THE ESSENCE OF THE DOUGLAS CAUSE:

Importance of the Douglas cauſe.THE Douglas cauſe has now made a noiſe all over Europe; and in⯑deed no cauſe ever came before a court of juſtice, ſo intereſting in its nature, and of ſuch univerſal importance. In one view it is a queſtion, whether a young gentleman of diſtinguiſhed merit, the only remaining repreſentative of the illuſ⯑trious houſe of Douglas, is, after nineteen years poſſeſſion of his eſtate, to be de⯑prived of it, and to be reduced to a ſitu⯑ation worſe than death? [...] view, it is a queſtion, [...] of birthright, which ha [...] [...] for ages, is now to [...]

The memorials [...] juſtice in this cauſe, [...] has never occurred in [...] [2] plaintiffs have with great expence, in⯑duſtry and art, collected an immenſe maſs of materials, which they have with equal expence, induſtry and art, contrived to arrange in ſuch a manner as to carry a plauſible appearance. The defendant, from the nature of judicial proceedings, has been obliged to follow his enemies through all their doublings, ſo that he too has been neceſſarily involved in a tedious train of arguments.

An abridgement [...] received.As the Douglas cauſe is a queſtion in which the impartial people of theſe king⯑doms are very ſeriouſly concerned, and there are few who can ſubmit to the fa⯑tigue of diſcovering the truth in ſo motley a heap, I would flatter myſelf that this eſſay will be favourably received.

[...] cauſe.I am going to plead the cauſe of Mr. Douglas. I own I am moſt warmly inte⯑reſted for him; but I truſt that I have examined his cauſe with impartiality. I ſhall write the following ſheets with an [...] laudable intention. The ar⯑ [...] [...] to thoſe who may ho⯑ [...] a reading. The facts can⯑ [...] [...] any doubt, for I ſhall not [...] without a reference to [...]

[3] This eſſay will conſiſt of four parts.This eſſay will conſiſt of four parts. 1ſt, I ſhall lay down the principles of law with regard to filiation, or the ſtate which every man holds in ſociety, and what ought to be the motives and conduct of thoſe who carry on a proceſs to deprive a ſubject of his birthright. 2dly, I ſhall ſhew the motives and conduct of the plaintiffs in the Douglas cauſe. 3dly, I ſhall examine the proof which has been brought againſt Mr. Douglas. And 4thly, I ſhall ſtate the proof for Mr. Douglas.

Part 1. Filia⯑tion or Birth⯑right.Filiation or birthright is of all things the moſt valuable to mankind; for all the bleſſings and comforts of life, the ſuc⯑ceſſion of property and of honours, all the rights and all the affections of blood flow from it: therefore it is that the wiſ⯑dom of law hath been particularly careful that the birthright of the ſubject ſhould be inviolably protected.

What kind of certainty law re⯑quires in filia⯑tion.We are not allowed to talk of filiation in the manner of ſcepticks, who may raiſe innumerable doubts con [...] every thing which occurs in [...] wife may be unfaithful; [...] unfaithful; and various [...] may be figured by whi [...] [...] children can be introduce [...] [...] There is no doubt but a variety of [...] caſes have actually happened; and there⯑fore, [4] in a ſtrict philoſophical ſenſe, there is properly no certainty in filiation. But it is the ſpirit of law to diſregard ſuch poſſible caſes, and not to look for a cer⯑tainty in the abſtract, but a legal cer⯑tainty. For law, like a kind parent ever watchful for the good of her chil⯑dren, hath eſtabliſhed ſuch ſolid rules as may check the uneaſy waverings of ſcep⯑ticiſm, and make mankind paſs through life with tranquillity and ſatisfaction.

Acknowledg⯑ment of parents and general re⯑port ſufficient.Therefore it is, that according to law, to aſcertain the birthright of the ſubject, ſo as to entitle him to ſucceed to the greateſt eſtate and honours, nothing more is required than his being acknowledged by two married perſons as their child, and being commonly reputed to be ſo. This is a natural and an unſuſpicious prin⯑ciple. It is natural to ſuppoſe that people will not acknowledge and ſhew parental fondneſs for children which are not their own, and it is unſuſpicious, becauſe it ſhe [...] [...]ſonable confidence in the good [...] without which our lives [...] indeed.

[...] [...] the fountain of all [...] [...]ld be inſecure, and [...] taken ſuch pains to [...] preſervation of their liberties and properties, would be left in [5] a wretched ſtate of uncertainty with regard to that great right from whence all their liberties and properties are de⯑rived.

A ſubject may be born in a fo⯑reign country.The birth of a ſubject of any ſtate may happen in a foreign country, or at leaſt in a diſtant colony. Great Britain hath now extended her dominion over a part of Africa, as well as over many diſtant iſlands and an immenſe continent in Ame⯑rica; it is therefore of infinite importance that the children of thoſe who are born abroad ſhould alſo have their birthrights ſecured to them.

The law mind⯑ful of this.Of this the law hath alſo been mind⯑ful; for it is a principle in law, that if a perſon is acknowledged by two married perſons as their child, and has in his fa⯑vour the common fame or general belief of the country where he was born, he is thereby entitled to the full poſſeſſion of his ſtate and birthright, with all its privi⯑leges in every part of the globe, and it will be in vain to object to [...] in any country, that in that [...] have been reports of his [...] though there were no [...] country where he was [...]

If this ſacred right [...] by law, it is evident [...] [6] ſubjects who are born beyond ſeas would be inevitably expoſed to the wicked de⯑ſigns of intereſted people at home.

This ſtrongly illuſtrated and brought home to the beſt families in theſe king⯑doms.Nothing is now more common than for younger ſons of the beſt families in theſe kingdoms to ſettle in diſtant coun⯑tries, and there are few families of which the ſucceſſion does not in four or five generations devolve upon a diſtant branch. They who are at home, foreſeeing this, would have nothing more to do than to employ two or three villains to raiſe re⯑ports that the next heir of the family was an illegitimate or a ſuppoſititious child; and in that manner the real repreſenta⯑tive and rightful heir of the nobleſt in Europe might be injuriouſly prevented from enjoying the ſucceſſion of his an⯑ceſtors.

Alarming appre⯑henſions of Bri⯑tiſh Merchants, ſoldiers, ſailors and travellers.Should the law allow of this, then the reſpectable body of Britiſh merchants eſtabliſhed all over the world, our ſol⯑diers and our ſailors, and even thoſe whom bad health or curioſity may load into [...] [...]uſt all be ſubjected to the [...] of having their chil⯑ [...] [...] ſpurious, and robbed [...] [...]hemſelves loaded with [...] [...]uilty of one of the [...]

[7] A plaintiff in an action of Partus Suppoſitio bound to prove all.Holding it therefore as an inviolable principle of law, that a ſubject acknow⯑ledged by a huſband and wife as their child, and believed to be ſo in the country where he was born, is thereby fully veſted in the poſſeſſion of the ſacred pri⯑vilege of birthright: I alſo hold, that according to law, on which we all depend for protection, he muſt retain this poſ⯑ſeſſion till thoſe who ſeek to deprive him of it do ſhow that he enjoys it upon a falſe ſuppoſition.

A Defendant in an action of Partus Suppo⯑ſitio bound to prove no more than his legal poſſeſſion.He who is thus attacked finds himſelf intrenched in his legal poſſeſſion. He is bound to prove no circumſtances with reſpect to his birth, for he is a ſtranger to all thoſe circumſtances; he, like every one of us, can only ſay, ſuch a man and his ſpouſe always acknowledged me as their child, and I have always been treated as ſuch by the whole neighbour⯑hood, and by every body in the country.

If a defendant ſhould bring more proofs, their imperfec⯑tion no argu⯑ment.It is therefore incumbent upon thoſe who attack the birthright of a ſubject to prove their accuſation; and [...] to be allowed to argue fro [...] [...] [...] ⯑tions which ingenuity [...] proofs which a perſon [...] think proper to bri [...] [...] the great and materia [...] [...] knowledgment of pa [...] [...] [8] belief of the country where he was born.

Any ſuch addi⯑tional proof muſt from the nature of the thing be imperfect.Any ſuch additional proof which a de⯑fendant may chooſe to bring muſt in almoſt every caſe be exceedingly imper⯑fect from the very nature of the thing to be proved. The birth of a ſubject is a tranſient act which often happens unex⯑pectedly. At any rate it is an act which every circumſtance both of nature and cuſtom concurs to render as private as poſſible; and therefore the evidence of an actual delivery will hardly ever be ſuch evidence as courts of juſtice demand for the atteſtation of a fact.

A charge of Partus Suppo⯑ſitio odious.The plaintiffs, therefore, in a charge of Partus Suppoſitio have all to do, and indeed they have a formidable taſk, when they bring ſo odious a charge againſt a ſubject who is in full poſſeſſion of his ſtate.

The plaintiffs proof muſt be di⯑rect, not pre⯑ſumptive.The proof which the plaintiffs in ſuch a cauſe are bound to bring, is a direct and [...]. Preſumptive evidence is [...] all caſes, and is therefore [...] [...]th caution; but in a caſe [...] [...]nnot be received at all. [...] [...]kneſs or any dubiety, [...] [...]ng looſe the fabrick of [...] [...]ine us to acquieſce in [9] the acknowledgment of parents corre⯑borated by univerſal fame.

A trial of Par⯑tus Suppoſitio different from a trial of other crimes, and therefore it re⯑quires a dif⯑ferent evidence.It is very falſe reaſoning to argue that becauſe preſumptive evidence has been admitted by juries in trials of ſome crimes, it ſhould therefore be admitted in a trial of Partus Suppoſitio. In a trial for murder or for robbery, it is already certain that a man has been murdered or robbed, ſo that it is certain a crime has been committed; and as 'Intereſt repub⯑licae ne crimina maneant impunita, it is the intereſt of the ſtate that crimes ſhould not paſs unpuniſhed,' it is neceſſary to have recourſe to ſuch evidence as the na⯑ture of the crime will admit. But an accuſation of Partus Suppoſitio is widely different; for there that a crime has been committed is neceſſary to be proved. We have nothing for it but the aſſertion of a plaintiff which may be unjuſt; and there⯑fore I deny that a preſumptive evidence from circumſtances all made to refer to a ſuppoſed crime can be allowed in an ac⯑cuſation of Partus Suppoſitio [...] not the intereſt of the [...] crimes where there may [...] and to admit of imp [...] [...] order to add to the un [...] [...] comforts and enjoymen [...] [...] thoſe principles by wh [...] [...] [...] ⯑mated to be good [...] [10] he who would overthrow an eſtabliſhed filiation, muſt bring ſuch a proof as ren⯑ders the filiation impoſſible.

Theſe important principles of law become ſtronger by length of time.Theſe important principles of law be⯑come gradually ſtronger in proportion to the time that a ſubject has been in poſ⯑ſeſſion of his ſtate; becauſe although he is originally obliged to bring no other proof but that of the acknowledgement of his parents, and the belief of the country where he was born, he may afterwards be under a neceſſity of bring⯑ing more evidence in order to ſhew the weakneſs or falſity of the proofs brought againſt him: But if the action againſt him ſhall be long delayed, the preſump⯑tion of law in his favour will have grown up to a much greater degree of ſtrength than if the action againſt him had been brought at an early period; becauſe from the gradual decay of memory, and the unavoidable death of witneſſes by the lapſe of time, a defendant cannot be rea⯑ſonably ſuppoſed to bring ſuch a proof at the diſtance of ten, twelve, or fifteen [...] be done at an early pe⯑ [...] [...] [...]ouſand little circumſtan⯑ [...] [...] [...]any years be totally in⯑ [...] [...] by the art of coun⯑ [...] [...] into arguments of ſuſ⯑ [...] [...]

[11] The motives for undertaking an action of partus ſuppoſitio ſhould be moſt unex⯑ceptionable.As an action of partus ſuppoſitio is an action ſolemn, important and alarming to ſociety, the motives for undertaking it ſhould be the moſt unexceptionable. If it ſhould appear that ſuch an action is undertaken from motives of private pique or reſentment, it is to be looked upon with a jealous eye; for ſuch is human nature, that our evil paſſions will in⯑fluence us more than any other motive, and they who would proceed with calm⯑neſs, and with juſtice, in a matter of mere intereſt, will be guilty of violence, and of diſhoneſty, when actuated by re⯑venge.

The conduct of plaintiffs in an action of partus ſuppoſitio, ſhould be particularly candid.The conduct of ſuch an action ſhould be particularly candid, for all who wiſh well to ſociety, ſhould wiſh to have it found that no ſuch atrocious crime has been committed. Every thing ſhould therefore be carried on in the moſt open and unſuſpicious manner. Were this crime to become frequent, all the hap⯑pineſs of human life would be at an end—every inſtance of it muſt [...] diminution of our happineſs [...] ſhould be abandoned eno [...] [...] [...] ⯑vour by falſe evidence to [...] guilt of ſo horrid a natur [...] [...] to be hunted down as [...] [...] ⯑ſaſſins.

[12] Part 2. Motives of the plaintiffs in the Douglas cauſe.The motives of the plaintiffs in the Douglas cauſe, will appear from the following circumſtances:

The family of Hamilton have long had deſigns on the eſtate of Douglas, and actually obtained a ſettlement of the eſtate.The family of Hamilton and their ad⯑herents, had long carried on deſigns to obtain the ſucceſſion of the Douglas eſtate, on the deceaſe of the late duke; and had ſucceeded ſo far, that the duke had actually made a ſettlement upon that family, in prejudice of Mr. Douglas, his nephew, the defendant in the Douglas cauſe, who was artfully repreſented to the duke as a ſuppoſititious child.

