Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

"ness walk out alone with Mr. Chester twice in the morning; once "a short time it rained-the other not an hour-not long. Mr. "Chester is a pretty young man."

Now, this, though quite sufficient for a judge, or for a jury, who had heard the questions, must have, on mere readers of the deposition, a very different effect from that which would naturally be produced by the reading of the same thing in question and answer; thus:

At Lady Sheffield's, did her Royal Highness pay more attention to Mr. Chester than to the rest of the company?—Yes. Did you know Her Royal Highness walk out alone with Mr. Chester ?-Yes; she walked out twice in the morning: once a short time it rained-the other not an hour-not long.Is Mr. Chester a handsome young

man?-He is pretty.

You see, my friend, the statement is precisely the same in words; but, the impression it conveys is very different indeed. As the story stands in the deposition, stripped of the form of question and answer, it would appear to come voluntarily from Mrs. Lisle; and the circumstance of Mr. Chester being a pretty young man would naturally, in the mind of the mass of readers, appear to have occurred to Mrs. Lisle herself as the CAUSE of the Princess's attention to him more than to the rest of the company, and also as the CAUSE of the walks with him alone. Therefore, though it was the duty of the Four Lords to use all possible means to get at the truth as to every circumstance; and though they, in recording the evidence, followed the usual practice of judges and magistrates, we cannot help lamenting that they did not think it necessary to put down and report the questions as well as the answers. Lord Ellenborough appears to have thought, that he and his coadjutors had been charged with a falsification of evidence; a suppression of evidence; but, really, I did not so understand Mr. Whitbread. I understood him simply to say; that, if the questions as well as the answers, in the case of Mrs. Lisle, had been given, the impression produced by her evidence, upon the mind of the reader of it, would be different from what it must be while nothing but the answers were seen. It seems to have been understood that Mr. Whitbread had stated, that the evidence was taken down by the Four Lords in question and answer, and that they put only the answers into the deposition. But, this is not the way in which I understood him. I understood him to say, that he had obtained a copy of the answers accompanied by the questions; but, not to say that the questions had been taken down by the Four Lords, and afterwards suppressed by them; and, in short, the only points upon which there seems to have been any real difference of opinion were these; whether, in the first place, it was right to put leading questions; and whether, in the next place, the questions ought not, in this case, to have been given as well as the answers.

The defence of the Princess is so complete and every way satisfactory upon the evidence of Mrs. Lisle, that I can hardly think it necessary for me to say anything more about it; but, there is one point or two on which I cannot refrain from making a few observations. She says, that "Her "Royal Highness behaved to Captain Manby ONLY as any woman "would who likes flirting ;" and, in another place she calls the conduct of the Princess" ONLY a flirting conduct." The word to flirt means, in its proper sense, to banter or jeer. I know not, for my part, what other sense can be given to it; and, therefore, all that Mrs. Lisle says here is,

that the Princess behaved with Captain Manby like a woman who likes bantering and joking.

Lord preserve all our wives from such a scrutiny! I am really afraid, that it would be too much even for those most amiable and most virtuous of creatures, the sleek sisterhood of Pennsylvania. And yet, as you see by the Report, Mrs. Lisle's evidence did, in the opinion of the Four Lords, give rise to unfavourable interpretations. Judge, then, to what a pitch we, in this country, carry our notions of female decorum !

The word ONLY seems, however, to take the sting completely out of this part of Mrs. Lisle's evidence; for if she had meant by the word flirting, any thing criminal, any thing vicious, any thing indecent, any thing gross, any thing indecorous, any thing improper, she would never have prefixed to it the word ONLY. She would not have said only criminal, only vicious, only indecent, only gross, only indecorous, or only improper; and, if it was something, which was neither criminal, vicious, indecent, gross, indecorous, nor improper; if it was neither of these, in the name of common sense, what harm was there in it; and, in what way could it possibly give rise to unfavourable interpretations? You see, too, that Mrs. Lisle must have had some question put to her which drew forth the word ONLY; so that, this word must be taken to exclude all that is not included in the word flirting; and, of course, to shut out every thing of a higher cast than that of flirting, which means neither more nor less than bantering. You yourself are a very sober, grave man, and not at all likely to wink at improper conduct in any woman, especially a married woman, though separated from her husband without any fault of her's; but, would you, if you were told, that such a woman were given to banter, and did actually banter, with a man in the presence of several other women, think it right to give an unfavourable interpretation to her conduct on that account?

