted with the Place and Neighbourhood, to have fpecified the particular Places and Perfons, either referring to her Knowledge, or explaining it by Circumllances fhe was familiar with. But how could any fuch Information be conveyed to her in a Place wherein (he had no one Trace of Knowledge or Acquaintance ? And how could it be conveyed by one who had herfelf no Know- ledge of Names or Places.— Thus, though they lived a Fortnight at Michel's without the Imputa- tion of Secrecy, and ten Days more -ii Dammaitin, it did not occur to mention either of the Houfes or People's Names in their Letters. And that Concealment was not their Purpofe is exceedingly plain, from their earneft Inftances P. P. 879" d. to Nurfe /it, the Town upon a Hill, at the Foot ol which, and by the Road-Side, Garnier lived, Tlie Name of the Road is Chemin de Menilmontaiit. Lady Rutltdge remembers to have heard the Naine of the Place, though flie had then forgot it, and could go no further than to be fure it began with an Jid. Mrs. Greig rem.embers, as might D. P. 610. a.' be expeded, to have heard Converfations on the SubjecSl of the Delivery, and the Children, the P. P. 343' «• Weaknefs of Sholto, and his being fprinkled, and that he was left under the Care of a Surgeon who delivered Lady Jane. She does not recoiled the Name of the Place, or the Addrefs to the Nurfe wher.e he was ; but flie remembers that Lady Jane begged Lady IVigton, when flie went to Paris, to go and fee Sholto ; which could not have happened without adding a particu- iir Diredion: Awi. yet the particular Names of Places and Perfons, quite ftrange to her, as was Z 2 natural, ,5^ E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. Part V. natural, cfcaped her Memory. So Mifs Primrofe, vho wentvit'n Lady lyigton to Parh^ did not I>. P. 359- A. bear them diftindly in her 'Memory, till an Accident recalled the Name of the Place to her Memory, vvliich will be mentioned prelently. As Lady TVigtcn died before this Caufe began, it cannot now be afcertained whether flie did fee Shclto or not. She went to Paris for a Complaint which confined her to the Houfe almoft all 561. c. the Time flie remained there ; and when ihe went abroad, it was often without Mifs Pr/wa/f : So that Matter is left uncertain. But it is in full Proof, that 'LovA BInntyre did lee him. His Sc.-.'. p. 5+. c. Lordfliip was at Paits from Ocioher, till after the 29th of December, 1 748 ; and it appears from a Letter of Lord Mark Kerr to Lord Cnnvford, dated the 3d of May 1749, that Lord Uiun-yre had received a 51. G. Letter from Lady "7(?;;c, begging his Interpofition with the Duke ; which Lord i5/.y;;/;';v gave to Lord Mark Kerr, folliciting his good Offices : And Lord Ahrk Kerr defired Lord Bianiyte to acquaint the Duke, that he had feen both the Children.— Now it is impoffible that Lord Mark Kerr could have wrote thus to Lord Cravjford, unlefs Lord BLnilyre had told him that he had really feen ■ If), c. Sho/to. This PalTage happened between Lord Mark Kerr and Lord Blantyre feme Time in Jpr'tl 1749, as appears from Lord Mark A'fr;'s Letter to ^.^(Xy Jane. Wliether La Marres Name was mentioned in their Converfations or not, muft have been purely the Picfult of Accident: It is much the Habit with the Scotch and French to defign People by their Profeffion ; and it is probable enough that, for the mofl Part, Lii Alarre was fo talked of: P.'P. 391. D. But it appears from an Entry in Ladyj^^w's Pocket-Book, Sepierribcr 11, 1749, that they were in Ufe to write to La Alar re.- --Tins the Purfuers infmuate, may have been inferted fince, though it was a Piece of Evidence introduced by thcmfelves, and relied upon : However, they obferve, that Twenty-four Leaves ha\e been cut out of it. The whole Book confifted of twelve Leaves of Afles Skin with a I^eaf of Paper between each, and of a larger Number of Paper Leaves, fubfequent to thcic. L1^p«n the Afs-Skin Leaves, only a Pencil could be ufed ; and when they became too foiled to be ufed any longer, it is probable they were cut out : But all Sufpicion grows abfurd when it is confulered, that if that Pocket-Book had been defigned for Evidence (a very far-fetched Idea) the Entries would not have been left as they ftand, fo accidental, loofe, and uncircumftantial ; but, as far as the Nature of fuch a Book admitted, would have contained Ar- ticles in regular Support of every Idea they had fet themfelves to convey to the World. D. P. 35?. r. Befides Mifs Primrofe, Mrs. Gre'ig, Lady Rutledge, Ifabel Walker, and Mrs. Heivit, remember — - 359- E. Letters which were faid to come from the Man-Midwife, and which they heard read. Jfabel Walker D P ^6 ' '' ^''^ frequently examined, and gained much Credit by her clear and fatisfadlory Anfwers. She tolJ Serv.p. 12. F. l^Irs. Hepburn oi Keith, prior to the Service in 1761 ,thatZ(7 Alarre was ^z Accoucheur o{ Lady Jancy D. P. -,68. E. which flie recollefted by delivering to Sir John a I-etter which came from him when they lived — — 369. B. in London.-— In the Service flie was alked no Queftions about La Marre or Letters from him ^ Min.p. II. c. jjijj therefore does not mention what fhe had told Mrs. Hepburn '^xA before her Examination. — P P. ij8 d. If ber Examination in this Aftion flie was queftioned about Letters from La Marre, and !uid file heard Sir yohn and Lady Jane fpeak frequently of the Man-Midwife who had the Charge of Sholto,-:mA had brought Lady ^awf to-bed ; and that Letters came frequently from him, giving an Account of Sholto, and that Lady Jane ufed to read and explain thefe Letters to her ; and that Sir Jihn and Lady Jane were always anxious about the Child, as he was very tender.---That fhe 14in. p. ij. c. particularly remembers that in one of thefe Letters, read at Rhcims, LaMarre commended Shollc's Nurfe ; and that they received a Letter from La Alarre in London, when they lived in the Houfe of Mr. Alurray in iV. Jameses Place, which was brought by a Friend. She was interrogated by the Court, Whether Sir John and Lady Jane had ufed to fhew and explain her other French Let- ters ? She anfwered. No ; but that Lady y^wwasexceedingly uneafy about the Child ; and fhe had difcovered her Anxiety in feeing the Concern her Miftrefs was under ; and that Lady Jane iifecl P.P. 610. c. to impart to her the News ftie received of the Child. — Lady Rutledge mentions their Anxiety on Account of not receiving Letters with refpeft to Sholto ; and that Sir John went frequently to the Serv. 36. A. Po^/l-Lffce to enquire, and, at lafl, brought one, which he read in her Prefence to Lady Jane: And it appears that other of their Friends at Rheims, with whom they converfed, as well as thofe — 36:.B. '^■•"''b v.'hom they correfponded, had thefe Accounts of Sholto communicated to them.— -Mifa Primrofe remembers particularly that flie heard at Rheims, that the Man-Midwife's Name to whom Sholto was committed, was La Marre ; and that he was at Nurfe at MenilmorAant. Sir John went to fee Sholto from Dammartin, in Augujl 1748, and again from Rhe-tw. in O^oher the fame Year, at which Time he carried with him Linncns, and other Articles fit for the Child : And again, in Summer 1749, he went to Paris upon the fame Errand. The fecond Time of his going was with Baron Mucelligot, which no Imagination can fuppofe would have happened, if there had been rer.lly no Child to fee ; for if the Baron had not been confined with Illnefs, no Accident could have been more probably expected than an Offer to go with him to fee the Child, which would have blown up the Impofture. It appears from all the WitnefTcs, that they in Converfation uniformly told that Sholto was a4 P.P.343.U.&C. Nurfe aux Environs, or in the Neighbourhood oi Paris. DP • ;5*' , A, ■p. P. P. P. 597- +21. •4" D. F. .. *l. D P . 595. D. — 605. B. — 609. F. — 524. B. Book r. E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. 165 Such are the Accounts which have been preferved of Sholto, during the fixteen Montlis he was nurfed under ALniimniravi : At the End of this Time he was brought home, and thofe who few and knew him thereafter found him tocorrefpond in the exadeft Manner with die Defcrip- tions which had been given of him before. He was of a weak and puny Habit, differing from his Brother jufl as he had been defcribcd, D P. 501. e. aiid, as far as that Circumftance goes, a ftriking Likenefs of Lady Jane.— They mull have been ^^Ztss.' f.' fuigularly fortunate if the Turfuers are ri^^dit in fuppofing, that after finding it impoffible to get a fecond Child in the Year 1748, and yet hazarding to give out in Converfation another Child, which they could not get, and tying thcmfelves down by fuch particular Dcfcriptious, they fhould in the Year 1749 light upon a Child offuitable Age, Habit, and Figure, vWth tlic additional Cir- cumflance, of llrong Refemblance to his Mother. When they had both their Children with them, the Occafions which continually offered of talking about the abfent Child ccafed, and had no Chance of being renewed, till the Duke re- fufed to fee Lady yane, and then would be revived only with fuch Friends whofe Advice and Affiftance fhe flood in Need of. Of thefe Mr. Loch only furvives, and he fpeaks to a Converfation he had with her in the Year Scrv. p. 15. a. 1752, before (he went to Dcug/^is-CaMe, wherein fhe complained of the Reports in Scot/and, which were fpread to her Prejudice ; all which turned out to be falfe, and have been traced Home to their Authors. Mr. Loch took Occafion, upon this, to a(k her the Names of the Perfons who knew of her Delivery. She told him, that fhe was brought to-bed on the loth of July, at the Houfeofone Mad. LeBrun, Sanbotirg St. GermaiitM Paris, Pierre la Marre affifling as Man-Mid- wife at the Birth .• Le Brun and her Daughter v/ere prefent, and a Widow Lady who lodged in the Houfe, and Mrs. Hsuiit. On the I2th of November, 1753, Mr. Loch drew Lady Jane's Will, and delivered her a Scroll of it. It never was executed, and Mr. Loch took it back before or immediately after her Death, which happened on the 22d Day of November. Upon this Scroll Mr. Loch indorfed the follow- ing Words, viz. " Archibald and Sholto Stewarts were born loth July 1748 in Mad'. la Brune's houfe p. 45- ^» " Sanbourg St. Germain Paris, prefent Mr. Peeter La Marr Man-Midwife, Mad', la Brune, her " Daughter, a Widow Lady who lodged in the houfe, and Mrs. Hellen Hewit." He does not recolleft prccifely when this Indorfemcnt was made ; but thinks it was taken P. P. 361. from Lady Jane or thofe about her. On the 13th of May 1756, Sir John was defired by Mrs. Napier to give her an Account of the 1. Circumftances attending Lady Jane's Delivery. He told her he could not upon the Inftant re- 10. a, colleft diflinftly in what Houfe the Children were born, having changed Lodgings often about that Time, and being in great Diftrefs fmce. He wrote down fuch Anfwers as occurred to her Qu^eftions in the following Form, viz. " Monfieur La Marre Accoucheur " Chez Madame Michele " Faubourg St. Germain a Paris " Dans le Mois de Juillet vers le " Commencement du Mois 1748 «' Monfieur & Mad« Stewart " logerent 011 Mad=. Stewart " Accoucha du Jumeaux " Prefente I'HoteJle et fa fille Marie " Monfieur la Mar Accoucheur " et Madamoifclle Hewit." Upon the 6th oljuly Mrs. Napier fent a Copy of this Note to Lady Fanny Stewart, then at Spa, who tranfmitted it to Principal Gordon at Paris, who, upon finding out Michel's, was told that Lady Jane had not been delivered there ; but had kept her Bed fome Time after coming to that Houfe, on Account of her being recently delivered. ---This Anfwer w;is fent by Lady Fanny g j^^ from Spa, the 28th of Aiigujl 1756. About the Time of Mrs. Napier's Lying-in (5th q{ Auguji 1756) Sir John came to her again, — - 11. b, and gave her an Account of fome other Particulars which had occurred to him. In what IMc- thod he gave them, does not appear ; but the Memorandum which Mrs. Ncpicr made of them is in the following Words : vi%. " Madame la Brun fauxbourg St. Germain " Coll fontaine Oculiil to the Invalids " at Paris Monfieur la Marr Valoon " Surgeon to a Reginjcut Sc\'eral Years." 1. A. ,66 E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. Part V ^TS. Napier put the firft Note, among other Papers, into the Hands of Mr. Orr, who deli- vered them over to Mr. Brown, who produced them at the Inftance of the Purfuers ; and P. P. 17. c, therein a Paper in the following Words : " From Aix laChapellc " to Liege " to Sedan »< to Rhetel " to Rheims where we feared a Mifcarriage " to Paris in the Stage Coach " Lady Jane brought to Bed of two boys " July 10 N. 8. in Mad=. labrunes " Houfe faubourg St. Germain the " 20. removed from that buggy houfe " to Mad=. Michels houfc near " the Pont St. Michel *' tlien went to Damartin for " iVefh Air where Lady Jane recovered *' health and flrength and fo re- " turned to Rheims en Champagne " where Lady Jane had a Mifcarriage " and in about 14 Months " after came to London " N. B. Lady Jane in Her Paris expe- " dition took no other Defignation then " Mad=. Stewart from the Poverty " we were in at that time." D. P. 429. D. In the Year 1759, Mr. Loch got from Sir John Stewart a Note of the Clrcumftances attending 4i3>D. Lady Jim/s Delivery, which he gave or fent to the Duke or Dutchefs of Douglas; and is in the following Words : P. P. 137. G. " the Man meadwifs name who brought " Lady Jane to bed was Mr. Peeter la Marr " in Madam la Brun's houfe " faubourg St. Germain Paris " Mad^. la Brune her Daughter and " Mrs. Helen Huette prefent ' " with a Widow Lady who lodged in the " fame houfe to whom we wer much " Oblidged Madame la fever." The Purfuers find it for their Interefl to confound the plain Series of thefe Fafls, in order to in- fift, that Muhers was always named as the Place of Delivery, till in the End of the Year 1 756, it had been difcovered by the Enquiries of Principal Gordon to be falfe. After which the Name Le Brun's was taken up at hazard, as the Landlady where Lady Jo/ie was brought to Bed : And this Idea they contend is further fupported by the Scroll of a Letter fouiul among Mrs. Hewit's Things Def. Mem. p. after her De.ath, which was defigned for the Duke of Douglas, but was never fent or finifhed ; in '78' which Letter Mrs. Hewit mentions Michel's as the Place of Lady y^vw's Delivery. The Manner in which this Paper was produced in Procefs deferves to be mentioned as an Ex- ample of the Purfuers Diligence, in an Article which will appear prefently to be abfolutely of no Confequence in the Caufe. Mrs. Hewit left one IValter Colvil her Executor. The Executor not being prefent, the Papers were fealed up by the Commiflary's Clerk. Mr. Loch, the Witnefs above-mentioned, applied by Petition to the Commifliiries, as Faftor for Mr. Prlngle of Lee, fuggefling that Mrs. Hewit had Pa- pers relative to tlie Eflate of Z,^/'.---The Petition would have been juft as true and probable con- cerning any other Eflate in his Majedy's Dominions, Mrs. //^iv/V being equally a Stranger to them b!1. Upon tliis Petition, without even acquainting the Executor, a general IVarrant \\z.< granted by the Commiflaries for fuch Infpedion. Mr. Loch, Mr. Andrew Stuart, ami Mr. David/on, Agents for the Purfuers, attended the Infpeftion, and took Copies of fuch P.ipers as they pleafed. This Scroll of aLetter was inllantly printed in the Form of a Hand-bill, with this Title, " Scroll or Copy of *' a Letter from Helen Hewit to the Duke of Douglas, afeertainingi^/;V/Ws to have been thcHouJfe of *' Delivery," and was fent privately to the Judges ; three Months after which, an Order was ob- tained from the Court of Seflion for tranfmiting it into Procefs. It Book I. E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. 167 It is neecllefs to enquire with what Refervation to the private Property of Colvil, this general War- rant was iffbed to rummage all his Papers in his Abfence, upon the Pretence of taking away the Papers of an Eflate which, for Aught the CommiiTary knew, he had an Intcreft to keep out of Mr. Loib'^ Hands ; or what Right Mefileurs Stuart and Davidfon had to take their Part in fuch a Search. It is equally in vain toafk why that Paper vas printed and publifhed in fo unautliorifed a INIan- ner. — It has been the uniform Courfe of Proceeding, throughout this Caufe, for the Purfuers to pub- lifh falfe and partial Pieprefentationn of it, in order to create Prejudice ; and the former InflancGS were ftill wovfe, becaufe they were done on exprcfs Piu-pafe to byafs the Witneflcs before their Exa- mination. —-The Paper is now in Procefs ; and when reduced to its proper Place in the Caufe, v ill be found to be of no Confequence whatever. Firfl, In order to maintain the Purfuers Hypothefis, it is indifpenfably neceffary to fuppofc the above-mentioned Mr. Loch to have been guilty of a v/ilful Perjury, thus concerted : Mr. Loch, at the Requefl: of Sir Jchn Stewart, went in the Year 1759, to the Duke of Douglas ; and appears by a Letter of Sir Joini's, written at the fame Time to the Duchcfs, to have been re- P. P. 571. f. fcrred to as the Perfon who had converfed with Lady yarie on the Storv raifed to her Prejudice. He carried with him the Memorandum above-mentioned, written at that Time by Sir ychn. Now the Suppofal of the Purfuers is, that he tranfcribed Hhyohn's Note upon the Back of the Scroll of Lady yane's Teilament, and iniftook the Word Faubourg in that Note, for Sanbowg, as it appears in- dorfed on the Scroll ; and afterwards, in 1 761, fwore that Lady yane hzA given him that Ac- count fo early as the Year 1752; and that he had indorfed it on the Scroll either from her Mcuth, or fome of the People about her, fo early as the Year 1753- Wiioever will take the Trouble to look at Sir yohn's Note, will fee that nothing is fo impofTible as that imaginary Blunder in traiifcribing. The Letters are exceedingly plain -, the F diltinftly marked, the u cleaf and open, and accordingly it has never been mifcopied by any Clerk, or got wrong into any Print ; which laft Circumftance proves the Writing was too plain to be mifread under the Colour of a Miltake; or the fame Policy which induced the Purfuers to print La Atari inftead of La Marre, Fluralt inftead of Fluratl from MichePs Police -Book, and doux inftead of deux inNurfe Frttr/sUepofition, to make wilful Miftakes the Topicks of Argument, would doubilefs have g\\e.nSanhourg.,vnS'nyohn'iKot.c,iox Faubourg -, inftead ot which, when theProof was printed, this very Converfation Avith IVt. Loch is referred to by the Purfuers as Lady yam's firft Explanation upon the Subje£t of the Place and IFitneJfes to the Delivery.— -l\lx. Loch knew no French at that Time, what- ever he has learnt fmce France was introduced into Scotland by this Procefs. He probably did not know the Cleaning of the Word Faubourg ; it is much more eafy to fuppofe, that he mis-heard Ladv yane, whom he attended in her weakeft Moments, than that, with a plain Writing before him, he', who is a Man of Buhnefs, mifcopied it. But Whoever will take the Trouble to compare Sir yohn Stewart's Note with Mr. Loch's Indorfe- ment, will alfo find, that the latter is nothing like a Tranfcript from the former. The Indorfement begins, " Archibald andi^hoho Stewarts tvere born the 1 0th ij/" July 1748 ;" not a Word of which is in Sir yohn's Note. Madame Le Favrc's Name does not appear in the Indorfement, as not being rela- tive in Faft to the Period Lady yw^e fpoke of ; but to a fubfequent one. Sir y^hn mentions his being much obliged to the Wtdoiu Lady, which, however' it was in Faft, Lady yane does not mention. The whole Order of the Circumilances is alfo tranfpofed, fo that it could not have been a Tranfcript. The only Points of Refemblance are, ift. That Le Brun is fpelt in both La Bruns ; which proves no more, than that both thought that to be her Name, and had been nfed to pronounce it, and perhaps to write it fo : The Miftake is natural to all Britijh Subjedis. 2d. That Peeler is fpelt in both with two e's accommodating to the Scotiijh Pronunciation ; for it appears from the reft of Mr. Loch's Note, that he was certainly not governed by the Spelling of the Paper he is fuppofed to have copied. It is not eafy to fuppofe, that Mr. Loch ftiould have made fuch an Indorfement at all after the Year 1759, when he got that Note for the Duchefs of Z>ar/_g/<5x, without fuppofing, at the fame Time, fome unjuftifiable Purpofe : And it is abfolutely impcflible that he ftiould in the Year 1 76 1 fwear it to be an Indorfement of 1753, fo foon after it muft have been made, if it were copied from Sir ychn's Note in 1759, without intending a direct Perjury. The nngle Queftion therefore is. Whether Mr. Loch ftiall be adjudged guilty of Perjury, and in fome Sort of Forgery, upon the Strength of thefe Arguments, drawn from the moft immaterial of all Circumftances ? or whether it fhall ftand for proved, that Ladv yane did hold fuch Convermticu with him as he depofes to have heard in the Year 1 752, and to have written from her, or Somebody about her, on or after the 12th oi November 1753, the Indorfement on the Back of theTtftament? Secondly, i68 E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. Part V. Secondly, if Mr. Lochis held for perjured, their Hypothefis further requires, that the Enquiries made by Principal Gordon fliould have been tranfmitled to Scotlandhdoxe. Sir John gave in his fur- ther Aecounts to Mrs Napinr, in which Le Brun's Name is mentioned. The Letter from Lady Fantry Stnumi, containing the Refuk of thofe Enquiries, is dated Spa, Augujl the 28th. It has no Port-Mark, fo that it came (as Mrs. Nop'ier had defircd of Lady Faf.vj it might) under Cover to her Brother, Lord Cnthcari, and could not have been in Hand till to- P. P. 10. 1. wards the Middle of SipUmbcr. The fecond Ccnvcriation flie had with Sir Jchv, was abiut the Thm of her L\ing-in, as Ihe depofes ; flie was brought to-bed on the 5th ot AuguJ}, if ab'^ut the Time of her Lying in is meant within a Day or two of that Time, it rnufl have been before the 5th of Jugiiji i and, whatever tolerable Latitude is given the Word, it coukl not mean fix V/ecks after. Sir John was, at th.it Time, confined by his Circumftances in a privileged Place ; fo that his Vifits could not have been frequent. IMrs. Napier fiys, this additional Information was given in a fecond Converfation (lie had v/ith him. Now if flie had received thofe Letters from France at that Time, or had even fecn him after flie received them, it is impoflible fhe fliould not have 4. F. expoftulated en the carelef; Aecou'.u which had produced fo fruitlefs an Enquiry. Again, Princi- pal Gordon's Anfwer contained, that Lady Jane kept her Bed at Afichel's. Now if Sir Jchn had been told that, and had meant to falfify, neither he nor Mrs. Heivit would have faiil, that Lady Jitne did not keep her Bed at Michel's on Account of the Heat. But the Truth is, Mrs. Napier never did communicate the Anfv.-ers from Principal Gordon to Sir John at all ; and it is impof- ftble to make out a falfe Propofition by Arguments, which, being exceedingly impoflible, have the Appeanmce of being poifible, only from the Want of one Queftion more, to bring out the whole Truth. Thirdly, To make Mrs. Hnvit's Letter fall into this Hypothefis, it mufl: be fuppofed that it v«.-,s written before Sir John's Difcovery that Michel's was not the Place (that is to fay, before a Difcover\' which was never revealed to him), and before that Converfation which happened about the !{thoi Ju£u/i 1756. An Event, which fell out in the Spring 1755, is referred to in the Letter ; fo that the Propofi- tion which the Purfuers undertake to prove is, that this Letter was concerted by Sir John and Rlrs. Heuit, and writ between Afay 1756, and the Time of his giving the fecond Account to Mrs. Napier ; whether that Account be fuppofed, according to the Truth, to have been given before Lady Fanny\ Letter arrived, or, as the Purfuers allege in the Face of all Manner of Probability, afterwards. To maintain either Part of this Propofition, there is not a Ticde of Evidence that it was concerted whh Sir John, or that it was written at that Period. For the reft, it is in Evidence, that in the Years 1759 and 1760, the Duke of Doughs faw Mrs. Heuiit, and often converfed with her, and exprefled great Satisfaftion with her. It has been juft now mentioned, that in the Year 1759, Sir John made his Application to the Duchefs ; and the high Probability is, that Mrs. Hewit defigncd this Letter, at the fame Time, to the Duke ; but being admitted to converfe with him, laid by her Purpofe, and never thought of this Scroll more. Fourthly, A Paper mentioned befwre, Avhich appeared in the Collecflion of Mrs. Napier's Papers, when produced by Mr. Brown, did not appear in the Inventory and Receit of them which Mr. Orr took at the Time he transferred them to Mr. Brown. Mr. Orr, trufting to the Accuracy of his Inventory, fays it was not one of thofe Papers -, Mr. Brown undertakes to remember it was ; Mri^ Napier fays, that as fhe lay-in, and was confined on that Account, flie does not remember the nsrticular Delivery-cf that Note ; but it is of Sir Joh'i's writing, and it agrees v.ith the Particu- lars they had talked over. This Note, though it contains many more Particulars than the former, carries the Article in Queftion no further. The Name of Le Brun is mentioned in both -, fo that the Queftion, as to the Time of gi\ing the Name of Le Brun, fl;ill rcfls on I\Irs. Napier's Evidence, that it was about the 5th of Augujl, the Time of her Lying-in. This Part of the Hiftory, therefore, reforts back to the fimple Narrative given originally from D. P. 367. c. the Evidence, that the Delivery was given out, as early as July 1748, to have happened in a Houfe infeftcd with Bugs, on which Account they were obliged to quit it on the tenth Day after the Delivery ; that this was therefore a totally different Houfe from Michel's, and applies exa£lly Serv. 15. E. to the Accounts uniform.ly given fince of Le B'un's ; That Le Brun's was mentioned as the Placx; of Delivery, at leaft as early as the Year 1752, and fo continued to be mentioned on all fucceeding Occafions, except two, on the firfl of which Sir fabn confounded the Names of die two Landladies he had lodged with, when upon the fudden he gave Mrs. Napier the Note above-mentioned ; and upon the Opportunity of another Converfadon, (wherein the fame Subjcd was talked over again, and Book I. EVIDENCE of the DELIVERY. 1651 and wherein, as Mrs. Napier (sys, he mentioned more Particulars), he fpoke oi Le Btu» zs the "Woman at whofe Houfe Lady 'fane was delivered ; and Mrs. Napier immediately took a Note of it in Writing. On the fecond Occafion, Mrs. Hewit, while flie was making a rough Scroll of a Letter to the Duke, wrote Michel's, being the Name which then occurred ; and as flie found no Oc- cafion to put it into a Letter, it remained juit as in the firfl Moment fhe had put it down. But it is wonderful how any Head, capable of a Moment's Refleflion, could impute fuch an impoffiblc Article of Fraud as this, or fuppofe tliat v.'hile ihey are faid to be concerting a falfe Story, 3«.nd giving it up to Enquiry, they ihoultl lead to the Houfe where they aftually were, and where the Enqiiiry, when it followed them, would immediately difcovcr the Falfehood. To a candid Judge, that fingle Circumftance is enough to prove that they honefily meant to guide the Enquiry right, and that it was mere Want of Memory which put them wrong. It would be improper to conclude this Subjeft without fome Apology for dwelling fo long on fo frivolous a Topick ; but it appears to have been the Ground of much Argument on a former Oc- cafion, and for that Pieafon has been infifted upon here with more Particularity than it deferved or required. The next Occafion upon which Mrs. Hewit was called upon to fay any Thing of Lady yane^s De- livery was at the Service. Before flie was called in to be examined, flie told Mrs. Hepburn, they gg^v. u. 0. would be alking her Names, and fhe remembered none of them. Upoii which, IfaLel Walker faid p. p. 34.1. i. (he remembered La Marre was the Man who brought Lady fane to-bed ; and recolleilcd a Letter which Sir yohn had received from him at London, Mrs. Hewit told upon theSen'ice juft what it might be expe£l:ed a Perfon wholly unacquainted Serv. p. iz. b. with the Language and Place flie had been in might be fuppofed to remember : That they went from the Inn to the Lodgings where Lady yane was brought to-bed: That they ftaid there ten Days after the Delivery, and then were obliged to leave it on Account of Bugs, and went to another Houfe, where, after remaining feme Time, they were advifed to carry Lady yane into the Country for more Air. — The Things which a£tually happened under her own Notice flie could remember, and related them : The foreign Names of Places and Perfons, which were ftrange to her, flie could not recolleft. In her fubfequent Depofition flie fays. That Sir yohn had told her, previous to p. p. 254.. h. Lady yane's Delivery, that one La Marre was to attend Lady yane as a Man-Midwife ;---that he was a middle-fized, black, or grim Man, and lean, or thin ;-— and, to the beflofher Knowledge, Pierre La Marre was a married Man ; at leafl: flie thinks Sir yohn faid fo to her about the Time of — — ^55^ the Delivery. CHAP. III. Of the Difcovery of Mejf. Menager and Gilles at Paris, and the Accounts they gave of a Delivery performed by Monf. La Marre. A BOUT a Year after the Defender's Service, Mr. /Andrew Stuart went to France, to make En- •^^ quiries into the Truth of the Accounts given upon that Occafion :■- He foon difcovered that one La Marre had praftifed Midwifry at Paris ; that he was dead ; and that two Surgeons of the Name of Gilles and Menager were his moft intimate Acquaintances.-- -He converfed with them twice ; once under the Porch of St. Cofini, and a fecond Time, two or three Days after, at the Hotel de BuJJy, in the Rue du Bujj'y, where they all dined together. D. P. 534. tx. There Menager gave him the following Account : — That he was well acquainted with Pierre ___ jjg. i>. La Marre ; his Correfpondence with him began at the Hotel Dieu ; La Marre wtis much employed in Midwifery, having attended very long in the Lying-in Ward : He taught Midwifery to People of feveral Nations, particularly Englijh and Irijh : He had feveral Houfes where he brought X^'onien to- bed ; fome near the Hotel Dieu in the Quarter of St. Andre des Arts, and fome in the Quarter of St. Honore.—Thls La Marre had told both him and Gilles, and, as he thought, Mei(t-—T\r>X he had received Notice of a foreign Lady who was to come and lie-in at Paris ; that it might be a Mat- — 5^''- <» ter of Advantage to him ; and that he would be glad Merager would afiTifl him in this Dcliva-y, which might be dangerous, confidering the Age of the Lady, which was advanced. Mer.agcr n\ii not attend the Delivery, but La Marre told him that flie was brought to-bed of two male Children, and that he had alhfted at the Delivery: He did not remember the Time precifcly, but thcvght it might be fixteen or feventeen Years back, (he was fworn the 6th oi Novcv.ber 1764) at the End ot the Spring T inie, or about the Month of fune or y^ly: La Mr.rre did not tell him in what Place or at what Houfe fne was delivered :— -He was angry that Menager did not affifl: at the Delivery; and it appears aftervrards, that La Marre had given him Notice, but he was not in tlie Way. La Marre often talked of this Matter as an extraordinary Incident, in regard to the Age of the Lady. ^-^-^ '• 0. He did not tell him from what Country the Lady came, but only generally that flie came from a grejt Way off from beyond Sea, and in the lafl Place from Rheims. He imagined that this Delivery might D, P. 517. a; be in the Quarter of St. Andre des Arts, having obferved often La Mjrrf turn down that Way, tak- I70 E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R y. Part V. D.P. 517. '. ingthe Rutde FEperon, which leads to the Rue dt Paon. La Marre alfo told him, that one of her Children was trufted to his Care, and nurfed a little out of Paris, by BelUville or Alenilmon- tant ; and that he expe tin's, though tliat ^\-as his Anfwer as well to Moreau as to Menager, Stuart, and Buhot : He admits, however, that La Marre did tell him of his bringing a foreign Lady to-bed, and that he had the Care of the Child, and that fuch Converfation was in the Years 1746, 1747, or 1748: And as a Reafon why it was before the Year 1748, was, he had then lelt the Chamhre de Garde, and the Story in which La Mnrre was; which aftbrds very flight lleafon for believing, that he could find no Opportunity afterwards to hold Converfation with La Alarre. CHAP. IV. Of the Purjuen Ccnverfatioin with Franfois La Marre, and the JFidoiv of Pierre La Marre. TN April 1763, the Purfuers Agent had difeovered Francois, the younger Brother of La ^ Marre, living at Moritreuil fur Me>, the Place of his Birth, who told him, the very Mo- D.P. 74 S, ment he was queftiened to it, that his Brother was acquainteil with a IMidwife of the Name of Le Brun, who lived in the Rue de Seine. He alfo knew her, and had often feen her in iier Houfe, which was in the Middle of the Rue de Seine : That his Brother was acquainted with her at the Hotel Dieu, while he was a Surgeon there : That probably flie attended there to learn Mjd- A a 2 wifery. 