This ſettlement was cancelled, and the eſtate deviſed to the right heirs.In this ſituation matters continued till after the duke's marriage, when the dut⯑cheſs of Douglas, who was fully con⯑vinced of the iniquity of all the accuſa⯑tions brought againſt Lady Jane Douglas, ſiſter of the duke, and mother of the preſent defendant, exerted herſelf with a ſpirit and generoſity which will ever do her honour; and was ſo happy as to un⯑deceive the duke, and to prevail with him [...] the ſettlement which he had [...] [...]he family of Hamilton, in [...] right heirs.

After [...] of [...] death, [...] Hamilton [...] the eſtate [...] male, and loſes his plea before the court of ſeſſion. [...] [...]ke's death, a ſuit was [...] the court of ſeſſion in [...] [...]uke Hamilton, claiming [...] Douglas as heir male; but [13] it was given againſt him by an almoſt unanimous deciſion, there being but a ſingle judge for ſuſtaining his plea.

It was thought this would have been firſt ſettled by appeal to the houſe of Lords.It was thought that the family of Ha⯑milton would immediately have carried this ſuit by appeal before the houſe of Lords, in order to have it finally ſettled, whether or not they could have any claim upon the Douglas eſtate? and con⯑ſequently, if they had any buſineſs to in⯑terfere in the affairs of that family?

Inſtead of which the preſent ſuit was commenced.Inſtead of this, the family of Hamil⯑ton commenced the great ſuit known by the name of the Douglas cauſe, with in⯑tention to prove that the preſent de⯑fendant was in reality not the ſon of the Lady Jane Douglas, but a ſuppoſititious child, picked up from the ſtreets of Paris.

Duke Hamilton can have no in⯑tereſt in it.In this duke Hamilton could have no poſſible intereſt, for if the eſtate of Douglas ſhould be found to be [...] [...] heir male, duke Hamilton [...] take it up in prejudice [...] as well as of the othe [...] [...] And if it ſhould be found [...] belonged to the heirs [...] the other heirs would cu [...] [...] as effectually as [...] would do.

[14] On the con⯑trary, it is againſt the in⯑tereſt of that family.Nay, ſo far was duke Hamilton from having any intereſt in this cauſe, that he was taking the direct method to prevent a chance which a branch of the family had of obtaining the eſtate of Douglas.

This clearly evident.For the late duke of Douglas a little before his death made a ſettlement, in which he provided, that failing his ne⯑phew Mr. Douglas, the preſent defen⯑dant, his eſtate ſhould go to lord Doug⯑las Hamilton, the preſent duke of Hamil⯑ton's brother. By the law of Scotland, a deed made upon death-bed is not valid if challenged by the next heir; but it might reaſonably be ſuppoſed, that if the family of Hamilton had behaved in a proper manner towards Mr. Douglas, he would, as ſoon as he came of age, have confirmed the dying intentions of his uncle, in favour of lord Douglas Hamil⯑ton. Whereas it may well be believed that after the family of Hamilton have done all in their power to blacken the memory of his parents, and to ruin him⯑ſelf [...] Douglas would hardly chooſe [...] [...]ſtate to any of their race.

There [...] [...] motiv [...] [...] plainti [...] [...] cauſe, [...] revenges [...] the family of Hamilton [...] intereſt in this ſuit, but on [...] have certainly been acting [...] againſt [...] intereſt, they can have no motive to carry it on but revenge againſt [15] Mr. Douglas, as the innocent cauſe of their having been diſappointed in their ſchemes of obtaining the ſucceſſion to the eſtate of Douglas.

The conduct of the plaintiffs the principal point in this cauſe.The conduct of the plaintiffs in the Douglas cauſe, merits a very particular conſideration. If we conſider it ſlightly, and as a circumſtance of little conſe⯑quence, we cannot do juſtice to the de⯑fendant, becauſe the conduct of the cauſe has been ſo extraordinary, I will ſay more, has been ſo iniquitous on the part of the plaintiff, that it will account to us for many of the proofs which they have brought, and for the defects in the proof which has been brought by the defendant.

They delay their ſuit till after the death of lady Jane Douglas, and fourteen years after the birth of the de⯑fendant.Lady Jane Douglas, ſpouſe of John Stewart, Eſquire, afterwards Sir John Stewart, of Grandtully, was delivered at Paris of two male twins, by Monſieur La Marre, man-midwife, on the 10th of July, 1748, in the houſe of Madame le Brune, Mrs. Helen Hewit, the atten⯑dant of lady Jane, being pr [...] [...] was what the plaintiffs [...] but they never attemp [...] [...] after the death of lady Jane [...] fourteen years after the [...] Douglas.

[16] Mr. Andrew Stuart their agent, is ſent privately to Pa⯑ris, and a cri⯑minal proceſs is raiſed before the Tournelle.Inſtead of applying to the court of ſeſ⯑ſion for a commiſſion to take a proof, ſo that fairneſs might have been enſured to both parties, Mr. Andrew Stuart, duke Hamilton's agent, was ſent privately to Paris, where he employed one Danjon, a Procureur, with ſeveral other French agents, and after various ſecret enquiries and conſultations, a criminal proceſs was raiſed before the Tournelle, treating Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Hewit, as al⯑ready convicted of the crime of partus ſuppoſitio, and inſiſting to have them pu⯑niſhed accordingly.

This proceſs an inſult upon juſtice.This proceſs was in reality an inſult upon juſtice. It was a mock accuſation as it related to two Britiſh ſubjects who were not under the juriſdiction of France, and therefore could not be puniſhed by the courts of France.

The real inten⯑tion of it to ob⯑tain partial evi⯑dence.The real intention of it was to obtain partial depoſitions in ſupport of the plain⯑tiff's cauſe from witneſſes examined in a [...] [...]ner, at the inſtance of one [...] the knowledge of the other, [...] John Stewart, or Mrs. [...] [...]ng to Paris to give aſſiſt⯑ [...] [...] [...]endant, ſince however [...] [...]ey had varied from the [...] [...]ſitions, they would have been put to the torture.

[17] The horrid na⯑ture of the Tournelle.The nature of a Tournelle examination is this: a Plainte or accuſation drawn up by a party in ſuch terms as he thinks proper, and, no doubt, plainly calculated to lead a witneſs, is given in to the judge. This Plainte is read over in the hearing of the witneſs, who is then called upon to tell what he knows concerning it; what the witneſs ſwears in conſequence of this Plainte, is immediately written by the grefier or ſecretary, who attends upon the judge; and when once ſo writ⯑ten, a witneſs is for ever after nailed down, and muſt tell the preciſe ſame ſtory at the riſque of the moſt dreadful puniſhment. There is here no oppor⯑tunity for an oppoſite party to aſk ſuch queſtions as may make a witneſs recollect himſelf when in a miſtake, or as may en⯑trap him when uttering falſehoods. No, the Plainte is read over, the witneſs tells his tale, and to this tale he muſt ever after ſtrictly and invariably adhere; an eſta⯑bliſhment not to be found in any country which knows not the torture. And therefore it was well ſaid by [...] that 'if there was a bri [...] [...] France and England, ſo as [...] [...] ⯑nelle could walk over, he [...] ultima Thule.'

The plaintiffs attempt to ſtab their antagoniſt in the dark.Here then the plaintiff's [...] an attempt to ſtab their antagoniſt in the [18] dark, and to gain a moſt undue advan⯑tage over the defendant.

They publiſh an infamous libel called a moni⯑toire.But not content with employing the Tournelle, that horrid engine of tyrannical power, they had alſo recourſe to the ter⯑rors of Popiſh ſuperſtition. Application was made to the Church, and the arch⯑biſhop of Paris moſt readily iſſued what was called a monitoire important, an infamous libel, in which the whole ſto⯑ry which the plaintiffs wiſhed to prove was fully narrated: Nay, ſuch deſcrip⯑tions were given of the perſons accuſed, that not a man or woman in all France, could fail to form ideas of Sir John Stew⯑art and Mrs. Hewit, ſo that every inte⯑reſted wretch, and every deluded crea⯑ture, were ſo conducted to the point in view, that a very little art, or a very little imagination was ſufficient to make them ſwear what ſerved the plaintiff's purpoſe.

This more atrocious than even in the cruel caſe of Calas.This Monitoire was more atrocious than uſual, as it was more expreſs and [...] To ſhew it at once in all its [...] aver, that even in the ar⯑ [...] [...] of France, ſuch a Moni⯑ [...] [...] never known; it was [...] that in the caſe of Calas, where [...] [...]equence was to aſſemble ſuch [...], that an aged father was cruelly broken upon the wheel, as the [19] alledged murderer of his ſon, though he was afterwards, when it was, alas! too late, clearly proved to have been innocent.

The abhorrence which theſe pro⯑ceedings inſpire.Can we without deteſtation and ab⯑horrence, read of ſuch proceedings as theſe, in order to influence a Britiſh cauſe, begun without any intereſt on the part of duke Hamilton, the motives of which were vindictive, and it's intention, to ſtigmatize with infamy, two perſons of rank and character, who are now gone and unable to anſwer for them⯑ſelves, and to forfeit the birth-right of one of the nobleſt of his majeſty's ſub⯑jects.

The iniquitous effects of the French proceed⯑ings clearly diſ⯑covered by the juſtice of the houſe of Peers.But I am not under the neceſſity of only throwing out general declamation upon the dangerous nature of theſe French proceedings, which have been ſo ſeverely condemned by the houſe of Peers. I am in condition to give pointed and di⯑ſtinct evidence of the miſerable effects which they have produced [...] enabled to do chiefly by [...] ſupreme court, which [...] [...] ⯑tiffs to make a producti [...] [...] containing the informa [...] [...] had ſo unjuſtly obtained.

Mr. Andrew Stuart changes his ground with regard to the pregnancy.Mr. Andrew Stuart, in his Plainte to the Tournelle ſays, in ſo many words that [20] lady Jane put on the appearance of preg⯑nancy ^*. This we may well believe to have been the caſe, whether the birth was true or ſuppoſititious; and we muſt be⯑lieve, that all who ſaw lady Jane, con⯑curred in telling him ſhe had that appear⯑ance: But Mr. Andrew Stuart ſeems afterwards to have changed his ground, and was deſirous to prove that lady Jane had not even the appearance of pregnancy.

Mademoiſelle Hibert aſſures Mr. Andrew Stuart that lady Jane appeared to be with child.In Mr. Andrew Stuart's journal, we find that he had a converſation with Mademoiſelle Louiſe Hibert, who told him expreſly that lady Jane had the appear⯑ance of pregnancy, and appeared to be five months gone with child.

Mademoiſelle Hibert, after the Tournelle, ſwears that lady Jane did not appear to be with child.Yet when this ſame Mademoiſelle Hi⯑bert comes to be examined after the Tournelle proceedings and Monitoire, ſhe ſwears expreſly that ſhe obſerved no ap⯑pearance of pregnancy about lady Jane.^†

Francois La Marre informs Danjou the plaintiff's pro⯑cureur, of the connection be⯑tween Pierre La Marre and Ma⯑dame Le Brun.In Danjou, duke Hamilton's French Procu [...] firſt note, we find that he had [...] with Francois La Marre, [...] La Marre, who told [...] readily, Sur le champ [...] that his brother Pierre La Marre the Accoucheur, was in corre⯑ſpondence [21] and intimacy with Madam Le Brun; that his brother may have taught her midwifry; and that he himſelf was acquainted with her.^*

Francois La Marre conceals this information from thoſe act⯑ing for the de⯑fendant.In Danjou's ſecond note, we find Francois La Marre telling this agent of the plaintiffs, that the other party had been with him, and that he had inform⯑ed them of all that he knew, except as to Madam La Brun, which ſhews, that Francois La Marre was by this time pret⯑ty well diſpoſed to conceal what might favour the defenders.^†

Francois La Marre ſwears point blank the reverſe of what he told Danjou.When Francois La Marre comes to be examined by the Commiſſioners of the court of ſeſſion, he ſwears point blank the reverſe of what he had at firſt of his own accord told to Danjou.^‡

Madam Mich⯑elle informs the plaintiff's agents that Lady Jane had all the ap⯑pearance of be⯑ing newly brought to bed.In one of the plaintiff's French memo⯑rials, we find that they had a converſa⯑tion with Madam Michelle, who told them, that Lady Jane had all the appear⯑ance of a woman newly brought to bed.

Madam Mich⯑elle upon oath minces this down to a fickly air.But after the Tournelle [...] Monitoire, Madam Michelle [...] the matter, and, when up [...] [...] [22] only, that Lady Jane had l'air malade, a fickly air.^†

M. Gilles, an acquaintance of Pierre La Marre is diſcovered.A French counſel, employed for Mr. Douglas, having heard that Mr. Gilles, ſurgeon in Paris, had been an acquaint⯑ance of Pierre La Marre, applied to M. Morand, a ſurgeon of eminence, deſiring him to enquire at M. Gilles, what he re⯑membered of ſundry particulars, concern⯑ing which a note containing queſtions was given to M. Morand.

Meſſieurs Mo⯑rand and Mo⯑reau have queſti⯑ons put to M. Gilles.Monſieur Morand not being particu⯑larly acquainted with M. Gilles, employ⯑ed M. Moreau, firſt ſurgeon of the Hotel Dieu, to put the queſtions: and accord⯑ingly M. Moreau returned the queſtions, with anſwers dictated by M. Gilles, and written by M. Moreau in his preſence.^*

M. Gilles's an⯑ſwers are clear and ſtrong in fa⯑vour of the de⯑fendant.The ſubſtance of theſe anſwers was, that M. Gilles was told by Pierre La Marre, that he was to bring a ſtranger Lady to bed, who might make his for⯑tune, and that he had actually delivered her of twins. That Monſieur La Marre mentio [...] that he had the care of a child that [...] Menilmontain. That M. [...] that this ſtranger Lady was [23] brought to bed of two children, in the houſe of Madame Le Brun.