But, Mrs. Lisle says, as is stated in the deposition (see Register, p. 466), that she would not have THOUGHT that any married woman would "have behaved properly, who behaved as the Princess did to Captain "Manby." Now, you will observe, that Mr. Whitbread stated, that there was a question put here as to whether Mrs. Lisle would have liked to see such conduct in her own daughter, who had just then died; and that she replied, that her daughter lived in the same house with her husband. However, leaving this circumstance quite out of the question, does not the Princess, in her defence, complain with some reason of having the opinion of Mrs. Lisle, or of anybody else, set up against her conduct? When witnesses are called and sworn as to the acts of accused persons, is it usual to ask the opinions of those witnesses as to the nature of those acts? Besides, the opinion here given was in answer to a general question. Any married woman; not any married woman living separated from her husband, which makes all the difference in the world. For, you will readily agree, that the bantering ascribed to the Princess, the talking more to Captain Manby than to the ladies, might be very excusable in a married woman living separated from her husband, though it might not be so easily excused in one living with her husband, and whose duty it would be to avoid every sort of familiarity likely to give that husband the smallest degree of uneasiness. Mrs. Lisle might very consistently have thought that the Princess's conduct to Captain Manby was perfectly innocent and right, and yet she might have thought, that such conduct would not be right in any married woman without exception, and without

attention being paid to the peculiar circumstances of the case. She does not say, you will observe, that such conduct would, in her opinion, have been proper in NO married woman. You will pay particular attention to that. She only says, that, such conduct would not, in her opinion, have been proper in ANY married woman without exception; that is to say, that it would not have been, in her opinion, a conduct proper for all married women, meaning, of course, to be understood to be speaking of women living as married women generally live.

Is this splitting of hairs? If it be, the fault is not mine. Importance has been given to trifles, and it is not, therefore, our fault if we treat them as being important.

I have now, my good friend, said every thing to you that I think it necessary to say relative to charges against the Princess of Wales. But, before I dismiss the subject altogether, I think it right to notice a letter, published on the 27th of March by Earl Moira, who, as you will have perceived, has been pretty much concerned in some part of these transactions. In this letter his Lordship denies having gone to Lord Eardley's to seek, amongst the servants there, for evidence against the Princess. He asserts, that the information came first from Lord Eardley to the Prince; that the Prince listened to it reluctantly; that the servants came to Lord Moira, and he did not go to them; that he found their stories unworthy of notice; that he, therefore, advised the Prince to do nothing in the business; and that it was his advice and the Prince's desire that no talk should take place on the subject.

His Lordship then gives his explanation as to the much more important point; the examination, by him, of Messrs. Mills and Edmeades, on the subject of the fact stated by Fanny Lloyd, respecting what one of those gentlemen had said as to the supposed pregnancy of the Princess. This is a point of so much consequence, that, in justice to the character of his Lordship, I shall insert the whole of that part of his letter which relates to it.