172 EVIDENCE of the DELIVERY. Part V, p.p. 917.1. D.P.-46. p. p. 930. A. Extrait cle la ProcedureEx- traordiiiaire in Proces. D. P. 743. wifery, fwhile La Marre attended in the Lying-in Ward ; and that perhaps he gave her Leflbns . Upon this the Purfuers Agent alked him, Whether flic had ever lived in the Rue dc Troujfe Vackf^ — Ue believed flie did ; that the Midwives at Paris iind it to their Advantage to change their Situations. —This Madame Le Brun, who lived in the Rue de Troufje Vache, never lived in the Rue de Seine, as her Hufband has proved ; and how long the Le Biun, which La Mane wa.s lo intimate with, continued in the Rue de Seine, or to wh.it other Street (lie removed, is not proved by direct Evidence, but only by fuch Probability as will be ftated when^the Purfuers Ob- jedions to her Exiltence come to be confidercd. In the mean Time, it is fit to obferve, that in the fecond Converfation this Francois La Mane had with the Purfuers, he told them, that he had told the Defender every Thing as he had related it to them, except the Article with Piefped to Mad. Le Brun ; which is to lay, all he did not remember, fupprefling only all which he did. Franpis La Ahn-e came to Paris in the Year 1741, and left it in 1749. In January 1764, the Purfuers appear to have converfcd with the Widow of La ALarre; and ■ on the 8th of January flie was fummoned, and on the icth Ihe was examined, and depofed be- fore the Tournelk.— Mr. D'Anjou remarked to all that is contained in the Memorial of Mr. Stuart, except the Voyage to Italy, whereof Jhe has /aid Nothing. In July 1763, the Defender's Agents had feen this Widow, and learnt from her, that flie had burnt fevernl Letters, as wafte' Paper, wherein the Name of Stewart was concerned, " oil it " etoit ^ejlion du Norn du Stewart ;" and they had alio infpefted her Books, in which there were divers Memorandums chiefly of what was owing to her HulLand. The Purfuers having learnt this, for Fear that Book fliould contain any Thing material; on the 20th of Julv, while the Complaint againft this Procefs depended in the Court of Seffion, they preferred a Petition to the Court of Tournelle, and an Order was made to fummon her thereupon, by one Charlier, a Huijjier, to declare to him, inftantly, whether fhe had any Regifler of De- liveries, particularly in the Year 1748, or any Article therein touching the Delivery of any Woman of the Name of Douglas or Steivart, or the Sprinkling of any Child, and upon- Default to be taken: — Ordering her, moreover, to bring to the Gr^jf^ criminelle, all her Books of Expence and Memoranda, befules her Book of Deliveries, or to declare what is become of them ; and if flie had parted with them, to declare upon what Motives and Terms flie had done fo. Her Anfwer was, that her Huflsand was not in Ufe to keep any fuch Book as a Book of Deliveries ; that after his Death fhe had burnt feveral Letters which appeared to her of no Value, wherein il cioit ^uejiion du Nom de Stewart ; and that Antoinette Granette, her Sifter, walking one Day with her Hufband out of Paris, was told by him to wait a Moment, while he went Xo carry Money to the Nurfe of a Child, which would one Day be the richeft in his Kingdom. — As to her Books, flie faid, fhe had but one, which was an Account of what was owing to her, •and in the Hands of the Duchefs of Douglas, which flie would bring the next Day ; and as to the reft, fhe was much teazed and interr\ipted in her Bufinefs by the Number of Perfons who came to her on this Affaif ; that flie had loft her Time by it, and that it was fa fimple FoloiHe pour taquelle flie had put the Book into the Duchefs's Hands -, and that flie dined that Day in the Duchefs's Houfe. D. P. 567. A. Antoinette Granette confirms the Story which flie referred to of the Walk out of Paris. Bxtrait de la In this fecret Court of the Tournelle, where both Parties are religloufly kept in equal Igno- J'rocedurc'Ex- rance, D^Anjou and his Son attended, and were fuffered to infult the Witnefs in a Way im- »jraordinaire. known to other Courts of Juftice. They laboured to frighten her out of the Declaration flie had made to the Huijfter ; which, in Conformity to the fame religious Secrecy, had been im- parted to tliem. But flie perfifted thus far, that it was fome Name very like it, Suard, Seward^ or fome fuch Thing. -Ibid. D.P. C14. c. — CiC.c. 5.;o. D. 5+4- ' 54.J. D. Hart depofes, that he knew La Mane attending at the Hotel Dieu as an interiour Surgeon, and praftifing in the Lying-in Ward ; that he remembers him to have been conncilled with Gilles, Mer.ager, Melet, and Coquerel. Simoneau alfo knew La Marrr, and was told by him, that about twelve Years before, he is not certain of the Time, but only to the Fa£l:, La Marre told him, he had brought a Foreign Lady to-bed, and been well paid for it ; but that good Part of the Money was gone.— He dwelt at that Time at the Paie St. Anne, Butte St. Roche. Mr. Pdron was long acquainted with La Alarre, and hid. ferved with him in the Hotel Dieu. lit krxw that La Marre praftifed Midwifery ; w as very ikilful j and that he v.'as of a midiilc Stature, and tbin, und had black Eye-brows. Book I. E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. 173 It is not difputed, that this La Marre left the Hotel Dieu in tlie Year 1747 : He was married the fame Year, and then lived in the Rue St. Jnne, Butte La Roche, till his Death, which hap- pened in May 1753. C H A P. V. Of the firjl D'ifcove'ry of Nurfe Garnicr, aud the Tejlimony of her aitd her Hii/ba;id, and of Alad. Boucault. I N Confequence of \^diat Mr. Menagcr and Gilles had faid of the Foreign Lady's Twin-child being put out to Nurfe towards Bellevilk, or Meiiilmontant, Enquiries were made at thefe, and other Places in the fame Neighbourhood. The Defender's Agents were informed of cne Nurfe Roi'Jfeht, who had lived at both the former Places, and had been fo employed ; and that fhe had nurfed a Chihl which feemei to correfpond with the Defcription given of Sholto : Where- upon the Cure of St. Laurent, m which Parifli fhe then lived, was defired to put Queftions to her on that Subjetl ; upon which it turned out, that they were mifinformed, and that the Child P- P- 582, b. was another's. Rcuffeld was acquainted with Mad. Gamier, who then lived at the Cawillle, in a Houfe op- pofite to Roujjelei'%, and who had the fnfl Year of her coming into that Neighbourhood told her, jg,. h. that fhe had nurfed a Boy who was brought to her one Evening, and who was feveral Times vifited by two Gentlemen, who came with the Man who had brought the Child, and fpoke a Lan- guage which fhe did not underftand ; but it was explained to her by the Man who had brought the Child : And that when the Child was taken away, he was carried to fome diflant Place, and was not to flay at ParU ; and that the Child had been eighteen Months v/ith her. Roujplet met Nurfe Gamier the fame Day, and told her what had paffed with the Cure. Where- 583. e. upon G<7!;;/iT afTced, Whether fhe did not remember a Child flie had talked of feveral Years ago, and which flie had nurfed eighteen Months ? Which RouJJelet did accordingly remember, and told Gamier, that if flic had taken good Care of the Child ibc had nothing to fear. But Gamier, apparently afraid of Something, begged RouJJelet not to mention that flie was the Nurfe. Two or three Days after Mr. de Flejfelles, Maitre des Requetes, fent to Roujplet, to afk her whe- jg-j. h» ther fhe knew any Body v/ho had nurfed a Scottijh Child. She anfwered, that flie knew a AYoman who had nurfed a Child, which fhe believed was a Foreigner, becaufe the Gentlemen who came to fee the Child fpoke in a Language which the Woman Gamier did not underftand ; and the Perfon •who brought the Child explained what they faid. But fhe added, that Gamier wilbed not to be difcovered.---Mr. de Fle£elte$ told her fhe had nothing to fear, and {he muft bring her to him. She went to Gamier that Day, who refufed to go to Mr. de Fleffelles. She afliired her that flic had nothing to fear, provided fhe fpoke the Truth. But Grtr«/Vr would not go. Mr. de Fleffelles fent to Roujplet the next Day to bring Gamier with her. oSa. c. The Day after fhe prevailed with Gamier to go along with her to Mr. de Fleffelles, who puf many Queftions to her about the foreign Child fhe had nurfed. Roujjllet remembers that flie talked of Pierre La Marre, but does not recolleft whether flie mentioned the Circumftance of the Child's being a Tv/in. They were fent together to Mr. Duvaudier, who put Queftions to her on the Sub- j eft of the Child, and found her i\nfwers exact and to the Purpofe. — Garw/Vr gives tlie fame Account of her going to Mr. de FteJJ'elles and to Mr. Duvaudier's. The Circumftances depofed to by her are, that flie was engaged by Mr. La Marre, who, in d. P. 5;+. s. looking out for a Nurfe, faw her pais by with her Child ; and going into a Publick-houfc, callad 555- »• the Grand Louis, afked the Mafter of it, one Laurent, whether he could have her for a Nurfe. Lflwrra/'s Servant was fent to feek her, and brought her to La Marre, who went over to look at her Child, and engaged her : And this was four Days before the Child was brought. She docs not remember on what Day the Child was brought ; but It was in tiie Evening, in a Coach, by La Marre, and an elderly Woman who fat in the Coach, while La Marre delivered ... ^^ him, and whom flie only faw through the Door as flie lighted out La Marre.— -She nurfed him at the Rate of ten Crowns thirty Livres a Month. She obferved to Xa Marre, that the Child was extraordinarily weak. On which he anfwered, so- c, that it was no Wonder, as he was a Twin: That the Twins were Males: That he was a new-_ ^- "• 9/6. ?. born Child, plaintive and fo delicate, that fhe did not reckon upon rearing him; but he re- 974.. a. covered by degrees, by Means of extraordinary Care. She continued to fuckle her own Child for fome Days after flie received the Child, but La Marre ohViged her to wean him. Whereupon he was fent to Belleville, where he remained for two Weeks, when he was brought home ; and UJpOQ. ,74 E V I D E N C E of the DELIVERY. PartV upon La Afane's obferviiig hct Child in the Houfe, he was nngry, and thought flie ftil! con- tinued to i'uekle her own Child. Whereupon fhe oll'ered her Child the Brepfl, ^vhich he v.culd DP. 5;4. D. not take ; which fatisfied La Marre that he was weaned. La Aiarre came and fent often to fee 555- ^- him, but fhe never carried the Child to his Houfe. She went once to call on him, when the Child was fick. She does not remember precifely where La Marre lived, but it was at butie St. Roche ; and he had left his Addrefs in cafe the Child fliould be ill. She did not find La Aiarre at home, but left Yi'ord with a I'crfon who looked like a Servant, who fhe faw at the Door, (flie knows not whether he was a Servant or not) that fhe wanted to fee him at the Haite-bome ; and 555. F. La Aiarre came accordingly three or four Hours after to fee the Child. No Woman came from La AAarre to~fee the Child, but he cmne alone ; and it was he who fupplied the Child v\ ith 556. D. Cloaths when he was put into a llobe. She remembers that two Gentlemen came to iee the 554- E. Child twice ; one of whom flie took to be the Father, from his earneftly reeommendirg it to >:54. F. her to take great Care of the Child. The two Gentlemen fpoke French, but vitn a foreign Ac- cent ; and there was a third who explained what flic laid, as they did not underfli-nd her.---(It is dillicult for a Foreigner to underfland the ordinary People in France.) She did not know -whether — ~ ^4.. D. the Child belonged to People of Rank; but that La A'larre always toM her, if fhe would rear the Child, ilie fliould be rewarded for it. She knew neither the Parents ror their Name, nor 557. B. the Name of the Child ; but La Aiarre never told her there was any Secret in the Attair, or that 554. D. fhe ought not to name him. She took it for a foreign Child, becaufe the Chih -bed Linen and Cloaths were not of the Fafiiion of her Country, but quilted in the F.ngiijh Manner, and orna- P. P, 976. B. mented with Dentelle D' A'l^leterre (which is the Name of Brujfh Lace). She made her Obler- vation to La Aiarre, thai the Cloaths were not in the French Pafl-.ion ; and he told her they were in the Engli/I] Fafliion. Df P. 557. F. It W3S thirteen or fourteen Months after fhe received him that he was weaned. j5^'. e'. The Child had not the Small-Pox while with her, nor any other I^Iark. 554- ''• She does not remember when flie gave him up, but it was in the Afternoon; and they told her at taking him away not to be concerned, for he was not to be placed elfewhere, nor to ftay any longer at Paris, but to go to fome diflant Place. 5j8.B. Nicholas Gamier fupports his Wife in every Circumflance, as far as his Plabit of Living enabled him to attcfl. He was not at home when the Child was brought ; but he remembers that his Wife told him that La Marre, a Man-Midwife, had brought it, together with a Woman. His Employment was generally without Doors all the Day, which he obferves as the Reafon why he _ — 558. c. did not fee the Vilits which were made the Child by La Marre ; but fays, his Wife told him he often came there ; and that La Marre told his Wife that the Child was a Twin. And he remembers to have heard from his Wife, that two foreign Gentlemen came twice or thrice to fee him. He ob- ferved, that it was a new-born Child, very weak, very fmall, and very delicate. He heard from his Wife, that La Aiarre charged her to take great Care of the Child, for fhe did not know whom flie nurfed. He never knew from whence the Child came, but, from his Linen, judged him to be a Child of Condition.-— He was very fair, but he docs not remember his Eyes or Feature. 5G0. D. INIadame Boucault, a Neighbour of Madame Gamier, fays, that Gamier had told her at the Time, that four or five Days before flie had the Child, two Gentlemen pafPed her, and obferved her Child, and alked whether flie would undertake to nurfe a Child, when a Lady they fpoke of fliould be brought to-bcd, and they made her at the fame Time undrefs the Child : She agreed, if her Huf- band would, who did rxcordingly confent. That a Day or two after the Gentlemen came back, — — 560. F. m.ule the Barg?in with her, and gave her fix Livres Advance ; and agreed for thirty Livres a Month in Place of forty Livres, which fhe demanded, faying they were limited as to the Sum ; and that four or five Days alter, two Gentlemen, or Perfons, came in the Evening with Flambeaux to bring the Cliild ; and fhe, Boucalt, faw it the next Day. — — 560. B- Boucault was at Gamier ■i one Afternoon when La Marre Avas there, and obfer/ed to him, that the Child was very plaintive; upon which he anfwered, that where there were two, they were not commonly fo ftrong as when there was only one. La Aiarre recommended it to her to take great Care of the Cliild, and fend for him if it ailed any Thing : And upon her afking where fiie iTiould find him, he gave her his Addrefs, which fhe faw him write ; and it was either at Biitie St. Roche, or L'Egout Msritmartre : And fhe has a Notion, that in writing his Name he made the Word Pierre without adding his Qiiality (in Fatl he was not privileged) which RIadame Gamier got read to her when ilie had Occafion to go to him on Account of the Child's Ailment ; but Madame Gamier never told her of her going more than once to La Marre. 561. A. M. La Marre paid the Months, and fhe reipembers to have been prefent on one Occafion when he paid it ; and to have afked him in Joke if he wculd give as much to every Body : To which La Aiarre anfwered, he would pay her as much if he owed it. La Aiarre ufed to fend three or four sfii. E. Times a Week, and to come very often hirafelf.— He fhewed great Attention to the Child, and ' 56^-1;. :niads Book I. EVIDENCE of the DELIVERY. ^75 made her fend ofFher Son Jerome into the Neighbourhood, faying that one Calf was enough for one Cow. Slie never knew the Father or Mother of the Child, but fhe has heard La Mam tell Gamier to take great Care of it ; for fhe did not know whom fhe nurfed. She faw the Nurfe and the Child D. P. 561, c. every Day, and obferved, when it was dreffed, that it had fine Laces which were not of the Parifwn 561, b d. Fafiiion. Its Child-bed Linen were quilted in the Engli/h Fa/hion, and doubled over the Breaft in a Way fhe cannot exaftly defcribe ; and (he took it to be the Englijli Fafhion, becaufe they were not [in the French Fafiiion ; and thofe who faw it told her it was in the Fafhion of England. She remembers Gentlemen coming to fee it from Time to Time ; and once in particular wa<( ^61. e, coming in upon them, but upon feeing them Oie retired. When fhe faw Gamier next, fhe told her fhe had received a grand Vifit : Gamier anfwered, they were Gentlemen who came to fee the Child ; that fhe knew not whether the Father was one, but they did not fpeak French as it is fpoken at Paris ;' and though flie did not underftand them, flie anfwered them yes and no.-— At another Time, flie faw a Gentleman walk alone with Gamier in the Marais oppofite to her Houfe. He was tall and handfome, and appeared to be about fifty. Nurfe Gamier kept the Child fi.xteen or feveuteen Months, and then he walked with tl;e Help 561. b, ofLeading-Strings. Brigot, who was SeiTant to M. Laurent at the Sign of the Grand Louis, remembers one La 568.11, Mane's frequenting that Inn. Such is the Evidence which has been difcovcred in Support of the uniform Account given by iihjohn. Lady Jane, and INIrs Hcivit, that L^dy Jane was delivered by La Alarre, in the Houfe of Le Brun, and that Sholto was nurfed in the Neighbourhood of Paris. CHAP. VII. Ohftwations on the Purfuers Attem-pt to difprove the Circiimjiances attcndij7g the Delivery. 'Tp II E Purfuers have undertaken to prove the Falfehood of thefe four Propofitions, i . That ■*■ La Marre was Man -midwife to Lady Jane. 2. That Le Brun'a was the Houfe of her De- livery. 3. That Gamier nurfed Sholto. 4. That flie was brought to-bed on the 10th of July ; which are the four moft leading Circumftances in the Hiftory of the Birth of her two Children. If they have fucceded in this, the firft Confequence is, that the Evidence is quite filent on the Sub- je£t of the Birth: The fecond, that the Parents, and many other Witncfies, have been induced to invent Falfehoods to make out that Hiflory. The firft Confequence falls intirely upon the Purfuers ; for if perchance the Evidence has been quite filent on this Subje£l:, his Condition muft remain after the Procefs, as it did before, unaftefted by the Proof, and confequently unaltered. The fecond Confequence would go to throw much Sufpicion on tlie Truth of all his WitnefTes, even of thofe who muft know the true State of his Condition. ---It would difirm him of lb much Evidence in his Defence, and for fo much leave the Field open to his Enemies. ---But even this, though difadvantagcous enough, would not undo him, unlefs the Purfuers could proceed and eltab- lifh, by direft Evidence, fome Article abfoliitely incompatible with his Birth, as alicdged. It has been already feen, that there are thirteen Days to v.hich no Evidence of theirs applies ; and it is confidently hoped, that when their Proof, as they affeft to call it, of the feveral Falfehoods which they alledge, comes to be examined, it will appear fatisfadlorily, that not one 6i the Circum- ftances mentioned turn out to be fali"e.-~On the contrary, they are eftabliflied by a Conciurence and Clearnefs of Teflimony, far greater than could be expetled of fuch Circumftances, at fuch Dif- tance of Time. Their Objections confift, for the moft Part, of Comments upon Phrafes, to force them out of the Senfe v. hich the Speaker and the Context put upon them ; in ftrained Conitruclions upon little Incidents, fuch as Nobody thought worth explaining while the Evidence was given ; or fuch as the Memory could not fpcak preciiely to, for Want of any original Importance" in fuch Articles to ftrike the Atttention. And where their Objedions feem to take a fairer Foundation, if they related to material Ar- ticles, they will be found to raife no Inferences which go to the Truth of the Story, or in any Degree afle£l the Body of Evidence on which that depends. The firft Article to which they impute Falfliood is, that La Marre was the Man-midwife, who brought Lady Jane to-bed. Thougli _,76 E V I D E N C E of the DELIVERY. PartV. Though this is fwore by two direft Witnefles, and fupported with the Concurrence of many otlicrs circumfiantial, in die iSIainier which has been mentioned ; the whole Queflion of the Truth of this Article (lands not upon anv Attempt to prove that there was no Perfon of that Name praaifmg at that Time in that Piofeilion ; or that it was impollible fuch Perfon fliould have been the Man- midwife, but upon imaginary Improbabilities, arifing from total Mifreprefentation of the Fafts, ■er fuch Criticifms as have been alluded to befoie. Tney have indeed ufed fome little Endeavours to diilinguifli the Name ; but they are fuch as they ilon't feemmuch to rely upon. For the reft, the Objeaions feem to be, that La Marrev}2S, not in fuch Rank or Eflimation as to make it probable he fhoiJd have fallen under Sir Johns Notice. That the Circumftances whereby the French Evidence coincides with the Erglijh, in apply- ing the Delivery to La Marre, are not fuflicicutly proved : In which they feem to allow, what in Truth no ThanL are due to them for admitting, that if thofe Circumftances are fufficiently proved, the Application raifed by them is irrefragable. That the Forgery, as they ar6 pleafed to call it, by Sir John, of thofe four Letters they liave brou'^ht into Procefe, indicates, that there was no Perfon of that Name who flood in that Relation to the Family, and from whom real Letters could have been procured. That Sir John defcribed La Marre, in his judicial Declaration, by Circumftances which do not comport with him, and which, if true, prove fome other Perfon than the only La Marre known of, to have been the Man-rnidwife. If falie, as they feem to think them, they concur with the Forgery to indicate that Sir John knew no fuch Man as La Marre, the Accoucheur of Lady Jane. Thefe ftiall be examined in their Order. CHAP. vin. jyiffercnce in the Name beHdxt the Pierre La Marre mentioned by Sir John, and the Perfon mentioned by the Witnejfes. ■ti^id.p. I. c, iTis no fmall Proof of the Opinion (if that be worth having) which the Purfuers entertained of ■* the Application and Force of the Evidence mentioned before, that they have laboured, at the Be- ginning of this Caufe, to create a Difference, and fince to find one, in the Name of Za Marre. The Purfuers called him La Ma't in the Condefcendence and the reft of the Scotch Papers, pub- Jifhed before the Evidence was taken, to create a Belief that the Names were totally different ; and take their Chance for its being fet right afterwards : But not to provoke that Chance, they leave it without a Coraraent : And though Sir. JiidreiO Stuart calls him La Mart in his Oath before the Court of Seffion in 1764, it fully appears now that he certainly never heard him called fo by any j5 p y one Perfon who talked of him : And at this very Time he had a Certificate of his Privilege from __■ "g''i,." St. Cofme in his Pocket, wherein he is called La Marre. After the Evidence was examined, they reforted to another Argument of Difference, arifing from Sir John and Lady Jane's calling him Pierre La Marre, without adding the other Cluriftian Name Louis ; and from their and JMrs. Hewit's omitting the Word De. As to the firft, the Name of Louis, it appears that feveral of his moft intimate Acquaintances - 5<^5. B. knew him by the Name of P/crrf only, and did not know him by that oi Louis : Nav, when one of their Commiffioners put the Name of Louis Pierre into the Mouth oi Simoneau, the AVitnefs te— 54.1.D, corrcfted him, upon his reading over the Dcpofition, and faid, that though he is announced in the Beginning of the Depofition Louis, he (thcWitnefs) never knew him by the Name of Louis, but believes he was called Pierre. Even his Siftcr-in-law, who lived in the Houfe with him. only fays, flie believes his Name was Louis Pierre ; and Potroi:, under Vyhoiii he praiTtifed at the Hotei — — • 567. F, Dieu, fays, he knew him by the Name of Pierre, but did not know he had any other Name. — ____ ^^ Gilles fays he knew Pi.'rre La Marre, Surgeon : — Hart mentions him as La Marre only ; and 614. d! Cocjiierel caWs him Pierre La illarre in m^ny different. Fhccs of his Depofition. -f-o.F i^c. Witliout this Particidarlty in the Evidence, it would have been fufficiently obvious, that Perfons with a Multitude of Names, which the French, even to the loweft of them, appear from the Ex- iraites baptijlaires to afiect, woultf not, at leaft ordinarily, ufe more than one. As to tlie fecond, the De, it is an Addition which Fi-c>;chF:imilics very frequently give tbemfelvcs from Vanity, when it is no Part of their Names ; and when they are fpoken of, it is no lefs fre- quently omitted : La Marre is generally mentioned without the De throughout all the Depofitions ; P " 10. c. and it zs remarkable, that in the Purfuers Condefcendence he is ftiled La Mart, without the De -, which Book I. E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. 177 which fhews they had ufually not heard the De prefixed to his Name : And in his Privilege, re- corded at St. Cofme, he is alio ftiled LaMarre. D. P, 71 j. c. Tliefe fmall Criticifms will go no Vv''ay to eftablidi a Difference between the Perfon called Pierre La Marre by Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit, and him who was coftimonly called fo in Parti ; though on folemn Occafions he may fometimcs have been defigned Louis Pierre de La Marre. The frivolous Affedation of writing De la-Marre in one Word, iuftead of leaving it as they found it, or La Marre, is not worth a Comment. CHAP. IX. La Marre wasjkilful in his VraBice as Accoucheur ; and the Accouchement mentioned by Menager, ^c. was not anterior to 1748. ¥ T is infifted by the Purfuers, that La Marre was not in a Rank or Eftimation fit to be employed ■* in the Delivery of Lady Jine ; nay, they go fo far as to deny that his Application was to Mid- wifery in particular ; or that he had any extraordinary Skillin that Branch ; and cite his Book, as Proof that he never delivered more than three Women in his Life. It appears upon the Evidence, that he wns Apprentice to one Mengond, a Surgeon, for five Years : ... — 526. c- That he attended the Hotel Dieu eight Years longer : That his Attendance was altogether in the Ly- 553. b. jng-in Ward, as appears from the concurrent Ttftimony of Gilla, (if that deferves Attention) Me- P- ?• 936- c.. rager, Melet, and Hart. D.P.6.+.D. That he had acquired confiderable Skill in that Branch of his ProfelTion, appears from the Evi- 545- *• dence of Potron. — La Marre had been called in to deliver a Woman in the ^uinze Vingt, an Hof- pital for blind People : It proved a preternatural Cafe, and he called in Potron to alTifl: him, who obferved that he condufted himfelf like a Man exceedingly well informed, and with great Addrefs, tres entendu ^ fort habile dans fen Art : This was Zi^/ar^ the Year 1745, when he had been about fix Years attending the Lying-in Ward of the Hotel Dieu : And Potron was himfelf of great Eminence in the fame Branch. Gilles confeffes, that from his long Attendance in the above-mentioned Ward, he was much ac- ___ quainted with the Midwives, and was often called in by them. Menager fays, that he had praftifed long in the Lying-in Ward : That he had feveral Houfes g ^^^ for delivering Women, both before and after he left the Hotel Dieu : Tliat he has been in one of 527. b.' the Houfes himfelf, where he alfo gave Lectures upon the Art of Midwifery : That he taught va- • 529. b. rious Pupils, particularly Irijh and Englijh. Pagnon fays, that he knew La Marre applied to Midwifery, but knew nothing of the par- p p tlcular Deliveries he had performed. ' " ^' Melet fpeaks of La Marre as employed in that Branch, though he never knew of his teaching the ^ Art. And Francois La Marre his Brother has faid, that he believed his Brother taught the Mad. Le ^t p 'c: Brun hckncw the Art of Midwifery at the Hotel Dieu. ' ' '^ ' The whole Objeftion made by the Purfuers to his Experience, Skill, andPra£lice in the Branch p p of Midwifery refts on ^^?!^o«ii's faying, that while he was his Apprentice, that is, before he went to the Hotel Dieu, where he learnt that Branch of his Art, he never delivered any Woman, nor at- tended him in any Delivery ; and that he did not afterwards know or hear that La Marre wa* concerned in Deliveries, but applied to Surgery in general : And if he means that he did not confine himfelf to that Praftice, there is no Witnefs who proves that he did : But it i-' fuiTiciently plain thathe had prepared himfelf exprefsly for that Praftlce, and engaged in it as far as his Oppor- tunities offered ; and he was underflood by thofe that knew him to have made that Articiehis Ob- je£t and Aim. It is further infifted, that he mufl: have praiflifed it in an inferior Way, not then being a Mafter Surgeon, or Privileged. He praftifed it, however, and, according to the Purfiiers own Account, was fufficiently known in that Sort to be the Deliverer of a Lady who came from fome Province to be brought to-bed ; which was done in a Maik, feveral Years before 1 748. But the Obfervation proceeds on no Foundation : It requires great Length of Time to gain Freedoms by Attendance at 533' E, the Hotel Dieu, which few People are in Circumdances toemploy only in the Study, without refort- ing to Pra£tice, tho' it is not ftriclly leg-al. Gilles appears to have been there fourteen or fifteen _ Years before he proceeded Mafter, and Sunoneau longer ; and from the Evidence of Hart it appears, "" ^ ' ^'' that he, under the fame Circumflances as La Marre, gave publick Lcdures upon the Art of ■'*° '^' Midwifery, and had a Houfe where he brought poor People to-bed, in order to aililt his Lccfurc.s- 6' 5- 1>« with the View of the Pradice. The publick Mariner in which he kept this School, and the Ntmi- B b ber f;^ E V I D E N C E of the D E L I V E R Y. P^art \r. bcr of liis Pupils, which were twenty or twenty-five, gave Offence, and was taken Notice of, and he left Paris for fome Time ; but upon his Return, though he was ftill under the fame Cir- cumftances, he was called in by Midwives to bring Women to-bed. The Attempt to define the Number of La Marre's Deliveries to be precifely three, is bottomed, fimply on the Falfehood of calling his Book an Account of his Prailice, which imports to be no fuch Thing. It is a Book in which are all Sorts of Memoranda, without Order, without regular- Dates ; and fuppofing it to be an Account at all, is to fix the Imputation of Perjury on all the Wit- neffes on both Sides. It is an Event not at all wonderful, that a Man in this Situation, of this Charafter, and of fuch- Skill as the Witnefs Potron, who had feen hLin praftife,. defcribes, fliould be recommended to Sir yohn. Sir John's chief, indeed the only Refort which is now remembered, when he came firft" to P. P. 990. D. Paris, in the Year 1748, was to PM'tier's Coffee-houfe. He took much Liking to Pel/elier, he— Vtcl. 7. F. caufe he played at Chefs ; and La Marre went to the fame Coffee-houfe. Who alfo reforted there, at this Diftance of Time, is unknown ; for PAUtier himfelf is dead, and his Wife was at that Time a mere Girl of eighteen. They were but juil mariied, and flie cannot recollect who frequented the Coffee-houfe : But if one is led by Probability to fuppofe that Pelletier, Fontaine, or others who frequented the fame Coffee-houfe, and who knew Z-a iJ/a/rf, mentioned him to Sir j'"'^", it would follow that they fpoke of him in the Charafter which he affected of a Man-Midwife, ia which he was of Courfe moft known, and in which it appears from Potron he was eminent. The next Objeftion made by the Purfuers is, Tlrat it does not fquare in Point of Time with Lady Jane's Delivery, which was in Summer 1748 ; whereas the Delivery talked of hy La Alarre was in 1746. It has been feen before, by all the V/itneffes, that the foreign Child which La Alarre put out to DP;587A.D. Nurfe at Garw/cr's, immediately after it was bom, was in theiear 1748. That the Child appears 54.0. E. to have been the Fruit of the Delivery he talked of , is proved by Mr. Menager, who remembers that — •~ 554- E. one of the Twins was fent under La Marre'i C'oi.x^Z'vcrs Menilmordant ; and the Time of his deli- ZZI ^6^ b' vering the foreign Lady, and having the Child under his Charge, is fixed by Grav.ctte and Simoncati P. P.s\i.