Monſieur Mo⯑rand and Mo⯑reau are gentle⯑men of undoubt⯑ed character.Both M. Morand and M. Moreau, are Gentlemen of the higheſt reputation in their profeſſion; and it cannot be ſuppo⯑ſed that they would uſe the leaſt endea⯑vour to influence a witneſs, or obtain un⯑fair anſwers from him. So that we muſt believe that theſe anſwers given by M. Gilles were the genuine truth.

M. Gilles, after the Monitoire and Tournelle denies upon oath what he had formerly ſaid.Yet when M. Gilles has heard of the Monitoire and Tournelle proceſs, he ſwears poſitively^‡ that he does not recol⯑lect to have heard from Monſieur La Marre that the foreign Lady was brought to bed of twins: that he never knew a woman of the name of Le Brun, nor did he ever hear the ſaid M. La Marre ſay, that he was acquainted with a woman of that name. And as to the time of the delivery, he, of his own accord, obſerved, that it could not but be before the year 1748.

The evident pa [...] ⯑tiality [...] M. GillesSuch is the oath of Monſieur Gilles, after having given the pointed anſwers ſo favourable to the defendant, which have been above recited; and it is [...] particular, that this man, wh [...] [...] oath hath, for decency's ſake [...] [24] ſome circumſtances which he had former⯑ly told, is ſo apprehenſive leaſt the cir⯑cumſtances might in any reſpect aſſiſt the defendant, that he takes care to cut them off effectually from this cauſe, by a round aſſertion, that the delivery could not but be before the year 1748.

It was foreſeen by wiſe and up⯑right men, that juſtice would here be pervert⯑ed.So fatal to the defendant were theſe moſt iniquitous proceedings in France, which every wiſe and upright man con⯑demned from the firſt moment they were mentioned; becauſe it was evident that they would tend to pervert juſtice.— How far they have done ſo, the inſtances ſelected from the proof will be ſufficient to ſhew.

A ſhocking fact which the plaintiffs have not attempted to juſtify.But there is a fact in the conduct of the plaintiffs, which they have not at⯑tempted to juſtify in their elaborate me⯑morial; nor can I ſee indeed the leaſt poſſibility of juſtifying it, as it is a thing clearly proved, and of a moſt ſhocking nature.

The plaintiffs French agents in deſpair be⯑take themſelves to the book of Michelle.It appears, that when the plaintiffs French Agents were deſpairing of making any [...]overies in Paris, they at laſt fell [...] book of Michelle, an inn-keep⯑ [...] [...] bore, that Mr. Fluratl, a [...] and his family, had come to this Michelle's upon the 8th of July 1748, [25] and remained there three weeks. This was blazed abroad as a moſt important diſcovery, ſince it would effectually prove an alibi on the 10th of July, the day on which Lady Jane is ſaid to have been de⯑livered at Madame Le Brun's. It was affirmed by Mr. Andrew Stuart, that the name of Fluratl was written by Sir John Stewart's hand, with which he was well acquainted;^* and then a ſtrong argu⯑ment of ſuſpicion was drawn from Sir John's having taken a falſe name.^† This book of Michelle having been carefully peruſed, and commented upon, was by a warrant from the never-failing Tour⯑nelle, locked up; ſo that no perſon could have acceſs to ſee it, but upon the plain⯑tiff's application.

It becomes ne⯑ceſſary to prove the contents of Michelle's book.In the courſe of the proof, it was ne⯑ceſſary to have evidence of what was con⯑tained in this book; the proper way of proving which, was no doubt by pro⯑ducing the book. But the plaintiffs agents knew well that it would not bear examination; and that all they had ſo pompouſly boaſted of this book, would appear to be downright fiction. They were therefore reduced to a [...] dilem⯑ma.

[26] A deſperate ex⯑pedient reſolved upon.But they had now gone too far to re⯑treat; and a deſperate expedient was re⯑ſolved upon. If it ſhould paſs, their cauſe was infallibly won; and if it ſhould be diſcovered, they had already ſtood the ſtorm which had been raiſed by the Mo⯑nitoire and Tournelle; and they were pretty well hardened to the moſt ſevere accuſations.

Duruiſſeau is brought forth to ſwear with re⯑gard to Mich⯑elle's book.This deſperate expedient was to bring forth a champion in ſwearing. They addu⯑ced one Monſieur Durruiſſeau, a gentleman with a great many ſounding titles after his name—Maitre Pierre Charles Du⯑ruiſſeau, Conſeiller du Roi, Commiſſaire Enquêteur et Examinateur au Chatelet.— This man had the cuſtody of the book, and had examined it carefully; and he deliberately ſwears, That he examined Michelle's book (en a conſtaté l'etat) and that the article of Fluratl did not at all appear to him any way ſuſpicious; ſo much the rather that there were the Viſa of the Inſpecteur before and after the article in queſtion. That he does not perfectly remember if the Viſa which are put before and after this Article, are of the [...] [...]th with the article; but re [...] [...] there are upon the ſame [...] this article is wrote, and ſub [...] [...] [...]eto ſome other articles wrote, of which the deponent does not [27] recollect the number; neither does the deponent recollect if the Viſa of the In⯑ſpecteur does immediately follow the arti⯑cle of Fluratl, or is put after one or ſe⯑veral other articles; but he is certain there is a Viſa on the ſame page on which the article in queſtion is wrote. That ſo far as he can remember, the article which goes before that of Fluratl is of a date anteriour to that of the 8th of July. That he aſked Michelle, of whoſe hand writing was the article of Fluratl; and that Michelle anſwered the deponent, that this article was neither of his wri⯑ting, nor that of his wife; and that he preſumed that it was of the perſon who called himſelf Fluratl.—That Michelle's livre du Commiſſaire which is brought to him, commences ſubſequent to the 1750; and that he never ſaw Michelle's livre du Commiſſaire for the Year 1748. That the article of Fluratl appeared to him of a hand writing diſtinct and different from all the articles both upon that and the next page: and that it was the beſt wrote of the articles on that or the next page.

It appears from a cloud of evi⯑dence, that Mi⯑chelle's book [...] not be true, and it is produ⯑ced.After this, it appeared from a cloud of evidence, that Sir John and Lady Jane did not come to Michelle's till the [...] of July. Michelle's book was their [...] [...]er of importance; ſo it was produced in [28] order to remove a ſuſpicion thrown out on the part of the defendant, that the article Fluratl had been ſuperinduced by the plaintiffs agents. This ſuſpicion was indeed removed. But when the book was produced, it ſhewed why the plain⯑tiffs agents had kept it locked up, and why they had brought forth a man to ſwear to its contents.

The ſhameful perjury of Du⯑ruiſſeau.Upon examining the book, what a ſhameful figure does this Duruiſſeau make! for it appears that the article Fluratl is poſterior to an article of the 12th July: that there was no viſa of the Inſpecteur, as ſworn to by Duruiſſeau: that there were ſeveral other articles on the ſame and preceding page, of the ſame hand⯑writing with that of Fluratl.—Michelle poſitively ſwears, he never told this man that the article was written by Fluratl himſelf, but always ſaid it was written by the maid of the houſe. And though this man ſwears, that he never ſaw Mi⯑chelle's Livre du Commiſſaire for the 1748, yet that book was afterwards recovered; and it appears that this very Duruiſſeau had written in it a very few days before his examination.

Obſervations on this glaring fact. [...] this glaring fact a few obvious reflections ariſe.

[29] The plaintiffs French agents having examined Michelle's book, muſt have been in the know⯑ledge of Duruiſ⯑ſeau's perjury.The plaintiffs French agents had ſeen this book, and examined it with care. Can they therefore deny that they were in the knowledge of Duruiſſeau's per⯑jury?

It is therefore to be inferred, that the plaintiffs French agents have been guilty of ſubornation of perjury.It is an old maxim, nemo gratis malus, no body will be wicked for nothing. It is not then to be believed, that Duruiſ⯑ſeau ſubmitted to proſtitute himſelf to this ſhameful perjury, without being re⯑warded. We are therefore well war⯑ranted to infer, that the plaintiffs French agents have been guilty of ſubornation of perjury.

The plaintiffs French agents would go any length, and can bear no credit.I aſk then, what lengths would not theſe French agents go in the proſecution of their cauſe? And I deſire to know, if any credit can be given to the proofs which they have reared up.

If a party is proved to have ſuborned even one witneſs, it muſt contami⯑nate the whole of his proof.As this is only the Eſſence of the Dou⯑glas cauſe, I do not mention various per⯑juries, which appear in the plaintiffs proof, particularly that of Megnon. But it is certain and eſtabliſhed law, that if a party ſhall be proved to have [...] even one witneſs to perjure himſelf, this vitiates and contaminates the whole of his proof, for no man can rely upon it.

[30] Noble ſaying of a great man.It was nobly ſaid by a great man, In vain are judges learned—In vain are judges upright, if the channels of juſtice are corrupted.

That the chan⯑nels of juſtice have been cor⯑rupted in the Douglas cauſe, ſhewn from the proof.That the channels of juſtice have been corrupted in the Douglas cauſe, I hope I have ſhewn beyond diſpute, from an inveſtigation of the proof.

This confirmed by the ſolemn oaths of two judges of the court of ſeſſion.Beſides, this is confirmed by the high authority of two judges of the court of Seſſion. The Lords Gardenſton and Monboddo, who were both in France as counſel for Mr. Douglas, have both declared upon their great oaths, that the French proof is corrupted by the atro⯑cious proceedings of the plaintiffs. Theſe judges have done no leſs, ſince they have ſo⯑lemnly affirmed it in judgment. And as theſe two only, of the whole fifteen, had acceſs to know the real truth in this im⯑portant affair, we cannot give faith to the proof which has been brought againſt Mr. Douglas, without doing a manifeſt injury to both theſe judges.

The conduct of the plaintiffs ſuch, that no jury could pro⯑nounce a verdict upon their evi⯑dence. [...] [...]recedented and moſt atrocious [...] of this cauſe, has been ſuch, that the plaintiffs proof can bear no faith; and were their proof really as ſtrong as they have vaunted it to be, I do main⯑tain, [31] that no jury could pronounce a ver⯑dict upon ſuch rotten evidence.

The Douglas cauſe may be de⯑cided on conduct alone.Therefore the Douglas cauſe may ad⯑mit of a very ſhort deciſion; nor is there any occaſion for taking the trouble to examine the immenſe proofs which have been collected with regard to it; ſince, after all, no man can venture to decide upon theſe proofs.

Part III. Examination of the proof brought againſt Mr. Douglas.As, however, the plaintiffs have ſuc⯑ceeded ſo far as to obtain a decree of the court of ſeſſion by the caſting vote of the Lord Preſident, I ſhall examine the proof which they have brought againſt Mr. Douglas.

It conſiſts of two general heads.It conſiſts of two general heads. 1ſt, Things abſolutely excluſive of the de⯑fendant's being the ſon of Lady Jane Douglas; and, 2dly, Circumſtances which look like preſumptions againſt it.

Firſt general head contains two articles ab⯑ſolutely conclu⯑ſive againſt Mr. Douglas, if true.Under the firſt head are two articles. 1ſt, That Lady Jane was not pregnant; and, 2dly, That upon the 10th of July, ſhe was in the houſe of Godefroi, [...] inn⯑keeper in Paris; and ſo conſequently could not be delivered that day at the houſe of Madame Le Brun.

[32] The age of Lady Jane now given up, though the very foundation of all this ca⯑lumny.With regard to the pregnancy, the objection ariſing from the age of Lady Jane is now given up; though it is ma⯑terial to obſerve, that it was her age alone which originally furniſhed a pre⯑tence to her enemies to raiſe a calumny againſt her.

No proof that Lady Jane feign⯑ed pregnancy.The proofs by which the plaintiffs have attempted to ſhew that Lady Jane ſimulated or feigned pregnancy, are the weakeſt that can poſſibly be imagined^*, though one ſhould have thought this would have been the ſtrength of their cauſe.

Lady Jane's be⯑ing pregnant, e⯑vident to multi⯑tudes.But a fact which was open to the ob⯑ſervation of multitudes was too ſtubborn even for Duke Hamilton's agents, with all their art; they were therefore obliged to deſiſt from attacking, where there was a fair field for inveſtigation.

The plaintiffs artfully avoid the natural or⯑der of this cauſe, and attempt an⯑other alibi.They betook themſelves to what, from the very nature of the thing, muſt be private, and where there was room for the execution of their dark deſigns. Don't [33] talk of pregnancy, ſay they. It could not be, for there was no delivery. We can prove Lady Jane to have been on the 10th of July in the houſe of Godefroi, at the Hotel de Chaalons; for ſhe entered to that inn upon the 4th of July, and did not leave it till the 14th. And this we can prove by the books of that inn, and by the oaths of Godefroi and his wife.

The plaintiffs themſelves at firſt gave no credit to the evidence of this alibi, and it is probable no ſuch evidence did then exiſt.Before examining the evidence of this alibi at Godefroi's, it is of conſequence to obſerve, that the plaintiffs themſelves, at the beginning of the cauſe, and for a long time afterwards, did not give the leaſt credit to that evidence; for we have ſeen that they betook themſelves to an⯑other alibi at Michelle's, totally contra⯑dictory to the alibi at Godefroi's; and therefore it is probable, that Godefroi and his wife did not ſay at firſt what they ſwear now.