"The interviews with Dr. Mills and Mr. Edmeades did not take place till be"tween three and four years after the examination of Lord Eardley's servants, " and had no reference to it. Fanny Lloyd, a maid-servant in the Princess's "family, had, in an examination to which I was not privy, asserted Dr. Mills to "have mentioned to her that the Princess was pregnant; a deposition which "obviously made it necessary that Dr. Mills should be subjected to examination. "This happened to be discussed before me; and it was my suggestion that it "would be more delicate to request the attendance of Dr. Mills at my house, and "to have him meet the Magistrate there, to avoid the publicity and observation "which would be entailed by his being summoned to the Office in Marlborough"street. Dr. Mills came early, and then it was immediately discovered that it "was his partner, Mr. Edmeades, who had bled Fanny Lloyd, though the latter "(knowing the Princess's apothecary to be Dr. Mills, and imagining it was that "apothecary who had bled her) had confounded the names. Dr. Mills was "therefore dismissed, without being examined by the Magistrate; and he was "begged to send Mr. Edmeades on another morning. Mr. Edmeades came ac"cordingly, and was examined before the Magistrate. An attempt is made to "pervert an observation of mine into an endeavour to make Mr. Edmeades alter "his testimony injuriously for the Princess. So far from there being anything " of conciliation in my tone, Mr. Conant must well remember my remark to "have been made as a correction of what I deemed a premeditated and improper " Ipertness of manner in Mr. Edmeades.-It was an unmitigated profession of "my belief that he was using some subterfuge to justify his denial; a declara"tion little calculated to win him to pliancy, had I been desirous of influencing "his testimony. My conviction on that point remains unchanged. "other of the parties was wilfully incorrect in their statement; if Fanny Lloyd

One or

[ocr errors]

were so, it was downright perjury; Mr. Edmeades might have answered only "elusively. I have been told that some individual, pointing at the direct oppo"sition between the affidavits of Mr. Edmeades and Fanny Lloyd has indicated "the preferable credit which ought to be given to the oath of a well-educated 46 man, in a liberal walk of life, over that of a person in the humble station of 66 a maid-servant. I shall not discuss the justice of the principle which arbi"trarily assumes deficiency of moral rectitude to be the natural inference from "humility of condition. The inculcation in the present instance would have "been somewhat more rational, had it advised that, in a case of such absolute "contradiction upon a simple fact, the comprehension of which could have no"thing to do with education, you should consider on which side an obvious "temptation to laxity appears. Fanny Lloyd was not merely a reluctant witness, but had expressed the greatest indignation at being subject to examina"tion. When she swore positively to a circumstance admitting of no latitude, "the only thing to be weighed was, what probability of inducement existed for "her swearing that which she knew to be false. It will appear that her testi"mony on that point was not consonant to the partiality which she had pro"claimed; that by the other parts of her evidence she was barring the way to "reward, if any profligate hopes of remuneration led her to risk the falsehood; and that she could not be influenced by malice against Mr. Edmeades, with "whom it was clear she was unacquainted. Nothing, therefore, presented it"self, to throw an honest doubt upon her veracity. Mr. Edmeades was very

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"differently circumstanced. A character for dangerous chattering was absolute "ruin to him in his profession. He had the strongest of all motives to exone"rate himself from the charge, if he could hit upon any equivocation by which "he might satisfy himself in the denial of it. And the bearing of my remark 66 must not be misunderstood. No man would infer anything against the Princess on the ground of such a random guess as that of Mr. Edmeades' must "have been, unless Mr. Edmeades should support his proposition by the adduc"tion of valid reasons and convincing circumstances; but there was a consequence ascribable to it in its loosest state. His having been sufficiently indis. "creet to mention his speculation to others as well as to Fanny Lloyd, would "well account for what was otherwise incomprehensible; namely, the notion of "the Princess's pregnancy so generally entertained at Greenwich and in that "neighbourhood. It was my conviction that such indiscretion had taken place, "not any belief of the fact to which it related, that I endeavoured to convey by

"remark.

"This construction is not put upon the circumstance now, for the first time. "A paper of mine submitted to His Majesty at the period of the investigation, "and lodged with the other documents relative to that inquiry, rebuts in the "same terms the base attempt of insinuating conspiracy against the Princess. "Why that paper has not seen the light with the other documents may be surmised. "I had thought it incumbent on me, from the nature of the transaction, not to "furnish any means for its publication from the copy in my possession. The present explanation unavoidably states all the material points contained in it. "But it will be felt by every one that the detail has been extorted from me."