— 13. to have been fubfequent to his Marriage i and by GurwVr, Bcucault, &c. &c. to have been in 1748. -^^giq. E. The Converfation itfelf is fixed by Menager to have been in 1 748. He returned from the Army at the End of the Campaign 1 747 ; and he remembers the Paffage in Queftion happened in the End. of the Spring, or Beginning of Summer, about the Month of June or July. The whole Contradiftion alledged to all thefe Witneffes comes out thus : Mr. Gilles heard La D. P. 5-2. c. Marre fay in the Chamhre de Gardt', two or three Times, that he had brought to-bed a foreign Lady of Diftintlion, of whofe Child he had the Charge ; and this muff have been in the Years 1746, 1747, or 1748. The Queftion is. Which of thefe three Years, whether that which fuits the refb cf the Evidence, fliall be adopted, or that which does not .'' The Purfuers take the laft, on the Au- thority of this Gilles, ^^ho argues, that it was before the Year 1748 ; becaufe in that Year he was not in the fame Chamber or Floor with La Marre. — If his Memory had not failed him, he might have added, nor in the fame Houfe ; for La Marre had left the Hotel Ditu at this Time. But what hinders, that though his Eftabliflimcnt was no longer in the Hotel Dieu, he fhould refort fl^! 'e' e' there to fee his Friends, and to be prefent at particular Operations in Surgery. Menoger, Mekt^, D. P.%0. a". ^"^^ Cocquercl, all prove, that, in Faft, he did refort there in that Manner. -i 533. D, But GH'.cs undertakes to remember negatively againft thofe pofitive Witneffes, that he never {aw' him in the Ch.wibre de Garde, or any where elfe, above five or fix Times, after he left the Holpital ; that it was while they both lodged in the Chambre de Garde he heard the Account of the foreign. Lady. The laft is, in Truth, a neceffary Confequence, if he were right in the firrt ; but a Ne- gative depofed by an honeft Witnefs of fuch a Circumftance, after feventeen Years, would de- fcrve no Attention againft fuch a Multitude of other Wimeffes tying the Time dov/n ; much lefs Title has it to Credit from Mr. Gilles, who is affefted in the Manner mentioned before with fiich. direcf Perjury : And it is very certain that Gi!l:s, when firft fpoke with by Andrew Stuart on this. Subjeft, did not pretend that it happened prior to the Year 1748 ; otherwife they would not in their. P/aiiite: have attempted to difconnedl La Marre with the Delivery of Lady Jane,, only becaufe he. had not been in Italy, and becaufe his Name v.-as La Alart, as they then falfely alledged.. rP '6 F jW^/rf fays, th.at at a Collation in the C/wnir^/'ii'Gari/V, on a S/7/«r^W Word to mean Paris, and underftood La Marre io, while he was informing him that the Lady was to come to a Houfe, recommended by him ; or perhaps either alluding to the Quarter where the Converfatlon happened to be, fpeaking oi Paris, that might alfo account for the fmall Difference ; or if, in the Courfe of fo many Years, he has remembered a Converfatlon wrong, which he underftood otherwife at the Time, that will account for fuch a Difference in the Relation made by a Man who is fupported by the Concurrence of fo many CircmTiftances which were difcovered long after he told the Story. f P 062. G. 2. The Purfuers hang upon another Part of his Evidence, and affe£t to infift that he was befpoke in March or A[>ril, becaufe Menager, profeffmg not to remember the Time, conjectures thofe Months as the Time about which he believed it might be, as if the reft of the Evidence were not fully fufficient to difperfe fuch Criticifms. 3. This Delivery appears to have been profitable to La Marre, whereas the Defenders Coun- fel argued the Cheapnefs as the only Excufe for taking him ; and Sir John himfelf alledged the fame Pretence. —The firft ivhereas happens to be meerly falfe ; the fecond will be accounted for when that Cafe comes under Examination. 4. That it does not apply in Point of Time to Menagers Story Is an Objection which, if it had Foundation, would go to the reft of this Story, and to all the other Witneffes ; for which Reafon it has been confidered before. _. p ^ 5. A/fwa^fr fuppofed the Lady to be forty-eight, which was intended to accommodate to the • 5-9' • Q^^^ p£ Lady Jane. La Marre told him the Lady was of an advanced Age, and gave that as the Reafon for defiririg his Affiftance : And ^fntTgfr muft have fpoken from his own Recollec- tions, or elfe the Ideas La Marre gave him of the Age might have allowed him to mention any advanced Time of Life ; and one nearer to Lady Jane's real Age. .„^ jj 6. It is alfo objected to him, that he conjectured the Quarter in which the foreign Lady was brought to-bed was in the Shiartier de St. Andre des ArtSy which was invented, becaufe he knew Lady Jane was faid to be delivered in the Fauxhottrg St. Germain. — Menager has given his Reafon for this Conjecture ; That he knew La Marre had Houfes in that Quarter. J. He alone makes La Marre Surgeon to a Regiment, and he is one more than afferts any '*~~' 55°- • fuch Thing : He believed that La Marre had been appointed Surgeon to the Regiment de la Couronne, but that he never jomed it; a Circumftance which is totally immaterial.— The Pur- fuers fuppofc this was to accommodate to Sir Johns Story : Now if he had feen Sir John's Ac- count, which he certainly had not, for it was not emitted when he firft gave his Account, he would have found the Talk by much too great for fuch fmall Circumftances as thofe to bring them to- gether. It was no more than uncertain Maiiory which he had of fuch a Thing, without even affeCting Knowlege of it. 3. Mr. Metiager defcribes La Marre as a Surgeon of great Pra£lrce, and a Profeffor of Mid- wifery : This is fo far removed from the Truth, that it is not worth faying more than has been faid of it already, where the Accounts which Menager really gave of him are well confirmed by Patron and othci-s. _ g. The next ObjcCtion to Alenager is, that to accommodate his Account to the four Letters,, ■ ' ' ' ' which were never held out for real, he fvvore, that he had feen La Marre fign his Name fome- times with the baptifmal Name of Pierre, writ at full Length, fometimes with P only. Tliat Menager knew q>{ La Marre' s Letters is a direCt Falfliocd, which they have made no Attempt to prove: That he was Fool enough to think tliat Circumftance alone would fct them up, is alfo fuppofed, on as little Foundation. —That proving him to have writ Pierre when he figned at Length, would help a Signature of Peir and Pier, is what no Man could be weak enough to think.— Tlie Confequence is, tliat he fpoke from what he had aftuaHy feen. . looo.e. The Objections are, firft, that it is not ufual to fign fo in France, and the Inftances of the Maillefer Family conllfting of live Brothers is cited, none of whom wrote their baptifmal Names.. —They took their DillinCtions from their Wives Lands, as Forzyy Cocqueber, (Jc. but in the Cafe of Book r. E V I D E N C ]E of the D E L I V E R Y. iti of fmall People, who have no other Diftinflion biit their Names, it feems to be abfolutely ne- ceflary. The Ufage in France to fign otherwife, if it be only frequent, concludes Nothing, and no Witnefs attempts to carry it fui ther. — 5*//7/^/fln Fcchat, a Surgeon, a Witnefs in the prefent Procefs, figns S. f achat. Louis Jntoine Loret, an Officer of Police, figns with all his Names, p p_ ^c^n Marirueret Michel is figned at Length ; Ch. Godefroi abbreviated; and there are a Number of 236. c. other Inftances in the Proof: But without going further into the Qucftion of more or lefs Ufe, P-P- "9-.'- while there are fuch Diftinftions as Chriflian Names, they will be ufed for the only Purpofe ~~'""i^* they can ferve. — His Brothers likewife are called to prove, that his Letters, not one of which are produced, were figned De La Marre, and that his Marriage-cojitrad: is fo figned ; but how does this eftablifli that he never figned otherwife ? A Propofition which yet is neceflary/'to fix upon Mer.ager a wilful Falfhoodjn an Article, which is, as it mulf needs appear to every Body, perfcclly immaterial. 10. ^f«<7ffr fixed the Time to accommodate it to the Story of Sir yohn.---\t has been feen already, what a great Body of Evidence concurs to fix the Time in the fame Manner ; and it ill becomes them to labour at imputing what they know to be falfe, by having had the Advantage of converfing with him, and of hearing the fame Things before the Procefs began; not to add, that Menager's general Characl:er intitled him to look doAn with Difdain upon fuch wretched Attempts to difcredit him. 1 1. This perfonal Argument againfl: Menager ftoops fo low, as to alledge it for an Article of 567. j. Fallhood, that he reports himfelf to have walked with La Marre in the Luxembourg Gardens, and more often in the Thuillcries, as La Marre lived nearer to the laft Place. — This Falfhood they fay, was concerted to accommodate with Sir "John's Story ; and the only Reafon for calling it fo is, becaufe it does fo accommodate: If they have no better Reafon for calling it falfe, it may be ufeful hereafter, when that Matter is under Confideration. 12. Menager's Story is inconfiftent, becaufe he did not know the Houfe where Lady Jar.e was. But it feems to afford fome Solution of this Inconfiltency, that La Marre called for him, jc. p. and not finding him at Home, left Word with his Father where to follow him : Birt as Me- nager did not like fuch Operations, his Father did not inform him — As Mcnager was not be- fpoke by La Marre to attend Lady fane, but in Cafe fuch Affiftance fhould prove neceflary, no Occafion arofe from thence to notify the Houfe where flie was delivered ; it was enough that La Marre knew where to fend : And the little Difgufl La Marre cxpreffed was at his neglecting the Time and being out of the Way, without leaving an Addrefs behind him where he might be fent for ; to which the Anfwer, fuggefted by the Purfuers, that he did not know where to come, would not have applied :— Nor is it true, that the Invitation was to fatisfy his Curiofity , it was to afiord Affiftance in Cafe it had been wanted. The EmbarrafTments which the Purfuers thiirk mofl obfervable are : i. That Menager gives, as his Reafon for not being there, that he was- out of the Way. 2. That he reprefents La Marre to have feyit for him ; and then recollecting himfelf in the next Sentence, adds, that he believed La Marre came himfelf. 13. The Objedions begin to run fo low, that it is fit only to mention them. He met the Wo- man De La Marre at the Duchefs of Douglas's Houfe, and yet there was no Converfaiion upon the Subjett of the Law-Suit, which the Purfuers don't know how to believe ; and it is no Won- der that they do not : But as they are not to judge this Suit, fuch an ObjeiStion deferves no further Notice. — That Mr. Murray, when he told him the Story, liftened to it with great Atten- tion, but did not enter into a Detail of the Circumftances with him, is incredible with the Pur- fuers, for the fame Reafon ; a Reafon which will make it incredible with Nobody elfe. — That he believes it was the Agent for the Purfuers, who told him oi Le Brun's being gone into B}it~ Jar/y; and that he had not Curiofity enough to read the Papers in this Caufe , an Accident very likely to befall thefe Papers in the Hands of all thofe who are under no Neceffity to read them. 14. That Menager faid it was Bagieu who recommended him to the Ccmte D' Argejrfon to be his Surgeon ; whtrtis Bagieu fays. He did not. — What earthly Inducement fliould tempt him to fwear falfe on fuch a Subject 'i To give himfelf Importance, fay the Purfuers ; as if the being Sur- geon to the Comte, which is admitted, was not a more confiderable Circumftance than the Name of the Perfon who recommended him, if he had been more eminent tlian Bagieu. But ^Vords are thrown avsray upon fuch a Topic of Calumny. Such arc the Objections to Menager % a Man whofe perfonal Credit, though as good as any Man's at Paris, is theleafi Part of the Support to the Truth of his Story, which finds addii:onal Support in many other Witnefles ; and what is ftill ftronger, in many other Circumftances, w iiich •were not known at the Time he told it ; and when diicovered, fell in with it, and eftabliftied the Truth of it. The — 990. c. S+S- »• i8j E V 1 D E N -C E of the D E L I V E R Y. Part V. p. p. 930. H. "The next Objeftion which occurs to the Truth of this Story is, 1. That the Delivery was D. P. 746. not imparted by La Marre to Franfois La Marre^ his Brother.— It is impofTible to difcover whether he did this or not; for, after Fran^tii La Afj'te told Mr. Stuart of his Brother's inti- mate Connexion with Le Brun,—\-\e. was prevailed on to deny it upon his Oath -, therefore 578. F. he is no Wi'Miefs to that or any other Point: Not to mention, if it were ncceiiary, that it is in Evidence there was a Difference between the Brothers. 2. He never told it to another Bro- ther who li-\ed at Alontreuil. 3. Nor to his Wife, who was examined by the Toun.elle HtoJJt/r, 567. D, and to whom it is in Evidence, he mentioned none of his Praftice. 4. Nor to Mr. and Ma- dame Bcnujfti ; to which might be added, with equal Propriety and Face of Argv.n^ent, the P. P. 04.1. E. Names of all the other Inhabit.'.nts of the Rue St. HonorS.---BeaiiJen, a Grocer, fays, moreover, he was a fhd i\]idwife ; he bungled in delivering the blind Man's Wife, as La Marre told him in D P. 54J.-C. Confidence. Potrcii, one of the firfl Mcn-Midwives in Paris, dilTers from Mr. Bcaiijcu the Grocer, in his Opinion of that Delivery ; and La Marreh reprefenting himfelf as a Bungler would want P P pti. E. Credit much, if IV'Ir. Beai^Jeu had not fworn that he employed him to deliver his own Wife. CHAP. XI. Of the Entry in L^idy Jane'j Pocket-Book. AFTER having exprefled their Satisfaflion in the clear and ingenious Manner abovemen- ^^ tioned, and pronounced upon fuch Foundations (with what Refpe£l to Decency is fub- mitted) that Menager has been convitted of grofs Falflioods and wilful Perjury, they ftill find 351. D. ihemfelves gravelled with an Entry in Lady Jane^ Pocket-Book, which proves a Correfpondence with La Marre as early as the i ith of September 1749 ; and this was a Piece of Evidence whicU they forced out of the Defender's Hands, and which they rely upon in other Inftances. To this tliey make fix Anfwers : I. That tlie La Marre thtrc mentioned may mean fomc other than him at Paris, or fome other at Paris than the Man-lMidwife.---To be fure there is nothing againfl that powerful Argument, It may be, but this, that they have uniformly faid and fworn, that they were in Correfpondence with La Afsiv^ the Man-Midwife ; and there is not a Tittle of Reafon to imagine they corref- ponded with any other Perfon of that Name : And, fecondly, that all the reft of the Circum- flances which make Parts of the Evidence above ftated prove, that they muft have had fuch a Correfpondence. 2- If it were a Letter to La Marre the Accoucheur, it would not prove this La Marre to be the Man ■■, becaufe he does not correfpond with Sir 'John^?, Defcription :---That will be feen more p.irticularly hereafter. In the mean Time, if Sir fohn^s Account be falfe, as they fay it is, it will leave this the only Man to v\ horn that Addrefs and Dcfignation will belong. If it be mif- takcn in fuch Sort as fliall be hereafter fliewn, it will come to the fame Conclufion. If it were fo true and fo clear as to exclude this La Marre, which fo much Evidence eftablifhes for the j-erd Deliverer of Lady Jane, it would yet prove the Reality of the Delivery, though by a Hand who is traced by no further Evidence. 3. It is admitted, that the Book was not at firft intended to be feen ; but // is not certain that this Article was not infertcd afterwards. It is not certain but it might be forged, is fo new a AVay of alledging and proving a Forgery, that it is not eafy to deal with it.-— The fliorteft "Way is to refer to the Pocket-Book, where it will appear, that the Entry is of the fame Hand-writing and Ink and Pen with another Article written at the fame Time, and have the fime Appearance as the reft of the Book, of not being intended to be feen ; not to mention, that if any Forgery had been in- , tended, many other Entries of equal Confequence might have been inferted in the fame Way. 4. The Article in Queftion in the Pocket-Book relates to the Date of one of thofe four Letters which the Purfacrs fay Sir yohn forged, and which begins with acknowledging the Rcceit of a Letter from Sir yo/m on the lOth current. It is therefore probable, fay the Purfuers, that this Article was inferted to fupport the Impofition intended by thofe Letters, and the loth put inftcad of the I ith by Inaccuracy, or to be more like fome other Entries of Letters written, inferted in ihefame Book, or to take oif the Appearance of Art. The Article was written with Lady Jane's own Hand in September 1749, •'"'^ confcquently at a Time when it was impcllible to forefee any Ufe could be made of it. ---It is admitted, that the Book was not intended for any Body's Infpetlionat firft ; and it is not even faid when it w.as intended to be publiihed, or what Reafon there is toimagine fo.---The Book itfelf was recovered, by mere Accident, from a Lodging, where it had been carelefsly thrown by with other loofe and unimportant Papers. It 'has the Dates of the Periods preceding and following it. There is, in fliort, no Room to fufpeft Fr.!iul, Book r. E V I D E N e E of the D E L r V E R Y. jgj Fraud, nor do tlie Purfuers give a lingle Reafon for imputing it : The Confequcnce of which is, that the Book, inftcad of being afiectcd by thoi'e Letters with the Appearance of Fraud, goes a great Way to prove, that fuch-a Correfpondcuce a£tually obtained bctieen them, and La Alarre ; and even that the Letter to be mentioned was taken from a real one written by La Marrc. For though it was very natural in making an Entry cf Letters written on the icth to be fent en the i ith, as of die Day it w?s fent, it is impolfible to imagine, that if the Entry had been made afterguards to. accommodate with a forged Letter referring to one of the lOth, they would not have made the Entry exatfly conformable to the Letter. 5. It is very improbable, that while fo many uninterefting Letters have been preferved, fuch im- portant Letters as thofe from LaMarre fliould have been loiL— The Worth of this Obfervation may be tried in two Words ---They have preferved very few or no Letters which they receired in Frar ce, interefting or not interefling ; and thofe which they have preferved in England were recovered, as this prelent Book, by mere Accident, after lying by for Years neglected in the Garret of a London Lodging Houfe, as Things not worth their Care to fave or deftroy. 6. This Objeiftion contains the only Reafon for thinking the Entry was made in the Pocket- Book after the Time, vi%. that Mr. Stuart is faid to have writ to Mr. Waters on the nth of Sep- tember; whereas the Letter was from Lady y,v'/^.---That fuch an Obje£lion may not make too deep an Impreffion, it is fit to fettle the Claims between Sir 'Juhn and Lady 'Jane to the Merit of having writ that Letter.— -It was folely on the Subjedl of Lady Jane's Annuity, by the Duke, whicri Mr. JVaten paid her ; and informing him, tliat Lady Jane had drawn for the Quarter which v.'as then due.-— Sir John, it is believed, wrote the Letter, and Lady Jane wrote her Nam.e. The Purfuers think it neceffary alfo to account for their having fallen upon the Name of La Adarre : They fay it was h Hazard. — It was fingularly lucky,. ^^^ Hazard Xa fall upon a Name which concfponded in fo many Particulars with their own Story, as could not poffibly coincide in two Parts of a Falfhood invented without any Concert. But vihy is this Name fuppofed ta have been taken up at Hazard? Becaufe Z,a Alarre is the commoneft Name in the World. — To prove how common a Name La Alarre is,, the Purfuers, after five Years Labour, have. throwiL into the Procefs a Paper quite unauthenticated, which they call a Paflport of one Francois Eli De La Marre. — Who wrote it, where it came from, or by what Authority it makes any Part of a Proof, which, by Law, ought to be all upon Oath, thofe who have taken upon them to de- fy Juftice in fo many other Particulars, may bcft: explain. — The only Ufe which it feems pof- fible to make of it is, that it was in the Purfuers Opinion very obvious and natural, to call a Perfon La Alarre, whole formal Signature was Dc La Alarre, which is an Aiifwer from that- beft of Authorities themfelves, to an Argument which deferved no Anfwer from any Body elfe- This Francois Eli De La Alarre they fuppofe may have given Sir John the Hint of the Name j upon which Hint they alfo fuppofe, Sir John may have improved fo far, as to change the Name of Francois Eli into Pierre -, and this he took by Hazard too. — How ftrange, to invent" a Falfhood for the Sake of fuch an Argument ! Notwithflanding all the Objedfions which have yet come under Examination, the Defended; has great Reafon to flatter himfelf that it itmds eftabliflied by a Body of Evidence, which couldr not have been hoped for after fo great a Length of Time---That tim Pierre La Alarre, a middle-- fized, black, thin Man, whom all the Witneffcs defcribe as applying to and pradlifing Midwifery, in which he had confiderable Skill : Who told Mr. A^fenager that he had delivered a foreign Lady in the Year 1748, of an advanced Age, and who had come from PJwms, of Twins, . and, as he {Menager) believed, in the Houfe of Le Brim ; one of whofe Children was left under his Care, and put out to Nurfe vers Belleville, or Alenihnontant : Who told the fame Circumftances^^ to Gilles, and he repeated to Mr. Moreau, a Man of ftricl Honour, who wrote them down in his Prefence ; and who, upon Occafion of Gilles choofing to forget fome of the Circumltances, has . produced them upon Oath : Who alfo mentioned to Mr. Simoneau and Mad. Grannie his having delivered a foreign Lady, and having the Care of a Child of hers : That this Child was nurfed by Gamier, at a Place called the Havte-borne fur le Chemin de A'lenilmontant : 1 hat La Alarre vifited the Child often, paid the Nurfc's Wages, and told Gamier and her Neighbours it was a Twin: That the Twins were both Males, and belonged to Foreigners and People of Condition — Is un- r;uefl:ionably the fame Perfon whom Sir John, hzdy Jane, and Mrs. Heivit, meutioncd zt Rheims as the AccoKcheur of Lady Jane, and to whofe Care Sholto was left at Nurfe ; v;ho is reported by fo many Pei'fons to have correfponded with Sir John on the Subjeft of this Child kft under his Care, and at Nurfe at a Place which was denominated from Menilmontant, and confequently re- ferred toby Lady Jane in the Pocket-Book, as Sir John'i Correfpondent ; who was mentioned to Mr. Loch as her Acoucbeiir ; whom Mrs. Hewit defcribcs accurately as her Jaoiidcur ; and whom Sir Jc'lm will be found to defcribe, though inaT;curately. r A R X' ,g^ OBJECTIONSTO Part V P A R T V. B O O K IL Objedions to La M a r r e confidered. C H A P. I. La MarreV Letters. T T remains to confider what Weight belongs to the Anfwers which the Purfueis give to the Evi- dence of the Delivery, as ftated above. Serv. p. -I. They alledge, i. That four Letters, Part of the Evidence given on the Service, are manifeftly forged. Their Obfervations upon thefe four Letters occur in fo many different Places of fo many different Volumes, that it is difficult to collect the precife Aim which this Part of their Objedlicn takes. The Extent of it feems to be this : They alledge, that Sir yohn and Lady yane never had any Correfpondencc with a Perfon of the Name of La Marre : Tliat the Child faid to have been left under his Care iiom'July 1748 to November 1749, was purely ideal ; and that they only got Poffeffion of him in the Month of November 1749: That being informed, upon their Return to England, of the Sufpicioiis which were entertained of the Birth, and Lady ya;?^ being deli rous of removing them from her Brother's Wind, thefe Letters were all forged, fubfequent to the 9th of June 1752, to fen'e as Evidence of the Delivery: And upon this they argue, not only that they are no Evidence of the Truth, but that they ferve as Proofs of the Falfliood of that Story. To underftand how far this Inference is juft, it is neceffary to look back into the foregoing Proofs ; and confider how the Fadt of the Delivery, and Exiftence of the fecond Child, {lands at- tefted without the Aid of Sir John. It has been repeatedly declared, and folemnly atteftcd by Lady Jmte and ^'Irs. Hewit, againfl: whom no Shadow of Imputation lies ; and they are confirmed by the moft convincing Proof al- ready ftated, of Lady Jane's Pregnancy, in all its Symptoms, and of her Appearance of Sicknefs and Recovery aiterwards. It was talked of from the firil with fo little Pveferve, that they wanted to carry along with them to Rheims a Witnefs, who, if the Purfuers be right, mufl; have revealed the whole Impofture. They talked of the Child diey had left at Paris under the Care of La Marre with all the Accuracy of Defcription which his Age would, and his Habit did indicate : Tliey ad- tlreffed their Friends to vifit him, fpecifying the Place where he was at Nurfe. How many actu- ally faw him appears only by Conjefture from the Account of 'Huvie Gamier; but that Lord Blantyre Serv ci.c' f^^ \\\Tn is in Proof. The Correfpondencc between their Accounts and thofe of the French Wit- neffes has been noticed before. The lingle Circumftancc of their having a Child in the Year 1748 and 1749, induces necelTarily that they muft have correfponded with Somebody : The reft of the P. P. 8i. Evidence ellablifnes, that it muil have been with La Marre. That Sir John had fuch a Correfpon- App. to Def. dence in Fact, is proved not only by thofe who remember the Anxiety with which his Letters Mem. were expefted, and the Communication of their Contents at the Time they received them ; and by Evidence more certain (till, Lady Jane's Pocket-Book ; but alfo by Sir John's Letter to Clinton ; and by both his Oaths, that as early as the Year 1751 at leaft, he copied fome Letters figned with that Name. All that is known of the four Letters in Queftion is a Collection, made upon Examination of them, that they were not genuine, and that they were found in a Trunk with many ufelefs Papers, Letters of Compliments, and other fuch Things : But how or when they were made up or tranfmitted to Lady Jane does not appear. That they were in Fact fabricated, is inferred from the Hand-Writing, the Spelling, and the Style, wherein the Witneffes find many Anglicijms. There is, however, a very obfervable Difference between the three firfl Letters and the fom"th. — The Incidents mentioned in the firfl are more natural, the Order of telling tlieni better preferved, and the Style lefs incorrect, though ill fpelt, and mixed with what the "Witneffes call Anglicijms : And though they are all written in the fame Hand, and as it fliould feem with the fame Pen and Ink, the Materials and Helps to compofe the firll three Letters were apparently different, and bet- ter than thofe which compofed the lalt. It P. p. S6 . H. 87. £, Book II. L A M A R R E C O N S I D E R E D. 185 The fourth Letter refers to Du Bois, a Miniature Painter, as the Hraid which brought it. It fuppofes an Intercourfe of Letters fiiill fubfiftinp; between Sir John and La Marre^ and imports to be an Anfwer to foine Account which .Sir John fent him of the Children. Now all that ap- pears of this is, that in the Year 175T, ^'n John, after having intermitted his Correfpondence from the Year 1749, received a Letter from him to recommend Du Boh, a P.Tiniature Painter, to his Protection ; wherein it would occur of Courfe to take fome complimentary Notice cf the Children. The Purfuers fay the Letter in Queftion goes upon a groundlefsldea of a Letter, which was never written, to La Mane ; and of a Correfpondence which never exiilcd. Admitting thefe Obfervations upon it to be juft, the natural Inference (upon four fuch Letters, fuppofed to bi fabricated at the fmieTime) would be, that fome more perfecl: Memory ofthe real Letters fuggeiled the three /irft than the lail ; more efpeeially, as the Cireumftanees fpoken of in the firlt were particular and ftriking; the lafl, meer Style and Compliment. Suppofnig it to be ever fo apparent that thefe are not genuine Letters, they mufl; ftill be judged as they actually Hand, and with fuch Reference to the real Tranfaction as they actuaily bear ; and under that View it mud be confidered, for what Purpofe it may be imagined they were fabri- cated. The Purfuers infifi: that they were forged to deceive the Duke of Douglas, and brought down by Lady 'Jam into Scotland in Augnjl 1752, in order to be Ihewn to the Duke. To maintain this Hypothefis, it is neceflary, in the firfliTlace, toefbablilli, that the Letters were ^^ibricated after the 9th oijune 1752, when the Ldt of them bears Date, and before Augujl i"52, .when fhe went to Scotland, Upon this Head it is argued, that they muft have exifled before April 1753, bccaufe the Trunk Serv. zi.r. jn which they were found was at that Time depofited in the Hands of Linajay, the Town-Clerk of Edinburgh. This mufl be a Miflake of Lirdfays, becaufe her Watch was found in it, among other Tilings, which appears to have been pledged in Loudon, and redeemed but in her lalt Journey thither in the D- ?• 959- ^• Year 1753. It is alfo nlledged, that Ladv Jane told Mrs. Mcnzics fome Time before flie went to Doitghs P- P- So."- CafHe, (he had Letters in her Pocket from the Man-Midwife, which muft have been thefe forged . Lettei-s, or It is highly probable thofe genuine Letters would have appeared. But this Woman is in much the fame Clafs of Life as their French Witnefles. She keeps a fmall Shop in Edmlmrgh, and has the Honour to be a Relation of Mr. Archibald Stuart. She pretends, however, to a great Degree of Intimacy with Lady Jane, which furely, in the Cafe of fuch a Woman, re- quired Something more than her own Evidence to get over the grofs Improbability of it. She talks of converfmg with Lady Jane on the Subject of her Children, as it it were their ordinary Topick of Converfation ; and yet this extraordinary Intimacy is fupported by no Kind of other Evidence. Her Name does not appear in any Letter, Converfation, or other Part of the Evi- dence. And yet Mrs. Menzies pretends to recollefl what no other Perfon, however intimate, remem- Serv, 15. a, bers, not even Mr. Loch, who talked with her on the lame Subject, and heard her Account in a very difl'ercnt Way. It implies much Sufpieion when a Witnefs, from whofe Situation and Opportunities of Know- ledge Nothing was to be expcdted, remembers more than all the other Witnefles together. There is a remarkable Paflage in Mrs. Men'ziei's Depofition, that Lady Jane told her flie knew the Duke called her Children N'unncy Children. — An abfurd Piece of Piibaldry, which Mrs. Menzies was more likely to hear from People upon her own I,evel in Life, if Ihe heard it at all. Who ever heard it iaid by, or reported as coming from, the Duke ? While he was under the Im- preffion ot thofe Falfehoods which Mr. Archibald Stuart, the Agent for the Hamilton Family, was always pouring in his Ears, he called them Pretenders. After the Death of Sholto, in the Year 1753, they were reported, upon the Faith of Major Cochran, to have been bought out of an Hofpi- T. P. 351. h, tal. Whether this, which was ferioufly infilled upon by that Party till it was u read to Ifabel IValker, and which Ifabel gave an Account of to Mrs. Hepburn, before fhe was called in to be examined on P. P. 341. i. the Service : Upon the Receit of which Sir John damned La Mai re, and faid, " What ! is he " proving to me, that he brought Lady Jane to-bed .'"' and threw the Letter into the Fire. It happens to be impoflible, that it flioidd be the fame Letter, becaufe this is dated the 9th of June 1752, and that Letter which Ifabel IFalker has zlw^ys fpoken of, was received in Alurray's Houfc, which they had left a Year before. Nor is it to be believed, that after making fuch a Reflection upon that Letter, they would have perfifted in a Forgery liable to fuch an Obfervation. But INIrs. Hepburn's Miftuke is accounted for : When Ifibel JVallcer is examined upoli that Sub- D. P. jCS. e. jecl, fhe remembered the lleceit of that Letter while they v/erc at Murray's ; and that it was the only I^etter received from La Marre at London ; and that it was read to them by Sir John and Lady Jcne, and contained an Enquiry after the Children ; and that he had taken the Oppor- tunity of writing by a Friend who was come to London. Sir John rolled it up carelcfly, and was putting it in that Manner into his Pocket, which gave her Occafion to obfcrve, that it ought to be taken more Care of ; referring to the Imputations which were thrown out againft Lajy Jane ; upon 'which Sir John damned any Body who would call her Honour into Queltion ; but what became of the Letter fhe knows not : She does not remember the Converfation fpoken of by Mrs. Hepburn ; but it is plain, that with only a very fliglu Change of one Circumflance, it is, in all other Rcfpeds, the fame ilccount which Ifabel ll'alker afterwards gave upon Oiith. The Purfuers conclude this Subjeft with obferving, that if the Letter now produced was the very fame Lady Jane read to Ifabel Walker, flie muft have been acceflary to the forging it. That it could not be the fame, appears from the Receit of the real Letter being a Year or two prior to the Date of that produced, as well as from the other CircumflaiCiiS mention- ed before. C c 2 L^poa i88 OBJECTIONS TO PartV. Upon which the Puifuers obferve, that if the firft were genuine, (lie mufl: have known the laft to be forged. It is inipofFible to know what fhe thought of the Letter produced ; it it certain, that fhe never made any Ufe of it. If the Forgery be fo plain, it is incon- ceiveable that flie iliould think of ufing it ; and the moft probable Inference upon the Whole is, that flie never faw it, as it feeras to have come to her Hands when her Life was too far fpent to read it. Upon the Whole, it is fubmittcd, that the Judgment to be formed of thefe Letters is, ift. That whether genuine or not, they were fent by Sir fohny not in View of their being pro- duced, and relied upon as Evidence, but merely to quiet Lady 'Jane's prefent Anxieties. 