« PoprzedniaDalej »
importance, seeing that the persons, who made them, were not afterwards examined upon oath by the Commissioners. Bidgood, Cole and Lloyd were old servants of the Prince, and, it appears that Cole has been at Carleton 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, shewing, that, while the Inquiry was going on, Bidgood was, upon one occasion, at least, in conversation with Lady Douglas; and, that, too, at a time when he must have well known what that Lady had been doing 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 place Cole was examined and signed his declarations is not stated in their 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 in 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.
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 confirm"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,
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 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 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 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.
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 and Mr." know not whether it was Lord Moira, or 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 unUpon 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 meant 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 Lord-on ship, 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 upgreat 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, Here, then, we see Fanny Lloyd's con- in their REPORT to the King, declare, in firmatory declaration, or, at least, the only the most explicit and the most forcible important part of it, blown, at once into terms, that the charge was wholly false; the dark regions of malicious invention. that it was utterly destitute of foundation. The whole of the affidavits of Messrs. But, they leave a sting in the tail of this Mills and Edmeades, the facts stated by Report. They say, that other particulars, those gentlemen, the place, time, and man- respecting the conduct of her Royal Highner of their being examined, are worthy of ness, must "necessarily give occasion to your most careful attention; but, at pre- VERY UNFAVOURABLE INTERsent, let us pursue the destination of the PRETATIONS;" and these particulars, declaration of Fanny Lloyd; and, as you they say, rest especially upon the evidence are about to see, our pursuit will soon be of Bidgood and Cole, Fanny Lloyd and at an end. That declaration was taken, Mrs. Lisle; "who," say the Lords, 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 to Bidgood, you will see by the defence and by his own declarations and depositions, whether he was likely to be un. der 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 As her Royal Highness, in her defence, world were to be liable to be admonished avows, that she dares not trust herself with upon grounds similar to those to be found in any inferences from this proceeding, I can- that evidence, there would not be one, even not be expected to draw any; but, I can- amongst you Quakers, that would escape an not, at any rate refrain from expressing my admonition. If it be faulty in a married deep regret, that this omission should have woman to prefer talking to a man rather taken place; because, if the falsification of than to her attendants; if it be a fault in a Fanny Lloyd's declaration had accompanied married woman to smile or laugh in conthe declaration itself, the King might, pro-versation with any other man than her husbably, have not issued the commission for that inquiry, which has led to all this serious mischief. The Princess, in her defence,
band; 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 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 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 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 interpretations."
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 great to do about it; and that
"Mary Wilson was sworn lo secrecy, and "threatened to be turned away if she di"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,' "must necessarily give rise to very un"favourable interpretations."
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 lover 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
nocent of every charge preferred against her; not only of every charge of criminality, but also of every charge of indecency or impropriety or indiscretion of conduct; and I am further assured, that you will agree with me, that there are comparatively very few married women, though living happily with their husbands, whose conduct would bear such a scrutiny as that which the conduct of this calumniated Lady has been compelled to undergo. Tried and retried and tried again and again; rummaged and sifted and bolted as it has been, through statements and declarations and depositions and minutes and debates and pamphlets and paragraphs, it comes out at last without any thing sticking to it, which the most modest and happy married woman in the world might not own without a blush; and, after having carefully read and impartially weighed every word of these documents, I most solemnly declare, that, if I had a daughter twenty years married, I should think myself a happy and a fortunate father, if as little could be said against her conduct as has been proved against the conduct of the Princess of Wales.
more especially as the Report and the
Sir John Douglas, however, has presented a petition to the House of Commons, on behalf of himself and of Charlotte, his wife, praying the House to put them in a You will naturally be anxious to know, situation to re-swear all that they have whether any measure, and what, has been before sworn. That the prayer of this adopted by the ministry, the parliament, petition could not be granted, they knew or the people, in consequence of the dis- very well. However, as the petition was closure, which has now, fortunately for the upon the Table of the House, Mr. COCHcause of truth, taken place. By the mi- RANE. JOHNSTONE, one of the members, nistry no measure has, as yet, been adopted. upon the ground, that, while it so lay, In parliament there have been some move- without any opinion of the House proments, but, hitherto, without producing nounced upon it, it seemed to receive some any measure of a decided character. A degree of countenance from the House, motion has been brought forward by Mr. moved, on the 24th instant, the following Whitbread for the prosecution of Sir John resolution: "That the petition of Sir John and Lady Douglas for perjury; but was "Douglas, in behalf of himself and of given up, upon its appearing, that they" Charlotte his wife, is regarded by this could not be so prosecuted, having given" House as an audacious effort, to give, their oaths before persons, acting in a capa-" in the eyes of the nation, the colour of city which did not make it perjury for any" truth to falsehoods before sworn to, one lo swear falsely before them. Of this," during the prosecution of a foul and deas you will perceive, the Princess complains" testable attempt against the peace and in her defence. And, surely, it was very hard for her to have her conduct tried, to have evidence touching her honour and her life, taken down before a tribunal, whose competence did not extend far enough to allow of false swearers being prosecuted for perjury. This should have been thought of before the warrant was issued; for, it seems to me, that the hardness of the case is without a parallel. If the oaths had been taken before the Privy Council, or before magistrates, a prosecution for perjury might have followed; and, it is to be greatly lamented, that this most important circumstance was not attended to in time;
"happiness, the honour and life of Her "Royal Highness the Princess of Wales." This motion, upon the ground of there being no documents regularly before the House, whereon to ground such a resolution, was got rid of by a motion to adjourn; but, during the debate that took place, it was avowed on all hands, that the opinion which the resolution expressed was perfectly just. Not a single man was found in the House to attempt to justify, to excuse, or to palliate the conduct of the petitioners; and, therefore, the effect of the motion of Mr. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE upon the public mind has been just the
same as it would have been if the motion | doubt, that, though acquitted upon all had been carried by an unanimous vote of capital points, she was still an immoral the House.