The firſt alibi ſtronger than this, tho' now allowed to be falſe.It is alſo of conſequence to ſtate the ſtrong evidence which the plaintiffs reared up for the alibi at Michelle's.

The firſt alibi proved by Ma⯑dame Michelle. Madame Michelle ſwore, that in the book of the Inſpecteur depoſited at the Tournelle, there is an article, which bears, that one Monſieur Fluratl, a Scotſ⯑man, and his family, entered to the Ho⯑tel [34] d'Anjou, kept by her and her huſ⯑band, on the 8th of July 1748. That this article was inſerted by the hand of Marie Maliſſet, who was at that time ſervant in the ſaid hotel. That the ſaid Marie wrote that article the ſame day that the gentleman entered, and that it was in preſence of the deponent^* that all thoſe who came to lodge at her houſe were inſerted in the book of the Inſpec⯑teur, at leaſt that it ſhould be ſo; and that ſhe does not believe that ſhe failed in that; ſo much the rather, becauſe it is the intereſt of thoſe who keep houſes not to omit to inſert their lodgers in the book of the Inſpecteur, which ſerves them for a rule to fix the epoch of the pay⯑ment, which runs from the day when the apartments are hired^†.

The firſt alibi proved by Mon⯑ſieur Michelle. Monſieur Michelle, huſband to the pre⯑ceding witneſs, ſwore, that the ſame day that Sir John and Lady Jane arrived, the girl Marie aſked the gentleman's name, and inſerted it the ſame day in the book of the Inſpecteur ^‡.

The force of theſe depoſitions.From theſe depoſitions it was proved, that Sir John Stewart, under the deſig⯑nation of Fluratl, was entered in the book [35] of the Inſpecteur on the 8th of July, the very day of his arrival; and that as this book fixed the time from which the room rent was payable, Sir John had paid rent at Michelle's from the 8th day of July downwards.

The firſt alibi proved by Ma⯑dame Blainville. Madam Blainville, a perſon who lodged in Michelle's houſe, ſwore that Sir John and Lady Jane entered to Michelle's in the beginning of July, ſhe does not ex⯑actly know the day^†: and from the account this witneſs gives of the tranſ⯑actions of Sir John and Lady Jane, it would appear that they were about twenty days in the hotel before ſhe left it, which was on the 29th of July, ſo that her depoſition makes their entry cor⯑reſpond with the book of the Inſpecteur, as ſworn to by M. and Madame Michelle.

The firſt alibi proved by Breval. Breval, a periwig maker, ſon-in-law to Michelle, ſwore that Sir John and his company came to Michelle's in the month of July, and went away about the month of Auguſt, after having ſtaid, as he be⯑lieves, a little leſs than a month^‡.

The firſt alibi proved by Ma⯑dame Favre. Madam Favre, employed by Sir John and Lady Jane as a nurſe, ſwore that ſhe [36] kept the child at her own houſe two or three weeks, after having paſſed two or three nights in the hotel d' Anjou ^‖; ſo that the depoſition of this woman alſo correſponded with the ſtory of Sir John and Lady Jane having arrived at Michelle's upon the 8th of July; becauſe it was an agreed point by all parties, that Sir John and Lady Jane left Michelle's about the ſecond or third of Auguſt, and conſe⯑quently could not have been there ſo long a time as was depoſed to unleſs they had entered upon the eighth of July, accord⯑ing to the Book of the Inſpecteur.

The firſt alibi compleated by Duruiſſeau.To complete the ſyſtem Duruiſſeau was brought forth as a man who, being of better rank and character, and an offi⯑cer of police, might gain more credit, and he ſwore in the ſtrong and pointed manner which we have ſeen.

Michelle and his wife have ſworn falſely.What Michelle and his wife have ſworn as to this article of Fluratl being written the day of the arrival of Sir John Stewart, and that the book of the Inſpec⯑teur was the rule for ſtating the rent of the rooms, is certainly falſely ſworn; becauſe the article immediately preceding was dated the 12th of July, ſo that it is impoſſible that the article of Fluratl could be written till after the 12th.

[37] Blainville, Bre⯑val, and Favre, have ſworn falſely.If Sir John and his company did not arrive till after the 12th, then Blainville, Breval and Favre, have alſo ſworn falſely as to the time of Sir John's reſidence in the houſe.

Duruiſſeau groſly perjured, and his perjury and ſubornation ſufficient to de⯑ſtroy the plain⯑tiff's plea.Duruiſſeau has already been conſidered. He is indeed the capital figure in the abandoned group; his perjury is groſs and notorious, and cannot be palliated: Duruiſſeau's perjury is of itſelf ſufficient to deſtroy the plaintiff's plea, as it is ma⯑nifeſt that he has been ſuborned. He was brought to ſwear ſolely to the con⯑tents of Michelle's book, with which the plaintiff's French agents were well ac⯑quainted; and as they might have pro⯑duced the book itſelf, what reaſon can we poſſibly aſſign for their bringing Du⯑ruiſſeau to ſwear to its contents, except their intending that he ſhould give falſe evidence concerning it as he has accord⯑ingly done?

In conſidering the new alibi we muſt keep in mind the falſity of the evidence as to the original alibi.Therefore in conſidering the new alibi at Godefroi's, the falſity of the evidence with reſpect to the original alibi at Mi⯑chelle's muſt be kept in view, and the evidence brought at the laſt hour of this odious proceſs will be examined with a ſuſpicious eye.

[38] Two things ne⯑ceſſary to make good the alibi at Godefroi's.To make good the alibi at Godefroi's, two things are neceſſary. 1ſt, That Godefroi's books be regularly kept. 2dly, That Sir John Stewart and his company ſhould be found in them.

Godefroi's books conſidered.As to the regularity of theſe books upon a careful conſideration of them, it appears, that they are on the contrary moſt irregular.

Godefroi's books explained.They are of two kinds; a houſehold book in order to account with the gueſts, and a police book in order to ſhow an exact liſt of the gueſts to the inſpecteur of police, who viſits all the inns of Paris by publick authority.

The apparent irregularity of Godefroi's books.It appears that many people are entered in the houſhold book who are not entered in the police book: and on the other hand, that many are entered in the police book who are not entered in the houſ⯑hold book; ſo that notwithſtanding of that accurate police which our neigh⯑bours would fondly diſplay as one of thoſe advantages which they enjoy above this free country, though it may impoſe upon ſuperficial people, is indeed but the phan⯑tom of French vanity.

The irregularity of Godefroi's books ſhewn from the oath of his wife.Nay it is acknowledged by Madame Godefroi, that perſons who come to this [39] houſe at night and go away in the morn⯑ing may happen not to be marked down in any way^*. And ſhe has poſitively depoſed that her houſe containing fifteen beds was generally full^†: yet during the whole time that Lady Jane and Sir John are pretended to have been in this inn, and when Godefroi has poſitively ſworn that they were lodged in the ſecond ſtory for want of room, there are only two perſons lodged in this large inn, accord⯑ing to the books, and at no time during the years 1748 and 1749, can the plain⯑tiffs ſhow from the books that the houſe was full.

Farther proof of the irregularity of Godefroi's books.It is therefore certain that many gueſts muſt have lodged in Godefroi's without being marked in the book, ſince it cannot be preſumed that ſo great a number hap⯑pened all to come at night and go away in the morning, as Mr. Godefroi's inn is not like an inn for paſſengers upon a great road, but is in the city of Paris, to which people reſort to ſtay ſome time; and at leaſt a third, if not one half of theſe people who put up at Godefroi's, ſtay with him during their reſidence at Paris.

[40] No dependance to be had upon Godefroi's books.Therefore Godefroi's books are ſo im⯑perfect and irregular, no dependance can be had upon them.

Godefroi's books, though regular, could be of no avail, un⯑leſs Sir John Stewart is found in them.But allowing Godefroi's books to be perfect and regular, they ſurely can be of no avail here, unleſs Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas be found in them.

The plaintiffs fondly attempt to apply a blank article to Sir John Stewart.In what manner have the plaintiffs ſhewn this? A blank article is pointed out which muſt be owned appears to apply to three perſons, but how is this blank article to be applied to Sir John Stewart, Lady Jane Douglas, and Mrs. Hewit?

The incredible oaths of Gode⯑froi and his wife.By the oaths of Godefroi and his wife, who ſwear it applies to theſe three per⯑ſons, although it was fifteen years ſince they had been in their houſe, and they had never heard or even thought of them ſince, and although they could fill up no other blank article in the ſame manner.

The new evi⯑dence of the plaintiffs incon⯑cluſive.So turns out the new evidence of the plaintiffs. If the birthright, and every thing that is valuable to a Britiſh ſubject, is to be taken away by ſuch evidence, the freedom which our forefathers have purchaſed to us with ſo much blood and [41] treaſure is indeed but a ſlender inheri⯑tance.

Godefroi's tale improbable at firſt view.The tale told by Godefroi is at firſt view exceedingly improbable. The price at his inn is three livres or half a crown Engliſh a day for lodging, a bottle of wine and two meals, viz. dinner and ſup⯑per; the price of the wine is twenty four ſous or one ſhilling Engliſh, the price of the room to thoſe who only ſleep and go away in the morning, is ten ſous or five pence Engliſh; therefore there remained only thirteen pence Engliſh for two meals and attendance through the day. If any man can believe that Lady Jane Douglas and Sir John Stewart were ſerved in the expenſive city of Paris, and in their own apartments, at the miſerable rate of thir⯑teen pence each a day, it is what never happened before, nor will ever happen again, to any Britiſh perſon whatever, much leſs to people of faſhion recom⯑mended by the chief magiſtrate of Rheims, as was the caſe with Sir John and Lady Jane; and it is in proof that when they were at Michelle's, where their rank was not known as at Godefroi's, they lived at more than double the expence^* which it is pretended they did at Godefroi's.

[42] Farther impro⯑bability of Gode⯑froi's tale. Godefroi's tale is farther improbable, becauſe it repreſents Sir John and Lady Jane as following a different method from what they uſed to do. Madame Michelle has ſworn that they paid in ready money any thing that ſhe may have furniſhed them^†. It is therefore moſt reaſonable to ſuppoſe that they paid all ready money at Godefroi's.

Godefroi's oath felo de ſe.But luckily for Mr. Douglas, Godefroi's oath is ſo contradictory that it is felo de ſe.

Godefroi's book contains only thoſe who eat at the ordinary.For it is acknowledged^‡ that Sir John and his family were entertained in their own apartments, and yet Godefroi and his wife ſwears that the article in this houſ⯑hold book applies to them, although the houſhold book is indiſputably kept for thoſe only who eat at the ordinary, which is plain from this, that every perſon whoſe name is there inſerted is charged equally high.

Sir John and his family did not eat at the ordi⯑nary, ſo it is im⯑poſſible they could be in Godefroi's book.As therefore Sir John and his family eat in their own apartments, it is impoſ⯑ſible that an article in the ordinary book of the inn can be applied to them.

This is evident to all who have tra⯑velled in France.This is evident to all who have had occaſion to travel in France, and indeed [43] it is plain, that an inn-keeper can enter⯑tain a dozen or twenty people at one table at a much lower rate than he can enter⯑tain the ſame number of people in ſepa⯑rate companies.

Duke Hamil⯑ton's agents though artful have been inad⯑vertent in the article of Gode⯑froi.The Duke of Hamilton's agents, who in moſt inſtances appear ſo artful, have been a little inadvertent in this great ar⯑ticle of Godefroi, whoſe character and that of his wife they have highly extolled.

It would have been better for them to have had no more to do with books.It would have been better for them to have had no more to do with books of which, one ſhould think, they got enough at Michelle's. It would have been better to have made Godefroi and his wife ſwear from memory alone, that Sir John and his company lodged with them on the 10th of July 1748, their aſtoniſhing me⯑mories would then have at leaſt had a fair field; and they who are diſpoſed to give credit to ſuch memories could not have been ſtartled by obſtacles which to common underſtandings muſt appear un⯑ſurmountable.

It is undeniably ſhewn that there is no ſuch proof againſt Mr. Douglas as the law requires.Having thus ſhewn that the books of Godefroi, with the oaths of him and his wife, are unworthy of credit, and as nothing of any weight has been proved to invalidate the ſtrong evidence of Lady Jane's pregnancy, there is not in the huge [44] volume of the plaintiff's proof any cir⯑cumſtance abſolutely excluſive of the de⯑fendant's being the ſon of Lady Jane Douglas, and of conſequence no ſuch proof as the law requires to deprive a ſubject of his birthright, in which he is eſtabliſhed by the acknowledgment of his parents and common fame, and which Mr. Douglas has had ſolemnly confirmed to him by the verdict of a reſpectable jury.

Second general head of the plaintiffs proof, circumſtances like preſump⯑tions.The ſecond general head of the plain⯑tiffs proof conſiſts of circumſtances which look like preſumptions againſt the defen⯑dant.

Theſe to be con⯑ſidered not as material to the cauſe, but in order to wipe off the aſperſions of malice.I enter upon the conſideration of theſe not that I think them material in judging of this great cauſe, but that I am anxious to wipe off thoſe foul aſperſions which malice has thrown upon the memories of Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas, and upon the honour of a young gentle⯑man whoſe ſpirit upon this trying occa⯑ſion proves him to be of noble blood.

One circum⯑ſtance only external.Of theſe circumſtances or preſumptive proofs, there is one only which may be called external; all the reſt ariſe from the conduct of Sir John and Lady Jane.

