Imágenes de páginas

hoods; the reasons for which I will now give you.

it is manifest, that, in making the commu nication to the Prince, she could not be actuated by motives of daty and of loyalty; and, seeing her declaration thus bottomed in falsehood; seeing it thus ushered in by a flagrant though hypocritical lie; I should, if I had been an adviser of the Prince, said, that nothing flowing from such a source is to be believed, or paid the smallest attention to.

The Statement of Lady Douglas, as well as her deposition, clearly shew, that her making of it originated in revenge. There are those, who, roused in the way of suspicion, by a view of the whole affair, are inclined to ascribe the accusation to another origin, and to suppose, that the Douglases went to live at Blackheath for the express purpose of carrying on a conspiracy against the Princess. But, an impartial examination of the several parts of the proceeding rejects this opinion; and, it is manifest that the charges had their origin in the revenge of this woman. Therefore, if her statement had been laid before me, as an adviser of the Prince, I should, without going into the utter improbability of the story itself, have said, that a woman, in whose bosom the passion of revenge was so strong as to goad her on to take away the life of another woman, after months and years for cooling and reflecting; I should have said, that a woman, in whose bosom the passion of revenge was so strong as this, was a person not to be believed in any thing that she might say with regard to the object of that revenge.

Then, I should have observed, that she sets out with a self-evident falsehood; for she asserts, that it was a sense of duty; the fear of seeing spurious issue on the throne, her loyalty, her gratitude towards her Sovereign and the Royal family; she asserts, that it is this sense of duty, which has wrung the awful secret from her, and induced her to be guilty of a most atrocious breach of confidence. But, with this sense of duty in her mind; with all this loyalty and gratitude in her heart; and with this patriotic fear of seeing spurious issue on the throne, she keeps the secret locked up in her breast from 1802 to 1805. Was that to be believed? If she really were under the influence of the motives, which she pretends to have been under when she made the statement; how came that influence to have had no weight at an earlier period?If such had really been her motives in making the communication, the year 1802 was the time for making it, when she first was told of the pregnancy, or, at any rate, when she saw the child, especially as that child was male, and, of course, the heir to the throne; and when she reflected, moreover, that she might die, and that, from the death of herself or other persons, the impossibility of preventing the danger she feared might soon arrive. Therefore,

[ocr errors]

Then, as to what she says about the licentious behaviour of the Princess, and her disrespectful language towards the King, the Queen, and the Royal Family, I should have observed, that, though the informant pretends to have been shocked at the indecencies and immoralities of all this, and though people were obliged to send their daughters out of the room to prevent them from hearing the language of the Princess, the informant continued to be intimate with her, and even to court her acquaintance, for years after she was the eye and ear witness of these indecencies; and, what is singular enough, one ground of her pretended complaints against the Princess, is, her children were not admitted, upon a particular occasion, to that, as she paints it, scene of open indecency and debauchery, Montague House! Upon a view of all these circumstances, could I have believed, that she had seen any thing to shock her in the behaviour of the Princess? Could I have believed a word of her story; and could I have refrained from advising the Prince, not to believe a word of that story?

Upon her own showing, should have seen in Lady Douglas a traitor to her friend from motives of revenge; I should have seen in her a hypocritical pretender to loyalty and patriotism; and should have seen part of her revenge arising from her children not being admitted where she herself had been shocked at the constant indecencies of the scene, and where other persons had sent away their children from a fear of their being corrupted. But, besides all this, I must have believed Her Royal Highness to have been wholly bereft of her senses before I could believe, or give the smallest degree of credit to, the story of her accuser. For could I believe, that any woman in her senses, though the most profligate of her sex, would have imparted the facts of pregnancy and delivery to another, without any possible motive, and afterwards behave to that other in a way the best calculated in the world to provoke that other to a disclosure of those facts? I can suppose it possible, and barely possible,

that there may be found in the world a married woman in common life, so very shameless, being in a state of separation from her husband in consequence of no fault of her own; I can suppose it barely possible, that such a woman, so situated, might, out of a mere inclination to communicate a secret, or to shew that she was not without a paramour, tell a confidant that she was with child, and, I will even go so far as to suppose it possible, that there may be found one in the whole world, in such a place as St. Giles's or Billingsgate, to go up to a man, and proclaim her crime in words, while she put her hand to the depository of the half-matured fruit of that crime. It is not without begging pardon of every thing bearing the name and form of woman, that I venture upon this supposition. What then must have been my conclusion upon hearing conduct like this attributed to a Princess of Wales, whose crime, in this case, went to take away her life, and who, according to the showing of Lady Douglas herself, could have no possible motive in making known to her the fact of that crime?