2d. That moil certainly they were never in Fact: produced, or relied upon as Evidence by either of them, but came into this Procefs by mere Accident. 3d. That the reft of the Evidence of their Correfpondence with La Marre, is rather confirmed by ihem than weakened. To apply them in Subverfion of the reft of the Evidence, it muft be proved, ifl. That Lady ^ Jane, Mrs. Hewit, and Ifabel ll'alkcr, confederated with Sir Ji-hn in this Falfhood : Nay, they mult have fet on Foot this Confederacy lb early as the nth oi Septe7nher 1749, to efFetl: a For- gery, which, according to the Purfuers, was not thought of till the Year 1752 ; and this is al- leged by the Purfuers, without a Tittle of Evidence to fupport fuch a Calumny. 2dly. That the reft of the Witnefles who have connected La Alarre with them and their Hiftory, are per- jured ; though being totally unconnected, it was abfolutely inipolfible to combine in the fame Falftiood. The only colourable Ground for imputing Fraud to any Body is, that Sir John in Dccem- her 1762, when thefe Letters were produced to him, faid, Tliat the Letter of OSlober 1749, ap- peared to be of La Marred Hand, and the reft of Mr. Clinton's ; and upon a fubfequent Day, one other of the Letters, dated the 9th oijune 1752, appeared to be of La Marre's Hand- Writing. P.P. 82. E. I'l tbis Account Sir yohn is contradicled by Cl'tnton, who fays, that none of them are of his D. P. 449. F. Hand- Writing : Mr. Gray, whom Clinton ferved at Edinburgh, was not able to judge, upon In- App to Def fpeftion, whether they were his Hand-Writing or not ; and it ilands confefled, that Clinton Wem. p. jj, ufed to write for Sir John, and tranfcribed Papers at which was the Name of La Marre. He is further contradifted ex Evidentia Rei ; for all the Letters are of the f;mie Fland, and wrote at the fame Time, and with the fame Ink. It is not furprifing, that Sir John, a Man of feventy-five Years of Age, and nine Years after the Thing happened, alhfted only by a gencr.^1 JNIemory that Clinton had writ for him, lliould, upon Infpeciion, judge that to be Clinton's Hand ; which Mr. Gray, a Man of onlv fifty, con- vcrfant with his Hand, and fwearing upon Comparifon of thefe Letters with one of Clinton's^ wnich he held in his Hand, coidd not diilinguilh them upon all that Examination from Clinton 6 Hand. And if this were IMatter of Surprize, it would ceafe upon obferving, that his Sight was at that Time fo bad, as to diftinguiih two Letters from each other by a Hitference on the Face of them, which did not exift, nor could be imagined by any Body elfe who had Eyes. 7\11 he knew was, that he had co-rrefponded with La Marre on the Subjccis mentioned in thofe Letters ; but whether they were the real Letters, he had neither fuihcient Memory, nor other Means of Judging ; for his Eyes were fo bad, that even with the Affiftance of Spectacles, he coiJd make no more of infpecling the Letters than has been mentioned. CHAP. 11. Of Sir John's Declaration zvith refpcFt to La Marre. npHE next Objeftton laboured by the Purfuers is, that .^ir John's Account o£ La Marre is repugnant in many Particulars, which they call eflential, to tliC reit of the Kvitiencc, higldy im- probable, and abfolutely falfe : From whence they infer, that the Coincidence, fo far as it ob- tains, is purely accidental ; and that the Whole Story is mere Invention, no Part of which T.ad any Exiftence. That the Coincidence of the two Stories was merely the accidental Harmony of Truih am! Falfhood ; the Falfliood contrived without any Knowledge of Sir John's what the Truth was to be ; will be very difficult to maintain with thofe who remember in what an infinite Variety of Parti- culars the Stories agree, and in how few circumftantial Articles they differ. The whole Hiftory of the Delivery, i:i refpecl of Time, of Place, of a foreign Lady, of Twins, of tiie Habit of thole Twins, of nurfing the youngcft near Put is, of the Time and Place of his Stay, Book II. LAMARRECONSIDERED. 185 Stay, of La Marreh Care of him, and of his being taken away, tallies exadly in both Stories.--- The Defcription of La Mane's Perfon, Complexion, and his being a married Man, &c. agrees in both Stories. The only Articles in which they differ are, that Sir John fays La Marre was a TFalhon, as he Decl. 6. c. believed, ui'itb whom be became acquainted in the Tear i-jzi, »/ Liege, introduced by Col. Fontaine. He then faid, as he thinks, that he was Surgeon to a Regiment, though his chief Bufmefx was Midwifery ; that he met him by Accident tvalking in the ThuiJIeries, and he employed him for Clieap- nefs ; that he was at Paris upon a ticklilh Afiair, which he believed would detain him fome 'lime there. For the reft he falls diredly in with the Account given by all theWitneffes, that he often called upon Lady y^/;/^ from the Time of her coming to /'i^m ; that he often met him at the Caffc du Malthe, on the i^i'ii Pelletier., anil the Source de Bowgogne, near the Pont St. Michel , that La Marre called frequently tiirough the Day, and if he milled to do it himfelf, fent his Servant ; and that he came fometimes in a Hackney-Coach, and fometimes on Foot. The Purfuers fay, it is not true that La Marre had vifited Lady Jane before her Delivery, r . Be- P. P. gig. c. caufe the Godefrois do not remember to have feen him.-— Gode/roi was generally out of his Houfe Ssg. b, on other Bufmefs the whole Day ; and neither of them remember Pelletier, who yet went to Sir John m the Hotel de Chaalons. 2. Beeaufe Mrs. //ciw/ only remembers that Ihe knew La Marre p. p. 991. e. was to bring Lady Jane to-bed, but does not know whether the Day of the Delivery was the firrt; 25+. i. Time Lady Jane had feen him ; butihe does not remember to have leen him before. ---It is unjuft even to Abfurdity, to decide, that a Thing entirely circumflantial never happened, which one Wit- iiefs afferts, merely becaufe another does not happen to remember it at the End of feventeen Years. But itfeemsftillmorc unjuil to rely upon the fame Witnefs in one Article which ihe dees not remem- ber, and refufe her Credit in another which Ihe does. If it be thought, on the Credit due to Mrs. Hewit's Memory, that Sir John is millaken about the Time La Marre lirft came to fee Lady JanCy let it be decided on the fame Footing, that La Marre certainly did attend her Delivery. In the fame Stile of Argument, they deny that Sh John and La Marre met atthe5ew« deBour- 9S9. d. gogne twenty Years ago, becaule the Landlord of that Houfe remembers neither of them ; and that La Marre fent a Servant, becaufe Beaujeu fays he kept no Servant. ---It is not worth referring to d. P. 040, r, what has been faid ot his Evidence before, to refute fuch a Cavil as this. ---It is clear froni Gamier^ that La Marre had a Servant, with whom flie left a Mellage, in Confequence of which he came to fee the Child. But it makes nothing to Sir Johns Veracity, whether it were a menial Servant, or any other Meifenger he employed. What milled Sir John to call him a JFallaon, or to connect with him any PafTage of the Year 1721 at Liege, it is impoOible to itate by Evidence ; and the Manner of Proceeding in hisExa- mination was well calculated to leave that for ever miexplained. Upon the Oath of Mr. Archibald Stuart, that he had Reafon to believe. Sir y»/;« was about to leave the Country, though he was then abfoluteJy unable to take a Journey of a Mile, he was or- dered out of a fick Bed, where he lay under a violent Inflammation in his Bladder and Ureter, to attend immediately in Court. He could not bend his Body fo as to fit : He was carried in a Chair ftanding, and fupporting himfelf by the Sides of it, while one walked behind to hold the Head of the Chair up, that it might not fall upon him ; and in Court he leaned againil a Trunk placed on a Chair, and was examined in that Condition three Days fucceflively, for four Hours each Day, proving ex Evidentiu Rei, that the Oath which produced the Order for his Examination was falfe. It was in vain objefted that the Defender was not yet legally in Court : That no Condefcendcnce, either in general, or of the Fa£ls he was then to be examined upon, was given in: The Anfwer was, *' It is fv/orn he is about to leave the Country." It was in vain offered to give Bail of 50,000/. or any other larger Sum the Court would name, that hefhculd not leave the Country.— -The Anfwerwas, "It is fworn thatheisabout to leave theCountry." In this painful Condition---a naturalRack—forty-feven Interrogatories were adminiftered to him, confainingfome of them three or four Queftions each---one hundred and twenty-fix Queflicns in all, were put to him, over and above the additional Interrogatories which were framed upon the Spot, on the Occafion of his Anf\vers---a Method rather more calculated to confound the Perfon examined, than bring the Truth to Light. Add to this, Sir ya/;« was fo deaf, that the Queftions were put to him in Writing, one by one ; and fo blind, that Spectacles could fcarce help him to read them. He was examined without Oath, as it was pretended not to ferve as Evidence, but for the Pur- pofe of Expikation ; and yet, how inconfdleut. ! it was onlered to lie in retentii under the Seal of the Court. This j5,o O B J E C T I O N S T O Part V- This Secrecy was immeJiately violated, ami the Authority of the Couit was violated, to t\v» flwmeful Purpofes ; the bringing a fraudulent Action in the public Name, m the Tournc/L- o[ Fm/.u; in order to corrupt the Evidence ; atid the fupprelTing One-half of the Truth, to make the Defo^l » Ground of Objettion to the Evidence ofthererfon thus eKamined. To ferve this laft Purpofe more efFeftually, upon Sir John's fecond Examination, no Queftions were put to him on th.e Subject-Matter of his Jaft Examination ; whereby the Defender was put into this Situation :— Being deprived of the previous Information given to all Parties by ths common Courfe of Proceeding, and more particularly necellary to him, who v.as at leaft: iniio- .cent and unknowing of the Fraud (if Fraud had been committed), he was unable at iirfl to ex- amine the Witnefs, to explain the Defeft and apparent Repugnances in his Teftimony ; and was prevented, in any After-time, when then Condcfcendence explained the Ground of their Ob- jeclioiis to his Birth, to come at fuch Explanation. In this Condition it is impofiible to do more than conjefture at the Reafon of Sir John's feeming to wander from the reft of the Witnelles. f'.P. B. It is clear, even fiom the Evidence, that Sir jfohn was conncfted with Fontaine, Le Brun, and reel. 6. D. Pel!e;ier.-'-Ymm La Marrc's Book it appears that La Marre was connedled with Perfons of t!;c i)ed' V'b^* Name of Fontahie, Le Brun, and Pelletier : And it is highly probable, from Mad. La Marre s Decla- U. P. icii T. ration to the Hwjfier, that Letters from Sir John to La Marre were burnt by his Widow as ufelefs. ---It is clear alfo, tha'; Sir Jchn was at Liege in the Year 1 721, where he may have been acquainted with Colonel Fontaine. If he has, under Xuch an Examination, transferred an Idea to Liege in 1721, which belonged to Paris m i 748, does it lie in the Purfuers Mouths to pervert and mif-conftrue it into purpofedFalfhood.'— In their Mouths, who laid the Plan of circumventing the Witnefs and the Defender, in a Manner unknown to Juftice, and fhocking to common Senfe ? And yet this is the only Inftance in which he is found diredly wrong. His faying that he was in Ufe to meet La Marre at the Thuillcries, or Liixemhurg, at an appointed •?. P. 146, c. Walk, was an Error which his firft mif-conceived Idea olLa Marre led him into ; but he corretled it, and.declared that he did know his Addrefs, and reforted to him by Means of that Knowledge, tho' — ^J46. F. he hadtten forgot it: And whatihews his fincere Forgetfulnefs is, that though his Wife had told him, the Day before his Examination, where it was, he had forgot the Place fhe told him of ; nay, he confeffes that he didnot recoiled it to be the Place when flie told him of it.-"Now, who can refle£t upon Sir Johrii, Charafter a Moment, even with a prejudiced Opinion, imputing Fraud to him, and not be fenfiblc, that if any Falfehood had been in his Purpofe, he would inifantly have adopted the Plan fo pointed out to him, if his Memory had concurred ? Perhaps the Idea of the Tbuilleries was originally fuggefted to him by the real Place of Z,a i^arr«'s Refidence, which was near that noted Part of Paris. . So his defcribing La Marre to have come up to Paris upon a ticklifh Affair, was the Idea which occurred to him of a Man's Piefulence at Paris whom he erroneoufly conceived to^have ben acquainted with at Liege. That La Murre had told him that he had been Surgeon to a Regiment, though his principal Bu- finefs was Midwifery, remains Hill doubtful, whether it was correftly remembered or not ; for though it be agreed on all Hands that La Alarre never joined any Regiment in that Charatler, he appears to have talked of fuch Pretenlions to Aienager as well as to Sir John. But who can doubt that he thought himfelf right, even in thefe fmall CIrcumfcP.nces, when he appealed to Colonel Fontaine, and mcntionei! where he lived in the Year 1756, when he v/as adlu- ally alive, and living in that Place; and Pelletier wwA Le Brun, in the Year 1762 ; who mull have confirmed, explained, or totally confuted him, if they had not died before tlie Proof was taken in this Caufe ; which Sir John could not poflibly foreknow .''—-And fliall the Purfuers on any Occafion, but mod particularly on fuch an Occafion as this, take Advantage of the Lofs of Evidence which the A6t of God has deprived the Defender of I Bat why is this Slip of Sir ^(jA'i's Memory to be preffed, when he appears to have fallen into the fame Errors upon Occafions which Malice itfelf cannot tax with Blame? Why againft him, when other Perfons confefledly honefl have fallen into Errors the fame in Kind, and only more confiderable in Degree ? — — 317.K. The V/itncfics defcribe Sir yc/;« as open, generous, honeft, extravagant, idle and profiife, in- "'" " capable of telling a Lye ; but very liable to Miitakes, from his Hurry and Precipitation, and par- ticularly in Names and Dates. — One obvious Confequence of his Turn of Mind \s, that he would be apt to confound, mifapply, and alter Circumilances. Accordingly his Friends, who refpetled him, ancl thought him incapable of telling a Lye, defcribe him as itrangcly pofitive in his own ^Miflakes, till he was convided by fome Circumftances. An Inftance of this is, that in the Year J -49 lie was at the Houfe of Mr. Hepl-urn, in Boulogne, eight Days, and made Mr. Hepturnz Pre- fer — — 24-0. D Book II. LA MARRE CONSIDERED. 191 fent of a Niglit-gown ; and yet he pofitively denied that he had ever heen there, and would not ha convinced of it till tliey a£lually fhewcd him the Go\vn. It is obvious how flrongly fuch a Denial of his Refidence at a Houfe in Paris might have been prefTed againft him ; and yet the Conclufion would have been falfe, and fatal to his innocent Child.-- -Thofe who have Authority to decide upon the Fate of their Fellow-Citizens, cannot be too cautious how they fuffer poflible Conceits and mere Inferences to weigh as pofitive Evidence.- --Tliofe who give this Account of Sir y^/jn's Idlcnefs, flake themfelves by Oath upon this, that he was incapable, in Point of Honour, to meditate i Fraud, and for Want of Steadinefs to perfift in it ; and they are fure that, if the Children had not hcen his, he would, in fuch bitter DirtrelTes as he laboured under, have freed himfelf from them. Tins Caufe itfelf affords many Inftances of the fame Frailty ; fome of which the Purfuers have laboured to turn to his Difadvantage, but without Succefs ; others are too plainly accidenui to admit of an ill Conflru£l;ion. He fent Mrs. Napier upon a (leevelefs Enquiry after Michel's, as the Houfe of Delivery, when. P. P. i. c. Le Brutis had been previoufly mentioned both by him and Lady Jane as the Place of Delivery ; Serv. p. 2?. a, and to mention Alichel's could end in nothing but finding the Enquiry abortive, as it proved ; ^' "• 39--^' and if the Story had been falfe, he never would have placed the Delivery at a Place where he had. lodged.. Difcharging his Footman' at jiix-la-ChapeUe vfzs prefled upon him by the Purfuers, as a Cir- Gumftance inferring ftrong Sufpicion " II fe defait d'un Temoin importune. "---He could give no. '^~i^^^' °' Account of it, and was delivered from the Sufpicion by the accidental Difcovery oi ^iibcl, the • •+ ?• Footman's Wife, who explained that they wanted to take him along ; but he refufed on Account of his Danger in Fratue, becaufe he had deferted from the French Troops ; and this was con- firmed by a Letter to Lord Crawford, afterwards recovered. That he came from Dammartin to fee the Child and take up Money in Aiigujl 1748, and lodged, at Godefroi's, is now exceedingly manifefl ; and yet Sir^ff/in remembers nothing of it ; but inftead of this Journey, tells a circumftantial Story of his coming to lodge at Godefroi's \n June pre- ceding to take up Money, when it is manifefl, by the concurrent Accounts- of them all, he- was at Rheims : Aiid yet it is impofhble to impute a defigned Falfliood in mentioning the Journey He did not make, or fuppreffmg that which he made. That he went, in Oifober 1748, with Baron Macelligoi to fee the Child, and no Blame can be imputed to that Journey, is now confefled on all D. P, 5^4. a. Hands ; and yet neither he nor the Baron remember the Quarter or Houfe they lodged in, nor whom they converfed with. That he was at Parts again upon an innocent Occafion when he went to fee the Child in Sun^- p. p.* ^^j, »i, mer 1749, is exceedingly plain ; and yet he can give no Account of where he lodged, or with, whom he converfed. Coiifining his Stay at Parts in Summer 1748 to twenty-two Days, when the real Period, if he had remembered, would have confirmed the Story he was telling, was an innocent Miftake. He had no Memory of what happened to him at Dammarlin, the Time he ftaid there, the Quarter, the Houfe, the Landlord, or any Incident which befel him; inftead of which he tells very cir- cumftantially, that the Nurfe he brought from Paris fell with Child, and that a Variety of other Nurfes, out of a Principle of Humanity, fuckled the Child till they got one who would go with p.p. g^j. c, him: Whereas the real Story is a clear Account, that Nurfc /owf agreed, in order to acorn- 88z. F4 modate them,, to attend the Child to Z)£jm/«flr//« ; and inflead of falling wiih Child loft her own Infant by a Fever, and continued with them till they procured Nurfe Mangin to attend the Child . %o Rheims:— A Story, if he had recollected it, much more confident, clear, and fit to fupporf the general Story he was relating. Sir John has called Mr. Jndrieitx his Landlord at Rheims, and firmly believed that was the only — =« Ei6. '^. Houfe he had lodged in at Rheims, till January 1763, when he had a confufed Idea that he liad ufed two different Lodgings at Rheims, and begs Mr. Maillefer to enquire of Andrieux at whole Houfe he lodged, whether he had lotlged anywhere elfe ; becaufe he is fure, if it were fo, that Mad. Andrieux io\ix\ii out the fecond Lodging for them. ---If this could have been perverted into any Thing but a mere Miftake, vvhst Volumes of inveflive Comment would have followed the Dil- covery, that he never lodged at the Houfe of Andrieux at all.'' Sir John fays, that in the Year 1748, he ftaid two Days, in his Way from Dammartin to Rhelmii P. P. j;5. j« at Mr. Lejly's at Fillers Coterct, a Town about 30 or 40 Miles from Paris.— 'Mr. LrJIy fays, that he did not rtay there, but only fent a INIeflage of Compliment by his Servant.— It turns out, upon En- quiry, that Mr. Lejly did not live there in the Year 1748. He fays he was only about a Year in Confinement in London, though it is certain he was above three ; and that be came to Scotland in 1752, (this was before Lady y««^ died) though in Fncl he did not return to Scotland till about i756> 192 p. p. 919. E. 913. c. D. P. 907. E. ■■ ■ " 396. D. OBJECTIONS TO Part V. D P 606 ^Tr. Malllefer was pofitivc that Sir John gave out, when he left Rhe'ms, that his Journey was def- tincd to Villirs Coteift, and concealed that Lady Jane was to go with him ; and this ftood for a nw- nifell Proof of Concealment, till it was found that MailUfer had recommended him and two La- dies to Godefroi at Parti. Madame /f-u;(/r_y defcribed Lady Jane in the Stage-Coach by fuch Marks as had been conveyed to her for that Purpole, and was pofitivc Ihe could fpeak no French.— 'Yh\s was regarded as a Mafter-Piece of Difguife, till Vatry and her Maid related a great Deal of Converfation which thej^ aclually had held with her in French. Lady Rutledge tells a very minute and circumftantial Story of the two Children flie faw at MaraiT in the Year 1748 ; and of the Converfation fhehcld with Lady June, upon the Subject of her own Prc'i-nancy, which was true of the Month of December 1749, at Dunkirk. .-Ytom this the Pur- fuerstak(f the Freedom to infer, that Lady Rutledge \v:iS guilty of downright and wilful Perjur)', be- caufe ihe happens to fpeak of Incidents which materially contrailici this liypothefis. Lady Eglinton relates a circumftantial Converfation between herfelf and Lord Crawford in the Year 1 746, when his Lordlhip was in Scotland with the Army ; wherein the Withdrawing of the Penfion, which happened in 1749, is drawn back to the Intercourfe Lord Cravjfoid\aA with her at Aix, which happened in 1747 and 1748 ; and the Whole is followed with a full Account of Lady Jane\ Didrefles at that Period, upon the Withdrawing of that Penfion : Whereas Lord Crawford never returned to Scotland after Lady Jane's Marriage. If there were nothing in the AVay but an Interval of fifteen or twenty Years ngainfl: the Me- morv of VVitiielles advanced in Age ; or no more than the Obfervation made by Perfons of !\ank and Characler upon their own Experience, of Sir John's Powers of Memory, and of his Habit of relating padTranlaftions; or no more than the many ftriking Inilances which this Procefs atlbrds of him, and many other unexceptionable Perfons, falling into Miftakes as broad as this now infilled on, and but by mere Accident lefs material; it would appear nianifeflly impolTiblc to rear up a negative Proof upon tlie mere Defeats and Slips of Memory which fpring from the common Frailty of Human Nature. And yet the Purfuers afFefl: to lay it down, that the whole Evidence of the Pvelation which La Alarre had to the Delivery of Lady Jane, mull; eonfill in thefe Inaccuracies produced by the irregu- lar and partial Examination which they chofe to bring him under. And it feems they were Maifejs to chufe upon what folitl Fotmdation ; but with what Regard to Jultice, or Common Senfe and Experience, they have not thought fit to demonftrate. Upon this Ground they fet themfelves to argue witli great Form and Solemnity, that the Pleire La Marre whom they have created out of the broken Memory of a much injured old Man, cannot, con fiilently with the reit of the Evidence, have been the Man-midwite of Lady June; though it feems ftrange, that if the reft of the E\idence falfifies Sir John, that fliould not be accepted for Truth, and fo Vice verjd. LTpon this Ground they proceed to infift, that giving up thefe Articles of Sir John's Teftimony for inaccurate, is not only to dellroy his Credit as a Witnefs, but to cut off all the Attention which would otherwife be due to his Acknowledgment of Mr. Douglas, his Treatment of him, the Ac- ceptation he has with the World accordingly, and all which in Elfimation of Law goes to conftitute the Poflefiion of a Man's State. Strange, indeed, that the Weaknefs, or if it were fo, the V/ickcdnefs of the Parent flionld dillblve the Bond of Relation between him and his Son ! If he had fuffcred infamous Punifli- ment for an infamous Crimen falft, Mr. Douglas mult have flill undergone the Mortification of looking up to an infamous Parent ; for the Rule of Juitice, whicii has obtained in every Age, in every Country, and is founded upon obvious Principles of general Expedience and Policy, woidtl dwindle all away if, inftead of itaniling as a fixed Principle to govern all Cafes, it fliould depend upon the accidental Imputations upon the Conduct or Characler of the Parents. If thofe who impeach a Man's PolTeffion of his State attempt to bring demonftrative Evidence of his being born in a ditlerent Condition ; fuch a Parent might, according to the Cafe put before, be repelled ; or if his Reputation were llurretl, would iloubtlefs be recei\edas a i"ufpecl:ed Wit- nefs againft whatever Teftimony could be adduced on the other Side : Hut the PjJJJfon of State, under whatever Parent, mull Hand upon that general Bottom v.hich all Poirclhons Itand upon in Law, till the Caufcs of Eviction are made out in Evidence. In this Inftance it will be a fingular Hardfliip to the Defender, if Sir John's Evidence fliould either be repelled or held for fufpected.-— It Ought in Juflice to be received with only fuch Allowances as his great Infirmities from Age, Sicknefs, and Misfortune, naturally call for. — If pofitivc Proof were neceffary to the Defender upon this Head, tlic Delivery of Lady Jane, and all Book III. LEBRUNCO^fSIDERED. 153 all the Circiimftiinccs of it as they have alledged, are pofitively proved, either with or vithout Sit John; for V/hocver will compare the red of the Evidence with Sir Ja^w's Declaration, will fee ahumlant Reafon to conclude that all the Witnefles fpeak of the fame Perfon, with more or lefs Perfpicuity and Precifion, according to their different Powers of Memory and Opportu- nities of Knowledge ; and that the Circumflance mifapplied in Point of Time and Plice w ns but one of many fuch Accidents fpringing from meer Infirmity, and has the fame Title with ■them to be thought Innocent. But if the Rules of Juftice, as they have hitherto obtained, de- ferve any Regard, pofitive Proof is the Province undertaken by thofe who go about to impeach a Man's Poffcffion of his State.---The Defender's Province is to repel the Attack when made. c Upon this Occafion he hopes it will be found, i. That the Purfuers have brought no EvidcnCj. which goes any Way to prove that he aclually was or neceflarily muft have been in any othe Condition than that which he now poffefles. 2. That if fo much were neceffary, the real Hiftory and Circumflances of his Birth have been proved by as full a Body of concurrent Teflimony as Juftice could hope or require for eftablifliing thofe Fafts, after fuch a Length of Time, and the accidental Death of fo many Perfons appealed to for the Truth of them. PARTV. BOOK IIL Objedlions to L e B r u n confidered. C H A P. I. Of the Means ufed to difcover Mad. Le Brun. THE Purfuers in tbe next Place infill. That no Perfon of the Name of Le Brun^ in whofe Houfe Lady Janeco\x\A be brought to-bed, exifted in Paris in the Year 1748. — r. Be- caufe, if fhe had exifted, the Monitoire which was publiftied, and the Anxiety which both Parties beftowed in Queft of her, muft have difcovered her. 2. If (he had lett fuch Lodgings as would accommodate Lady Jane, fhe muft have been found in the Records of Police. 3. That if ftie had poffeffed any Houfe whatever, fhe muft have been found in the Records of Capitation ; and that as flie does not appear in any of thefe Rolls, fhe muft have been an ideal Perfon. — In an- fwering each of thefe Objeftions, the Defender will demonftrate that the Monitoire, the Records of Police, and of Capitation, go no Way to prove her Non-Exiftence ; but that a Perfon of this Name and connedled with La Marre did actually exift at Paris, at the Time in Queftion. The firft Argument that no fuch Perfon as Mad. Le Brun exifted, is a Search made by the Purfuers in 1763, to no Purpofe. -Charlier, a Huijfter, fwears in 1765, that he en- quired in a great many Streets, to difcover a Woman of the Name of Le Brun, who kept an Hotel garni in 1 748 ; and he afterwards adds, ou Chambre garnie, ou qui donna a manger, with- out being able to find her ; and it was no Wonder, becaufc his Search was exprefly confined to a Clafs of People to which (he did not belong.— Had the Purfuers been willing to find her, the Enquiry would have been general, and not confined to this or that Clafs, in which they had no Reafon to hope for Succefs ; and which appears rather like an Enquiry made to furnifti an Ar- gument in a fraudulent Procefs, in which they had no Contradiftor, than to difcover the Mad. Le Brun in Queftion, which they moft certainly never meant, or intended to do. Second, They fay, that if Mad. Le Brun had exifted, the Monitoire would have brought her forth, becaufe the Monitoire muft have been feen by all the World. — It was indeed fcen by a great many, and by too many for the Honour of the Purfuers. — It is the moft flianieful Proftitu- tion of Authority this Age has as yet furnifhed. — Had the Monitoire contained a general Livita- tion to all who knew any Thing of the Cafe of La Marre and Le Brun, on the one Hand, and of Enlevements of Children on the other, it might have been the IMeans of making ufeful Difco- veries, and might have difcovered Mad. Le Brun, unlefs the Purfuers had, before the Publica- tion of the Monitoire, with the Aid of Francois La Marre, found her out, and taken effedual Methods to prevent her Appearance. But the Monitoire never could make a Difcovery in Fa- vour of the Defender ; for the Revelations are taken privately, fent by the Cures to the Pro- cureur General, with the fame Secrecy, and the Names and Defignations of the Perfons v/ho reveal are fent to the Purfuers only, and carefully concealed from the Defender ; fo that if Iliad. Le Brun has made a Revelation, the Purfuers only could (ome to the Knowledge of it : D d But 194 OBJECTIONSTO Part V. But the Monhoire exprefly afErms, that the pretended Delivery at her Houfe on thd^toth of July was an Impofture demafqu'ee. Thus the Monhoire, inftead of furnifhing a Proof of Mad. Le Brun's Non-Exiftence, proves no more than that if fhe did exifl when the Monitolre was publifhed ; and if fhe faw it, and was not already fecreted by the Purfuers ; flie would not probably have appeared, to expofe herfelf to be treated as an Accomplice in the Impojiure demafquee. Or, it is highly probable, that it might not occur to her, that the Story related to the Lady who was delivered in her Houfe, whofe Quality fhe very probably did not know at the Time, or from whence the Lady came. Or (Ite might have died, or left the Place, long before the Publication of the Monitoire ; fo that, in no View, was it calculated to difcover any Thing to the Defender. In the next Place, the Purfuers fay, that if any Perfon could have been found out to per- fonate Lady Jane's Landlady, the Defender's Agents haA'e been very diligent in ufing every poffible Means (though fome not very juftifiable) for that Purpofe. — That a remarkable Inftance I>. P. Z/L.J. F, of this occurred in a Perfon going to St. Germain, and informing one Mad. Le Bran, an Inn- keeper's Wife, that a foreign Lady had been delivered in the Houfe of Mad. Le Brun : That flie had left a Legacy of 10,000 Livres tQ her Keepei- ; and that if (he could prove that flie was the Keeper, he would give her that Money. As this was faid, the Defender will juft flate the Evidence of the Fact, and fubmit, whe- ther this Woman has not, like Franpis La Ahrre, been prevailed upon, by fome undue Means, to fupprefs the Truth at the Expence of wilful Perjury. When Mad. Le Brun, at St. Germain, was firft fpoke to on this Affair, fh£ faid, that one Fort' taine, a Midwife, had told her, that a foreign Lady had been delivered of Twins, fixteen Years before the Year 1764, in the Houfe of ow Le Bran, and, as llie thought, by one La Marre.