[45] The external circumſtance is the enleve⯑ments.The ſingle external circumſtance is the enlevements of which we have heard ſo much: that is to ſay, that in the year 1748, when Sir John and Lady Jane produced a young child to the world, a young child was carried off from his pa⯑rents, and that in the year 1749, when Sir John and Lady Jane brought a child ſixteen months old to Rheims, a child about ſixteen months old was carried off from his parents, and that both theſe enlevements happened in the city of Paris.

Theſe enleve⯑ments have been trumpeted abroad, and a fooliſh calcula⯑tion has been made with re⯑gard to them.Theſe enlevements have made much noiſe, and have been trumpeted by the plaintiffs as amazing diſcoveries, nay, in the memorial before the grave court of ſeſſion, a fooliſh calculation has been in⯑ſerted, to make ſhallow people imagine that there was mathematical demonſtra⯑tion againſt the defendant.

Theſe enleve⯑ments have no⯑thing to do with this cauſe.But when theſe enlevements are atten⯑tively conſidered, they have nothing to do with the preſent cauſe.

Mignon's child ſhewn to have nothing to do with this cauſe.The firſt child which was that of one Mignon, a glaſs-grinder, who is alledged to be Mr. Douglas, had blue eyes and a fair complexion^*, whereas the child produced by Sir John and Lady Jane at [46] Rheims, had black eyes and a dark com⯑plexion^*. The colour of a child's eyes and complexion will not change from blue to black, and from fair to dark, in travelling from Paris to Rheims.

Sanry's child ſhewn to have nothing to do with this cauſe.The ſecond child, which was that of one Sanry, a rope-dancer, could both walk and ſpeak a little at the time it was carried off^†: whereas, Sholto, the ſecond child, could neither walk nor ſpeak at the time it was ſeen in London^‡, which was a good while after the time of the enlevement of Sanry's child. And it is further as clear, as writings and witneſſes can make any fact in the world, that this child was carried off after Sir John had left France, and when he and lady Jane and their two children were living in London^‖.

All the other circumſtances the conduct of Sir John and Lacy Jane.All the other circumſtances of pre⯑ſumption againſt the defendant, ariſe from the conduct of Sir John and lady Jane.

Sir John and Lady Jane not now alive to ex⯑plain their con⯑duct.In conſidering theſe it is proper to ob⯑ſerve, that we are conſidering the con⯑duct of two perſons who are not now [47] alive to explain to us all the motives of it, nor perhaps, were they alive, would they be able to recollect all the motives at this great diſtance of time.

Yet ſeveral of theſe circum⯑ſtances accounted for very natu⯑rally.Yet ſeveral pieces of their conduct, which at firſt ſight appears ſuſpicious, may be accounted for very naturally.

Sir John and Lady Jane's con⯑cealment at Pa⯑ris accounted for.Their concealment at Paris is one of the ſtrongeſt of theſe circumſtances: but let us remember their ſituation at that time. It has been ſolemnly depoſed to that they were then very poor, we are therefore bound to believe they were ſo. The bill of 1979 livres which Sir John carried with him from Rheims, was no⯑thing to a man of his character, who was ſo diſſipated, ſo profuſe, and I will ſay, ſo generous, that upon his receiving a ſum of money, no body could ſay how much of it was engaged for debt, or in⯑deed, if half an hour after, a ſix pence of it would be in his pocket.

Sir John and Lady Jane were anxious to con⯑ceal from the duke of Douglas their being at Paris, and this fully explained.As I would not ſplit hairs about every trifle, which has been the great art of the plaintiffs, I ſhall not inſiſt that Sir John and Lady Jane were in real poverty, but ſurely it cannot be denied that they at the time pretended poverty; for they wrote to the duke of Douglas in a very affecting ſtrain upon that head, and they [48] borrowed money from M. Andrieux, at Rheims, with whom they had then very little connection. That being the caſe, they were anxious to conceal from the duke their having gone to Paris; for, ſaid they, the duke will be offended at our ſeeming extravagance, and will very rea⯑dily obſerve, here are two people crying for want, and yet they have left Rheims and have taken a fooliſh journey to Paris. To ſend money to ſuch people, would be like throwing it into a ſieve.

Therefore they uſed ſo many methods of con⯑cealment.Sir John and Lady Jane were thus in a dilemma. She could give no good reaſon for having left Rheims, as there was very able aſſiſtance to be had there for women with child. She had run off in a pannick, as women in that ſituation do often take moſt unaccountable pannicks. She and her huſband therefore thought they had nothing for it but if poſſible to keep this journey from the knowledge of the duke, therefore it was that they lived in a private manner at Paris: therefore it was that they dated their letters at Rheims; therefore it was that Sir John, though very fond of his countrymen, prevailed with himſelf to refrain at this time from ſeeing them: And ſo appre⯑henſive were he and Lady Jane that their being at Paris ſhould get air, that they [49] did not truſt even Johnſton, a couſin of Mrs. Hewit's, with the ſecret.

Other circum⯑ſtances admit of a double inter⯑pretation.Other pieces of their conduct will ad⯑mit of a double interpretation, ſuch as their leaving their maid ſervants at Rheims. It may be ſaid that they left their maids becauſe they did not chooſe to make them privy to the ſhameful plot which they were carrying on: but on the other hand, upon the ſuppoſition of the impoſture, would they not have taken theſe maids as accomplices of the fraud? If they were accomplices, as the plain⯑tiffs themſelves poſitively affirms, with reſpect to Iſabel Walker, they certainly would not leave them at Rheims, when they could be of ſo much uſe to them at Paris, were it only to have ſerved as wit⯑neſſes to the ſuppoſed birth. If they were not accomplices, then they were both unſuſpicious teſtimonies in behalf of the defendant; and if their teſtimony be true, there is an end of the plaintiff's plea.

The maids being left at Rheims, ſtrongly againſt the plaintiffs.So that this circumſtance of leaving the maids, is the moſt unlucky that the plaintiffs could poſſibly have ſelected; nor can I really ſee how it is poſſible for them to extricate themſelves from the difficul⯑ties in which it places them.

[50] Leaving the maids difficult to be explained.It muſt be owned that we cannot ac⯑count for theſe maids being left, but one undeniable piece of evidence in this cauſe may ſerve to make us pay little regard to ſuch circumſtances.

Leaving the man-ſervant a circumſtance much more ſuſpicious.When Sir John and Lady Jane came to Liege, in their way to Paris, they left there their man ſervant, who was a Frenchman. This circumſtance the plaintiffs inſiſted was ſtrongly ſuſpicious, becauſe they were leaving this French⯑man behind them at the very time when he could be of moſt uſe to them.

Though Sir John could give no account of this, it is now by good providence clearly explain⯑ed.When Sir John Stewart was aſked what was the reaſon of their leaving this man-ſervant, he could give no account of it whatever; and we ſhould now have heard it urged as an undeniable circum⯑ſtance of guilt, had not the wife of this man by good providence been alive, and told that her huſband was preſſed by Sir John and Lady Jane to go along with them, and that the reaſon why he did not go to France, was his having been a deſerter from that ſervice^*.

Therefore all the other cir⯑cumſtances might have been explained had they been taken in time.Not one of all the circumſtances is ſo ſtrong as this which has been ſo happily cleared up, and therefore we are to in⯑fer that had they all been enquired into [51] at an earlier period, they would all have been as plain to us as this now is.

Alledged con⯑tradictory ac⯑counts, by Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit.Much has been ſaid of contradictory accounts which have been given by Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit.

This not true as to any ma⯑terial circum⯑ſtance, but one miſtake which was ſoon cor⯑rected.In the firſt place, this is not true as to any material circumſtance except in one inſtance: When Sir John was aſked the name of the perſon in whoſe houſe Lady Jane was brought to bed, which he did not recollect at the time, and mentioned Michelle's inſtead of Le Brun's, which, however, he corrected in a very ſhort time after.

Their varying in trifles a ſtrong argument againſt an impoſture.Their varying in trifles is rather a ſtrong argument againſt an impoſture being committed; for if that had been the caſe, a tale would have been con⯑certed and uniformly told: To forget circumſtances, or remember them in va⯑rious ways, is what we commonly ob⯑ſerve in the courſe of human life; and I can appeal to any two of my readers, who have been preſent at the ſame tranſ⯑actions, and deſire them to try, if after ſome years have elapſed, they do not va⯑ry in the remembrance of many particu⯑lars. One memory is more diſtinct and comprehenſive than another, and ſome people are apt to confound the ideas ſug⯑geſted by fancy, with thoſe preſerved by [52] memory, as was the caſe with Sir John Stewart, and is the caſe with moſt peo⯑ple of lively imaginations.

Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit, were all along conſiſtent in the great lines of their ſtory.It is, however, certain, that Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit, did all along give the great lines of their ſtory with perfect conſiſtency.

Objection from what Lady Jane is ſaid to have told to the counteſs of Stair.One objection has been made to this. It has been ſaid, that Lady Jane told a very different tale to the counteſs of Stair, to whom ſhe ſaid, that ſhe was delivered immediately on her coming to Paris.

Anſwer 1. This alledged by only a ſingle witneſs.To this it is anſwered, 1ſt, That it is only proved by the oath of the honourable Mrs. Primroſe, who ſwears that ſhe heard her mother, the counteſs of Stair ſay, what ſhe heard from Lady Jane; there⯑fore, this is at beſt but the hear-ſay of a hear-ſay, which is not legal evidence.

Anſwer 2. This witneſs certainly in a miſtake, ſhewn from the ſtory itſelf.But 2dly, It is certain, that from in⯑advertency, from dullneſs of hearing, or from a fallacious memory, people who are equally honeſt, will give very different accounts of what they heard in conver⯑ſation; and it is evident at firſt view, that one of theſe ladies, either the coun⯑teſs of Stair, or Mrs. Primroſe, muſt have been in a miſtake with regard to Lady Jane's ſaying that ſhe was delivered [53] immediately upon her arrival in Paris, which was upon the 4th of July, be⯑cauſe we find the 10th of July marked in her pocket-book as the day of her de⯑livery; and upon every occaſion ſhe gave the ſame account of it. Lady Jane is allowed by all parties to have been a wo⯑man of ſenſe; it is not therefore credible that ſhe would give Lady Stair alone a different account, which numbers from her own information could contradict.

Anſwer 3. Se⯑veral perſons of good character can depoſe that this witneſs is in a miſtake.Beſides, I am aſſured that there are ſeveral perſons of good character, ſtill alive, who heard the counteſs of Stair tell Mrs. Primroſe that ſhe was in a miſtake in ſuppoſing that this account was given her by Lady Jane, for that it was told to the counteſs by ſome other perſon.

A great clamour about the letters of Pierre La Marre as for⯑geries.A great clamour has been raiſed about certain letters from Pierre la Marre, which it is ſaid were forged by Sir John Stewart.

There was here no forgery, as theſe letters were never uſed by Sir John in evidence.In the firſt place, I deny that there was here, properly ſpeaking, a forgery. The eſſence of a forged deed conſiſts in the uſing it in evidence. Whereas, theſe letters never were ſo uſed by Sir John Stewart.

[54] The exiſtence of ſuch letters clear⯑ly proved.It is proved, that there really did exiſt ſuch letters long before the time at which the plaintiffs alledge that this forgery was committed, as appears from the private pocket-book of Lady Jane Douglas, and from the oaths of ſeveral witneſſes.

Internal evi⯑dence, that the letters now char⯑ged as forgeries could not be ſo.From a critical analyſis of theſe let⯑ters, it appears, that though they contain ſome phraſes of the pureſt French, they are, upon the whole, full of Angliciſms, and miſerably ſpelt; ſo that it is impoſ⯑ſible to ſuppoſe that Sir John could ever have thought of palming them upon a court of juſtice as French letters.

Sir John's beha⯑viour before the court of ſeſſion, a confirmation that there was here no forgery.Several probable conjectures have been made, both by counſel and judges, with regard to theſe letters, as may be ſeen in the law papers and ſpeeches. That Sir John never intended a forgery, muſt be evident to every impartial perſon; be⯑cauſe, upon his examination before the court of ſeſſion, when he was aſked with regard to theſe letters, he looked at them in his careleſs manner, and anſwered with that eaſy and unconcerned air which is the ſureſt ſign of conſcious innocence.

Suppoſing the worſt, how far will this go?But ſhould we ſuppoſe the worſt, and allow that Sir John did forge theſe let⯑ters, how far will this go? Truth indeed does not require the aid of falſhood; and [55] it is very fooliſh, nay very criminal, to call in falſhood in ſupport of truth; yet many inſtances of this have occurred, like the piae fraudes, which have been prac⯑tiſed in ſupport of religion.

If there were really a forgery, it is well balan⯑ced by Duruiſ⯑ſeau.At any rate, the plaintiffs attack this circumſtance with a very bad grace, con⯑ſidering what their conduct has been; for if this were a forgery, it would ſurely be well balanced by the attempt made to forge the contents of Michelle's book by the falſe oath of Duruiſſeau.

A forgery could only ſhew, that Sir John's anxi⯑ety made him take an impro⯑per ſtep.Allowing the plaintiffs unworthy ſup⯑poſition to be true, it can go no farther than to ſhew, that Sir John Stewart's anxiety to preſerve his ſon made him take a very improper ſtep.

Sir John and Lady Jane's ne⯑glect of diſprov⯑ing the calum⯑nies againſt them.The laſt circumſtance of conduct which has been vehemently urged in this cauſe, is the neglect ſhewn by Sir John and La⯑dy Jane of the reports which were raiſed of their having been guilty of impoſing upon the world ſuppoſititious children, and alſo their neglect of bringing unde⯑niable evidence of the truth of the birth, which, it is ſaid, they might eaſily have done, had the birth been real.