sire to rescue the character of the Princess from any future danger, which, from the death of witnesses, or from other causes, might arise out of the charges preferred by Lady Douglas. Willing as I am to go along with you in this supposition, I must, nevertheless say, that the means they adopted were not the best calculated in the world to arrive at so amiable and desirable an end.

These advisers did not, it appears, recommend to His Royal Highness to lay the statement of the Douglases before the King at once, and unaccompanied with any corroboratory evidence. That statement, as appears from its date, was made on the 3rd of December, 1805; and it appears, that it, or rather an abstract of it, was not laid before the King till the 29th of May, 1806. In the mean while, the advisers of the Prince of Wales appear to have recommended, the obtaining of other statements, from different persons, relating to the conduct of Her Royal Highness; and, as you will have seen, there were obtained the written Declarations of Sarah Lampert, William Lampert, William Cole, Robert Bidgood, Sarah Bidgood, and Frances Lloyd, which were also laid before, the King, together with the Statement of the Douglases. And, it is with great pain that I perceive these papers to have been said, in their title, to be "For the purpose of confirming the Statement made


Away, I should have said, if I had been an adviser of the Prince, with this mass of atrocious falsehoods; these overflowings of black-hearted revenge; these self-evident proofs of a foul and detestable conspiracy against life and honour. I should have said, that, knowing the" by Lady Douglas." I perceive this with Princess to be in her senses, it was impos pain, because it admits of the interpretasible for me to believe, that she would tion, that the advisers of the Prince wished first make known her pregnancy and deli- to see that horrible Statement confirmed, very to Lady Douglas without any motive; while, you will agree with me, that they that she would so contrive her delivery as ought to have been anxiously desirous to to have it take place in her own house, sur- see it wholly refuted. If the object of the rounded as she was by the servants of the advisers of the Prince was to rescue the Prince; and that, having brought the character of the Princess from all future child into the world, she would even at- danger, to which, from the death of wittempt to suckle it herself, and actually do nesses, or other causes, this Statement might it for some time; I should have said, that be thought to expose it, they took, as I it was impossible for me, or for any man in said before, means not well adapted to his senses, to believe this for one single their end. This error (not to call it by moment. And, therefore, I should have any other name) it was, which produced all advised His Royal Highness not to give, by the disagreeable consequences that followed. any act of his, the smallest countenance to so incredible, so malicious, so detestable a charge, made against an unprotected womian, not to say, that, though separated from his bed, that woman was still his wife. While you observe, however that the advice given to His Royal Highness, upon this occasion, was precisely the opposite of that, which, as I have said, I should have given, you will not, in fairness to those who gave that advice, fail to suppose, that they might possibly be actuated by a de

We must now take a look at the source of these confirmatory declarations, and of the time and manner of their being communicated to the King, and upon which communication his warrant was founded.

The two Lamperts were, it appears, old servants of Sir John Douglas, and, it also appears, that Sir John himself was the person, who went from London to Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire, to take down their declarations. These two declarations do not, however, appear to have been of any