—Ou this, three Britifl) Gentlemen, of known Honour, went to St. Germain to converfe with her ; to , j_ g_ whom fhe repeated the above Circumftances. ---Again, the Defender's Agent converfed with her 551. G, in Prefence of three difinterefled Perfons, to whom Ore repeated the fame Circumftances, only three D.iys before her Examination. — When fhe was examined, fhe denied that ever Fcntainehad — — 546. D. told her that a foreign Lady had been delivered ofTwins, in the Houfe of a Perfon of the Name of Le Brun, or bv a Perfon of the Name of La Marre. She fwore fhe had never faid fo, and that k was the Perfon who firlt fpoke to her who told her thefe Circumftances ; and that he told her he would give her 10,000 Livres, if flie could prove herfelf the Perfon in whofe Houfe the Lady — ^ 54.8. E. had been delivered. In Oppolition to this, two Perfons have pointedly fwore to a very different 551 G. Account given by her only a few Days before her Examination : So that the Whole of this Difpute P.P. •439,*H. coi-n^s to this Iftue,-— Whether it is more probable that this Woman has, in Imitation oi Franpii La Marre and Giltes, fwore falfely, in denying what fhe repeatedly told to fo many different People ;■— orthat the Defender's Agents called her as a Witnefs on his Part, knowing her total Ignorance of the Affair ; and that two Perfons of unimpeached Characters have perjured themfelveSj in depoling that flie tyld Circumftances which Ihe never mentioned ? CHAP. IL Of the Records of Police. P. P. 914. p. / I ^HE next Ground on which the Non-exiflence of Mad. Le Brun is founded, is the Books of \_ Police. The Purfuers fay. That the Books of Police contain a Lift of all the Hotels garnies and Cha?nbres garniis, with the Names of thofe who keep them. They are very regular and exatl ; 'I'hey were made up every four Months, in 1748 ; and the EmolunK.-iirs of the Ofhc-ers dependeii upon their Accuracy in making up the Lift. It is figned by the Lieutenant-General of Police, and authenticated by the Syndic of the Company of Infpcctors of Police, "i'he Purfuers examined this Lift, and they did not find in it any Perfon, of the Name of X^ Brun, keeping an Hotel, or Chainbres garniis, in 1748- How hr any found Conclufion can be drawn from this Circumftance, admitting it in its full Latitude, may be doubted ; becaufe, notwithftanding the Care of the Officers, and their Motives for ExaiTlnefs, there might have been a Perfon or Perfons, of the Name of Le Brun, keeping Hnels garnics, &c. though not contained in the Lift. ---There are Inftanccs in Proof of People who Ictt Lodgings, and who notwithftanding are not recorded in the Police Rolls ; and tliereiorc, if ♦ the Purfuers had made out what they have aukwardly attempted, that, by the Defcriptions of Sir John D.P.651. A. Stewart :im\ Mrs. Hewit, the Houfe in which Lady 'JanewAS delivered was an Hotel ^arni, which ought to hnve been entered in the Police Piolls, yet the Argument would come far fliort of their boailed Infallibility. But Book III. LEBRUNCONSIDERED. 195 But the Defcilption of the Houfe given by Sir 'John and Mrs. Hewit^ doci in no Degree fupport the Purfuers Argument. The WhoJe of it refolves into a poor Play on the Words lodged and Lodg- ing. Sir John and Mrs. Hezuit talk of changing their Lodging, of lodging -ujith Mad. Le Brun, of a Woman- Lodger, Is'c. And this is made an Argument to prove Mad. Le Brur.'s a common Lodg- ing Houfe, like Michel's, or any other of that Kind in Paris. In this Agument tlic Purfuers fcem to have overlooked two very obvious Tilings. Tlie firft is, That a common Lodging-Houfe docs not difier, in the Form, from a Houfe in which Lodgings are not commonly lett, but in the Ufe. The fecond is, That whether a Perfon inhahus a commoM Lodging-Houfe or another, he can exprcfs his Relation to that Houfe in no other Way than by tiie Term Lodging. It is very certain that Sir John and Mrs. Hewit never knew the Diftinftion made by the Police between an Hotel garni and a Alaifon particiiliere. The Family put up at Godcfrci's, an Inn ; lived at Mad. Le Brun's, fuppofing it a private Houfe; and lodged ■zl Michel's, an Hotel garni. But they confound all thefe different Modes of Habitation, and crJl them all Lodging. And yet certainly there is a more fenfible Difference between an Inn and a Lodging-Houfc, than between a Lo dging- Hoiife and a private Houfe. Another Circumftance to prove Le Brtai's a Lodging-H'oufe is, the Woman Lodger afferted to have been prefent at the Delivery. Whether this Woman was ;.ally a Lodger with Le Brun, lies entirely on the Accuracy and Precifion of Mrs. Hewit's Expreffion : And it is left entirely to Conjecture, whedier fhe might not have lived inherown Apartment under the fame Roof, and enter- ing at the fame Door with Mad. Le Btun. Every Body who knows Paris, knows that the middling People live in Apartments : Moll Houfes contain two of thefe Apartments on a Floor, fome three or four. The Inhabitants of thefe live amongft: themfelves with fo much Familiarity, that a Stranger mufl know the Ground very well, to diftinguifh thofe of the Family from thofe who are not. This was not, nioft certainly, x\\e. C-ikoi^ir John Stewart ■^nd'M.rs. Hcwit ; the Inattention of the one, and the utter Ignorance of every Thing French of the other, may accoimt for the Miftake, if it is one ; and Mrs. Hewit fays exprefsly, that flie did not know in what Part of the Houfe her Apartments were. A third Circumftance from which it is inferred to be a Lodging-Houfe is, that Mrs. Hewit fwears, when at Le Brun's., and afterwards at Michel's, the Vidluals uere furniflicd by the re- fpeftive Houfes. Mrs. Hewit is allowed to be under an innocent IMiftake, in fo far as relates to Michel; becaufe they were provided by a Traitetir. She could have no Motive to difguife either the one or the other ; and as it is demonflrated that (he erred in the one, her Error in the other is abundantly obvious. • But it is admitted, that any Perfon r-ay receive fick People, or Women to !ie-in, in their Houfe for Hire, without falling within tlii' Denomination of a Letter of Lodgings. The Vif^i- lance of the moft arbitrary Government could not but admit an Exception fo reafonable ; and the natural Courtefy of the French Nation could not but extend it even farther than was meant by the Law. — Hence it occurred, that Le Brun might have kept a Houfe of this Kind, in which Lady Jane was delivered. The Purfuers fay, but without Evidence, that the Houfes where fuch People are taken :n, and exempted from Obfervance of the Rules of Police, are, in general, of bad Accommodation, mean and unfit for the Reception of Lady Jane Douglas. That may be true in general ; but if it proves any Thing, it alfo proves, that a Stage-Coach, crowded with Servants and Country No- taries, was a very unfit Vehicle for Lady Jane -. and yet flie made L^fe of it from Sedan to Rheims • and from thence to Paris. It proves that (lie did not lodge at Michel's, which was little better if at all better, than Le Brun's ; and, above all, it proves that flie never went in a Scotch Ship from London to Lcith, or in a Stage-Coach from Edinburgh to London ; with many other Circumflances under which her Pride of Blood (looped to the NecelTity of the Times. Nothing can be drawn from an Argument of this Kind ; and all the Strudure reared by the Purfuers upon it, is a poor Begging of the Qiicffion. — Sir John and Lady Jane were Strangers, Jiot come to Paris to make a Figure, but on an Occafion that required Quiet and Retirement. Above all, Godefroi's was an improper Place in every Scnfc, but chiefly, from the Hurrv and Noife of an Inn, frequented moftly by People in low Trade. It was, in Point of Acconmiodation, rather below Michel's ; and from all that has been learnt oi Le Brun's, it does not appear to have been worfe than the one or the ether. The Purfuers fuppofe that Le Brun's muft have been a Lodging-Houfe, othcrwife Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Hewit could not have been admitted to lodge in it. It is not a poflible Cafe, tliat the Law could permit any Perfon to receive a Woman for the Purpofc of lying-in in his D d 2 Houfe, ,^6 OBJECTIONSTO Part V. Hoiife, without permitting him at the fame Time to receive her Hufbandandher necefTary Com- panion. There only remains to conjefture who recommended Le Brun to Sir 'John. He himfelf fays, le lille'-oei it might have been Godefni's People ; and Mrs. Hewit fays, that Sir John got the Lodging. The Purfuers, as ufual, take hold of this, and conclude that the Accoucheur had no Hand in re- commending Le Brun, and that there was no Conneftion between them ; and, as ufual, they ftrain the Expreflion, fubftituting Godefroi himfelf in the Place of Godefroi's People. There is no Difficulty in fuppofing, upon the Proof of the Connexion between La Marre and Le Brun, that fhe was a Perfon patronized and encouraged by him ; that flie had a decent Apart- ment, and was willing to embrace an Occafion of turning it to a little Account, without running any Rifque ; and that La Marre, on his Part, fen ed her, by recommending People, as the Oc- cafion offered. But, as her Apartment was hardly good enough on this Occafion, he might not. chufe to propofe it direftly ; and therefore he might have defired fome of Godi^froi's People to do it for him ; or he may have recommended her to Sir John diredly, as he fpeaks uncertainly of her being recommended by Godefroi's People. CHAP. III. Records of Capitation. THE Purfuers next appeal to the Capitation-Rolls for Proof of the Non-exiftence of Mad. Le^ Brun. — Here again, they have Occafion to extol the Attention and Exaftitude of the French Government ; and the Defender will admit that the Capitation-Rolls are very extenfive ; but the Argument from them is much more fallible than that from the Police-Books : For admitting them to- be made up with a more than human Exaftnefs, the legal Exceptions are too broad to build any Thing on the general Piule. For Example, the Swifi and Genevois arc excepted from the Rolls of D. P. 252. c. Capitation. ---They are, at the molt moderate Computation, fuppofed to be 20,000, making the 35th Part of the Inhabitants of Paris, which is faid to contain 700,000 Souls. ,_ , 22,. c. After them come all Ambaffadors, Envoys, and other Miniftcrs, foreign and domeftic, with their Secretaries and Servants. — This Article of Exemption would be very confiderable, even in the Terms of Law ; but when the Abufe, too common in fuch Cafes, is attended to, it will add greatly to the Account. ^— 410. D. 3. Poor Widows are not included in the Rolls. — 210. B. 4. No Servants, or Journeymen Tradefmen, are included by Name, but are taxed by Num- bers in their Matter's Family, even though they have fcparate Houfes for their Wives and Chil- dren, in which they may carry on what Profeflion they pleafe, without appearing in any Capi- tation-Repord. , . jj,_ j5_ 5. The Members belonging to Corporations are enrolled In particular Lifts of the Community, pay their Tax to the Community, and it is paid by the Wardens to the Tax-Gatherers : Now it happens, that no RoO of any Community in Paris, preceding 1750, exifts. , joj, F, 6. The Capitation-Rolls are made up every Year, at the End of the Year ; and thofe who in- habit Paris, in the intermediate Period, are not, nor can be, on the Capitation-Rolls. jii. F, .7. Tliere is a Proof brought by fourteen Witnefles that the Revenue is defrauded, and many fcc. People efcape the Capitation-Rolls. Whatever ReftriQion thefe Exceptions may be taken under, they deftroy the Purfuers Argu- ment, and render it the moft fallible of all fallible Cafes. — Had Madam Le Brun been a 8wiJJeJ[e, or a Ginevoije, or Wife, or Widow of a Man belonging to &wifs or Genez and her writing to Jfaliel IFalker that fhe had a fick Nurfe attending her, is a pretty good Defcription of a Garde tnalade. Here it is fcaice ncceffiry to ex- plain, that a Garde malade is not precilely what is called in England a fick Nurfe ; fiie not only attends People herfelf, but accommodates them with Lodging, and hires occafionaily fick Nurfes to affift her, who remain with her only during their Employment. And befides thefe, Doftor Gihfon, Phyfician at Glafgoiv, knew a Perfon of the Name of Le n Brun, in the Fauxbourg St. Germain in Paris, in the Year i 745 ; who h.id a Houle in which V\'o- men were delivered, and where he himfelf pradlifed Midwifery. The Defender is not obliged to fiiow if any of thefe Perfons, or which of them, was the Mad. Le Brun in whofe Houfe Lady Jane was aftually delivered. It is fully fudicient for him to fhow, that any of them may have been the Landlady of Lady Jane : And tiierefore the Purfuers again midake their Place, when they require him to fix on the one or the other.-— It is their Bufi- nefs to demonftrate, that neither the one nor the other could be the Perfon pointed to in the dc- Ctive Evidence of the Delivery. It is not the Defender's to gp farther than to deteft the Fallacies and Gloffes, by which they have attempted to deprive him of his Eftate and Birthright. Of the fome Nature is another of their captious Arguments. It appears from the Report and Depofi.ion of Mr. Majon, that a Madame Loq had told him, that Le Brun, Rue de la Canedie, was yet alive, and that Ihe had fcen her within three V/eeks, or a Month. On this the Purfuers demand, Why tlie Defender did not find her out, if Die was the Peifon who delivered Lady Jane ? P. 5^(4.. V5, igS OBJECTIONS TO GARNIER Part V. %« .?— The Anfwer to this i^, That the Defender made every poflible Enquiry to find her out to noFiirnofe. But why did not the Purluers find out this Mad. Le Brur, if (lie vas not the Perfoji \v'ho de'livered Lady 'Jane? llie Anfwer mufl be conclufive againfl them, and it is imponible to evade the Conclufion by fair Argument. The Truth is, that the Purfucrs Agent knew before the Commencement of this Suit, not only of the Exillence of Mad. Le Brun, but of her Connexion with La Marre: This was again re- peated to him by La Marre's Brother, who was thereafter prevailed upon to fupprefs the Accounts he originally gave. It is natural to imagine he would not neglecl the Information. Therefore, it may be fairly concluded, that he did enquire after Mad. Le Brun -, but the Pvcfult of that Enquiry- is covered with impenetrable Darknefs. Surely, if (he was the Perfon in whofe Hoiife Lady Jane vas delivered, it is ftrange, that no Enquiry could ever difcover what is become of her fince ; if fhe was not, it is ftill more ftrange, that the Purfuers hi"vc not fupportcd their Negation of Ma- dam Le Brun\ Exiftence by producing her. That IMadani Le Brun has difappeared is certain ; and that the Defender could have no Inr tereit to put her out of the Way is no lefs fo ; becaufe, it would not hurt his Cafe at all, though fhe flrould know no more of the Matter than the other Le Brwis in the Capitation -Rolls : But if ihe was the Perfon in whofe Houfe Lady Jane was delivered, it was very material to the Pur- fuers to keep her out of the Way. The Purfuers argue next, that none of the two Le Brum in the Capitation-Rolls, could ap- ply to the Cafe, becaufe neither of them had Servants ; and Sir Jahn and Mrs. Heuit men- tion a Maid, that attended Lady J^"^-— Thefe People, who attended Lady Jane, were em- ployed by Mad. Le Brun for that Purpofe ; and Sir John and Mrs. Hnvit could fpeak of them in no other Manner : But the Obfervation is trifling ; they were hired for the Purpofe ; and when Lady Jane had recovered they were paid off and difcharged ; confequcntly, could not be in the Records of Capitation as Servants to Mad. Le Brun. From the whole Evidence on this Head the following Propofitions refult : i. That in the Interval between the Refidence in Godefroi's and that in Michel'^, Lady Jane, &c. muft have re- fided thirteen Days in fome Houfe ; and as there is no Evidence of them, during this Period, in the Regifters of the Police, it follows, that they mod probably lodged in fome Houfe not fubjedl to the Piegulations of Police. 2. That fimdry Perfons whofe Refidence in Paris in the Year 1748, is proved by the Re- cords of Capitation, cannot now be difcovered, any more than the Mad. Le Brun in Queftion j fo that her not being found, is no Proof of her Non-exiftcnce. 3. There is Evidence from the Capitation-Rolls, and from Do£lor Gil'fon's Oath, of three AVomen named Le Brun, all Gardes nialades in the Fauxbourg St. Germ.iin ; two of whoni had Daughters, and any of them may have been the Perfon in whofe Houfe Lady Jane was delivered. 4. There is full, direi5\, and credible Tellimony, that there was in Paris in 1748 a Woman of the Name oi Le Brun, a Garde malade, or Something near it, who was intimately connedled with in Accoucheur., named Pierre La Marre. 5. There is great Reafon to believe that one of the Women, named Le Brun, mentioned in the Capitation-Rolls, did live in Paris when this Procefs began. By what Accident flie difappeared is not known ; but from the Conduift of Franpis La Msrre, he feems to have been a proper Inftrument in the Hands of the Perfon who dictated Mr. Duruijjeaus Depofition, to perfuade that Woman to retire where flie mi^ht never be found. o The Refult of the Whole is, That the Purfueis Proof is not only inconclufive and elufory, but there i.s better Evidence of the Exiflence of a Madam Le Brun applying to this Cafe, than of the Negative Propofition which the Purfuers undertook, and were hound to make out by Proof. P A R T V. B O O K IV. Objcflions to Garni er and Sholto confidered. |T has been obferved, that it was MefTicurs Mcnager and Gillis who firfl^ fuggefted the Idea of ■* enquiring for the Nurl'e of Sholto about Belleville and Me)iilmontant.---'Y\\e Manner in which Garnier was difcovered, and the Evidence which flie and her Hulband and their Neighbour Boucauh have given, has been already fully (tatcd.— It only remains to examine fuch of the Pur- fuers Book IV, ANDSHOLTOCONSIDERED. 199 fuers Obfervations upon the Application of it to the Defender's Twin-Brother Sholto, as appear to be wortli Examination.— On this Head the Purfuers have, in the firfl Place, infifted, that there are fuch Difcrepancies betwixt the Accounts of the Child nurfed by Gamier and the Defender's Brother Sholto, as prove, that they cannot relate to the fame Perfon.---But, fcnfible that thefe will not bear them out, and that fuch muft have happened in a Detail relating to a remote Period, they attempt to prove that thefe Witnefles are all perjured ; and the fugle Reafon on which this Charge is founded, is no other, than that if they have not fworn falfly, the Confcquence is un- avoidable, that Garnier was the Nurfe of Sholto, C H A P. I. Of Garnier'i Place of Refidciice. npHE firfl Objeftion is, That the Place of Mad. G a mi erh, Ahi^ie is contradidory to that fjiven Decl. 9. a. -•■ by Sir John Sinvart of Sholio'i Nurfe. ---Sir Jo/'m fays, that the Child was fent to a Village en the y/w/t'«j Road, about two or three Leagues from Parii ; whtiCAS Gtirnier nurfed the Child in Queftion at the Haute-bonie, which is not upon the Amitus Road, and within a Quarter of a League of Paris. In the Circumflances and at the advanced Age in which Sir John Steviart was examined, his miftaking the particular Place at which his Child was fent to Nurfe, cainiot be urged as a Proof that Ue was not nurfed at the Haute-borne fur le Chemln de Menilmontant.---\\\ his fubfequcnt De- P.P. 246- b, pofition he fays, that the Village where the Child was nurfed was but a little Diftancefrom Paris. ---In 1748 and 1749, when they were at Rhtinis, it was uniformly given out that the Child was ■'-'• P- 35S. f. at Nurfe in the Neighbourhood oi Paris ; and fome of the Witncffcs recollecl thzx. Menihnontant ~~6^°'^' was named as the Place; others, that it begun with an M. In OSiober \-] i^Z, 'LTiiXy Jane 6o<". b*. wrote to Mrs. Hepburn, that Sir John was gone to Paris to fee Sholto. --- Lady IVigton was Serv 32. b. defired to go and fee Sholto when fhe went to Pom. ---Sir John told Baron Maalligot his D. P. 3+5. c. Child was at Nurfe, at or in the Neighbourhood of Paris. — The Nurfe Mangin, Mad. Maille- Jer, and others, were told that he was left at Nurfe in the Neighbourhood of Paris, which never could have been faid if he had been at two or three Leagues Diftance. -— So that Sir John's firft miflaking the Place where the Child was at Nurfe, and which he afterwards correiled, can b« of no fort of Confequence. It is further objefted, that Mad. Garnier did not live at Afenilmoniant, hut at Haute-borne ; fo that if that Place was mentioned, as fome of the Witnefles pretend to recollett, he could not be the Child nurfed by Garnier. Thi"S Objeflion will foon be explained. ---There are flraggling Houfes all the Way from Paris to Menilmontant ; each little Clufter has its particular Name ; and to evite the Miftakes which the Obfcurity of thefe Names might occafion, the Defcription muft be taken trom fome Place more publickly known, to which the lefs remarkable feem, by their Situation, attached. The fame Thing happens near all great Towns. Menilmontant is juft above and in Sight of the Haute-borne, ij niwtrirAl'^ csWcA Haute-borne fur le Chemin de Menilmontant, and is fo defcribed in many of the Depofitions ; fo that there was no Impropriety in calling it Menilmontant ; which is a conllderable Village defcriptive of that whole Environ of Paris, C H A P. II. Of Lady Jane'i not vifiling Sholto, 'Tp HAT Sholto could not have been fo near Paris, ctherwife Lady Jane muft have gone to fee ■'■ him, the more efpeclally as fhe went abroad, and even to the Country, during her Stay at Paris. This ObJeiSlion depends wholly upon the Fafl whether Lady Jane did go abroad during her Refidence at Paris, and therefore has been already confidered under a feparate Branch of this Cafe ; and the Defender has Ihcwn, that ftie was not in Condition to make thejaunt.> imputed to her: And it appears further, that Sir John was careful to conceal the Situation of the weakly Child from her , Serv. p. -ij.s, and would on that Account anxioufly divert her from going to fee him ; and might, to amule her, IS- *• pretend that the Child was at a greater Dillance from Paris than he really was. That Lord Blantyre faw him, and that Lady Wigton had an Addrefs to the Place where he was, and was requefted to inform Lady Jatie how he was, is already fhewn. The next Objeftion is. That Mrs. Hewit calls Shilto's Nurfe a Farmer's Wife ; whereas Gar- Serv, 34».e,. nier's Hufliand is a Quarrier. — All that Mrs. Hewit knew of the Matter was, that the Nurfe came from the Country : Gamier in Fa£l kept Cows : Hence Ihe naturally concluded her a Farmer's Wife. They 20O OBJECTIONSTOGARNIER. PartV. They object that the Accounts given by Snjohn and Mrs. Hewitoi the Manner in which the Nurfe was provided, are different from that given by Gamier of the Manner in which (he was Serv. 5+. B. hired to nurfe her Child. — For Example, Mrs. //cw;/'s Letters to the Maids fays, that Sir John P. P. 255. c. and fhe got the Nurfe : And in her Depofition flie foys, that next Day afrer Lady Jane's Delivery, Sir John and La Mane went to the Country, and found out an extreme good Nurfe, whom they brought to Paris with them ; but Sir John makes the Nurfe to have been got by La Marre. Thefe Accounts arenot inconfiftent.— Sir^s/jwand Mrs. //(-TOfVagree, that he was fent out to Nurfe the Day afterhis Birth, by the Advice of La Marre, to aNurfe of his recommending :— That by the fame Advice he was fent into the Country for freth Air, being very weak.— Mrs. Hewit's faying that the Nurfe was brought to Pnris, and that Lady Jaie prelTed her to continue and nurfe the Child in the Houfe, but that flie refufed to leave her own Houfe, is a Miflake, which has arifen from vi'hat happened to the Defender:— In his Cafe a Nurfe {Favie) was brought to the Houfe ; and, after flaying fome Nights with them, infilled on being allowed to carry the Child home witli her ; which Lady Jane was averfe to, from what had happened to him at his former Nurfe's : And Mrs. Heiuit, at the Diftance of fixteen Years, mentions this Faft, but applies it to the Nurfe of Sholto inftead o{ Archibald ; and this is all the Miftake.— The Reafon why the Surgeon advifed ^holto to be fent out to Nurfe, was his extreme Weaknefs, and that Country Air was neceffary for him : This was mentioned in her Letter of the 22d of July to the Maids ; and therefore they could never propofe to a Woman to continue in Paris to nurfe a Child who was ordered to be fent to the Country for Air. P. P. 555. A. It is faid, that Gamier was befpoke by La Marre before the Delivery of the Lady ; and tliat Lady Jane would not allow a Nurfe to be befpoke, becaufe (he did oot know if ftie fhould bear a living Child. This Idea, which may have come into Lady Jane's Head at a melancholy Moment, certainly ■would not prevent La Marre from looking out for a Nurfe, upon feeing the Situation that Lady Jane was in ; though from a total Want of the Englifl) Language, which was the only one that Mrs. Hewit underflood, he could not tell her fo; and Sir John would probably not give himfelf the Trou- ble to explain all the Converfations betwixt him and La Marre on fuch Occafions : And all that Mrs. Hewit's Oath on this Subjeft can infer, is, that fhe does not now remember that any Nurfe was befpoke before Lady Jane's Delivery ; or that LaMarre did not then tell her that there was. The Purfuers next obje£i: to the Impropriety of fending Bholto^ a weak delicate Child, to the Nurfe in the Night by the Light of Torches ; and that the Secrecy obferved with refpedl: to the Child was inconfifbent with the Suppofition of his being the youngeft Son of Lady y^w Douglas: And that Scrv. 36. A. Mrs. Hewit has faid, that the Nurfe was prefled to go along with the Child ; whereas Gamier fays that fhe was not defned to go with him. In Anfwer to the firft, it is not obvious that a Child carried in a Coach about Nine or Ten o'Clock in the Evening, well wrapped up, rifles any more than if carried in the Day-time ; on the contrary, in the Heats oijuly, and the Climate of Paris, it is a proper and neceflary Meafure. As to the Secrecy, it is hard to guefs what the Purfuers mean. Garnier fays, that fhe was not told the Name of the Perfons to whom the Child belonged, but flie was never cautioned to anySe- crecy ; and to have told her the Name of the Parents would have availed nothing, becaufe fhe could not have remembered their Names one Day :---And her not beingtoldthe Name of the Child aifordsa ftrong prefumptive Proof, that he was the Son of hiAyJane Douglas, whofe Ch ild had been on ly ondoyed by the Accoucheur, and had got no Name. ---She had an Addrefs to La Marre, which was every Thing neccflary :---Had any Accident happened to La Marre, though fhe did not know where to find the Parents of the Child, they knew where to find her.---The Inference of Secrecy, inferred from the Coach in which he was carried having a Flambeau, is too ridiculous to receive an Anfwer. CHAP. III. The Co>idiiion of the Child jiiirfed ly Garnier, and the Time at which he was nitrfed. 'T' H E Purfuers next objeft, That the Condition the Child was in at the Time Garnier received him, as well as his State of Health while flie kept him, is different from the Account given of Uolto. Inftead of denoting a Difference, there is a remarkable Feature of S;mienefs. Sir John Stewart and 11. c. Mrs. Hcivit fay the Child was fo weak wlien born, that it was not expelled he would live many D.P. 554.. c. Hours-, and Gamier i&)s, that when the Child was delivered to her, he was veryweakly, and fo dc- licatei Book IV. AND S PI O L T O CONSIDERED. aoi licate, that die did not expefl to be able to rear him -.--How is it poifible for diflcreut Pcrfons to exprefs the f.iine Thing in more eonnecled Terms ? The ExprefTioii of Sir 'John and Mrs. Hciv'it may- be a triflinn; Degree ilronger than that oi Gamier ; but that is more than accounted for by the differ- ent Impreliions which People receive of the fame Thing, tlie difiercnt Intarcfi: they take, and the different Adfivity of their IdciiK : but above all, from this, that the Child when delivered to Gnrnier had recovered the Fatigue of his Birth ; and it is well known that alone often kills a weakly Child. But, fay thePurfuers, Garnter'& Child was not tick, and his Weaknefs proceeded from the fingle Circumftance of his being a Twin ; nor was he much fick during all the Time (lie kept him ---Has any Perfon faid that Sholto was fick; or can any Perfon diffinguilli between Sicknefs and Weaknefs in a new-born Child ?---The V/hole of the Account given by Gamier, Sec. of the Child's Health, compared with what Accounts the Parents gave from Time to Time oi Sholto, mufl convince every jiulicious Perfon, that they are one and the fame Child. There is an Argument of Difference raifed on the Manner in which the Child was taken away, p. p. jjg. t, becaufe jNIrs. Hcivit fays, that the Nurfe brought the Child Home with Sir John and La Marre.--- Sir Jihn fays, that a Woman accompanied them with the Child, but does not remember whether ^"' it was the Nurfe ; and Garnier fays, that La Marre came alone to take the Child away ; and Boucault adds, that Gamier did not accompany the Perfons who carried away the Child. If allthefc Accounts were miftaken, no earthly Confequence could be drawn from it. The Thing is in itfelf fo trifling, and fo liable to Miflake, that it is no Wonder after fifteen Years, the Witnefles • fhould vary in it ; but they may all be reconciled on a very firr^le and natural Suppofition —That when Sir JohrfiwiS. La il/.' n^i. f.' Seafon when the Child was given back, but believes it was about the Spring, confidering [attendu] that it was about eighteen Months after having received it ; and when the Child was given to his Wife, their Son Jerome was about fix Months old. ---He fays thereafter, that his Sen Jerome was fix Months fifteen Days old, more or lefs, when his Mother weaned him in order to take the faid Nurfling ; and that on this Occafion (i. e. fomeTime after fhe received the Twin Chilil) his Son Jerome was fent to Bdleville. On this Evidence the Purfuers conclude. That the Child was not given to Garnier till Septemher 1748, nor taken away till Spring 1750. This Argument forms a Chain, one Link of which giving Way the Whole is deftroyed ; but here every Link is cracked : ilt. The fix Months given to Jerome when the Nurfling came, even if preciiely fworn to, proceeds on no particular Caufe of Knowledge to afcertain the Epoch. It is no more than a Conjecture in a Matter of Date, v/hich of all others is the mofl difficult to afcertain by naked Memory; and theParents might cafily have fallen into the Miflake,by confounding the Time on which they received the Child with the Time their own Son returned from Belleville.— But they do not fpeak with Certainty, as indeed they couki not precifcly afcertain the Age of their Son ; and their Evidence on this Head muff bend to the unaherable Features of Refemblance that are in other Re- fpefts between the Child they nurfed and Sholto; and it would be a monflrous Abfurdity to fet up tlie Hulband Garr.icr\ rough Guefs of quclque Alois plus ou mcins againft the whole other Circunilhnces. E e nic 202 OBJECTIONSTOGARNIER Part V. The Circumftance of Torch-light is nothing ; it is proved the Child came at nine or ten in the Evening, at which Hours Torch-light is as neceflary in Paris in the Month oijuly as in the Month of September. Nor is there any more in the fuppofed Improbability of Garnier's Weaning her Son before he was fix Months old. The Argument lies the other Way ; for it is in Proof that fhe wanted to fuckle himtogether with her N'ariling ; and that fhe adtiially did fo by Stealth for fonie Time : And it was only on the exprefs Prohibition of La Marre that (he was obliged to wean him. Now it is fcarce probable fhe would have done a Thing fo contrary to the Practice of Nurfes, had her Child been fix Months old. ---And there was nothing extraordinary in her Weaning him at four. Months, on Account of this Child, for whom fhe was paid three Times the ordinary Wages of common Nurfes. E. P. i;?4. B. The next Point is the Time the Child remained at Nurfe. Gar«;Vr and her Hufband are pofitive . 558. E. it was eighteen Months. Boucoult is as pofitive the Child remained with them fixteen or feventeen 561. B, Months at moft.---This alfo is a Thing of naked Memory,and very eafy to reconcile. The Nurfe and her Hufband would naturally compute by the Months they received for the Child : And as Nurfes are paid every four Weeks, or Lunar INIonths, they would naturally fall into that Supputation. And by the moft accurate Account Sholto was taken from Nurfe on the fecond Week of the eigh- teenth Lunar Month, from the 1 ith of ^uly 1748. ---On the other Hand, Boucault, who had not the Motive of Interell to diredt her, followed the common Supputatioti. This Miftake, if it can be called one, has engaged Garw/^r the Hufband to advance the Epoch of the Child's being taken away till towards Spring 1750.