[56] Theſe calumnies raiſed in the moſt ſhameful manner.In anſwer to this, let it be conſidered, that theſe reports were raiſed in the moſt ſhameful and malicious manner.

Sir John and Lady Jane diſ⯑dained theſe ca⯑lumnies.Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Dou⯑glas were high-minded people, and diſ⯑dained ſuch calumnies, as they had a con⯑tempt for the authors of them.

A ſtriking proof of this.A ſtrong proof of this, and which ſtrikes one exceedingly, is, that in the private correſpondence of Sir John and Lady Jane, which was never intended for the public view, but has been moſt accidentally recovered, they never once mention theſe injurious ſuſpicions, which ſhews how little they were really affected by them; for, upon truly generous minds, undeſerved calumnies will make no im⯑preſſion.

Lady Jane went to Douglas caſtle to aſk what proof would be neceſſary.Beſides, Lady Jane had gone to Dou⯑glas caſtle with intention to aſk her bro⯑ther the Duke, what proof would ſatisfy him that the children, which ſhe had with her, were really hers; but her re⯑lentleſs enemies ſurrounded the Duke, and prevented her having acceſs to him.

Lady Jane ſaw that it was in vsin to bring any proof.This being the caſe, to what purpoſe bring proofs? As Douglas caſtle was be⯑ſet with dragons, theſe proofs could have [57] been of no ſervice to her. Had ſhe pro⯑duced letters both from Pierre La Marre and Madame Le Brun, it would have been ſaid that they were forged. Nay, had Pierre La Marre and Madame Le Brun themſelves been brought to Dou⯑glas caſtle, to ſwear to the truth of the birth, it would have been ſaid that they were accomplices, and perjuring them⯑ſelves to ſupport a falſehood; for we have lived to ſee ſuch accuſations laid againſt people infinitely leſs ſuſpicious.

This demon⯑ſtrated.What then was Lady Jane to do? People of undoubted credit and character had atteſted her pregnancy, and Mrs. Hewit was then alive, and affirmed ſhe was preſent at the delivery. If they were not to be believed, would obſcure people be believed with regard to her delivery?

Lady Jane con⯑ſults the Lord Advocate for Scotland.But my Lady Jane did more. She acted with the propriety of one of her high rank, and took the advice of King's counſel. She conſulted my Lord Preſton⯑grange, then his Majeſty's advocate for Scotland, in whoſe judgment and honour ſhe had a perfect confidence, ‘aſſuring him, that God knew her innocence, and that the children were hers: that ſhe did not doubt but that the man-midwife was ſtill alive; and that if his Lordſhip thought it neceſſary, ſhe [58] would bring any proof that ſhould be thought proper^*.’

His Majeſty's Advocate aſ⯑ſures her, that no proof was ne⯑ceſſary.His Lordſhip, with a ſpirit worthy of himſelf, and of the perſon whom he was addreſſing, anſwered her Ladyſhip, ‘That ſhe needed give herſelf no uneaſineſs about that matter; for that as ſhe and Mr. Stewart acknowledged theſe chil⯑dren, there was no further proof ne⯑ceſſary; for it behoved thoſe who challenged the birth to prove that they were not her Ladyſhip's children^†.’

The ſame ad⯑vice given by a judge of the [...] of ſeſſion.The ſame advice was afterwards given to the Ducheſs of Douglas by an honour⯑able judge, now deceaſed, the late Lord Shewalton, uncle to the preſent Earl of Glaſgow^‡.

Sir John and Lady Jane had no occaſion whatever to bring proofs.We are not therefore to wonder that Sir John and Lady Jane neglected to bring all the proof they might have done with regard to the birth of their children. The only view they could have in doing ſo, was to ſatisfy the Duke of Douglas, which they had the mortification to ſee was impoſſible. They had the opinion of counſel learned in the law, that their children were already in poſſeſſion of a [59] proof ſufficient to entitle them to all the privileges of Britiſh ſubjects; and as they themſelves knew the truth, ſo all thoſe whoſe good opinion they were anxious to preſerve, were firmly perſuaded of their honour, and of the legitimacy of their children.

At any rate, no⯑thing more can poſſibly be in⯑ferred, but that they had ſuch an imprudence as is uſual among mankind.If, after all, it ſhall be thought that Sir John and Lady Jane did not here act the moſt prudent part. I anſwer, that prudence was none of their virtues: but I will go farther, and ſay, that prudence is a very bad teſt of the credibility of the actions of men. If no conduct is be⯑lieved but what is conſiſtent with the rules of prudence, the hiſtory of human life may be comprehended within very narrow bounds.

The imprudence of human con⯑duct exemplified in a wonderful manner.I need not go far for an inſtance of this. The tutors of the Duke of Hamil⯑ton and his brother are moſtly perſons of great reſpect, as well as knowledge of buſineſs. From ſuch tutors one would expect very accurate proceedings, and that they would do the very beſt and moſt prudent things for the intereſt of their pupils.

Duke Hamil⯑ton's tutors be⯑gin this expen⯑ſive proceſs, when it is pro⯑bable his Grace ſhall never get a ſhilling in re⯑turn.But what has been their conduct in this proceſs? Why, after the court of ſeſſion had found that the Duke of Ha⯑milton [60] had no right to the eſtate of Dou⯑glas, but that it muſt deſcend to the heirs of line, theſe tutors, in place of appealing that judgment, ſo as to have their pupil's intereſt finally aſcertained, have been pleaſed to carry on a tedious law-ſuit againſt Mr. Douglas, and have laid out immenſe ſums of Duke Hamil⯑ton's money, when, in all probability, his Grace ſhall never get a ſhilling in re⯑turn, and his brother, Lord Douglas, ſhall be cut out of a chance which he had of ſucceeding to the Douglas eſtate.

Duke Hamil⯑ton's tutors au⯑thorize the Tournelle pro⯑ceſs and Moni⯑toire.Theſe tutors alſo authorized the Tour⯑nelle proceſs and Monitoire, which of themſelves might have been ſufficient to deſtroy their cauſe before a Britiſh jury.

Therefore the conduct even of Duke Hamil⯑ton's tutors not the moſt pru⯑dent.We may therefore ſurely be allowed to ſay, that the conduct of theſe tutors has not been the moſt prudent. This will be allowed to be an argumentum ad hominem to the plaintiffs.

Every unpreju⯑diced perſon muſt be con⯑vinced that the plaintiffs have a very bad cauſe.I flatter myſelf, that every unpreju⯑diced perſon is now convinced how very bad a cauſe theſe plaintiffs have been diſ⯑guiſing, with all the art that money can purchaſe.

What the plain⯑tiffs would have us believe.Let us ſhortly conſider what they would have us believe..

[61] That Lady Jane Douglas ſhould all at once become totally abandoned.It is this, That the ſiſter of the Duke of Douglas, a lady of a diſtinguiſhed good character, who, it is certain, was then in the way of having children herſelf, ſhould all at once have become ſo aban⯑doned as to enter into a plot to perpe⯑trate the moſt villainous impoſition upon the illuſtrious houſe from whence ſhe ſprung.

That Lady Jane and her huſ⯑band ſhould buy a ſubject of the French king, at the riſk of dreadful puniſh⯑ments.That having entered into this plot, ſhe and her huſband went to Paris, and there run the riſk of buying a ſubject of the French king, when they knew to what dreadful puniſhments their doing ſo ſub⯑jected them.

That they ſhould do this in the moſt dangerous manner.When they go about this, they take a recommendation from the chief magi⯑ſtrate of Rheims to the inn at Paris, where all the people from Rheims put up.

That they ſhould deliberately re⯑main 16 months expoſed to detec⯑tion, and all its diſmal conſe⯑quences.Inſtead of flying the kingdom after they had perpetrated ſo dangerous a crime, they ſtay above a month in Paris and the neighbourhood, and they return to Rheims, and remain there ſixteen months; during all which time, they were liable to detection, to a capital pu⯑niſhment, to torture, and to abſolute in⯑famy and diſgrace.

[62] That they ſhould give out that they had two children, when they had only one.They give it out that they had twins, when one child was ſufficient for their purpoſe. And they give out that the youngeſt twin was a weakly delicate child, though they had then only one child in their poſſeſſion.

That they ſhould again run the ſame deſperare riſque, and when they were in the greateſt poverty, ſhould bring up⯑on themſelves the burden of two children.The next year they go back again to Paris; they again run the ſame deſperate riſque; and pick up a ſecond child. And when they were in ſuch poverty that for many months they were obliged to burn and ſell the lace off their cloaths, in order to procure themſelves ſubſiſtence; at this very time they choſe to take the burden of no leſs than two children belonging to other people.

That this ſecond child, picked up by chance, ſhould anſwer exactly to the deſcription gi⯑ven 16 month, before he was ſeen, and that he ſhould be the very picture of Lady Jane.What was, if poſſible, ſtill more won⯑derful, this ſecond weakly child, which they picked up by mere chance, anſwer⯑ed exactly to the deſcription which they had given of Sholto, then youngeſt ſon, for ſixteen months before, and was the very picture of Lady Jane; ſo that not a perſon who ever ſaw them together, but was ſtruck with their remarkable likeneſs, as is proved by the oath of the Right honourable Mr. Stewart M`Kenzie, Lord Privy Seal for Scotland^* as well as the oaths of many other reſpectable witneſſes.

[63] Such being the plaintiffs proof, what can be the reſult of it?Such being the plaintiffs proof in the Douglas cauſe, I deſire every impartial man in theſe kingdoms to ſay, if he can conſiſtently with reaſon, not to men⯑tion charity, take upon him to pronounce a ſentence, finding Sir John Stewart, and Lady Jane Douglas guilty of an infa⯑mous impoſition; and declaring Archi⯑bald Douglas Eſquire to be the ſon of a French glaſs-grinder?

So ſtrong is the cauſe of Douglas, even without his additional proof.So ſtrong is the cauſe of Douglas, when we have conſidered only his filiation as eſtabliſhed by the acknowlegement of his parents, and common fame, oppoſed to thoſe vague and inconcluſive proofs which the plaintiffs, with all their op⯑preſſive proceedings, have been able to bring againſt him.

Part IV. But Mr. Doug⯑las has brought a poſitive proof both direct and circumſtantial.But what ſhall we ſay, if, beſides all this, Mr. Douglas can produce a chain of poſitive evidence, amazingly ſtrong, at this diſtance of time? He has done ſo. Though his parents did not make enqui⯑ries at Paris, he has; and theſe enquiries have produced a proof both direct and circumſtantial in his favour.

The direct proof brought by Mr. Douglas.The direct proof is that of the actual birth, and of what muſt have neceſſarily preceded and followed it; viz. the preg⯑nancy, [64] and the reconvaleſcence of reco⯑very.

Sir John Stew⯑art and Mrs. Hewit ſwear to the actual deli⯑very.With regard to the actual delivery, there are two witneſſes who ſwear to it; viz. Sir John Stewart, and Mrs. Hewit.

Objection to Sir John Stewart.It may be objected to Sir John, that his near connection to the defendant, ren⯑ders him a ſuſpicious witneſs.

Anſwer.To this it is anſwered, that he is a witneſs called by the plaintiffs them⯑ſelves, and therefore they cannot now pretend to reject his evidence.

Objection to Mrs. Hewit.It may be objected to Mrs. Hewit, that ſhe is alſo a ſuſpicious witneſs, as be⯑ing an attendant or domeſtick of Lady Jane Douglas.

Anſwer.If this objection were to hold good, the defendant, and all who ſhall ever be in his ſituation, muſt be deprived of al⯑moſt the only witneſſes who can be ex⯑pected to be preſent at a fact of this kind.

Objection to both Sir John and Mrs. Hewit.It may be objected to both Sir John and Mrs Hewit, that their evidence ought not to be received, becauſe they are accomplices in the crime charged in the preſent action.

[65] The anſwer to this, of ſerious and univerſal importance.To this it is anſwered, that not only in law and equity, but in the univerſal judgement of mankind, innocence is al⯑ways preſumed; nor are witneſſes to be rejected, as accomplices of a crime, when proof is required, to ſhew that a crime has been committed. If the objection were good againſt two witneſſes, it might be good againſt any number againſt whom a charge may be brought, in the ſame manner as has been brought againſt Sir John, and Mrs. Hewit; ſo that law, inſtead of being our guardian, would ſternly arm herſelf againſt her ſubjects, and render it impoſſible for any birth ever to be proved. But law is not ſo.

Therefore two poſitive witneſſ⯑es to the actual delivery.Therefore, to every impartial man in theſe kingdoms, there are two poſitive witneſſes to the actual delivery of Lady Jane Douglas.

Lady Jane's pregnancy ſtrongly proved.The pregnancy of Lady Jane is proved by Mrs. Hepburn, of Keith,^* Mrs. Glaſs,^† and a variety of other witneſſes, who ſolemnly depoſe to circumſtances; all which together, could not exiſt with⯑out a real pregnancy. At leaſt, if they do ever ſo exiſt, it is not above once in a million of times. Bountiful nature does [66] not leave us in ſuch a ſtate of uncertainty, with regard to what intereſts us ſo much.

Corroboration of the proof of La⯑dy Jane's preg⯑nancy.This proof of Lady Jane's pregnancy, becomes exceedingly ſtrong, when it is clearly proved, that after the time at which ſhe gave out that ſhe was delivered, ſhe had all the appearances of a woman newly recovered from childbed.

The poſitive proof of Lady Jane's delivery confirmed by different appear⯑ances.Let us lay together the different ap⯑pearances of Lady Jane, before and after the period at which her delivery is ſaid to have happened; and then judge if any doubt can be entertained of her delivery.