importance, seeing that the persons, who with respect to the declarations of Cole, made them, were not afterwards examined Bidgood and Fanny Lloyd. They do not upon oath by the Commissioners. Bid- come forth with attested, or witnessed, siggood, Gole and Lloyd were old servants of natures, as in the case of the Statement of the Prince, and, it appears that Cole has Sir John and Lady Douglas. The signature been at Carleton House, in performance of of that famous Statement is, as you will his service, ever since the time to which his see, verified by the Duke of Sussex, who information refers. Bidgood appears to signs his name as having seen the paper have been still with the Princess when the signed; a very necessary precaution in so Inquiry was going on; but, you will re- momentous a case, but not less necessary mark, that there is an affidavit, produced with regard to the confirmatory declarations by the Princess, shewing, that, while the than with regard to the statement itself. It Inquiry was going on, Bidgood was, upon is a pity that this requisite is wanting to one occasion, at least, in conversation with these documents; because, if they had been Lady Douglas; and, that, too, at a time regularly witnessed, we should have seen when he must have well known what that who were the persons engaged in taking them Lady had been doing with regard to his down, à circumstance of no trifling import, Royal Mistress, because he himself had when we are endeavouring to unravel the been previously examined for the purpose thread of these memorable proceedings. of confirming her Statement.

When you have read the defence of the Princess, you will want nothing to convince you, that the evidence of Bidgood and Cole is of no unequivocal description. Indeed, it is quite impossible for you to entertain the smallest doubt as to its character. With respect to Fanny Lloyd's declaration there are some remarks to be made of very great interest and importance.

You will bear in mind, that all the declarations, of which we are speaking, were taken, as their title imported, " for the "Purpose of confirming the statement made "by Lady Douglas." Cole voluntarily underwent four separate examinations; Bidgood one, and Fanny Lloyd one, all which you will have read in the foregoing Number. At what place Cole was examined and signed his declarations is not stattheir dates; but, those of Bidgood and Fanny Lloyd are dated at the Temple, a place in London where Lawyers and Attorneys reside; and it is pretty fairly presumed by the Princess, in her defence, that they were drawn up and signed at Mr. Lowten's, who is an Attorney, living the Temple, and who, as appears from one of Cole's declarations, was at Cheltenham with Sir John Douglas to take the declaration of the two Lamperts.

Carrying all these circumstances along in your mind, you will now accompany me in some remarks touching the declaration of Fanny Lloyd. This part of the subject has very much interested the public here, and will not, I dare say, be uninteresting to you, a lover of truth and justice as you always were, and who always felt a deep interest in every thing connected with the peace, happiness and honour of the country of your forefathers. Fanny Lloyd says, in her declaration, taken at the Temple, and she afterwards swears nearly to the same amount before the Four Lords; but, it is with her declaration that we now have to do. She says, in her declaration, that a Mr. Mills, a Surgeon and Apothecary, at Greenwich (a place near Blackheath), being in attendance upon her for a cold, asked her if the Prince visited at the Princess's house; and, Fanny Lloyd having answered, that he did not to her knowledge, said that, THE PRINCESS WAS CERTAINLY * WITH CHILD. Now, mind, this declaration is taken down at the Temple, on the 12th of May, 1806; (keep the dates coninstantly in your eye;) it is signed at the Temple on that day, but in the presence of whom we are not informed.

These are very material circumstances for you to bear in mind, and it would be useful to have it clearly ascertained, who it was that actually employed Mr. Lowten. At any rate, we see him at Cheltenham employed in taking declarations with Sir John Douglas," for the purpose of confirm66 ing the Statement of Lady Douglas;" and it is at the Temple where we find that the declarations of Bidgood and Fanny Lloyd were made. Observe another thing, too,

Luckily for the character of the Princess a new witness was here introduced. Mr. Mills was named ; and he was to be examined, of course. He was examined, not at the Temple, indeed, but at the House of the Earl of Moira, and by that nobleman himself, but, in the presence of Mr. Lowlen, who is a person of some consideration, being, besides an attorney, an officer in the Court of King's Bench.