— He exprefsly makes this Supputation in his Depofition ; and the Whole lies on his computing, at the End of fifteen Years, eighteen Solar Months for eighteen Lunar Months. CHAP. IV. ObjeSiions to the Tejlimony of Mad. Gamier. THE Purfuers, after fhewing, as they pretend, that the Story of the Child nurfed by Gamier cannot apply to 5A«//fi— admit that it does apply ; and attempt to fap the Credit of the Wit- neffes, by Arguments no lefs captious and frivolous than their Criticifms on the Refemblance. —Indeed thefe Criticifms fupport the Credit of the Witnefles ; for the minute Differences and Contradiftioii from which they are drawn, though they fall far fliort of dividing the Perfon of Sholto from the Perfon of the Child nurfed by Gamier, yet they do prove the artlcfs Integrity of the Witnefles, and that they were not in a Tale. And here it is remarkable, that the Pur- fuers, as in the Cafe of Alenagcr, lay out their whole Labour to difcredit the Tellimoiiy of Mad. Gamier alone, without impeaching that of her Hufband, and Boucault and Roujfeletf who fupport her in every Article. It is fuppofed that Garn'ur was led to adapt the Story of her Nurlling to that of Sholto by the Profpeft of Advantage. — The Manner in which flie was difcovercd has been ftated, and the Con- verfation Ihe had with Rotdffelet. She muft have afted a ftrange Part indeed, if flie had adopted a Story which did not belong to her, without the Knowledge of her Hufband, or any of her Neigh- bours : But her Conduft is natural, fuppoling that it did belong to her. ---The firlt Remark \\as fcarce out of her Mouth when fhe refletied, and defired not to be known.— -Two or three Days after, when flie might have confultcd with her Hulband and Friends, Roujftlet came to fetch her, by the Dcfire of a Gentleman, named Ftejfelles, Maitre dcs Requites. She remained in the fame Mind, and would not go till Mr. FleJJUles fcnt his own Servant for her. ---This is not the Con- duft of a Perfon eager to catch at an Advantage. Tlie Suppofition that Gamier took her Plan of adopting the Story from her Cnnverfation with Roufj'ekt is fupported by no Evidence, and is forced and unnatural.— -It fuppofes that an ignorant Country Woman woidd in an Inltant perceive all the Combinations of fuch a Story. It fuppofes a criminal Intention, without the Shadow of Evidence ; and that RouJJekt had related to her the P. P. 98»>B. minuteil Circumftances that paffed between her and the Cur'e.—Y>\\\. RoiiJJdet fays no fuch Thing. ---She fays indeed that Garnier did not mention to her Pierre La Marre, nor the Circum- ftance of the Child's being a Twin.--But Ihe does not fay that flie mentioned any of thefe Cir- cumftances to Garnier .----So that the Purfuers Key, as they call it, can open no Door to Fallhood. —And Roujftlet exprefsly fays, that Gamier told her fevcral Years before that, of the Child's be- longing to Foreigners, and his not remaining in Paris when taken from her. The Purfuers next fay, it is incredible that ftie, having feen La Marre fo often, fliould not be able to recolledl his Age, Stature, or Figure :---That ihe is contradifted by Hircheman, her Siftet-Jn-Law, in the Account flie gires of the Manner the Child was brought to her Houfe :--- That Book IV. ANDSHOLTOCOIS'SIDEIIED. 203 That {he never told any Body the Child was a Twin ; and that no Body ever faw La Mam at her Jioufe when he vifited her ; in which fhe is contradidled by Boucauh. Mad. Garnier's forgetting the Age and Figure of La Marre might feem extraordinary, if (he was the only Perfon who proves that La Marre brought her the Child ; but as it is certain, from the Depofitions of her Hulljand, and from Mad. boucault's, that La Marre v/as the Perfon ^- P- 5^3- S" who brought the Child to her, and paid his Months ; and that flie told Roujj'elct, long before this Procefs began, that it was a Gentleman who brought her the Child : It feems of little Confe- quence whether, at the Diftance of feventeen Years, fhe rccoUefted his Age and Figure, or not. And thereare many Inflances, in this Procefs, of Witnefles forgetting and giving contradi£i:ory Defcriptions of People they once knew well. As to Hirchmarti not feeing La AJarrc, or knowing, or not remembering to have known, that the Child was a Twin---it is to be obferved, that flie feems to know nothing at ail of the Story be- yond the Circumflance of the Lady who came with the Child ; which may be eafily reconciled ■ to Gar«/«'s Account, if we fuppofe Are came to the Door after La Marre and the Child v^-ere gone into the Houfe, and the Lady left alone in the Coach. -—She lived in the Floor above Gamier^ and feems to have been on no Terms of Intimacy with her. But what fliews her nega- tive Tellimony of no Kind of Confequence is, that flie can make no Manner of Guefs at the Child's Age when he was brought, and does not know whether he was weaned or not when he was taken away :---Circumflances which muft have come to her Knowledge, had flie been in the Way to know any Thing.---She fays the Lady paid the Months ; Garnier the Wife fays that it ■was La Marre -, and Gamier the Hufband fays it was fomctimes the one, and fometimes the other: A Difcrepancy, in fuch a Circumflance, is a Proof of their being in no Concert, but is none of the Falfliood either of the Hulband or Wife. It was not neceflary fhe fhould tell any Body the Child was a Twin, but it is very probable fhe did no lefs -, fo that flie has forgot. She has alfo forgot that Boucmit faw La Marre at her Houfe, and knew that the Child was a Twin : But that only proves that there was no Concert between " them. As to the reft, flie tells her Story uniformly and confiftently. And though the Purfuers, not content with her firft Account, thought fit to re-examine her a fccond Time, and ftrove for many Hours to entrap her with captious Queftions, yet they have not been able to charge her with any Abfurdity. She fometimes remembers a Converfation which the other Party in the Converfation has forgot, and fometimes forgets what the other remembers. Thus, as in all Cafes, the pofitive Teftimony of one Witncfs is oppofed to the negative Tefliniony of the other: But this is fo far from being an ObjecStion to either, that it ferves to confirm both. T>'Irs. Hewh\ f^iying that they prefled Sboho's Nurfe to go along with tiieni to Rheims Avhereas Gamier fays flie was not defired to leave her own Houfe, has been clearly owing to this : llie exceeding weak State of this Child was carefully concealed from Lady Jatie ; flie would of Courfe be very defirous to carry both Children along with her : La Marre, on the other Hand knew that the Child could not fupport the Fatigue of being tranfported to Rheims -, but not daring to tell Lady Jane io, and, probably, from the Hopes of future Reward, he was defirous to have the Charge of the Child. Lady jane knew the Child wis weak, but not in the Degree he really was ; it was therefore necefl"ary to give her fome Pieafon why the Child could not be carried along; and the obvious one was, that his Nurfe, though remarkably careful and good, and with whom he would be inabfolute Safety, under La Marre'f, Eye, would not go along. Mrs. Hewii being prcfent at fuch Converfations, and not being able to converfe with the Nurie herfelf, would naturally be- lieve what was told Lady 7Z-^> of Roberffon : And, fo late as the 8th of Auguji, even after the Poft was opened, he fent another the fame Way. And yet in that very Letter to Robertjon of the 22d of July, he plainly ftiews that he had not fent his Letter of the loth the fame Way ; for he fpeaks of that as the firft Letter he had writ to him after a long Refpite of Intercourfe. This the Purfuers think fufficiently anfwercd by fuppofing, that he might have fent it to another Hand to be forwarded. Now if the Briiijh Letters were fent by Way of Holland, they alfo muft have been written on Tuefday the 9th, or IVednefday the lOth, in Contemplation of being fent on the Friday ; and they conclude, in their ufual pcretnp- tory Stile, that there is certainly ftronger Proof of their being fent by Holland, than directly to Britain. V/ho that reads this Argument would think it poffible that it was pofitively proved in the Caufe, that the Letters in Queftion went ftraight to Britain F Tlie firft FrcnchMaW which arrived after the Communication was opened, was on July the 27th» O. S. and fo they ftatij it. The London Poft-mark on one of the Letters in Qiieftion, in which the other was inclofed, was the 27th. There were no Dutch Mails arrived at that Time ; but one on the 25th, and another on the 30th. If it had come by the firft, it would have been marked the 25th, and been fent away the 26th : If it had come by the laft, the ]Marks would have corre- fponded in the fame Manner. But as if this Way of arguing upon a total Suppreffion of the Truth were not enough, they proceed fo far as to colour their Argument by fuggefting a manifeft Falihood ; which is, that the Defender's Counfel argued, that the Letters in Queftion came by Aix-la-Chapelle, under Cover to Florentine, or to Mrs. Hepburn, at Liege, or to fome Town in Flanders. Now though they may think their Caufe ftands in need of fuch Reforts as thefe, it is not a fair Proceeding to impute Arguments to the Counfel which would have difgraced their Underftanding. The. 2o6 L E T T E R S of the loth of JULY, PartV. The next Topick to prove the Repugnance cf thefe Letters to the Truth of the Delivery upon the lOth of July, is Sir John and Mrs. Hewil's Anxiety to explain the Dates of the feveral Letters. ■Sir J^hri had writ five Letters, dated the lOth of July, of which he fuftered three to take their Chance, without any Kind of Explanation ; though two of thofe three had been written to Sc;/- lan^, where filth a Miilake was moft likely to prove moft immediately material. The third was written to Mr. Andrieux at Rhein:s, where fte was to return with the Children fuppofed to be born the loth. The onlv ones which he did condefcend to explain, were thofe to Mrs. Hepburn and Lord Crawford. The Explanation to Mrs. Hepburn confifts in informing her, upon the 6th of Serv. p. 31. C. ^"g"]^-! '^'"^ f-^'^y J°^' ^^'^^ delivered on tlie icth of July, the Day art v.hich I lurote you lajl; leaving her to wonder why he had omitted to tell her of it, if in Truth there had been any Thing inconliftent in that, or if he had really imagined fo. 'Ilie Explanation to Lord Crawford confifts in referring to the Letter he wrote on the 10th, calling it one of the 6th ; upon the Face of it a mere Blunder ; leaving Lord Crawford, who kneiv the Letter was in Faci of the loth, to entertain the fame Vv''onder how Lady Jane\ Delivery, which was then faid to have happened on the loth, came not to be mentioned in a Letter written on the very Day. Mrs. Hewit had writ one Letter to the Maids, which w^as as ufual fent to Mr. Andrkux -, and as he was wrote to by Sir John on the joth, it was highly probable that Mrs. Hnvit's to the Maids was fent at the fame Time : But Mrs. Hewit in her next Letter fays, (he believes it was dated the i ith inftead of the lOth. Serv. p. 35. There are no Traces of Mrs. Hewit's Letter fuppofed to have been dated the i ith, but in her own Letter of the 22d, where llie mentions Lady Jane'6 L-ibour-Pains to ha\ e feiztd her about twelve on the lOth, *^ four Hours after your Letter went off " and in the End adds, that fhe wrote them a Letter on the loth, which in the Huny fhe was in at laft Writing, fiie believes was dated the i rth. It is therefore bv no means a Thing proved, that her I-etver was dated the 1 ith : From the uncertain Manner in which (lie writes of it, there is full as much Reafon to fuppofe her miftakcn in her Memo- ry of the Letter, as in the dating it at firft. The Purfuers, however, taking that for clear which tlie Evidence leaves uncertain, think this Cor- reclion betrays itfelftobe fraudulent, becaufe it is improbable ilie fliould remember on the 22d, an Error which quite efcaped her Attention on the loth. How does it appear for how long it efcaped her ? In writing flie miftook the Day of the Month ; tlie Moment the Letter was gone off, if Sir 'John talked of the Date of his Letters, or any other accidental Converfation turned on the Day of the IMonth, her Miilake would immediately ftrike her, and then there is an End to the Argument, from the Error quite efcaping her at the Time : Nay, Ifabel hcrfelf may have taken Notice of that Mif- take in her Anfwer ; and the Letter of the 22d may be no more than acceding to IJabeCs Correc- tion. They comment alfo upon the Word Hurry, as if Mrs. Hfzvlt, cunning Creature ! while (lie was altering the Date to make Ifabel believe it was writ before the Birth, fliould take Care at the fame Time to convey that in Truth it was written after. Nay, this Piece of Cunning belongs to them all ; for the Alteration of Dates it feems was a concerted iTiing. Upon this Occafion Ifabel feems to be no Accomplice ; here is a concerted Plan to deceire her. The firfl Obfervation which occurs, on the other Hand, is that, when they are fuppofed to be con- certing the Alteration of the Date, they look upon it as quite enough to put it back to the loth ; though in the fame Inftant, they mention the Labour as happening in the Middle of that Day. This, upon their own Idea, is an Anfwer to all the Argument of the Purfuers, that the Date of the 1 0th proves the Letter to have been fent away on the nth. Tke fecond Obferration which occurs is, the fimple Hcnefly of the Correftion. If the Correc- tion were jufl it would appear fo at once, by the Receit of the Letter upon the i ith. But if it had been writ in Fact upon the i ith, and fent to the Poft-Office at Eight o' Clock, as Mrs. Hewit fays it was, it could not have been received before the I2t!i; und then iVlrs. Hewit, Sir John and Lady Jane, who are all concerned in this pretended Concert, ought to have explained not only how it came to be mifdatcd, but mif-fent. Thirdly, if their Idea be juft, that their Letters were written over-Night to be fent the next Morning, this would not have been received till the 13th ; and then the Mifdate would have been more inconceivable ftill, without a further Explanation. But this concerted Explanation will appear more remarkably abfurd, if it is reflected upon what Situation they are fuppofed to be in on the 21ft, when it is imputed to them. They are fuppofed to be conftious of the ConcluGons manifefl: on their Letters, and to be contriving the Means to cure it ; and yet it did not occur to them while they were corredling the Dates of Letters, to put them back to the gtli : And though they were confcious of having dated fix Letters at the fame Time, Book V, L E T T E R S of the loth of JULY. 207 Time, they content themfelves with an aukward Attempt to corre£t the Dates of two, and leave the other four, though equally inconfiftent, to the Account of the Time of the Delivery with thofe which they are faid to have attempted to correft; nor while they were fettling the Epoch"^of a fic- titious Birth, to bring that forward to the i ith, fo as to keep free of the Dates of the Letters they remembered to have wrote. Again : The Eviden.ce of thefe Dates is taken from their Pocket-Book, where they are repeated ; in which one certainly, if not both, are written foon after the fuppofed Theft of the Child. They would doubtlcfs have made their Entries there conformable to the Idea they meant to give out, or at leaft not have kept the Proof of their Fraud flaring them continually in the Face, or not have left it in Trunks at their Lodgings, for every Body to look at who pleafed ; for this is faid to be an Article of Fraud anxioufly meditated. In fine, they are fuppofed to be writing in this Fafhion to Rheims, where the Delivery is to become the immediate SubjeiSl of Tea-Tables ; at the very Time when it appears, by Mr. Maillc- yer's hetter to GoJefrci o( the 12th, he was enquiring after them very particularly. This Letter of the 1 2th to Godefroi, was anfwercd on the 14th, as appears from the Bufinefs tranfacled there- by. The Town of Rheims determining to put an End to a Law-Suit, by paying the Money in Difpute, Maillefer, the Syndic, wrote Godefroiy their Agent, Orders to pay it ; he did fo on the 13th, as appears by the Acquittance tranfmitted, it muft be prefumed the 14th. The Pur- fuers fay they were at Godefroi's on this Day ; and yet their Letters to Rheims relate a Tranfaftion which Godefroih Letters muft contradict : Not to mention how highly improbable it is, that Godefroi lliould take no Notice to this Part of the Compliment made through him by the Syndic. PART 2oS O B J E C T I O N S to the C O N D U C T PART VI. C PI A P. I. Of the Letters dated from Rheims. THE Purfuers, in the next Place, Infifl: upon a few Objeclions to the Condutt of Sir John anil Lady Jane, after theEirth upon the icth oijuly, which, they lay, is more confiilent with a fictitious than a real Birth. Although it were impoffible for the Defender to acccunt for every Part of the Conduct of his Parents, at the Diflance of twenty Years ; and after the whole Parties, who knew the different Motives and Reafons upon whicli they aftcd, are dead ; it certainly would be no extraordinary Cafe, as it is believed very few Perfons, at any Diilance of Time, can give a fatisfactory Reafon for their Adtions. Yet, in this Cafe, the Defender is confident he can defend the Condudl of his Parents in every Particular : At leail:, he will certainly fliew, that it was totally inconfillent with every Idea of Fraud. The firfl; which falls to be mentioned is, that Sir John, Lady Jnne, and Mrs. Hevuii, carefully concealed from all their Acquaintances, that Paris was the Place of Lady Jane's Delivery ; and that, in Purfuance of their fraudulent Plan, they wrote many Letters to different Perfons •while at Paris, which were falfely dated as from Rheims ; and, of Confequence, implied that the Delivery had happened there, and not at Paris. In order to fettle the Ground upon which this Objection ftands, there is fubjoined * a Lift of the whole Letters, Bills, and others, wrote by Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit, from their Departure for Pflr/j the 2d oijuly, to their Return to Rheims the i6th of Augujt 1748, as far as has been difcovered : From which it will appear, that thefe Writings, fo far from prov- ing a fraudulent Intention of Concealment, do, on the contrary', demonftrate an artlefs Simpli- city and unfufpecling Innocence, from whence it is impoffible to infer any Guilt. The firfl Obfervation which occurs is, that if the Concealment of the Journey to Paris had been their Reafon for dating fome Letters from Rheims, the fame bad Purpofe would have induced them to date their whole Letters from this Place : For it is inconceivable that Sir John Sttiuart (carrying on a fraudulent Concealment, as fuppofed) fliould have informed Baron Macelligot and Lady P. P. 1034.. L. Jl''igton at jiix, of his Journey to Paris ; and fliould have allowed his Receit to Mcffrs. Tajfrn's to be fent to Meffrs. Khar at Aix ; and at the fame Time, fhould fend a Letter dated at Rheims to Lord Crtiu-ford at Aix, who would immediately difcover his being at Paris, from his intimate Con- iiedlion both with the Baron and Mr. Khar ; who could not fail to inform him of every Thing they had learned with Regard to Lady Jane. -, p * I. Letter by Sir "John SUivctrt to Bai'on Macelligot, who was then at A'lx, dated 5 July, Paris. r. r. 422. B. i. Keceit by Sir >/« to Meir. r«/f«, dated 6 >/>■, .... Paris. 1054. H. ^_ Letter, Sir >/;« to Mr. f/5'-<««j«6' at Aix, 10 July, - - - Without Place. ,'° '■ ■ 4. Letter, Sir ^^o/;« to Lord Crc-.v/oni, dated lo July, - - - - R/teims. '■ ■ N. B. This was incloleJ in the .ibove Letter to Mr. Florentine, who was defired to de- liver it to his Lor, and if not, to fend it to him. c , , 5. Letter, Sir John to Mrs. Hepburn of Keith, 10 July, ... Paris. ■a p ^ f, ' 6- Letter, Sir fchn to Mr. Maceiveu M Edinburgh, 10 July, ... Rheims. _— i'o6 a" 7. I'ttter, Sir Jc/:n to h\s &on, now Sir John Steiiart, to July, - - Rheims. c !,° ^' ' 8. Letter, Mrs. //fTc/V to Mr. Cc/z///c-, Date unknown, but as Mr. Co/r/Z/f fvvears, dated at PanV. p p" ^ ■ ■ 9. Letter, Mrs. Hewit to Mr. Douglas of Eiringtan, Date unknown, but proved at - Paris, p"p 6-. c' " '°' Sir .ToAu to Lord CraTi,yi)v/, zi July, ..... Rheiins, _J ! 61 f' "• ^^s- John toyir. Robertjln -St Rotterdam, zz July, .... Rheims, 12. Siv John to 'Bzroix Mczcelligot, 11 July, .... Paris. ^^ ° ,j}, ' 33. Letter, ^iv John to 'L^.dy IVigton, Date unknown, .... Paris. Serv '11 c ' '*• Letter, Snjohn to Mrs. Hepburn, dated 6 Aiiguji, without Place, Poll Mark Damartine. p p'^, * " 15. Letter, \,:\d.y J ane to the Duke of £)oa^/fl/, -j Augiifl, ... Rheims. D P 007 D '^' '^i" "f Exflianije upon Meir. Court/, figned by Lady Jane, dated 8 Auguft, - Paris, ■ V- g ' 17. Letter, Sir Jeh/i to Mr. Robert/on M Rotterdam, i Augi'fl, ... Paris. ^''' ■ I !i. Letter, Sir 7o^i to ditto, g .fe^;i/7, ..... Paris, 557. F. From this Lift it appears, that during their Stay at PflW.fand at Damartine, they wrote eighteen Letters, ifc. in all, ten of which are dated from Paris, fix from Rheims, and two from no Place. And bcfides thefe dated from Paris, which have been dilcovered, it :ippe3rs, that after Sir John's Return to Rheims, tl ere came Letters uldrelfedito him at Pelletier's Coftee-houle in Paris, which were afterwards fent to him at RI.eims; .0 that Sir John mult have wrote other Letters dated at Paris, which do not now appc;u-. Again, Book L A F T E R T H E B I R T H. 209 Again, it is incredible that Lady Jane would have drawn a Bill on the Duke's Banker, dated at Paris, within twenty-eight Days of her Delivery, v/hich veas immediately to pafs into the Hands oi the Perfons employed in his Grace's Bufmefs in Scotland^ if (he had meant to conceal that fhe had gone to Paris. It is impolTible, that, if a Fraud was carrying on, flie would date her Letter inform- ing him of the Birth, as if happening at Rheims, and date the Bill, drawn on his Cafliicrs, from Paris, the very next Day. The Reafon, therefore, of her Letter being dated from Rheirns, plainly arofe from her being then at Dammartin, a fmall, unknown Village on the R.oad to Rheims, which was her ordinary Place of Refidence, and where fhe meant tlie Anfwer flie ex- pefted ftiould be dire£led. In the third Place, it is impoffible that Sir John meant to conceal Lady Jane's being delivered at Paris from his Son, when he invited him fo prefTmgly in that very Letter to go over and live with them at Rheims, where he mufl immediately know the Delivery was at Paris. And laftly, if Concealment of the Place of Delivery had been the Pveafon of Sir John's dating fome Letters from Rheims, when they were actually at Paris, it is certain there muft have been a concerted Scheme, in which Mrs. Hewit was a Party : Confequently, flie would not have dated any of her Letters contrary to the concerted Plan ; yet, in Fact, they are all dated from Paris. This being the Cafe, it is impoffible to infer the fmalleft Sufpicion of Fraud from the erro- neous Date of fome of thefe Letters : Indeed, if a Fraud had been carrying on, or if they had ever fufpefted the Imputation of Fraud, they would not have dated any Letter from Rheims.--- Their aft ing in a different Manner is a Proof of their Innocence, and can never, without a malevo- lent Conftruftion, afford the flighteft Sufpicion of Guilt. The Purfuers, are, indeed, fenfible of the Force of thefe Obfervations, and do not deny the Gonclufion.— -But their Objeftions to this Part of their Conduft, are, 1. They fay, that as Sir John and Lady Jane had invited Lady If^igton and Baron Macelligot to come to Rheims, to be Godfather and Godmother to the Child, they would immediately, upon their Ar- rival there, learn, that the Delivery had happened at Paris ; and that therefore, they could not date their Letters to them from Rheims, for Fear of their fufpe£ling a Fraud. By the fame Rule, the Defender may with Juftice infift, that it is impoffible that Sir John could have any fraudulent Purpofe in dating the Letter to his Son from Rheims ; becaufe he anxioufly requefls him to come over, and live with him at Rheims, where he would have immc- . diately heard that the Delivery happened at Paris. 2. Tlie Purfuers fay, that as Sir John dated his Letters from Rheims, and as Mrs. Hewit cer- tainly was an Accomplice with him in the Fraud, if any was committed ; it is highly improbable fhe fhould date her Letters from Paris : That therefore Mr. Douglas of Edringwn, and A'Ir. Colvil, muft be grofly miftaken, or wilfully perjured, in faying, that they received Letters from her, dated Paris ; more efpecially, as in Mrs. Hewit's Letter of the 12th of Auguft, fhe, for the firft Time, allowed the Maids to publiih the Birth at Rheims, as Lady Jane had then wrote an Account of it to her Brother, which was the fooneft fhe was able. It is anfwered. That Mrs. Hewit did Avrite to Mr. Colvil, and to Mr. Douglas oi Edrington, from Paris, informing them of the Biith, is inconteflibly proved by the Teltimony of thefe Gentle- men, who are of unimpeached Chara(51:er.---The natural and jufl Coiiclufioii to be drawn from the Evidence in this Cafe, is the Reverfe of what the Purfuers fuppofe. As Sir John dated fome of his Letters from Rheims, while Mrs. Heivit dated all her Letters from Paris, this fhews they were Accomplices in Nothing ; and that Sir John dating fome of his Letters £rcm Rheims is perfectly innocent, and difconnected with the fuppofed Fraud. Mr. Colvil has d\{[in£tly and repeatedly fworn that the Letter from Mrs. Htvit (which was lofl only a few Years before the Commencenent of this Aftion) was- dated from Paris, and that he Perv. 7. a. immediately fhewed it to Mr. Archibald Stuart, who took a Copy or Note from it, which he pro- D. P. jj-s. d, mifed to fend to the Duke of Douglas ; and Mr. Colvil is confirmed in this Account by a Letter from Archibald Stuart to Sir John, in which he fays he very early heard of Lady Jane's Delivery of Twins, and wifhes him Joy upon that Event. Mr. Stuart could not have faid he was very earl') informed of the Delivery, if he had not heard of it before their Return ioRbeims, five Weeks after it happened ; and in Fafl: he has fworn that it was Mr. Colvil who gave him the firft Accounts of Lady Jane's Delivery, and that he took an Excerpt from the Letter which mentioned the Delivery, p_ p .^ j, tho' he is pleafed not to know from what Place the Letter v/as dated, nor where the Excerpt nov/ is. Mr. Douglas of Edrinoton has alfo loft his Letter ; but he has on two different Occafions fworn Serv. 13. d. that it was dated /raw Paris ; and he remembers that it was recently after Lady Jane's Delivery, P, P. 372. f, as Ihe "was not then in a Condition to write herfelf. F £ Mrs. 2JO P. P. 6i. L. CONDUCT OF THE PARENTS Part VI. Mrs, Hewit's Letter of the 12th of Auguji, allowing the Maids to tell Mr. Mackenzie or any Perfon elfe, of Lady Jane's Delivery, as flie had then fent Notice of it to her Brother, moft certainly does not' prove that the Birth was till then kept a Secret---for Sir John had notified it to Lord Crawford on the 2 lit of July, and defned him to inform Lord Mari Keir, her Uncle, of it, and his Lordfliip was not defired to keep it a Secret from any Mortal.— Belides, it had been from the firft publickly fpoke of at Rheims, from thence communicated to Lady fflglon at Sjia, and was never induftri- oufly concealed at any Time or Place. 3. The Purfuers funher fay, that Lady Jane's dating her Letter to her Brother from HJieims when flie was at Dammartin, was fraudulent ; and that her dating the Bill on the Duke's Banker, from Paris, was a Cafe of NeceiTity, otherwife the Paris Bankers would not have given the Money for it. Tliis Objedion fuppofes that Lady Jane was attempting a Concealment of the Place of her De- livery ; but if this had been then in her View, flie would not have been fo extremely inattentive as to fend a Letter to her Brother dated at one Place, and a Bill to be immediately conveyed to a Banker at Edinburgh, which was to be fhewn to his Doers, dated at a different Place, as this muft have immediately deteded the Impofition.— The only probable Reafon, therefore, for her dating her Let- ter at Rheims was (as has been already mentioned), that (he was then at a fmall unknown Village, on her Pvoad to Rheims, where fhe propoied within a few Days to fix her Refidence, and would there of Courfe receive the Anlwer, if any was made to her Letter. It is in vain to pretend that her dating the Bill from Paris wiS a Cafe of Neceffity, to fuit the Paris Banker, who would not otherwife have given tliem Money for it.— The Paris Banker was diredled by his Correfpondent at Rheims, to give Sir John INIoney for his Draughts on Eng. land or Scotland ; in Confequence of which Sir John gave him a Bill on MelT. Coults, Bankers at Edinburgh, and received the Value ; and it was perfeftly indifferent to the Paris Banker from what Place this Bill was drawn. --If the Bill had indeed been drawn, and prefented by Sir John himfelf, he mufl have dated it at Paris ; but as he was only the Bearer of a Bill drawn by Lady Jane, there was not the fmalleft Neceffity for its being dated at Paris.- -And what further fliows Lady Jane's perfect Indifference at this Time, with Refpecl to the Place and Date of her Bills and Letters is. That this Bill, which flie dated from Paris the 8th of Augujl, on being prefented to the Banker at Rotterdam, was refufed on Account of its being made payable Three Months too early ; and Lady 7ow, of whofe Refidence at Rheims Pawi/fr the Banker was informed, replaced it with another Bill dated Paris the 8th oi Auguji 1748, which was fent from Rheims by Sir John on the 20th of /^'ugujl ; fo that Pannier accepted of a Bill without Scruple, dated the 8th of Auguji at Paris, which he knew was wrote the 20th of Auguji at R/?eims. P. P. 379. c. It is in Proof, that Mr. Hepburn of Keith was perfectly acquainted with their whole Motions. — She knew their firft Intention of ftaying at Rheims till Lady Jane's Delivery ; flie was afterwards informed that flie had been advifed to go to Puris.---Sir John wrote her from Paris on the loth of Secv 1' D J"6'' ^"'^ Lady Jane told her in Oiiober, that Sir John was gone to Paris to fee Sholto ; fo that it is impoffible to fuppofe fraudulent Concealment on the Part of Sir John and Lady Jane in any one S'tep, unlefs Mrs. Hepburn be an Accomplice. It is faid, That by dating the Letters from Rheims, it was implied that Lady Jane was delivered there.---No Doubt this might be inferred, (though the Letters do not fay fo) if in Fad thefe Let- ters were the only Proof of the Place of Delivery. But it is certain, that Sir Jchn and Lady Jane at no Time pretended or faid, that the Delivery had been at Rheims ; and indeed it would have been impoffible for them to have faid fo, becaufe their being at Paris was not only known at Rheims, but likewife at Liige, Aix, and Spa, where there were many Britijh who correfponded with their Friends in Biitain.—h. appears too, that the Duke of Douglas Avas foon informed that it happened in Paris. The Defender might add, that it is not uncommon for People to date their Letters, not from the Place where they write (if their Stay, is for a few Days only), but from their ufual Place of Refidence, where they propofe to be when the Anfwers arrive. The Letters in Queftion were only produced in the laft Stage of this Caufe, long after Sir John's Death ; and it is now impoffible to fay, with Certainty, what might have prompted Sir John^ at fhe Time, to date fome of the Letters as they appear : It muft be fufficient for the Defender to Ihew, that no fraudulent Purpofe can be inferred. CHAP. Book I. AFTERTHEBIRTH. 2ir CHAP. ir. 0/ Sir JohnV avoiding the Company of the Britifh People at Paris, /;; July 1748. 