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, 80 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 show that she was not without a paramour, tell a confidant that she was with child, and, I will even go so far as to sup. pose 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 halfmatured 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 ?

Away, I should have said, if I had been an adviser of the Prince, with this mass of atrocious falsehoods; these overflowings of blackhearted revenge; these self-evident proofs of a foul and detestable conspiracy against life and honour. I should have said, that knowing the Princess to be in her senses, it was impossible for me to believe, that she would first make known her pregnancy and delivery to Lady Douglas without any mo!ive ; that she would so contrive her delivery as to have it take place in her own house, surrounded as she was by the servants of the Prince; and that, having brought the child into the world, she would even attempt to suckle it herself, and actually do it for some time; I should have said that it was impossible for me, or for any man in his senses, to believe this for one single moment. And, therefore, I should have advised his Royal Highness not to give by any acts of his, the smallest countenance to so incredible, so malicious, so detestable a charge, made against an unprotected woman, 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 desire to rescue the character of the Princess from any future danger, which, from the death of winesses, 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 meanwhile, 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 by Lady Douglas.” I perceive this with pain, because it admits of the interpretation, that the ad. visers of the Prince uished to see that borrible statement confirmed, while, you will agree with me, that they ought to have been anxiously desirous to see it wholly refuted. If the object of the advisers of the Prince was to rescue the character of the Princess from all future danger, to which, from the death of witnesses, or other causes, this statement might be thought to expose it, they took, as I said before, means not well adapted to their end. This error (not to call it by any other name) it was, which produced all the disagreeable consequences that followed.

We must now take a look at the source of these confirmatory declara. tions, 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 oj Sir John Dougins, and, it also appears, that Sir John himself was the person, who went from London to Cheltenham. in Gloucestershire to take down their declara. tions. These two declarations do not, however, appear to have been of any importance, seeing that the persons, who made them, were not afterwards examined upon oath by the Commissioners. Bidgood, Cole and Lloyd were old servunts of the Prince, and, it appears that Cole has been at Carlton House, in performance of his service, ever since the time to which his information refers. Bidgood appears to have been still with the Princess, when the inquiry was going on; but, you will remark, that there is an affidavit, produced by the Princess, showing, that, while the inquiry was going on, Bidgood was, upon one occasion, at least, in conversation with Lady Duuylas; and, that, too, at a time when he must have well known what that lady had been dving with regard to his Royal mistress, because he himself had been previously examined for the purpose 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 pluce Cole was examined and signed his declarations is not stated in their dates ; but, those of Bidgood and Fanny Lloyd are dated at the l'emple, 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. Louten's, who is an Attorney, living in the Temple, and who, as appears from one of Cole's declarations, was at Cheltenbam with Sir John Douglas to take the Declaration of the two Lamperts.

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 confirming 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, with respect to the declarations of Cole, Bidgood and Fanny Lloyd. They do not come forth with attested, or witnessed, signatures, as in the case of the statement of Sir John and Lady Douglas. The signature of that famous statement is, as you will see, verified by the Duke of Sussex, who signs his name as having seen the paper signed ; a very necessary precaution in so momentous a case, but not less necessary with regard to the confirmatory declarations than with regard to the statement itself. It is a pity that this requisite is wanting to these documents ; because, if they had been regularly witnessed, we should have seen who were the persons engaged in taking them down, a circumstance of no trifling import, when we are endeavouring to unravel the thread of these memorable proceedings.

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 everything 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 thai 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 constantly in your eye); it is signed at the Temple on that day, but in the presence of whom we are not informed.

Luckily for the character of the Princess a new witness was here in. troduced. 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.

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, unfortuvately for Miss Lloyd's veracity, Mr. Mills declared to Lord Moira and Mr. Lowten, that her declaration, as far as related to him, was "an infamous falsehovil.Now mind, this was on the 11th of May, 1806, two days only after Miss Lloyd had made her declaration. Upon hearing this from Mr. Mills, Lord Moira said (as Mr. Mills states in his affidavit) that he supposed there must be some mistuke, and that Fanny Lloyd must have meant Mr. Edmeades, who was the partner 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 Magistrate, that the declaration of Fanny Lloyd, if he was the person meant by ber, 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, en. tered his mind.

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 at. tention; 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, 1806, at the Temple; on the 14th it was fatly falsified by Mr. Mills; on the 20th it was as fatly falsified by Mr. Edineades; on 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, probably, have not issued the commission for that inquiry, which has led to all this serious mischief. The Princess, in her defence, seems very reluctant to fix the blame of this omission upon any one. She says, “I know not whether it was Lord Moira, or Mr. Lowlen, who should have communicated this cir" cumstance to His Royal Highness (who is stated to have laid the de“clarations before the king) : but, she adds, in all fairness, it ought, " unquestionably to have been communicated by some one." And so it certainly should ; for Fanny Lloyd's was one of those important declara. tions, upon which confessedly the inquiry was founded.

It is my business to fix your attention upon greut 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 credibility, 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 destilute 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.“ neces. sarily give occasion to VERY UNFAVOU'RABLE INTERPRETATIONS;” and these particulars, they say, rest especially upon the evidence of Bidgood and Cole, Fanny Lloyd and Mrs. Lisle ; " who,” say the Lords, “ cannot, in our judgment, be suspected of an unfavourable bius, and whose VERACITY, in this respect, we have seen ground to question."

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 conversation with any other man than her husband; if it be a fault in her to endeavour to appear witty or agreeable in the eyes of any man except those of her husband ; if this be the case, point me out, if you can, a single brother Broad-brim, who has not a right to complain.

Fanny Lloyd and Cole are two of the persons, whose veracity, in this respect, it appears, 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, 1806, 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 pregnancy, 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 improprietics was all contained in the same deposition, 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 hier veracity. Be their view upon this point, how. ever, 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

“ must necessarily give occasion to very unfavourable inler. pretations."

Mr. Cole 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 greut to do about it; and that Mary “ Wilson was sworn to secrecy, and threatened to be turned away if she

divulged 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

Lords say,

« ForrigeFortsett »