[ocr errors]

Fanny Lloyd's declaration, confirmatory of Lady Douglas's Statement, was of great importance, as it went directly to establish


the fact of the alleged pregnancy; but, seems very reluctant to fix the blame of this unfortunately for Miss Lloyd's veracity, omission upon any one. She says, "I Mr. Mills declared to Lord Moira aud Mr." know not whether it was Lord Moira, of Lowten, that her declaration, as far as re- "Mr. Lowten, who should have commulated to him, was "an infamous false-"nicated this circumstance to his Royal "hood." Now mind, this was on the "Highness" (who is stated to have laid 14th of May, 1806, two days only after the declarations before the King): "but, Miss Lloyd had made her declaration." she adds, in all fairness, it ought un Upon hearing this from, Mr. Mills, Lord" questionably to have been communicated Moira said (as Mr. Mills states in his affi-" by some one." And so it certainly should; davit) that he supposed there must be some for Fanny Lloyd's was one of those impormistake, and that Fanny Lloyd must have tant declarations, upon which confessedly ineant Mr. Edmeades, who was the part- the inquiry was founded. ner of Mr. Mills, and who, having at the request of Lord Moira, waited on his Lordship, at his house, on the 20th of May, 1806, (mind the dates) declared (as you will see by his affidavit) to his Lordship, in the presence of a Mr. Conant, a Police Magistrale, that the declaration of Fanny Lloyd, if he was the person meant by her, was wholly false; for, that he, at no time, had said that the Princess was pregnant, and that such a thought had never for a single moment, entered his mind.

It is my business to fix your attention upon great points, it being impossible for me, in my limited space, to go over the whole of the case with you, and it being also quite unnecessary, seeing that the documents themselves are so full and satisfactory.

One of these great points is, the credibi→ lity, which the Four Lords gave to the evidence of Cole and Fanny Lloyd, and the effect of that credibility. You will perceive, that the facts of pregnancy and delivery were so completely disproved, that their Lordships, in their REPORT to the King, declare, in the most explicit and the most forcible terms, that the charge was wholly false; that it was utterly destitute of foundation. But, they leave a sting in the tail of this Report. They say, that other particulars, respecting the conduct of her Royal Highness, must "necessarily give occasion to VERY UNFAVOURABLE INTERPRETATIONS;" and these particulars, they say, rest especially upon the evidence of Bidgood and Cole, Fanny Lloyd and Mrs. Lisle; "who,' say the Lords,

Here, then, we see Fanny Lloyd's confirmatory declaration, or, at least, the only important part of it, blown, at once into the dark regions of malicious invention. The whole of the affidavits of Messrs. Mills and Edmeades, the facts stated by those gentlemen, the place, time, and manner of their being examined, are worthy of your most careful attention; but, at present, let us pursue the destination of the declaration of Fanny Lloyd; and, as you are about to see, our pursuit will soon be at an end. That declaration was taken, you will observe, on the 12th of May," cannot, in our judgment, be suspected 1806, at the Temple; on the 14th it was" of an unfavourable bias, and whose VEflatly falsified by Mr. Mills; on the 20th it" RACITY, in this respect, we have seen was as flatly falsified by Mr. Edmeades; on "no ground to question." the 29th, as appears from the Report, Fanny Lloyd's declaration was laid before the King; but, it does NOT appear any where, THAT THAT DECLARATION WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE FALSIFICATION FIXED ON IT BY MR. MILLS AND MR. EDMEADES.,

As her Royal Highness, in her defence, avows, that she dares not trust herself with any inferences from this proceeding, I cannot be expected to draw any; but, I cannot, at any rate refrain from expressing my deep regret, that this omission should have taken place; because, if the falsification of -Fanny Lloyd's declaration had accompanied the declaration itself, the King might, pro-versation with any other man than her husbably, have not issued the commission for band; if it be a fault in her to endeavour that inquiry, which has led to all this seri- to appear witty or agreeable in the eyes of ous mischief. The Princess, in her defence, any man except those of her husband; if

As to Bidgood, you will see by the defence and by his own declarations and depositions, whether he was likely to be under any unfavourable bias. Mrs. Lisle's evidence amounts to little, and of that little I shall leave you to judge with only this remark: that, if every married woman in the world were to be liable to be admonished upon grounds similar to those to be found in that evidence, there would not be one, even amongst you Quakers, that would escape an admonition. If it be faulty in a married woman to prefer talking to a man rather than to her attendants; if it be a fault in a married woman to smile or laugh in con

this be the case, point me out, if you can, a single brother Broad-brim, who has not a right to complain.