'T>HE next fufpicious Circumftance charged to the Conduft of ^\r John and Lady Jane is, •*• that he carefully avoided the Company of many Brkijh People then at Paris, which he certainly would not have done on fo remarkable an Occafion as that of Lady Janets Delivery of Twins, if fome Fraud had not been intended ; more efpecially that, if he was then in Straits (as he pretends), he might have had a Supply of Money from thefe his Countrymen and Friends. That particularly Sir TP'illiam Steiuait, and his Lady, with whom Sir John and La- dy Jane were intimate at Atx the Year before, were then at Paris. That one Johnjhn, a Coufin of Mrs. Hetvit's, who went from England with them ; who lived with them at the Hague for fome Time ; and with whom Mrs. Hewit correfponded afterwards, was alfo at Paris ; and under whofc Care it was natural for them to have left their youngeft Child, if he had really exiited. — And that he was not even feen by Mr. Gordon or Mr. Ruddoch of the Scotch College, where moil of the Gentlemen from Scotland are well known, nor by Mr. Palullo, with whom Sir John was probably acquainted. That Sir John did not conceal himfelf at Paris, is apparent from every Part of his Conduct. — Before he left Rheims he told publicly, and to every P^rfon of his Acquaintance, that he was going to Paris, and the Purpofe of his Journey :— He wrote to Liege and Spa to the fame Ptirpofc ; he carried a Letter with him from the Chief Magiftrate of Rheims to Godefroi, and lodged at that pubhc Inn for fome Days : — During his Stay there, he went every Day abroad to the public CofFee-houfes, and became acquainted there with feveral People, particularly with one Conn, a Scotchman. After he left Godefroi's his Letters IHll came to that Inn, and were fent to Sir John from thence : — On his going to Michel's he told them he had lived four Days in GoJefroi's -, and both here and at Godefroi's, he gave his true Names and Addition, to be inferred in the Records of Police ; and during his Stay at Michel's Houfe, he went every Day abroad, and frequented the Coffce-houfe in the fame Manner he had done at Godefroi's. Thefe Circumftances ought to remove every Imputation of Difguife or Concealment. With refpea to the Imputation of his avoiding the Brltijh People then at Paris, and not ap- plying to them for Relief, rather than borrow Money from Andrieux at Rheims, the An- fwer is extremely obvious :— The Britijh People who appeared from the Record of Police to have r, p been then at Paris, were Tradefmen, Marchandes des Mode, young Students, and fuch-like, who ' '^°"^ '"* were abfolute Strangers to Sir John and Lady Jane ; and of fuch a Rank in Life, as it is im- poiTible to imagine Sir John would keep Company with any of them, if he had accidentally '^'* '^• ieen them ; much lefs that he would, at fuch a Time, go about in Queft of them. '''-• ^* ^^ 161. F. There were indeed fome few of thofe Scotchmen in Paris who had been driven out of the Country on Account of their Acceffion to the late Rebellion, and were then fo needy, as to be unable to fupport themfclves, much lefs to fupply the Wants of others. Sir John was not ignorant of this, and very probably avoided them for no other Reafon, but becaufe he was ut- terly unable to relieve them ; and there certainly was not a fingle Scotchman then at Paris to whom Sir John could have applied for the lealt Supply of Money, though Mr. Andrieux had re- fufed him. Though Sir TVilUam Steivart was then at Paris, it was utterly unknown to Sir John Stewart % for Sir IVilliam told him, when he left Spa, that he was to return direttly to Italy, from whence he had come the Year before : He indeed changed his Mind, and went to Paris ; but this Sir John knew nothing of.— Befides, Sir IVilliam Avas not the Perfon Sir John could have defired to fee in Expedation of a Supply of Money, as it appears he had formerly refufed Sir John this Favour upon a prcffmg Occafion, Chevalier Johnfton, who was Mrs. Hiwit's diflant Relation, did not then live in Paris, but at p. p. go-, s^ the Diftance of fix Miles from it ; confequently, unlefs he lent to the Country for him, he had no Opportunity of feeing him. And that they did not put themfelves to this Trouble, or leave the Charge of their Child to him, will not appear extraordinary, when his Circumftances and Situa- tion are attended to. He was indeed a diftant Relation of Mrs. Hewit's, and on Account of tluit Conneftion was carried by Lady Jane to Holland. He was difguifed as her Sei-vant, becaufe of his Accedion to the Rebellion ; and they maintained him out of Cliarity fome Time at the Hague. He, however, was never told of Lady Jane and Sir John's being married, and was in no Degree of Intimacy with either ; and his Circumftances of being an exifed Rebel certainly mad : him the moll improper Perfon in the World to have the Care of the Child committed to 'him. It w.-s a mod natural Part for the Duke of Douglas, on being informed of the Delivery, and that one of the Children was tender and left at Paris, to have enquired how, and in what Manner, he was F f 2 taken 2,2 CONDUCT OF THE PARENTS Part VI. ta'cen Care of: Ani if he had done this, and had learnt that he was under the Care of an exiled Rebel and Mrs. Hewh's Relation, it certainly Avould not have facilitated a Reconciliation betwixt the Duke and Lady Jane, or removed the Sufpicions of the Truth of the Delivery, if he liad entertained any : So that thofe who blame Sir John for not trufting his Child to the Care of yehnjkn, certainly blame him for one of the mofl: prudent Attions in his Life. 7. P. 57, H. It is not obvious upon what Footing he flioidd have gone about in Quefl of Principal Gcrdiu, Mr. Ruddoch, or Mr. Patillo, of whom he had not the molt diilant Acquaintance. At the fame Time, it appears, he did call on I\Ir. /«««, who was then Principal of ihn Scotch CoWcge.. There is not, therefore, a Colour of Reafon to prefume a fraudulent Concealment on Account of Sir "John or Lady Jane's not feeing feveral Briiijh Perfons who now appear to have been at Paris in 'ftdy 1748, efpecially as his Behaviour in Ocioher 1748, and in Summer 1749, when no Fraud is allcdged, was precifely the fame. In OSiobcr 1 748, the only Scotch Perfon he is known to have feen is Johnjlon; who being then in Town, went to fee him: And in Summer 1 749* there is not a fingle Perfon who is known to have feen him. This the Purfuers allow to have been per- fectly innocent, only becaufe tliere is no Fraud or Concealment to charge him with at that Time. In Faft, there is not one Reafon to objeft Concealment in July \ 748, but becaufe the Purfuers conftantly take the Crime imputed to him as proved, and then argue that Concealment (as they call it) mull have been intended to cover it. D. P. 91. F. At the fame Time, it is not true that Sir John faw none of his Countrymen at Paris : It is proved tliat Mr. Stnvart of Ardjhicl vifited Lady June at Paris at this Time ; and Conn^ the Scotchman, whom he frequently faw, would, moft probably, acquaint fuch Scotchmen he knew, o£ Sir John's being in Paris. The Purfuers have examined fome Witnefles who fay, that Ard/hiel never told them that he had feen Lady Jane at Paris, or that he knew flie had been delivered there. But furely, his not mentioning this Circumftance to them, does not prove that he did not inform his Wife of it. It (hews no more, than that the little Incidents of Lady Jane's Family were not fo much attended to, and fo univerfally fpoke of, in 1748 as in 1763. Mr. Hay, a Scotchman, who came to Paris in OSlaber 1748 with Sir John, knew that Lady Jane was delivered at Paris, and that one of her Children was left in the Neighbourhood of Paris ; yet he never mentioned thefe Circumflances to the Principal of the Scotch College, or the other Witnefles examined to prove that Ardjhiel did not mention it to them. CHAP. III. Of Letters wrote on the twenty firft of July. 'TH HE only other Imputation which the Purfuers have offered to the Conducfl of Sir John, Ladjr -■■ Jane, and Mrs. Hcivit, when at Paris, is. That though the Delivery is laid to have happened the loth of y«i^', yet no Letters were written to any Perfon, giving Accounts of this important Event, till the 21ft of July ; which they fuppofe to have been owing to this, That they could not mention the Birth tiil they were pofleft of the Child ; and that as foon as Mignon^ Child was carried oil" by Sir John on the i8th of July^) there was no Delay after this in announcing the Birth to the Maids and others. In this, as in many other Articles, the Purfuers argue, in direft Oppofition to another Part of their Cafe. — If they could not announce the Delivery before they were poffelled of a Child, it fol- lows, that they could as little announce the Delivery of Twins before they were poflefled of two ; and yet the Purfuers in another Place infill. That after they had got one Child, and found it impolTible to procure a feccnd, yet they gave out, that Lady Jane was deli\ered of Twins. 2d. Ithasbeenfhewn, that there isno Evidence that iW;;^«a«'s Child was carried off the 18th oijuly : —It is mofl probable it was not carried off" till long after Sir John and his Family were at Rheims ; and all the Purfuers Witnefles v.'ho fpeak to the Date, implicitly follow the Alonitoire, and fix the Enlevement to the nth oi July 3d. It has been diftinftly fliewn, that at whatever Time the Child of Mignon was carried off", Sir John and Lady Jane had nothing to do with it ; and thatthe Defender istotally different in every Particular fcom. that Child : So that this Enlevement could have no Influence upon their Condufl:. 4th. Itappearsthat Siry«>/;«and Mrs. /fciwVdid not expcftthat Lady 7'»«<' would have been brought to-bed fo early as in Faft flie was.— -This, together with the Birlh of T-wins, (another uncxpeded Event) the remarkable Weaknefs of one of them, and the Attention to both, occafioned much Confufion and Anxiety for fome Time, and renders it a JMatter of no Surprize, that no Letters were written Book r. A F T E R T H E B I 1^ T H. written for a few Days after, until I.ady Jane was out of Danger, and the Children were fettled with their different Nurfes. 5th. Though no Letters appear in Procefs of an earlier Date than the 2 1 ft of "July; and ■though die Letters of that Date were no Doubt the firft which were written after the Delivery to Lord Crawford and the Maids, it does not from thence follow, thaf they wrote to no otiier Pcrfon of an earlier Date.-— It appears, as has been already ftated, that Mrs. Hewh informed IMr. Dcuglas of Ed- ringion of the Birth loon after it 'happened ; and that this was before Lady Jane's Recovery.— -It ap- pears alio, that fhe wrote the fame Account to Mr. Colvit, and that he received the Letter at Edin- burgh, about a Fortnight after the loth of July ;-— which is confirmed by Jrchibald Stuart's Letter before mentioned to tih-John, faying, he very early heard of Lady y^w^^'s Delivery. One great Obje£lion to Sir John and Lady Jane's Condu£l at the Beginning of this Caufc was, that in the Extraft of the Defender's Baptifm, they had fraudulently concealed the Date and Place of the Birth, contrary " aux Ordonnances du Royaume."— This was at firft much infilled on ; but it is now proved, that the Extrafl: of his Baptifm was precifely in the fame Terms with all the other Extraits baptifalre in Rheims ; fince which Time this " fraudulent Precaution," as it was called, has not been heard of. CHAP. IV, Of the firft Accounts from Scotland, and their Conduil in Confequettce thereof. •ift.T^H AT as foon as the News of the Birth of Lady Jane's Children reached Scotland, a Reporta- ■■■ rofe.that herDelivery of Twins was impoffibleat her Time of Life: ThatthisReportfoon reach- ed the Ears of Mr. Colvil, who informed Mrs. Hi;w/uhereof ; who in Anfwer told him, the Birth was too well known or vouched to be difbelieved :— That after this Report, ifLady Jane had re- ally been delivered of Twins, they certainly would have applied to, and got proper Certificates from the Accoucheur, with whom they were then in conftant Correfpondence, and from the Perfons in whofe Houfe the Delivery is faid to have happened ; and their not following this obvious Method {hews there was no Jccoucheur with whom they were in Correfpondence. This Objeftion rather feems to afford a prefumptive Argument in Favour of theTriith of the Delivery. Mr. Colvil having heard the Reports of the Incredibility of Lady Jane's Delivery on Account of her Age, (which have now been happily traced to its Source) confidered it (as he fays himfelf) as a meer Farce, and paid no Regard to it : But as he was in Correfpondence with Mrs. Hewit he mentioned it to her asfuch, without either en^ui.ir.g into the Truth or Falfliood of it, or afking her a fingle Queftion about the Time, Place, or any other Circumftances of the Birth. She gave herfelf no Manner of Trouble on this Subjeft, and only told him the Birth was too well known or vouched to be difbelieved.— -Mrs. Hewit herfelf knew that the Report was falfe ; and it cer- tainly would have been an extraordinary Piece of Conduft in her to have mentioned to Sir John and Lady Jane fo idle, and at the fame Time fo injurious, a Report. But this Rumour, con- temptible as it was, muff have given them the utmoft Uneafinefs, if they had been guilty of any Crime.---The Circumftances in which they are fuppofed by the Purfuers to have been at this Time are, that they had given out univerfally that Lady y<7w was delivered of Twins : That one La Adarre, an Accoucheur in Paris, had brought her to-bed ; and that flie had left one of her Children at PflHi under his Care, on Account of his weakly State. It is pretended, that though a La Marre did then praftife Midwifery at Paris, yet that they had no Connexion whatever with him ; and that they had no fecond Child in their Poffeffion at Paris, or elfcwhere. If this had been fo, on hearing that Lady Jane's Delivery was throught incredible, and was fufpected, they muft have believed that their Fraud had fome how or other been deteded, and that the Duke of Douglas would inftantly make a Difcovery ; and their natural and unavoidable Condud, if fuch had been their Circumftances, muft have been, either to have compleatcd the Impofture, by finding a fecond Child inmiediately, and preparing a proper Number of Accomplices to fupport them in cafe of an Enquiry ;---or they muft have inftantly given out that the Child they had left at Paris was dead, and endeavoured to rid themfelves of tho other as foon as they could, to avoid, if poffible, the Infamy of being deteiSled. — Inftead of this, they continued to live with the utmoft Eafe at Rheims, and Mrs. i:/^M;/mever fo much as mentioned it to Sir y«i/'« or Lady Jaw^ ; and wrote back that the Birth was too well vouched to be diftjelieved. — At the Time of her writ- ing this Anfwer to Mr Colvil Lady Jane was again with Child, which certainly was the bell Voucher in the World of the Reality of a Defivery, which was thought improbable only on Ac- . count of the Mother's Age. Tlie 213 214 CONDUCT OF THE PARENTS Part VI. The next Objedion is, That nlthough Lady 'Jane and Sir John, during their Stay at RheimSy uniformlv mentioned thai one of the Children was ftrong and the other weak, yet they rave no particular Account either of the Perfon to whofe Care the youngefl Child was committed, or of the Place where he was put to Nurfe ; and in Faet he was never feen or known as their Child till November i]ii^(), when they carried off i^i^.vy's Child in the Manner already mentioned. But every Word of this is contrary to the tlearefl; E\idence.— i. The Name of the Perfon to v/hoic Care the fecond Child was left, was freely mentioned at Rheims to their Friends, as well as the Place where he wa-s left at Nurfe. — 2- The Accounts which they received of him from Time toTimc were openly fpoke of among their Friends. They mentioned many little Circumilances, fuch as his being ondoyed by the Accoucheur on Account of his Weaknefs, his gradual Recovery, his Teething, and other Particulars, in lb natural a Manner, as could not have happened if he had only exilted in Idea. — 3. Sir yi/.o; went twice from Rheinn to Paris [or no other Purpofe what- ever but to fee this Child, and carried Cloaths to him ou thefe Occalions..-— It is in Proof to that. Lord fi/a«/yr^ faw the Child under the Care of his Nurfe, and as he was at Paris at the Time of Sirytuart\ Wife, as fhe was holding " out her Throng of Bufinefs, and having no Body to affift her, as Mr. Stuart had five Clerks " away with him ; it was aficed her. Where ? She anfwered, To Douglas Caftle, he having a great " Deal of Bufinefs there ; and very foon, f;iid (he, that great and antient Houfe, the Brag of the *' World, v.'ili be quite cxtindl:. l-fow! fays the Perfon fhe talked to, has not Lady Tfj/rc two f.nc '"• Sons? Hah! fays Ihe, they'll never be ow.ned by his Grace; and all that's polTibl'.- to be done " againll her and her's will foon be put in Execution ; and a great deal more to the i.ime. Pur- *' pofe." This is certainly the flrft Notice Lady "Jane received that her Brother difowned the Children. To this Letter Mr. Mackenher alludes, when he fays, in his Depofitlon, that Sir Ju^??, Lady p..p. jyi.i, y^w, and Mrs. Hnuit, refented it much, and talked of profecuting Mr. Stuart, whom they con- fidered as the Author of the Pveports : And Mr. Grindly mull alfo allude to this, when he depofes, ,fi-_f_- He heard that Sufpicions were entertained by the Duke, both before Lady Jane went to Scotland, and after her Return, becaufe there is no Atom of Evidence that ever Lady Jane knew of the Duke's aSufpicion till this Letter ; and between the 14th oi Alay and the Mouth of Anguji, when Lady 'Jane fet out for Scotland, there was Time enough to have heard frequent Converfatioas on tliefe Reports. Grindly was Lady Jane's Landlord, and a Perfon ufeful to her. It was no Wonder thefe unhappy People fliould beincenfed at this Information ; that they fhould talk of profecuting Stuart, of getting the Children naturalized, of fending to France, and twenty other Projetls ; but it was difficult to fix on what was propereft to be done ; and they feem to have fallen upon what in human Reafon was the moft proper Step, namely, that Lady Jane Ihould go to Scotland, and carry her Children along with her. Here a natural Refleftion occurs : Lady Jane is accufed of fuppofing Children ; (he knows flie is fufpeftcd of this Crime ; llie has no Reafon to believe fire has many fail Friends about her Brother ; fhe finds his Man of Bufinefs, his Advifer, whom flie had hitherto believed her Friend, turn out her Enemy ; at leaft, fecond her Brother's Intentions to do every Thing polhble againlt her and hers. She could not go to Scotland in the Belief that the Duke would neither fee her nor allow her to juflify herfelf : She could not hope that her bare Aflertion would efface the (trong Impreflions he had received. She mufl have laid her Account to have undergone a fevere Scrutiny, and to have fubmitted to any Enquiry, which he judged proper to make, into the Birth of her Children. — How then was fhe provided for the Trial fhe muft have expected to undergo? Why, with Innocence and Truth ; certain that whatever Examination, whatever Evidence the Duke fhould be advifed to de- jnand, fhe was then in a Condition to give. On the other hand, had fhe been guilty, (he never would have put herfelf in the Duke's Way ; (he would not have run into a Situation which evidently tended to force a Difcovery of her Crime, chiefly without the Support of the principal Contriver and Accomplice of it, her Hufband. In the Beginning of Augu/i Lady Jane fet out for Scotland with Mrs. Hewit, her two Children, „ and Ifalel IValker. There is a Letter from her to Sir John, dated upon the Road the 8th of ' ^^^•^' Auguji, in which fhe tells him flie ihall not write again till fhe gets to Edinburgh : The Reafon ■of this is explained in a fubfequent Letter to Mr. now Sir John Stewart. — She went by Sea, con- trary to her Hufband's Inclination, and unknown to him. jS'-a. She arrived in Scotland on the 18th of AuguJl, and lodged at Mrs. Maitlanl's till the Middle of Oilober; from thence fhe removed to a Place called Hope-Park, in the Neighbourhood of Edin- ^5^- "• burgh. It is necellary to attend to this Circumftance, becaufe the Dates will apply to clear up a —^56. f. Confufion which the Purfuers have artfully thrown into their Account of the different Converfa- tions whichfhehad with feveral Perfons inScotland. Indeed, confounding the Rumours which came to Lady Jane's Ears in 1750, and the Application to Mad. Tewis, with the Information of the Duke's Sufpicions in 1753 ; and the Confequences of it; has ferved the Purfuers much beyond their Hopes, and much beyond what they had any Reafon to hope from fuch an Argument, had it even flood in Fadl as flated by them. From the Proof it appears, that Lady y {he heard no more of them, and ftie did Bookl. AFTER THE BIRTH. 219 did not purfue that Plan. On the Pieceit of Mrs. Carfe's Letter, in May 1752, which pointed thefe Pieports to a particular Perfon, (he grew angry, talked of profecuting that Perfon, and of naturalizing her Children : In fine, {he hurried down to Scotland to examine the true State of the Charge : Underftanding it more particularly, flie entered into an Explanation with a Man of Bu- finefs, her Friend, and took the Advice of a very able and eminent Counfel. Hidierto fhe had fiuftuated ; uncertain what Steps to take, or what Meafures to purfue : But on Lord Prcjlon- grange'% Advice, (he totally changed her Language and Condu£t ; flie defpifed the Slanders, made no Reply to them, except in one particular Inllance, which flrall be afterwards explained. After all this, it is impoffiblc to doubt, that the Converfation, as depofed to by Walker, is true ; It is certain the Advice was worthy of Lord Prejhngrange\ good Seiife and Abilities ; and it is certain Lady Jane followed it, and adled right in doing fo. But if fhe had been guilty of the Crime laid to her Charge, Nothing of this Kind would have happened. She would not have expofed herfelf to any Explanations with Men of Bufinefs ; (lis would not have offered a Proof when fhe had none to give ; fhe would not have afked the Advice of a Man of Lord Prejiongrange^ Eminence, without being aware of the Obligation fhe laid her- felf under to follow it ; and fhe could not tell what it might be, if his Lordfhip had thought a Proof nccefiary, as the Purfuers are confident he ought to have done.— She muft have entered immediately into a Detail of that Proof which (he previoufly offered. Lady Janes third Converfation was with Mr. j^rchihald Stuart, on the 27th of Oclober, 1 752 ; g^j.^ ,^ and then it was that fhe gave up to him the Deeds fo often mentioned.--- He, on his Part, pro- mifed to ufe his warmeft Endeavours with the Duke, to perfuade him to reftore the Bond for 30000 Marks, and the 300/. Annuity.-— No Motive obliged Lady Jane to this Sacrifice, but a Defire to do every Thing the Duke demanded ; and no Motive obliged Mr. Siua't to make thefe Promifes, but a Defire to impofe on Lady Jan: : And that fame Defire prevented him from fiying a Word of what paffed in Douglas-C?i(i\e about her Children ; though, had he been either a faith- ful Servant to the Duke, or a Friend, as he profelfed, to Lady Jane and Sir John Stewart, it was his Duty not only to have informed her of the Duke's Sufpicions, but alio to have adviftd her to proper Meafures either to remove them, or to detedt the Impoflure. This Gentleman was the Duke's Man of Bufinefs ; he pretended to be convinced of the Impofture himfelf ; he convinces the Duke ; he knows of the Duke's Conviftion.-— One would think that, in- dependent of a Regard to Juftice, the Duty he owed to the Interefl of the Family he befriended, would have prompted him to put the Fact upon fome probable Footing of Evidence. He knew where to apply, and where to direft his Enquiries ; and, unlefs he were infinitely more fcrupulous than his Sen, the fame Means were open to him, the fame Secrecy, and in Circumftances of much lefs Difcredit.— -Yet he not only does nothing to bring the Matter to Light, but he fi;udioufly pre- vents every Explanation, and fliuts every Door againfi: it. ---He has an Opportunity, and a favour- able one, of fitting the Perfon he fuppofes guilty, and he does not fo much as bring the Subject into Converfation. For all this the Defender can affign a Reafon, but it belongs to the Purfuers to aflign an honeft one ; which if they do, the Conclufion of Guilt inferred from Lady Jane and Sir John's Conduft will come from them with a very bad Grace. The two Converfations that remain to be mentioned are not of the Nature of the former. They »re the Difcourfes of Women, and told, in fo far as they make for the Purfuers Argument, with ftrange Circumftances of loquacious Sufpicion. One is with Lady Stair, and the other with Mrs. Menzies, a Shop-keeper's Widow in Edinburgh. That of Lady Stair is explained under aji- other Head ; and the only Queftion is. Whether the Teftimony of one Witnefs, very exception- able, to that Converfation, (hall be believed preferable to that of two, very unexceptionable, who heard Lady Stair repeat, on a very ferious Occafion, what paffed between her and Lady Jane.—Th^A with Mrs. Menzies has alfo been fpoke to in another Place ; and it fiiall only here be obferved upon it, that if it merits any Degree of Credit, it is a fufficient Anfwer, that it hap- pened after the Advice given by Lord Advocate, who, as to the Expediency or Propriety of taking Proofs, was certainly a better Judge than a Female Shop-keeper. Thus the ConduiSt of Lady Ja«^, upon the Sufpicions raifed againft her, was uniform, natural, and confiftent with the various Shapes in which they were conveyed to her.---The temporary Alarms which loofe Pieports gave her, fubfided with thefe Pveports, as (lie did not even prefs tlie Evidence, which it is certain fhe might have had, that of Mad. Tewis, and which, had ihe been guilty of an Impofture, would have been molt material to her. The fenfible Advice fhe received quieted her Mind. The Sufpicions were fuch as no prudent and innocent Perfon could be au- thorifed, much lefs obliged, to contradid ; but which, had they been as ftrongly enforced as the Purfuers would have it, a guilty Perfon would have thought herfelf obliged, and would have en- deavoured to contraditl. And therefore her Conduft in this Particular, inftcad of inferring Guilt, is tlie ftrongeft Mark of Innocence. G c I But 220 CONDUCTOF THE PARENTS Part VL But hovrever in Prudence and in Innocence flie might have flighted the idJe Converfation of "Women, and anfwered the Slanders of the Ignorant with the ^^'^ords Lord Prejhngrange put into her Mouth, yet fhc eould not expecl to fatisfy the Duke her Brother in the fame Manner.-— She did not expecft: it ; for fhe wrote to him only to be heard, and oflering all the Satisfaftion he could defire upon every Charge againft her, and offering to fubniit to the fevereft Punifliments, if fhe did not convince him rf her Innocence.— This is not the Language of Guilt, and of Guilt that is nothing but a bare Aflertion, to offer to a Judge deeply prejudiced againftit. WTiat Evidence fhe would have offered, had flie been admitted to her Brother's Pretence, may be caf-ly imagined i Indeed it could have been no other than a Detail of Perfons, Pb.ccs, arul Dates, with a Confent, per- haps Requell, that he would make an Enquiry into the Truth of her Tale. ---Without this it is im-- poTEble to believe fhe ever could endeavour to force herfelf into the Prefence of her irritate^r Judge, on v.hom her Hopes of every Kind chiefly depended. And yet fhe endeavoured to do _this without Friends, without Affiitance, or any Circumftance of Support, other th;m her own Innocence, and a Confcioufnefs of its appearing when her Brotlter fKoiild make &ich Enquiries, a*, he, or thofe he fhould advife, flioiild think proper. By whofe Fault flie was not admitted to a Trial has been already ftated ; and it cannot be enough wondered at, that thole who believed her guilty fhould have refufed to convift her,, when ibe threw herfelf upon their Power. One would be almoft tempted to imagine, that the Party had already planned this very Action, and huddled up Things till Time lliould throw a Cloud over what then was clear, and capable of the fulleil Proof. \Mien Lady Jane was at London in Summer 1753,. Mrs. Hrwh received a Letter from Mr. Loch,^ informing her of the Story of Count Douglas's Letter to die Duke of Douglas, as told him by Archibald Stuart, mentioning the Children to be bought out of an Hofpital.— -The Purfuers hare- made a ftrange Attempt to fix, as they call it, this Letter upon Sir yohn Stuart and L?.dy Jane ^ that is, to make out th.it they themfelves had invented the Story, in order to have the Credit of detecling it. But Mr. Loth's Letter, and Lady Stair's Corrverfation with the Duke of Dou~ glas in 1759, plainly fix it on Jrchibald Stuart and ISIajor Cochran. It belongs to them to trace it farther ; and, if they were not the Authors of it, to tell from whom they had it.— -It would, in- deed, be a ftrange Fetch in Lady Jane, or Sir John, to invent this Story, which could ferve no earthly Purpofe. The Chevalier Douglas muft have been in a ^ILftake, and mud have taken Mr. Loch's Letter^ ■which, no Doubt, was (hewn and tranflated to him for the Letter wbach it mentioned, and the Miliake is very natural. But, fay the Purfuers, AMiy did Lady Jane fbew fo much Anxiety to have this particular Story coniradi£led, and yet negledt all the other flying Reports .'' The Anfwer is plain, and atifes from the Queftion, Becaufe Nobody can or will trace flying Reports ; but a particular Story, cloathed with Circumftance of Place and Perfon, may be traced to its Source, and its- Falfhood detefted : And if Lady Jar.e had been informed of the Stories told the Duke, and laid: in trie Name of Lady Stair, and Alargaret Kerr, of which Notice has formerly been taken, it is probable, that fhe would have defeated the Falfity of them in the fame Manner, and which.. wo»Ud not have been counteracting the Advice given by Lord Advocate^ CHAP. VI. Of LaSf Jane and Sir JohnV AffiHion to their Children, and the Purfuers Argument: upon it. T N the whole Courfe of this Caufe the Purfuers have attempted \o unhinge every Principle "*■ which has hitherto been fuppofed to lead the AdUons of Mankind ; and have tried to introduce a Pyrrhonifin iu Morality, which tends to overturn the very Foundations of Society. The Da- ringnefs with which they charge direct Perjury on Numbers of unexceptionable Witnefles, muft deftroy private Faith and Evidence. The fophiftical Eafe with whicli they invent Palliatives for Sir John and Lady Jar.e to the Crime they are fuppofed to have committed, confounds the Li- mits of Right and Wrong. Their wanton Abufe of Language and of Senfe, in the Con- flruftion they put on the Exercife of parental Affection, breaks through every Tie of Relation ; and their Comments on the Solenuiity and Weight of Death-bed Declarations, every Bond of Religion : To this may be added, the Difgrace they have brought on public JufUce by the Ufe they have attempted to make of it. But the Defender believes, there is Something real in all thefe Principles ; and that, however Crimes, too bhck to mention, are often committed, yet no Perfon, nor Niunber of Perfons, was ever yet fo deep in Wickednels, as to efface iatirely the Ideas of JuIUce and Beligion, which come Book r. A F T E R T H E B I R T H. 121 come into the World and grow with them.— But if the Purfuers Argument is juft, Lady Jcve Douglas, Sir fohn Stewart, and Mrs. Hewit, muft have been made of other Mold ; and after hav- ing lived to a pretty advanced Age, without being fufpefted of any Crime, all at once misft have committed a deep one ; fuppcrted it by a Train of the mod dreadful Diflimulation, and Diflimulation of Feelings, which two of them would find it difficult to diflemble ; and at lafl: had confummated it by the mcft dreadful A£t of Impiety, and on an Occaiion which ftartles the moft hardened Criminals. It is impofUble to make any Progrcfs in the Evidence of this Caufe, without receiving a the., rough Convifftion of the tender, the genuine, and motherly Affeftion of Lady 'Jane Douglas to her Children ---That of Sir John is of a different Kind, but only in fo far as the Difference of Sexes and Charafters go :— -To mention Particulars, would be to go through the whole Proof; for there is not a Witncfs who had Acccfs to know, that does not fwear to it in Terms that would lofe by any Alteration which could be made on them. But it does not reft on the Evidence of Witnefles alone ; a Series of Letters which have been re- corered by Accident fron\ one Beadle, in whofe Houfe Sir John lodged, itxtn Years after Sir John's leaving the Lodgings, and could not have been intended to impofe on the World, though worthy of the whole World's Pepufal, fpeak with more Force to prove that unfonunate Lady's truly ma- ternal Afl^eition and her general Charafter, than a thoufand Witnefles. They were written in Circumflrances of deep and poignant Diftrefs, in Part, at leaft, brought on her by thefe very Children {he is faid to have impofed on her Family. It might be naturally fuppofed, if the Charge were true, that Reafon, Juflice, and Religion, not lulled afleep by Profperity, but roufed by Misfortune, would at one Time or otlier, have aflerted their Rights, and drawn, if not Remorie of the Crime, at leaft fome Complaint of its Confequences, fo different from what the Accom- plice, to whom fhc writes, had flattered her to expe£l.. — But inftead of this, the Letters are. filled with the Reverfe.-— A/fliw Pictures of Family Diftrefs ; Refources which may put Vanity to the Elufli, and draw Tears from Compaflion ;-— prefent Want, and Dread of that to come, bright- ened at Times by imaginary Hopes of better Fortune, yet revealing the Source of that Hope to be beyond this tranfitory World ; maternal Affeftion endearing, while it encreafes the Load of Penury, form the Aflemblage which thefe Letters exhibit.