woman; an opinion, too, which I will fairly avow, was neither removed nor shaken by her public reception at court and her restoration to apartments in one of the Royal Palaces; acts which, without being over-suspicious, I might, and indeed, I did, ascribe to mere prudence, which must have dictated to the whole of the Roval Family to use all the means in their power to cause a veil to be drawn for ever over the whole transaction. I was, moreover,
The public feeling, which was before strong on the side of the injured Princess, has now received the sanction of the conviction of her perfect innocence; and, which is well worthy of remark, this conviction has been produced, in general, by the reading of the Evidence only; for, there is not, up to this hour, one person out of fifty thousand in the kingdom, who has read the Defence, contained in the letter of the 2d of Oct., the greater part of which I now pub-influenced in the forming of this opinion lish in this Double Number. What, then, must be the feelings of the people, when time and circumstances shall have enabled them to read and well reflect on that Defence and the Affidavits in support of it?
by the total silence of the Princess herself: for, one must have actual experience of forbearance and magnanimity like hers, before one can possibly believe in their existence. If I viewed the matter in this light, how must others, with less opportunity of getting at the truth, have viewed it? Certainly in a light less advantageous. to the Princess, who, it appears to me, must have had very faithless advisers; or, she could not, for so long a time, have remained silent.
The fact which first led me to suppose, that I
had formed a wrong opinion upon this point, I was informed of about eighteen months ago. It was this; that a certain Noble Earl, well known to be much attached to the Prince, had expended, through the hands of a gentleman, some hundreds of pounds in purchasing up a stray copy of THE BOOK. What could this be for? What could be the motive? From that time I began to think, that the Princess was not so very guilty; and, when, soon afterwards, Mr. Perauthor of the Book; when he, who was now ceval, who was well known to have been the become the prime Minister of the Prince, and who had been chosen to that office to the exclusion of the Prince's old friends; when, in open parliament, be explicitly declared, the Princess to be perfectly innocent of all the charges that had been preferred against her, I could no longer doubt of her perfect innocence; and, from that hour, as the pages of my Register win show, I did all in my little power to inculcate the same opinion on my readers.
Another thing worthy of remark, is, that those news-papers, which, upon the appearance of Her Royal Highness's Letter to the Prince, and upon that of the farbetter letter which she, addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons; those news-papers, which called her a misguided woman, an unfortunate woman, a rash woman, who taunted her with the evidence of Cole, Bidgood, and Fanny Lloyd, and who menaced her with a new Inquiry; those same news-papers, perceiving the universal cry excited by their baseness, accompanied with a disclosure of all the dark machinations of her vindictive enemies, have, all of a sudden, turned round, and, while they have become her panygerists, have fallen, in the most violent manner, upon Sir John and Lady Douglas; just as if the conduct of these persons were not now what it always had been known to be! You will be shocked to hear of such a perversion of that noble instrument, the Press; but, my friend, you must be here, and be acquainted with the means made use of to move that instrument; you must see the working of the secret wheels, before you can have a sufficient horror of the cause of so apparently unaccountable an effect. For my own part, I confess, that, with-court, THE BOOK would still, in all human out any motive whatever to bias my judgment, I, for a long while, for several years, thought the Princess guilty to some considerable extent. The very existence of a commission to inquire into her conduct was sufficient to produce that impression in my mind; and this, added to the tales and anecdotes which were circulated with an industry and in a way, of which you, who live in a happy ignorance of the crafty intrigues of this scene, cannot form the most distant idea, had left me in little
When the Prince was addressed by the City of London upon his being constituted Regent, I thought that the Princess ought to have been addressed too. I think so still; and, if she had, at that time, been placed in a situation to hold a probability, have slept in quiet. The want of wisdom in the advisers of the Prince and the sense and courage of the Princess have combined to order it otherwise; and, I should be a very great hypocrite if I were now to affect to be sorry for it. The disclosure will do great good in many ways, while to the nation at large, and especially to the calumniated Princess, it is impossible that it should do any harm. With this remark I leave you to the perusal of the Princess's defence, well satisfied, that you will need nothing more to enable you to form a correct judgment upon every part of this memorable transaction. I remain your faithful friend, Botley, 26 Mar. 1813. WM. COBBETT.