"Mary Wilson was sworn to secrecy, and "threatened to be turned away if she di


Fanny Lloyd and Cole are two of the persons, whose veracity, in this respect, it ap pears, the Four Lords saw no ground to question. With regard to Fanny Lloyd, you will bear in mind, that she had positively sworn to the most important fact about the pregnancy; and that Messrs. Mills and Edmeades had sworn before these same Lords, that that fact was false. She swore on the 7th of June, 1506, that Mr. Mills told her the Princess was with child, or looked, as if she was with child. The two gentlemen (there appearing to be a mistake as to which of the two it was) both swear, on the 25th of the same month, that they never did and never could say any such thing to her; for that such a thought never came into their heads. And, yet, as you will perceive, the Four Lords, in their report to the King, say, that Fanny Lloyd is a witness, whose veracity, in this respect, they see no ground to question. To be sure, they are here reporting upon the improprieties of conduct, and not upon the pregnaney, and they qualify their opinion of the veracity of the witness, by the words, " in this respect;" but, as her evidence relative to the pregnancy as well as to the improprieties was all contained in the same depoşition, it was not very easy to regard her as a person of veracity in respect to the latter, and not as a person of veracity in respect to the former. Therefore, it appears to me, that their Lordships must have given more credit to her oath than to the oath of Mr. Mills, or Mr. Edmeades, and, in that case, they would, of course, see no ground to question her veracity. Be their view upon this point, however, what it might, you, having all the documents before you, will form your own opinion as to Fanny Lloyd's veracity, and you will always bear in mind, that she was one of the four persons, whose evidence, the Four Lords say, "must necessarily give occasion to very unfavourable" must necessarily give rise to very uninterpretations." "favourable interpretations."

vulged what she had seen." This, you will observe, was a most important fact; and these are the very words in which Cole stated it in his declaration, which declaration was one of the papers on which the Inquiry was founded. Now, then, what says Fanny Lloyd to this fact? Why, as you will see, at the close of her deposition, she swears, THAT SHE NEVER DID TELL COLE ANY SUCH THING. Which of these two witnesses spoke falsely, it is impossible for me to say, but that one of the two did speak falsely there can be no doubt; indeed, the fact is certain, for the two witnesses flatly contradict each other. And yet, they are both, yes, both, mentioned as persons, whose veracity the Four Lords see no grounds to question. You will please to observe, that the qualification by the words, "in this respect," does not apply here, as in the former case; for, the fact here mentioned does not relate to the pregnancy, or the delivery, but merely to the improprieties of conduct; so that the flat contradiction given by Fanny Lloyd to the declaration of Cole appears not to have been, in the opinion of the Four Lords, sufficient ground to cause the veracity of either of them to be questioned as to the matter to which, it is clear, that their evidence related. Against the opinion of four such persons as Lord Erskine, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Grenville, and Lord Spencer, it is not for me to set up mine; and, indeed, my only object is to draw your particular attention to the point, to induce you to read with care all the documents referred to, and then to leave you, as a sensible and impartial man, far removed from the heated atmosphere of our politics and parties, to form your own judgment; always bearing in mind, however, that Cole and Fanny Lloyd were two out of the four persons, from whose evidence those particulars arose, which, as the Four Lords say,

Mr. Gole was another of the four witnesses, whose evidence is said, by the Four Lords, to give occasion to these interpretations. Now, observe, then, as to Cole, that he, in his declaration of the 11th of January, 1806, positively says, that Fanny Lloyd told him, that, one day, "when "Mary Wilson supposed the Princess to "be gone to the Library, she went into the "bed-room, where she found a man at breakfast with the Princess; that there "was a great to do about it; and that

As the present double Number of my Register contains nearly the whole of the Defence of Her Royal Highness, and as I know you, who are a fover of truth and justice, will read the whole of it, I will not trouble you with any further remarks upon the case itself, being well assured, that there will not, when you have gone through the whole, as you will be enabled to do by my next Number, in an attentive manner, remain in your mind, the smallest doubt, that Her Royal Highness was perfectly in

« AnteriorContinuar »