Theſe appear⯑ances could not poſſibly be aſ⯑ſumed.It is material to obſerve, that theſe ap⯑pearances could not poſſibly be aſſumed by dreſs, or by any other art; becauſe I am now to inſiſt only upon ſuch as muſt be allowed to have been the real appear⯑ances of her perſon.

Lady Jane's ap⯑pearance before the time when ſhe is ſaid to have been deli⯑vered.Before the period at which ſhe is ſaid to have been delivered, ſhe appeared with very large breaſts, and a countenance ſuch as ſhe uſually had when in health.^‡

Lady Jane's ap⯑pearance after the time ſhe is ſaid to have been delivered.After the period at which ſhe is ſaid to have been delivered, ſhe appeared with very flat breaſts, and a countenance thin, pale, and languid.^‖

[67] Theſe different appearances could not be without ſome intermediate ill⯑neſs.Now I deſire to know of every perſon of experience, and of every ſenſible phy⯑ſician, if Lady Jane could poſſibly have had theſe different appearances without ſome intermediate illneſs?

This intermedi⯑ate illneſs child⯑birth.If Lady Jane had an intermediate ill⯑neſs, why ſhall we doubt that it was childbirth, as ſolemnly depoſed by two witneſſes?

The circumſtan⯑tial proof brought by Mr. Douglas.The circumſtantial proof, in confirm⯑ation of the direct proof now ſtated; is exceedingly ſtrong, unleſs we can ſup⯑poſe a number of witneſſes, having no knowlege or acquaintance one with ano⯑ther, all combining different facts and circumſtances, ſo as to make one con⯑nected ſtory.

Monfieur Me⯑nager's circum⯑ſtantial proof.In the firſt place, Monſieur Menager, ſurgeon to a prince of the blood, at Paris, who is proved by other witneſſes to have been the moſt intimate acquaintance of Pierre La Marre, depoſes, that La Marre told him, that he had delivered a foreign Lady of an advanced age, who came from Rheims; that it was her firſt birth; that he had delivered her of twins, and of male twins, one of which was a ſickly delicate child, which on that account was left with La Marre, and was by him given out to nurſe in the neighbourhood [68] of Paris.^§ All theſe circumſtances, ſo directly correſpond with the defendants ſtory, that it is impoſſible they can be true, and his ſtory falſe.

The plaintiffs obliged to reſort to their uſual deſperate argu⯑ment that Mon⯑ſieur Menager is perjured.The plaintiffs therefore are obliged to have recourſe to their uſual deſperate ar⯑gument of repreſenting Monſieur Mena⯑ger as a man groſſly perjured.

Monſieur Me⯑nager acciden⯑tally diſcovered by thoſe acting for the defen⯑dant.That this matter may be fairly tried, it muſt be conſidered, that Monſieur Menager was accidentally diſcovered by thoſe employed by the defendant. It was from the prince of Turenne himſelf, that the information was received.^¶

Monſieur Mena⯑ger is a man of good ſtation and character.Monſieur Menager is a man of good ſtation and character, ſo does not deſerve to be ſuſpected without good reaſon.

The gentlemen employed for Mr. Douglas, are liable to no ſuſpicion.When Monſieur Menager was diſco⯑vered, the affairs of Mr. Douglas were entirely in the hands of gentlemen ſent from Britain. There were no French Procureurs, whoſe wicked proceedings we have ſeen. And the behaviour of the gentlemen ſent from Britain, on the part of Mr. Douglas, has been ſuch, that they ſurely have not ſubjected them⯑ſelves to any injurious imputation.

[69] Monſieur Mena⯑ger a good wit⯑neſs.Therefore it follows that Monſieur Me⯑nager muſt by every impartial perſon be held as a good witneſs.

Objection to Monſieur Mena⯑ger.The only objection therefore to Mon⯑ſieur Menager's evidence, is, that he is ſingle.

Anſwer.Were it really ſo, it were hard from thence to infer that he is perjured, or that a ſingle witneſs in a circumſtantial proof is not to be believed.

Monſieur Mena⯑ger is ſupported by Mr. Gilles.But he is not a ſingle witneſs, for M. Gilles muſt be held as a concurring wit⯑neſs to the ſame facts; for I hold him to the unſuſpicious teſtimony that he gave in preſence of Monſieur Moreau, which he could have no temptation to give, ſo that we have in reality two witneſſes to theſe ſtriking facts.

Monſieur Mena⯑ger is ſupported by other wit⯑neſſes.But Monſieur Menager is not ſupported by Gilles alone, for there are other wit⯑neſſes who depoſe to a variety of circum⯑ſtances; all of which wonderfully concur in ſupporting the ſtory of Monſieur Me⯑nager, and of conſequence ſupporting the ſtory of the defendant.

Witneſſes who ſupport Monſieur Menager.Theſe other witneſſes are a woman of the name of Garnier, a nurſe in the neighbourhood of Paris, the huſband of [70] this Garnier, and Madame Boucault, her neighbour.

Depoſition of nurſe Garnier in ſupport of Mon⯑ſieur Menager. Garnier ^* has depoſed that in ſummer 1748, while ſhe was living on the road to Menilmontain, ſhe got from this very Pierre la Marre, the friend of Menager, a weak delicate child who was a male twin, and his brother alſo a male, that he was a foreign child, and was viſited by foreign gentlemen, one of whom ex⯑preſſed ſuch a concern about him that ſhe ſuppoſed he was the father, and at laſt at the end of eighteen months, or there⯑abouts, this child was taken from her not to be given to another nurſe at Paris, but to be carried further off. In ſhort the account given of this child agrees ſo exactly to Sholto that it is impoſſible to ſuppoſe it could be any other.

The plaintiffs here again re⯑duced to their deſperate expe⯑dient of an accu⯑ſation of perjury.Therefore the plaintiffs are here again reduced to the deſperate expedient of ſuppoſing this woman to be perjured and corrupted, though like Menager ſhe was accidentally diſcovered by thoſe acting for Mr. Douglas, never was tampered with by a Danjou, or any other French agent, and in ſhort was never in the hands of any body but the gentlemen ſent from Britain.

[71] Confirmation of the evidence of Menager and Garnier by other unſuſpicious witneſſes.But it will not anſwer the plaintiffs purpoſe to ſay that this poor woman is perjured; they muſt further add to their black liſt her huſband^*, and alſo her neighbour Madame Boucault^†, for ſhe concurs with her in every particular, and ſome things ſhe has remembered more accurately than Garnier; for ſhe has ſaid that the child was kept only ſixteen months which was juſt the preciſe time; and ſhe has deſcribed one of the ſtranger gentlemen that came to ſee the child in ſuch a way that there is little reaſon to doubt but that it muſt have been Sir John Stewart.

The wonderful ſtrength of the defendant's cir⯑cumſtantial evi⯑dence at this diſtance of time.Now the fact being thus eſtabliſhed, beyond all poſſibility of doubt, that there was a weak twin foreign child given out to nurſe near Menilmontain by Pierre La Marre, in the year 1748, and that the ſtory told by Lady Jane and Sir John, and the ſtory told by Monſieur Menager, exactly tally in this ſtory, it appears that there is here a chain of circumſtantial evidence which no art or force of argu⯑ment can break; nay, were that link of the chain which has been formed by Me⯑nager, or that link which is formed by Garnier, and the evidences concurring [72] with her to be taken ſeparately, and compared with the ſtory told by Sir John and Lady Jane, there would be in either caſe a proof wonderfully ſtrong at this diſtance of time.

It is impoſſible that ſo many circumſtances ſhould concur, and the ſtory of the defendant not be true.Is it poſſible to believe that all theſe circumſtances ſhould concur, and yet that the ſtory of the defendant ſhould not be true?

Objection that M. Menager's La Marre is not the ſame with Sir John's La Marre.It has been objected by the plaintiffs, that this Pierre La Marre cannot be the ſame perſon mentioned by Sir John Stew⯑art, in his declaration before the court of ſeſſion, becauſe in ſeveral particulars he is proved to be very different from Sir John's La Marre.

The alledged differences ſhewn to be of ſmall importance.In anſwer to this, it muſt be obſerved, that the differences inſiſted on, are in reality of little importance. One of them is, that Sir John's accoucheur was called only Pierre La Marre, whereas Monſieur Menager's friend was called Louis Pierre De la Marre. This is no more but that M. La Marre, from an affectation of gentility very common in France, choſe to put De before his ſirname, which however he uſually dropt in familiar in⯑tercourſe or in ſubſcribing letters; for his contract of marriage produced by the plaintiffs being a formal deed, is no proof [73] of the manner in which he ſigned his letters. His being called Louis as well as Pierre, muſt appear a very frivolous ob⯑jection; for we all know that people who have two names in this manner, often ſink one of them. It has been ſaid too, that Sir John's La Marre was a Walloon, whereas Menager's La Marre is a Frenchman. But the anſwer is, that Menager's La Marre was born at Mon⯑treuil ſur mer, upon the borders of the Walloon country, and thence was readily taken for a Walloon. In ſhort the only variation of any conſequence is that Sir John has ſaid that he fell acquainted with La Marre at ſo early a period that it could not be the friend of Menager.

Sir John Stew⯑art's declaration candidly conſi⯑dered.In anſwer to this, let the candid and unprejudiced conſider that Sir John Stew⯑art was all his life long a man of vivacity and diſſipation, and was particularly re⯑markable for a ſtrange incorrect memory, as is proved by the oath of that worthy gentleman Mr. Hepburn of Keith, who knew him intimately, and who ſwears to moſt extraordinary inſtances of his for⯑getfulneſs when it cannot poſſibly be ſaid that he had any deſign; and therefore there is no wonder that a man of this ſingular frame of mind, who had been abroad at ſeveral different times, ſhould be in a miſtake in fancying a thing to [74] have happened much earlier than it really did, eſpecially when it is conſidered that when Sir John was obliged to make this judicial declaration he was very old, be⯑ing in his 74th year, and in ſuch an infirm ſtate of health, that he was brought into court from his bed.

Evidence which ſpeaks home to our hearts.It remains to conſider another kind of evidence in behalf of Mr. Douglas; and I am perſuaded that this evidence will ſpeak home to the hearts of the impartial people of theſe kingdoms.

Sir John and Lady Jane ſhew⯑ed a conſtant af⯑fection and con⯑cern for their children.Sir John and Lady Jane, during the whole courſe of their lives, ſhewed the greateſt affection and concern for theſe children, and this in no oſtentatious manner; for the moſt ſtriking inſtances of it were accidentally obſerved.

A very material queſtion was put by a judge of the court of ſeſſion to Iſabel Wal⯑ker, one of Lady Jane's maids, ‘Did you ever obſerve Sir John or Lady Jane repine at the expence of theſe children, or betray any ſign as if they were not their own?’ ‘Oh! no,’ replied the witneſs, with an air which convinced every unprejudiced perſon how much ſhe ſpoke from the heart. She added, that they at all times ſhewed an uniform fondneſs for their children, even [75] when they themſelves were in the greateſt poverty and diſtreſs.

The affecting letters between Sir John and Lady Jane an in⯑vincible proof to every humane mind.But if we ſhould even ſuppoſe them to be ſo conſummately cool and artful as to perſiſt for a ſeries of years in the deepeſt diſſimulation, and that too before a maid who was conſtantly with them, and ſaw them in their moſt unguarded moments, what ſhall we ſay when we read theſe letters, now accidentally recovered, and never intended for the view of any other perſon; theſe letters, written while Sir John was in priſon, and while Lady Jane was in ſtraits and in ſickneſs? Is it poſ⯑ſible to ſuppoſe, that theſe letters, writ⯑ten in ſo noble a ſtile of piety, and ex⯑preſſing ſuch warm ſentiments of tender⯑neſs and love for their children; is it poſ⯑ſible to ſuppoſe, that theſe letters were alſo dictated by diſſimulation?

The letters as ſtrong as if Sir John and Lady Jane had been overheard talk⯑ing together in their moſt pri⯑vate moments.I entreat my readers may peruſe theſe moving letters, and I know how their honeſt breaſts will feel for much injured innocence. In reading that correſpon⯑dence, it is juſt as if two alledged confe⯑derates in a crime were overheard talking together in the very next room; and when we hear them breathing ſuch ſtrains of truth, ſhall we not believe them? Nay, it is as if we ſaw into the very bottom or their hearts; and what do we [76] find there but the ſincereſt parental af⯑fection?

The dying de⯑clarations of Sir John, Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewit.Laſtly, We have Lady Jane Douglas, Sir John Stewart, and Mrs. Hewit, who have all three gone to death, ſolemnly atteſting the truth of the defendant's birth.

Dying declarati⯑ons are ſtronger than circum⯑ſtantial poofs.I do maintain, that theſe dying decla⯑rations alone, would be ſufficient to counterbalance all the circumſtantial proof which has been brought by the plaintiffs, allowing it all to bear faith in judgement. One witneſs upon the brink of eternity poſitively atteſting a fact, muſt to every humane mind, be of more avail, than many circumſtances which ſeeming⯑ly tend to prove the contrary. In the preſent caſe, ſuch circumſtances are op⯑poſed by no leſs than three witneſſes on the brink of eternity.