"

I will offer you no remark upon his Lordship's explanation as to the point above dwelt upon. He still gives the preference to the testimony of Fanny Lloyd; and it is not for me to express any doubt of his sincerity; but, I must still be allowed to express my wonder, that, when Fanny Lloyd's Declaration was laid before the King amongst the documents confirmatory of Lady Douglas's Statement, the opposing declarations of Dr. Mills and Mr. Edmeades were not laid before the King along with it. The King would then have been able to form his opinion of the veracity of the parties respectively.

[ocr errors]

In the conclusion of the paragraph of the letter of Lord Moira, above cited, he complains of a paper of his having been kept out of sight; and says, that the reason may be surmised." I wish his Lordship had helped me in this; for, I must confess, that I cannot surmise it. The other documents have been published through the same channel that

was selected for the conveying of his Letter to the public; and why his paper has been kept back I, for my part, cannot imagine. It was, it seems, intended to rebut the insinuation, in the Princess's defence, against him as having been a participator in a conspiracy against her. But, it was, at any rate, in the hands of his friends, the present Ministers, under whom he is serving in a very high situation, He has, certainly, not to blame his old friends and colleagues, the Whigs, for keeping this paper back. The fault, if it lie anywhere, must lie amongst those with whom he has, for some time past, been connected; and, therefore, he has, in some sort, himself only to blame.

Before I conclude this my last letter upon the subject, I must observe to you, that there never was, perhaps, any one occasion, in which public opinion was so decided and unanimous as upon this. There is not a creature to be found, in any rank of life, who is not on the side of the Princess; who does not regard her as the most calumniated of women, and who does not hold her base assailants in detestation. You will recollect the passages, which, in my first Letters upon the subject, I quoted from our hired newspapers, reviling the advisers of the Princess; calling them a disloyal faction; attributing to her rashness, weakness, folly, and even impudence; menacing her with a fresh inquiry; and, in short, abusing every person, who, in any way, seemed to take her part. You will remember, on the other hand, that I said, she was pursuing good advice, and that the result would prove the advantages of her showing her resolution no longer to submit in silence.

Now, hear the language of one of those same prints (the Morning Post) of the 26th of March :

"The triumph of the much-injured Princess of Wales may now be considered "as most proudly complete. All the new attempts to blast her fair fame, have, "like the former conspiracy against her honour and life, ended only in the con"fusion and disgrace of her perjured calumniators. No discovery whatever, that "could by the most forced construction of the most inveterate, be deemed inju"rious to Her Royal Highness, could, by possibility, be made or produced against "her, and the public will rejoice to hear, that this heart-rending question, ex"cepting only as far as regards the punishment of her infamous and perjured ac"cusers (for which, in the name of justice, and in the crying cause of injured in"nocence, we shall never cease to call) is thus completely, most satisfactorily "and happily, set for ever at rest. May this joyous result prove the first step to"wards the respect which justice and propriety require to be shown to this illus"trious Lady; and still further we pray, may it be the happy prelude to the re"establishment of concord, peace, and bliss, among all the branches of that il"lustrious Family, in whose tranquillity and happiness every good and loyal sub"ject must feel so deep and serious an interest."

Aye, you caitiff Editor, but you said, only six weeks ago, that all those who, like myself, were labouring to establish, in the eyes of the world, the innocence of this injured Princess, were enemies of the Royal Family, and belonged to a desperate and bloody-minded faction; aye, and it is only your own baseness, your base fear of the effects of popular hatred, that has induced you to change your tone.

Well, but the "joyous result" of which you are speaking, is the first step, it seems, "which justice and propriety require to be shown to this illustrious Lady." What is the second? Why, that which I proposed more than a year ago; namely, the enabling of her Royal Highness to hold a Court. This is as just now as the receiving of her at Court was in 1807. Her husband is now become Regent, clothed with all the powers and splendour of a king; and, why is she not to hold her

« ForrigeFortsett »