— And he muft be loft to the Feelings of Humanity, as well as the Principles of Reafon, who reads them, and doubts of the Truths they contain.. To anfwer this, the Purfuers fuppofe that AfFeflion may be feigned ; nay,, that it is neceflary in, fuch Cafes to blind the World.— This isprecifely one of the chief Realbns why Crimes of this Nature are of difficult Perpetration, and of Courfe are not to be prefumed. Feigning Af- fe£lion where it is not, through a Courfe of Life, is impoffible -.—-Some Time or other Nature will recur, and appear undifguifed.— Whatever Face a Criminal may put on in public, in the un- guarded Moments of private and unreferved Correfpondence, where every Moment the Objc£l: of his Crime is brought into Queftion ; and when at the fame Time he feverely feels Diftrefles, the immediate Confequence of his Crime 5 it is not to be thought but fome Expreflions of Impatience •will efcapehim, which Criticifhi may lay hold of:— But in the Courfe of Lady y<7«f's Life, from the Hour of her Delivery till that of her Death, there is not a Circumftance in her Conduft to be- lie the true maternal Affection fhe bore thefe Children.. The Purfuers deny this, and fay, (he fuffered Sholto to Be carried to Nurfe, and Archibald to be fome Days out of her Sight, with People fhe did not know, — The probable Reafon of Lady Jane's not having feen Sholto while in a State of Weaknefs, which made his Prefervation doubted of, has. been explained, and proved to proceed from that very Tcndtrnefs which the Purfuers contradidf ; and that of fending Archibald to Nurfe Favre's Houfe is the fame : They muft either have parted- witli the Nurfe, or yielded to this ; and with real parental Tendernefs, they preferred the Child's Good to the Pleafurc of having him with them. ---But this Argument proves that no Woman loves- her Child who lets it out of her Sight : Which is a very great Abfurdity ; for it is often done by the fondeft Parents, in the mofbeftabliflied Situations. But, fay the Purfuers, Afl^eftion may grow. Nurfes love their Charges, and adoptive Pa- rents the Children they have adopted. Befides, Lady Jane was bound by the Ties of Hu- manity to love thefe Children who fhe had deprived of the Care of thofe whom Nature allotted to rear them.— It is not a little abfurd to account for Lady Jarc's Afftflion for thefe Children by the Ties of Humanity, when the Purfuers in the fame Breath, accufe her of breaking through them all. ---The Ties of Humanity bind no Perfon to thofe for whom they have committed a Crime. On the contrary, Experience proves, that even tlie Innocent Ob- jeft of a Crime is hated by the Criminal.— And to fuppofe that Lady Jane was a Perfon to reafon on the moral Obligation ftie lay under to love the Children whom for her own Intereft fhe deprived, cf their Parents, and to aft uniformly in Confequence, is falling into two very great Miftake3.-"The tit CONDUCTOFTHE PARENTS Part VI. ^rft is, Natural Affeftion is the Refult of Reafon : And, 2dly, That a Perfon guilty of a dreadful Crime, which {he confummates by a hundred more, regulates her Conduft, and tends her HeaKto the pureil Dictates of Morality. As to the Argument from adoptive Parents and Nurfes, it is believed, that when Adoption was lawfid, People did not love Children becaufe they adopted them, but adopted them bccaufe they loved them. ---For Nurfes, their Affeftion is certainly tlie neareft to that of a Mother ; and perhaps it ■ would not be proper to examine too clofely the phyfical Caufes of either. — Lady Jant did not nurfe thefe Children, and yet fhe loved them as a Mother. The Defender is afliamed to follow the Purfuers through their whole Argument ; and yet he is under a NecelTity of doing it, becaufe on Arguments of this Kind, the Judgment which has depriv- ed him of his State and Birthright only proceeds. ^The Diftrefs which this unfortunate Lady felt on the Death of her youngeft Son, and which is depofed to in an afFe£ling Manner by Mrs Macrabbie, has not efcapedInfult."-The Exclamations of a Mother on fo fevere a Blow, are treated as Affe£tation, and fo grofs, that Lady Jane muft be too good an A£trcfs to fall into it.— -Therefore the Witnefs who fWears to the particular Expreffions of Grief {lie uttered, mull have miireprefented them : In other Words, to fupport the Character of thea- trical Merit, which the Purfuers have been pleafed to bellow on Lady Jane, the Witnefs is necef- I'arily perjured.-— An Accufation too infignificant to prove an Obliacle to the Purfuers hopeful Syflem. Once more the Purfuers bring their great Battle-Horfe to the Charge, and demand why, if Lady fane really loved herChildren, fhe did not bring Evidence of their being hers ?---This Argument is . Iqueezed into every Point of the Caufe, and twilled into every Shape. It has been already anfwered; and the Appellant will here only be{low a Word upon it. It is difficult to fay what is the propereft Manner of Aifting, before the Event points out the In- conveniency ofa£ling in one Manner ; and even Ignorance can reafon after the F^ifl better than Wif lorn can before. ---Had Lady Jane Douglas and Sir John Stewart known what was to happen, they would, no doubt, have endeavoured to prevent it ; but in the Situation of Things, as they law them, they could not forefee the Attempt that has been made.-— While they had any Hopes that the Children might eventually be better by the Duke of Douglas's Succeflion, they knew not that they were fufpe£ted of a Crime ; and when they began to learn of the falfe Reports that circulated, the Duke oi Douglas, infteadof bettering their Condition, had abruptly withdrawn Ladyyi7n/s Penfioii, refufed to fee her, and gave her every Mark of an irreconcileable Enmity : So that by this Time, all Hopes of Fortune were vanillied ; and neither fiie nor her Hufband could well fuppofe, that any one would take the Trouble to rob their Children of an unavailing Name.— Indeed, had that Name been attacked, it might have been worth While to defend it ; but it was not worth the While, nor could hive been vindicated with common Prudence, to have confidered the loofe Reports which a few defigning Perfons vainly endeavoured to propagate, as a formal Attack againll which a De- fence was iiecefTary.— -Thefe Reports were heard by many ; and bnt fcarcely believed by one. The general Voice flood flrongly for Truth, and drowned the feeble Whifper of Slander.— Lady Jant was received wherever fhe came, not as a Criminal who had brought Shame on an illuflrious Family, but as a Lady as richly diflinguilhcd in Merit and Endowments, as ill provided with the Gifts of Fortune. ---Her Children too, inftead of being treated as Impoftors, fhared the Attention which their Mother drew on her.---There is a Proof of this in a Letter wrote from Scotland, to her Huf- band, of this Date, the 1 8th of November i752.---By fuch Circumftances llie vras led to defpife the unembodied Sufpicions which fome have affefted to entertain ; and knowing her own Innocence, llie had great Reafon to think the World was convinced of it.-— She oiFered Proofs ; and flic was told by good Authority, that thsy were fuperfluous.— She offered herfclf to Trial, and Oie was re- fufed. She knew, i-f attacked, how to defend herfelf ; and all fhe can be blamed for is, that flie did not forefee the Chain of Events which has made it worth the While of Malice to attack her Re- putation, and rendered lefs clear the E\ idence (he was in a Condition to have brought. But it is alfo very hird to fay, in what Manner (he could have brought that Evidence fo as to make it avail in any After-QJjcftion. It could not be in a judicial Form, unlefs (lie had hit on the Invention of a Taurnelle Procefs, in which, by accufing a ^idatn Ecojfois of a Crime, no Matter what, fhe might have had the Witneffes to her Delivery examined, and their Evi- dence laid up for the Octafion. But (he had not fuch able Advifers as the Purfuers ; and it is much doubted, if, a?;^„,i6 Day, that, or any other Evidence fhe liad brought, would have been accepted by them. CHAP. Book I. {- AFTER THE BIRTHc '\ CHAP. VII. Of the Death of Lady Jane Douglas, Sir John Stewart, and Mrs. Hewit. *TrHE Purfuers make every Thing eafy in the Whole of their Argument, and chiefly in the •* prefumptive Part of it, only by afluming a trifling Pofition, to wit, That Sir John Stewart and Lady 7o«i? were guilty of the Crime of Suppofition. On this equitable Hypothefis they account for their Conduct by their Guilt, and for their Guilt by their Conduit. This is what is called Arguing in a Circle ; and a very ingenious Method it is. In no Part of their Cafe have they purfued this Method with more apparent Self-Complacency than in the Criticifms they have made on the Argument arifing to the Defender from the Manner in which his Parents and Mrs. Hewit died. Lady Jane had left her Children in Scotland when flie went to London in April 1753, as has been faid ; the Death of the youngeft, as it afFe£led her with a mortal Sorrow, fo it encreafed her Anxiety for the eldeft. She returned to Scotland about the Middle of jiuguj], where (he languiflied till November^ and died, though in Penury, with the Sentiments of a Heroine, and the Piety of a Chriflian. Her Behaviour at this aweful Period of a Life crowded with Misfortune is in Evidence, from the Depofitions of Mr. Loch, Mrs. Hewit, Mrs. Greig, Ifobel M^alker, and Jannet Andrew. They are unanimous to the general Tenor of her affedtionate and motherly Behaviour to the Defen- der ; and each depofes to difi^erent Particulars, the natural EfFecSts of that which each remarked as the Occafion prefented. Thus Mr. Loch depofes to the Anxiety Ihe teftified to fecure to her Son a few Trinkets, all that Fortune had left in her Power, Memorials of maternal Afi^eflion, not Goods of Fortune. Mrs. Greig depofes to the Hopes and Fears (he had about his future Welfare, her Contempt of the Stories that had been raifed to her Prejudice, and a folemn AiTe- veration in the Sight of God, that he was her Son. Mrs. Hewit fays, that about four Hours before fhe died, flie ordered her Son Archibald to be brought to her, when (he laid her Hand upon his Head, and faid, " God blefs you, my Child, God make you good, and an honeft Man, " for Riches I defpife : Take a Sword in your Hand, and you may one Day be as great a Hero •< as fome of your Predeceflibrs." Ifabel Walker depofes, " that the Day before fhe died fhe exprclTed «' fome Anxiety to fee her Brother, and faid, that her Friends all thought flie was leaving the " Burden of her Child upon them, and therefore would not come to fee her ; but that flie coin- •' mitted her Child to the Providence of God, who flie trufted would take Care of him." Jannet Andrew fays, " that about eleven Days before her Death, fhe went to Church and took the Sacra- " ment, and never after went abroad : That every Night for fome Time preceding her Death, •• Lady Jane took Leave of her Son Archibald, after taking the Sacrament, in a very affedlionate " Manner, and as a dying Woman ; and that for many Nights before her Death, {he was fo ill, " (he did not expcft to fee the Morning. She alfo depofes, that Lady Jane i^\z-y had a Right to expeft it : And indeed if Ihe took the Sacrament as a dying Womai---pailiated thl3 A£l of Religion to herfelf by fuch rotten Evafions as the Purfuers dare to put in her Heart— uvafivcly trifled with God, when juft to appear before him--afted and thought, and fpoke as a Mother to the De- fentJer — took a folemn Leave of him for many Nights— with every other Circumflance depofed to By the Witnefles--if flie did all this, and yet was guilty, (he muft have been a very zealous Vo- lunteer of Iniquity, for flie could be under noNeceflity toa<£l any Part of this FQrce.---She had none about her who durft have importuned her. Mrs. Hewit, her Accomplice, would have taken Care her laft Moments fhould not be difliurbed : And her own Intereft would have rendered her watchful, left a Confeflion of Lady Jane had turned to her own Reproach. Li that Cafe, her lad: Moments would have palTed in Silence without Sufpicion -, and if flie was fuch a Cafuifl: to believe The could deceive her God by an unworthy Evafion, flic could not fail to know, or to be perfuaded, that it would tend much more to the Alleviation and Excufeofher Crime, if flie could leave the Worldwithout adding to it new Falflioods, and profaning the moft folemn Adls of Religion, at a Time when the Impofhbility of Repentance renders every Crime more dreadful. ---Therefore Lady Jane's Behaviour at this Time, fpontaneous as it was, muft be confidered by all who have not fhaken off the great Ties of Nature and Religion, as a convincing Proof of her In- nocence. ^\rJoh>i Stewart, the Defender's other Parent, furvived Lady Jane. His Conduft and paternal Af- feftion alfo was manifefted invariably, from the Day of his Children's Birth to the Hour of his own Death. --The lame tender Concern--the fame delicate Attachment--the fame Anxiety that charac- terized Lady y^jwi's Affedfion to her Children, is not to be found in Sir John's Condu£\:."-But, from every Circumftance of the Proof, as well by Witnefles as Letters, it is equally ftrong.---When he attained the Pofleflion of his paternal Eftate, by his elder Brother's Death, his firft A£t of Ad- miniftration was to make a Provifion for the Defender ; and the laft Ai\ of his Life was a fer- nial Declaration, making a folemn Appeal to God, that the Defender and his Brother were his Sons by Lady Jane Doug/as.— -He had juft then recovered from a Fit of the Gout, which had like to have carried him oft'. And fix or feven Days after he had another, which killed him ia tis feventy-fixth Year. The Purfuers endeavour to get over the Force of tJiis by a Diftinflion in their ufual Way : They fay, in order to give fuch Declaration the Weight which Reafon and Law lay on the Aflertion of a dying Man, two Things are necelTary. i. That the Perfon knew himfelf to be dying : And, 2. 'J'hat he has a fufficient Senfe of Religion on his Mind to afcertain his fpeaking the Truth, even in the View of Death. On the firft of thcfe Heads the Purfuers have criticifed the Depofitioiis of many Witnefles, who liavefworn to Sit John's bad State of Healthy and that he 'believed himfelf in a very dangerous Way. ---Indeed the Declaration proceeds on that Recital ; and all the Purfuers have been able to make out is, that Sir John was in good Spirits when he figned the Declaration ; and that he did not care to hear of Death. ---This is the Cfpiiiion ofaWitnefs, who knowing, as he fays, SW John did not care to hear of Death, try'd to perfuade him he was not fo ill as he imagined. But Sir John did not take the Bait ; he was too fenfible of the Failure of Nature, and his approaching Dilfolution.— -However that be, the Purfuers argue that Sir John, who did not care to hear of Death, was in good Spirits at that Time, and therefore that he could not know himfelf to be dying. But it appears from the fame Evidence, that Sir John was not blind to his Situation — he was fevcnty-fix Years of Age — he had bad feveral very fevere Fits of the Gout, each of which might have carried him oft'; and it is plain he expefted the next would finifh him.— If his Declara- tion fliall not be confidered as that of a dying Man, fuch can never be expedcd from a Perfon wh6 Book I. AFTERTHEBIRTH. who dies of the Gout, becaufe their Diftemper leaves no Interval between perfetl Capacity and utter Inability. — Its Paroxyfins are fuddcu and violent ; and when over, by the Irritation it occa- fions, leaves a Flow of animal Spirits : So that Sir 'John's Spirits were a Proof of his Diftemper, not of his Health. And a Man of fcventy-fix Years, who has narrowly efcaped Death by a Fit of the Gout, to which he has been long fubjefl, may be fairly fuppofed to have a jiifter No- tion of tiie Approaches of Death, than he who lingers by a gradual Decay ; for he has the trucil Senfe of Danger who has juft efcaped it. On the fecond Head the Purfuers are audacious enough to fay, that Sir yohn had never given Piaafon to believe that he had any fuch Senfe of Religion as to afcertain his telling the Truth ; thele are their Words. ---If the Defender could floop to refute fuch a horrid Afi'ertion, he would alk what Pieafon Sir John had ever given to make ic believed he had no Senfe of Pveligion, and how the Purfuers come to think that their groundlefs Accufations of a Crime amount to Convitlioiis ^ Sir Jshn Stew-trt was never fufpefted of any Thing unbecoming an honed Man, or a Man of Ho- nour, favc the Crime he is now accufed of; and the Defender may yet be allowed to infill, that it is equally falfe and unbecoming to treat him in this Manner.— What are the Purfuers, that they ihould take fuch unwarrantable Liberties with the Living and the Dead .'' — becaufe Lady Jar:e Douglas appears to have had Itrong Sentiments of Piety, flie mull be charged with the Crime of Hypocrify, of dallying with the moft folemn Myfteries of Religion, and trifling with God ;---and Sir John Stnvart, becaufe he had not the fime pious Turn, muft be a Man without any Senfe of Religion at all. ---Such Aflertions ought neither to be made or fufPered. In the fiimc Strain the Purfuers infill, that the Declaration of Sir John Stewart ought to have no Weight, becaufe it is of a Man convifted of Falfhoods and of Forgery. ---The Falfliood of this Ac- culation hath already been proved ; but it is not what a Man has done in his Life, that takes from the Credit due to his Declaration on a Death-bed ; the Weight which is laid on a Man's dying Words, arifes from the Senfe he is fuppofed to have, and which all Men have, of the immediate Danger, and dreadful Confequences, of telling a Lie ia that awful Moment. Nor of more Importance is their Obje£lion, that Sir John's Declaration is too general.- -It is precife and pofitive to the Fa &C. oa 2 JO O N on Saturday the 29th of November they fet out for Rkehns, where they arrived the ill or 2d oi December, — But upon Evidence being brought that Colonel Stewart of Ardjhiel was the Perfon who lodged at Renaud's, and of Sir Join and Lady Jane's Departure for Euglatid on the 29th of November, this Siy- tem was abandoned. — After fliifnng the Ground for fome Time, the Pur- fuers lalt Allegation was, That Sir John and Lady Jane fet out from Rhelms the nth or 12th; — Arrived at P^m the 14th or 15th: — Employed three Days in fearching for a Child • — Two or three Days more in tranfadting the Matter; and that they returned to Rbeims on the 25th oi November, and fet out three Days after for England. --Itfieit appears in Evidence, that the Per- fon named Diiverne who ftole the Child, refided at the Crcix de Per., at a Time inconfiftent with the Purfuers Syftem •, and none of their Witnefies have gone fo far as to confine their Stay at Rbcims to lo fhort a Time as three Days : And it is in Proof that this Enlevement happened the Week be- fore the loth of January 1750. — The Defcription of the Perfons concerned in tlie Enlevement, and of the Child, with other Particulars infilled on by the Pur- fuers, have been fully flated and explained in the preceding Part of this Cafe. — The Defender need fcarcely add the Improbability of Sir John's and Lady Jane's Healing a Child in their then Circumflances. — They had one Child which, if it was ftolen, as the Purfuers luppofe, they mufl have heartily wiflied to get rid of. — The Duke of Douglas had ftopt their fmall Penfion, and left them without Refource. — Lord Morton, their Friend in Diilrefs, lent them but juft what was fufficient to pay their Debts at Rheims, and de- fray the Expence of their Journey to England. — To ileal a fuperfluous Child in iiicli Circumflances, is beyond even what the Views imputed to them re- quired, and is in itfelf incredible. IV. The Purfuers Allegation, that Lady Jane was at Gcdefroi's and AlicbeVs in fuch Circumflances as inferred the ImpolTibility of her Delivery, Hands un- fupported by any dire6t or probable Evidence. P- 97> It has been fully flated in the preceding Cafe, tliat the Syflem firfl adopt- ed on the falfe Infpedion of Michel's Books, fupported by Durtiijfeau's Per- jury, and guarded from Dete6lion by the Tcurnelle, has been long aban- doned. — The whole Evidence now infifted on to prove the ImpolTibility of the Delivery on the loth of Ju^y, refts on two blank Articles in what the Inn-keeper Gcdefrci calls his Books, and which he and his Wife, without any Memory whatever of the Perfons, or any Caufe or Knowledge whatever but thefe Books, have taken upon them to apply to Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas. — The intrinfic Objeflions to the Books deflroy every Circumflance of Credibility, or even of the PolTibility of fuch Application. — The whole Strefs of the Evidence lies on the fundamental Propofition that the Books contain every Guell that reforted to the Houfe without Ex- ception ; but it is demonftrated, both from the Evidence of the Thing, and the Tellimony of Godefroi and his Wife, that the Reverfe is fignally and notorioufly true. — In May 1765, Godefroi and his Wife faid, tliat one of their Books contained all their Guells without Exception -, but as it fell notorioufly fhort of the Number of Guefts which adualiy reforted to their Houfe, they produced another Book of the fame Kind in July 1765, and then faid, that both Books together contained the Scores of every Gucft without Exception. — This would deflroy their Evidence of it- felf ; but both Books together are Hill notorioufly fliort of the Number •of Guefls. — They, in Fafl, prove Nothing, being only a Parcel of un- connedlcd Memoranda, of current Scores to help the Memory at the Time. Thus the Bafis of their E,vidence is an Article of Memory, which is ad- mitted to have been falfe in May, and is proved to have been falfe in July ; yet on this Evidence the Purfuers attempt to eftablifh a Propofition which is otherv/ife glaringly improbable. — In thcfe obnoxious Circumflances, it fo.nies REASON 231 comes into Court wich the additional Impeachment of the Purfiiers ov/n Judgment, who, for Years, during the Courfe of the Proceedings, rejefl- cd it as inadmiifible ; till, from the Evidence of the Micbcb, the otiicr Syftern, fo foully inftrudted, came to be dellroyed. Jt is likewife difproveJ by the Evidence of the Michels, which fupports and confirms the direct Proof of Pregnancy, by a dired Proof of Reconvalefcence, which mult necefTarily imply an intermediate Delivery. AH. the WitncfTes at Michel's exprefly fwear, that Lady Jane, upon Iier p. 14.7. Arrival there, was pale, and had a fickly Air. — Blainvi'le znd 5ri?'-jtf/ particu- larly fay, that flie had the Look and Appearance of one newly brought to-bed — That they knew flie had been recently delivered of Twins, and had been driven from her former Lodging by Bugs — Tliat fhe took warm Drinks for Diet — That flie kept her Apartments remarkably clofe in Juh — and recovered gradually during her Stay in the Houfe — It is proved that'lbe beftowed Prefents, and ufed every poffible Means to pei-fuade Nurfe F.-.vre and her Hufband, who were Eye-Witnefles of her whole Condutft at Michd'%^ to go with them to Rbeims ; fo that it is impofllble to believe that flie adted any Part inconfiftcnt with the Idea Ihe gave out, and which was univerfaliy known at Rheims. Yet the Purfuers attempt to prove the Delivery counter- feited, by Articles inconfiftent with the Pretence of it. The Purfuers pofitive Denial of the Exiftence of La Mane and Le Brim, re- V. folves into Critical Objeftions againft the Connexion which the Perfons of that Name, who are proved to have exifted, held with the Defender's Parents. — The Allegation of Non-Exiftence, however broadly taken, could not af- fedl the Defender's Pofll-fTion of State diredtly : Therefore, the Objedions, which apply only to their Connexion with Sir John and Lady Jane, are ftill more remote from a diredl Impeachment of State ; but they are all ef- fedtually removed by the Evidence which the Defender has been able to bring, not only of their Exiftence, but of their Union with the Faft of his Birth. — l"he Diffemblance between the La Mai re defcribed by S'wjcbn Stewart in his Declaration, and him whofe Exiftence is proved, could nor, in its utmoft Latitude, get over the unalterable Refemblance and Con- nection which refults from the Proof between La Marre and Lady Jane's. Delivery -, but when the Circumftances of that Declaration are taken into the Scale, the Errors of Memory natural to all Men, and moft natural to the Age and Charafler of Sir John, and his State of Health at the Time, the Difference immediately evaniflies, and no Objedlion arifes, becaufe, in retracing a remote Idea, he connefted a Circu'mftance belonging to one Perfon, with a Perfon to wkom it did not belong, which is a Cafe fo com- mon, that the only Inference to be drawn from it, impeaches the Condition of Mankind in General, but not the Credit of Particulars. Neither would the Letters from La Marre, about which fo much Noife has been made, fup- pofing them forged in the moft criminal Senfe of the Term, otherwife affcft the Defender's State, than as an Objeftion to one of the WitneflTcs to the Fad of his Birth: But the Hiftory of thefe Letters has been ftated, and the Imputations arifingfrom their Appearance in the Caufe has been effedlually removed.— The Exiftence of La Marre, his Conncftion with the Defender's Birth, and his Care and Direfliion of Sholto being proved, a Correfpondence by Letters naturally refults from thefe Circumftances ; and the actual Cor- refpondence is proved likewife by pofitive Evidence ; infomuch that before the Puriuers can raife any Argument on La Marre's Letters, they mull break through the Teftimony of every Witnefs, on every Point of the Caufe j for they fupport each other ^nutually by necefiary Inference. • The 232 H E A S O N S. VI. The Purfuers alledge, that Garnier was not the Nurle of" the Defender's Brother Sholto, but have not attempted to bring any Evidence upon this Article. It appears. That it was in Confequence of the Accounts given by MeflT. p_ ,. Menagcr and Gilks, that the firft Enquiries were made for the Nurfe of Sholio. The Manner in which flie was difcovered, and the Evidence which flie and her Hufband and their Neighbour Boucault have given, has been already fully ftatcd, and fupports the uniform Accounts given by Sir Johi, Lady Jaw, and Mrs. Heitil, that Lady Jane was aftually delivered by La Marre ; that the youngeft Child Sholio was put out to Nurfe at Menihwntant, in the Neigh- bourhood of Paris ; that he was frequently vifited by Sir John during the Time he remained with this Nurfe, and was brought to Rhdms in No- vember 1749. The Purfuers Comments upon this Evidence relate to the Defcription •given by Sir John Steivart of Gamier' s Place of Abode, and the precife Time the Child remained with the Nurfe, which have been fully explained in the preceding Part of the Cafe. VII. The Attack made on the Conduft of the Defender's Parents, has obliged him to explain it upon fuch probable Motives as naturally infer their Innocence ; which muft be conclufive againft an Argument which afTumes for its Bafis their Guilt. The Pojfibilities which run through the Purfuers Reafoning on this Head are anfvvered by Probabilities: And although it is abfurd to demand, and impoffible to anfwer, Wliy an Action, in itfclf indifferent, was done in one Way rather than another ? yet the Defender hopes that he hath left no Part of his Parents Conduct unaccounted for. The Prefumption for Innocence fupports the Account he hath given ; and the Purfuers have per- verted all Principles of Common Senfe, in order to wreft a natural Behaviour to an unnatural Prefumption of Guilt. The Fallacy of their Argument has forced them to deftroy under one Head what they had reared under another; to confound Things and Terms in their Nature moftoppofite; and to proceed in a perpetual Rotation, inferring a Crime from Circum- ftances of Condufl, and explaining that Condu6l by the alTumed Principle of a Crime committed. In other Words, they were guilty, therefore they a6ted fo ; — they afted fo, therefore they were guilty. The trifling Objec- tions raifed to the Manner in which the Defender's Parents afted down to their Arrival in Paris, have been ftated and refuted in the preceding Part of this Cafe. The Circumftances of their Fortune account for the Retirement, not Myftery, in which they lived there : And the genuine, unvaried, parental Tendernefs with which they treated the Defender from the Hour of his Birth till that folemn Confummation which their dying Behaviour gave to his State of Filiation, is more than a fufficient Anfwer to the Criticifms, not Arguments, of the Purfuers. The temporary Motives which arife from particular Characters and particular Situations are too undetermined to be- come the Foundation of a legal Decifion. But if the Defender's Cafe even Itood on this Ifliie, he would be warranted, from the moft undoubted Evidence, to affirm, that the Condudt of his Parents was fair, natural, and unaffijifted, if they are fuppofed innocent -, but forced, unnatural, and af- fected, upon the Purfuers unjuft AfTumption, that they were guilty of an Impolture. J A. MONTGOMERY. FL^^ NORTON. o.^ , ^^-^^ ^■».>s \ ►^ ^^ Ae-Kf^. '^^^ c^ ^_^-N\'"V"jTvV ,c^-^i\;\.>.v) S-^^-^^ ^ ^-*- «-i»>, .<• '^^'^ x'^/e Z i^^^re ^i>//^ Jcr-r c)^^ ^^Z /-a vt t- e;f^tL. ^ n//i<^ <^ J auri/l. ■'^. ^^-4^^"^^^ -- InX'J-^ i^ <>'*<^^^^~^3Ui--i^ZI /-/ ^ ;;;:72^::^I— ^.-^^ITl^i^:^ .^> ?;/ a^^^^^^ r-- .3 ,9. ^^.^^..-^ ^C>^^^ /^^.;^^^^ ^..,>^^ /- .■'(t,e':^fhci^f^J c9c^> ^. ^-l^u)a^.^^ J^//- '^j^ <^E^:z. ■"■^ ''-^^'X^" ^''^'"'•'-). feiiaf r /^-5»C I y //f^du //ruu ■ cV^,, / —f-S i- — ^ <7Lt<3^ ■ j?o.u- ^/^^' /-^Av. ^ ^^^^,, ;^^ 'P''f('j^r'^ ^^v2//j^^ .7^^-^ -.y^.;; ■'^,f ^i^-" //zv -A r Mf iJ^fif tt^ ^' '""' /"^ ^"' '**^ ';^ ^M444-. 5^ fn^i^r J^ f a t' ""-^ "_ • ^Ar- ^ ^' 'X^o- y^ &"■!] / ■^ . ? , - «^ ^/i -*^;C«r^ C'\Jii~-r-i-(/i-'t^ •1^^1^-f- /-^ .^^2 s: •<^r<- 7 ^^ Ot*-,^ Y _^a,'t->v > «*-t^ /x^ /_*>-t-«W^ "^ /■^■r~&,Z4^ --e^y T'A 7 A ,..,^ ^.^^.'/ .r.. .^ — -z:^' g.^}^.^ .<^^^-^ /^/-^-^ (rC^-C^^ ftl./jM^ry,. Lt^^^^l O^L-^yCt^^/ ^-J-^y^-\ 'f-*-^ *><^ fS^ '^.u-i^-vt^^ V ^.f" tf^^^T^ ^^«--».--*-< u-^r^L.^ ^t»»^-^.. A-M-J 'le-i^jQ^ oyfcf^^zU^ OL',-^ ^c^u*.^ ^ ^^jy}-' :r^-^f fj^-wl r-^T : ^/. ,/'A:;^i J^^CZ-^^ Y^''^^ .-^^ '^ •=^j^r^/^<^ ^' g'-^^^-C^^/L^ -J/V^,-»^ M 5: (^ \ 4 i;,«..**iZe__^ '7' .9 V^->( c^i^ ^^M^ o,^ 0e^ Cj^i^,~y Oe ftu,^/^.,.^ t^ t^.^0.^,,^^ /-^. ^i^c/.^' v-C£-*t. i5-*^ <5^-/ <><'*^ /" X'/ '/-^ ^^^T^ ' ^?^< -<^i. d f-^^ ^^-c ^-4 ^ -"^ "^-"^^ ^' i. cl f.-^'dy s-A^M. ;i^^^ 'f^ Tf-^y A_-ft--v'v-»--tf-i_t .-iV-e-^^-c^-i (/ . u\ ^' L^uj-i^: till. ^ C. C ef>"f'f>i- *^'^'y'^ ■ f-^'^ -w \^ ^ ^'-^ommv^ %i]DNvsoi^ %a3MNn]\\v^ '^OAavaaiH^ ''^CAavaani'^ "^xiuDNvsoi^"^ '^/sa3AiNii ]HV Ml I' oslOSANCFlfJV. o ,^WfUNIVERS/A y- D,- >^-^5 -^.. ._.. ,01^ %a]AiN(»3Wv^ ^aodiwDjo^ Mojito- jo"^ ^i^dnvsoi^ %a3MNn]ViV' ^lOSANCtlfj-^ K^llIBRARYQr^ ^IIIBRARYQ< ;r5-/4 ^vlOSANCElfj-^ •. .rtv^ ^OFCAllFOff^ ^.OfCAlIFOff^ >»Aa\ RYC/C ^ >i. 1 ? •< or CO u c? ).jo>> %ojnv3jo>^ ^ \V\E IH>?^ ^'-^omnw^ A\\[UNIVERJ/A . -,v\? "v/sjGAiNnmv UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY I-os Angeles This book is DUE on the las. date stamped below. ' UtfD LD-C JUN 1 1985 ^ C5 ^tfOJITVDJO^ .vlOSANCElfj> .j,OFCAiIFO% .^^OFCAIIFO/?^- ^oxwmn^ >&Aavaaiii^ AWM)NIVERS/a o ^■TJIJDNVSOI^ ,^WE^)NIVERS//, CO v^lOSANCElfj-. o ■^a^AiNnjwN ^lOSANCEEfj; %a3AiNn]W^ ER% .>;lOSANCElfx, o ^ > .i/ .im-.UT.FIfr. %lii A^' 5 ^ RYG/- ^xMllBRARYOf 'JJljanviui i,' ^WE■l)NIVERJ//>, %130NVS01^ ^NlOSANCElfj^ %a]AiNnmv** NCEL5j> illVJJO' jAjOFCAllfO/?^ 1 6|R h i ^oxwmn-i^ ^OKwrnnv^ A\tllBRARYflc ,>^tllBRARYQ m'^ ^ojiwDjo"*^ ^OFCAIIFO/?^ ^^OFCAlIFOff/ aWEUNIVERJ//, '>&Aavaaii-^^ vvlOSANCElfj o ■^/jajAiNnm' ^^\\E■U^'IVERS//^. .vlOSANCElfj %a3AIN(l]\\' , r I inn A xw . ^^WE■liNIVERS/^ ^lOSA^JCElfj-^ >: ^ 0- ^IIIBRARYQ^ <,^IIIBRARYQ 3D 2 rtr r i I irrtr* jfi 1 1 i^n i %:^ 'Or 1-^ o ^OAMvaan-i'v^ o '"^/^aJAINlllWV^ o D 000 008 571 ^OFCAIIFO?^ ^OFCAllFOff^ \[UNIVERJ/^ ^•yOJITOJO"^ '^J'JIJDNVSOI^ ,\W[UNIVER% o .vlOSvWCElfj-^ .vIOSANCElfXx "^/Sa^AINHJWV illlillllllllllllllllllpl 58 01025 7 85 ^TOjnvDjo'^ '^.i/ojiivj ^OfCAllFOft^ ^OF CALIF >OAavaain^ ^OAavaai IBRARY-Oc x^UIBRARYQ/: .\\\EUNIVERJ/A jlivj.jo^ \Qi\mi^'^ o ^lOSANCElfj> %a]AINIl-3UV ^lllBRARYO/v ^MIBRARY&Aavaani^ ,^M£•UNlVERi•/A. o ^lOSANCElfj> "^/iaSAINn ]WV 4? ^.OFCALIFOff^ ^OFCAllFOff^ o 0= It / ^-« » o V?? ^. ^CAHvaalB'^'*■ ^OAavaaiii^'^ . ^\^E UNIVERS/A o "^/sa^AiNd-^wv ^OFCAilFOff^ ^OFCAlll i?' >&Aavaan-^'<^ ^OAavaa ^ A'^UlBRARYQr '^WJIlVDJO'f^ ,\MEUNIVERy/A o ■ '^/ia3AINn 3V\V ^OfCAllFO/?^ ^OFCALIFO/?^ ^* i.OFfAIIFnP^/. i.OFCAllFO/?. .^^\E■UNIVERJ/A vKlOSANCElfx^ o •V^EUNIVER^/A .vlOSANCElf.r.> ^MllBRARYQc ^IIIBRAI ^ao3iiv>jo'^ '^ojiiv: .^.OFCAllFOff^, .^.OFCAlll r!li^!!i!^;;t:;|^;iii|liilgii^