Concluſion, warmly addreſs'd to the impartial people of theſe kingdoms.Thus have I pleaded the cauſe of Mr. Douglas to the beſt of my abilities. I have examined the proof brought againſt him; and I hope I have ſhewn it to be to⯑tally inconcluſive, while I have alſo ſhewn an amazing weight of evidence in his fa⯑vour, conſidering the diſtance of time. Providence indeed has preſerved more proofs than could have been expected, in order to defeat the deſigns of unjuſt re⯑venge. [77] But I deſire and call upon my readers, to remember, that this cauſe might be decided on conduct alone. Per⯑jury, and ſubornation of perjury, muſt be conſidered as interwoven with every page of the plaintiffs French proofs; otherwiſe I muſt boldly ſay, that Mr. Douglas has not a fair trial. This alarm⯑ing cauſe is now far advanced. The feel⯑ings of indignation and of humanity are equally rouſed. I leave then the DOUG⯑LAS CAUSE with THE IMPARTIAL PEOPLE OF THESE KINGDOMS.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON A PAMPHLET LATELY PUBLISHED, INTITLED, CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DOUGLAS CAUSE.
[]SOME OBSERVATIONS, &c.

UPON ſeeing in the news papers of Saturday laſt, that Conſiderations on the Douglas Cauſe were that day publiſhed, and as I had read the proofs and memorials on that ſingularly important queſtion, I immediately ſent for theſe Conſiderations, in order that I might ſee every thing which ſhould be publiſhed upon a cauſe which has now for years ingroſſed the attention of al⯑moſt every perſon in the united kingdom, as well as in other countries. In the be⯑ginning of theſe Conſiderations, we are told that they are compoſed by a perſon, no law⯑yer, and diſconnected with both parties, whoſe friends are pretty equally divided in their wiſhes; that it is a queſtion of fact; and that he had often ſerved on juries, who are by the laws of Scotland allowed to judge [2] in matters of fact. From this preamble, I imagined that the obſervations of ſuch a perſon would contain nothing in favour of either party, but what was founded in the proof; and that however far the keenneſs of parties might diſpoſe them to carry their reſpective arguments, an impartial unconnected jury⯑man would conſider facts in their true light, diveſted of all art and falſe colouring. But how great was my ſurprize, when inſtead of this I found in the very next page an inſinuation, That of the ſeven judges who gave their opinions for the defender in Scot⯑land, two had been his council and agents, two appointed his guardians, and a fifth had ſuch connections with the defender as had induced him to decline judging in the pre⯑liminary ſteps of the cauſe. The plain mean⯑ing of this inſinuation is to convey an idea as if only two of theſe ſeven judges were to be conſidered as diſconnected with the de⯑fender: Whereas, on the other ſide, only two of the judges which remained, had the leaſt connection with the purſuers, by having been of their council. The fact, however, is, that three of theſe eight judges had been the purſuers council in the law-ſuits betwixt duke Hamilton and Mr. Douglas, and that ſome of them and ſeveral others, are nearly connected with thoſe who expect to be heirs of the duke of Douglas, failing the defender; whereas none of the ſeven jud⯑ges [3] who gave their opinions for the defender, have the moſt diſtant connection with him.

In the next place, this impartial jury⯑man, who by the bye, is clearly ſome hireling employed by the purſuers, (and who has only aſſumed the title of a diſcon⯑nected perſon, that his Conſiderations may have the greater appearance of impartiality) goes on to inform, that he begun the exa⯑mination of the proofs and memorials with diffidence; that he believed it an intricate cauſe from the diviſion among the judges; and that he was careful leſt he ſhould go wrong, as ſeven, or perhaps eight of the judges in Scotland had done; but that great was his aſtoniſhment on finding the cauſe perfectly clear againſt the defender. He then goes on to give his reaſons for being of this opinion, ſome of the moſt material of which I ſhall ſhortly touch upon, and ſhew that they are clearly falſe, and no other than an abridge⯑ment of the artificial arguments contained in the plaintiff's memorial.

The firſt is, that Lady Jane before leaving Aix la Chapelle, in a letter to Mr. Hal⯑dene, gave a falſe account of her deſtina⯑tion, which was prudent, if a fraud was intended, becauſe otherwiſe ſhe might have been watched. That ſhe declined ſtaying at Liege, and left Rheims upon the falſe pretence of want of proper aſſiſtance.

[4] It is not true that ever Lady Jane con⯑cealed or gave a falſe account of her deſtina⯑tion on leaving Aix—for ſome time, it is perfectly clear ſhe intended to have gone to Geneva, and there after changed her mind; when ſhe did ſo, ſhe made no ſecret of the place of her deſtination, told the whole cir⯑cle of her acquaintance at Aix that ſhe was going to Rheims, preſſed Lady Wigton come and live with her there, and cauſed to write to a perſon to take a houſe for her. She mentioned it to her whole acquaintances at Liege, at which place ſhe could not poſſibly ſtay, as it is the moſt diſagreeable place in Germany, and ſhe had by this time given orders to take a houſe for her at Rheims. Immediately on her arrival at Rheims, ſhe wrote to every perſon with whom ſhe had occaſion to correſpond, and even invited Lord Crawford to come and viſit them there. That after ſhe had ſtaid ſome time at Rheims, ſhe was adviſed to go to Paris, on account of the unſkilfulneſs of Accou⯑cheurs at Rheims, is alſo clearly in proof, and not the veſtige of evidence to the con⯑trary; ſo that this very ſuſpicious circum⯑ſtance is falſe from beginning to end.

This juryman next ſays, that ſo far were they on leaving Rheims from acquainting Mr. Mailfer of the motives of their journey [5] to Paris, that they tell him, that the object of their journey was to make purchaſes.

It is very extraordinary that a perſon ſhould tell an abſolute untruth in an affair of this ſerious nature. Sir John never told Mr. Mailfer that his buſineſs to Paris was to make purchaſes, nor does Mr. Mailfer ſay ſo in any part of the letter to Godfrey; and if Mailfer had ſaid it, which he does not, it would have been abſurd from hence to have argued that the motive of the journey was concealed, as it is clearly in proof that it was known to the whole town of Rheims.

Again it is ſaid, that Lady Jane avoided giving any detail of what paſt in Paris, and never was heard to mention any particular relative to the birth of her ſons; only that on being preſſed by Lady Stair, ſhe ſaid ſhe had been delivered within two or three hours of her arrival at Paris,—but that the ſcrutiny which has been ſince made, obliges the defender to give up this account of Lady Jane's.

This again is abſolutely falſe, and con⯑trary to clear evidence. Lady Jane did, in her own life time, mention all the circum⯑ſtances of her delivery, the time when, the perſon in whoſe houſe, and the Accoucheur by whom. The evidence of Lady Jane's [6] having ſaid ſhe was delivered within two or three hours of her arrival in Paris, is of a very ſingular nature. The hearſay of a hearſay from Lady Stair, then almoſt 80 years of age, and remarkably deaf, ſworn to by her daughter, Mrs. Primroſe, at the diſtance of many years; and who, at the time of giving her oath, is above 60 years of age. This very witneſs too has, from want of memory, ſworn ſundry things which are not true, and clearly diſproved; conſequent⯑ly this part of her oath is not very much to be depended upon, and is alſo contradicted by poſitive teſtimony. It is an abſolute un⯑truth, that the defender is forced out of this account given by Lady Jane, by the ſcrutiny ſince made. At the defender's ſer⯑vice, when no ſcrutiny had been made, the time, the place, and every circumſtance of the birth was mentioned, in the ſame manner as at preſent. If Mrs. Hewit had ſaid at the ſervice, that Lady Jane had been brought to bed in three hours after her arrival at Pa⯑ris; and it had now been inſiſted, it was ſix days after, what this impartial Scotch jury-man ſays, would have been true; but as it is otherwiſe, it is an abſolute falſhood.

He next ſays, Sir John's examination was taken in preſence of the Lords, with great deliberation, and laſted three days; and yet that the defender wants to reject it as [7] falſe in every article; and to ſubſtitute ano⯑ther La Marre, in place of Sir John's La Marre, with the aid of one Mr. Menager, who depoſes to a delivery performed by La Marre; but which cannot be that of Lady Jane, as it happened in the year 1746.

This is as unfair as any of his former obſervations. The defender never has, ſo far as I can obſerve from his memorial, re⯑jected any one part of Sir John's declaration as falſe; he has owned, that from his great age, then 74 years, and ſickly ſtate, having been raiſed out of bed to attend the court of ſeſſion, he had fallen into ſome in⯑conſiderable miſtakes, in anſwering queſti⯑ons as to facts, which happened ſixteen years before. I ſee it is aſſerted, and not denied, that he behaved on that occaſion, with uncommon eaſe and unconcern, which would have been impoſſible if he had been guilty of the crime this Jury-man ſuppoſes; and ſo far as I can obſerve from the printed ſpeeches of the judges, none of them have inſinuated, that he did not behave on that occaſion, in the moſt proper manner. As to the delivery mentioned by Mr. Menager, having happened in the year 1746, this is clearly not true, as there is the moſt unde⯑niable evidence of its having happened ſub⯑ſequent to La Marre's marriage, which was in the 1747, and in ſummer 1748, when he [8] gave out Sholto to be nurſed upon the milk of a woman near Paris, whoſe child was born in March 1748.

It is next ſaid, that the only time Sir John mentioned real perſons, was in a note to Mrs. Napier, in the year 1756, when he mentioned Michelle's as the place of de⯑livery, imagining that that family would, by that time, at the diſtance of 8 years, have been dead; but finding that they had been found out, he ſhifted the ſcene, and placed it in the houſe of the ideal Madame Le Brun, who was then mentioned for the firſt time.

This too is as untrue as any of his for⯑mer obſervations. Sir John mentioned one landlady in place of another, by mere unin⯑tended miſtake. La Brun's had been men⯑tioned in Lady Jane's life time, as the place of her delivery, ſo that it was not on the Mi⯑chelle family being found out, and denying that the delivery happened in their houſe that ſhe was firſt mentioned. And the reſult of the enquiries by Principal Gordon, never was communicated to Sir John, conſequently he could not vary the place, on being inform⯑ed of that enquiry.

He next ſays, that if a Scotch Lady of quality had been really delivered of twins [9] in the houſe of Le Brun, and by a La Marre, their whole friends, acquaintances, and neighbours, would have heard of it; and that every perſon in whoſe houſe they ever lodged abroad, remember them; and that every other perſon, except La Marre, and Le Brun, theſe precious people, as they are called, have been found.

To this it is, in the firſt place, to be no⯑ticed, that the only title Lady Jane took, either at Paris or at Rheims, was that of Madame Stewart, and that the wife of the meaneſt perſon in France is called Madame; ſuch as the noted Madame Mignion, Ma⯑dame Sanry, &c. who are common beg⯑gars; ſo that her being a lady of quality was not ſo much as known, and the de⯑livery of a lady of twins was ſurely no ex⯑traordinary affair. And it is not true, that every perſon with whom they lodged, ex⯑cept Le Brun, has been found. The land⯑ladies at Sedan are not found out. The per⯑ſon in whoſe houſe they lived after leaving Godefroi's, and before entering to Michelle's, has not been found out; and the nurſe brought to Michelle's, as well as Sir John's ſervant Quibil, one of Godefroi's ſervants, and ſeveral perſons of this very name of Le Brun, who at that time had houſes in Paris, are not found out; all of whom are admit⯑ted [10] to have exiſted: and there is the clear⯑eſt evidence poſſible of La Mar's exiſtence, and of his death; of his having brought Lady Jane to bed, and told it to ſundry of his acquaintances.

The Juryman then ſays, that they ar⯑rived at Godefroi's on the 4th, where they are proved by his books and oath to have remained till the 14th; he does not ſay where they were from the 14th to the 18th, when he ſays they arrived at Michelle's; that therefore Lady Jane could not have been delivered on the 10th of July in Le Brun's; and Mrs. Hewit has been guilty of wilful perjury in ſaying Lady Jane remained in childbed nine days. And this being the caſe, what credit, ſays he, can be given to any thing ſhe or Sir John can ſay?

I have conſidered the evidence of this man Godefroi, and of his books, with as much attention, and with much leſs partia⯑lity, than this Juryman; and I confeſs I never ſaw ſuch a burleſque upon evidence. An inn-keeper ſwearing at the diſtance of eighteen years to the particular days of the week and month when a perſon or company entered to his houſe, what rooms they oc⯑cupied, and how many days they ſtaid, is ſuch a memory as never was heard of before. [11] There are no ſuch perſons as Lady Jane and Sir John in his whole books in July 1748, ſo that the books can never be of the leaſt avail. There are indeed ſome arguments in the purſuers memorial, to ſhew that a blank account in this man's book muſt apply to Sir John; but this appears to me abſolutely chimerical: ſo it is unneceſſary, and indeed I have not time, to anſwer them.—It is not true, nor indeed is there the ſhadow of evi⯑dence, that they arrived at Michelle's on the 18th, or ſooner than the 19th at night, or 20th July. But as the purſuers in their memorial have ſaid ſo, this impartial, diſ⯑intereſted, and judicious Juryman, takes it for granted, though contrary to the cleareſt evidence, if he had taken the trouble to look at it.

He next goes on to mention the enleve⯑ment of a child from one Mignion, and ſays, that when he was given away, his mother inſiſted upon leaving her own ſwadling-cloaths, of a coarſe kind of blanket; and this coarſe blanket was found on the de⯑fender when he was given to Favre; ſo that he muſt be Mignion's child.

It is amazing what lengths party or in⯑tereſt will carry a perſon to, in queſtions which deſerve the moſt unbiaſſed conſide⯑ration. [12] Madame Mignion, perjured as ſhe is admitted to be, in favour of the pur⯑ſuers, does not even ſay that the bit of dreſs left with her child was of blanket; and as little does Favre ſay, that what ſhe deſcribes as molton or blanketing was a bit inferior to the other parts of the defender's dreſs. There never were two children ſeen whoſe deſcriptions agree leſs with each other, than that of Mignion's child and the defender, in dreſs, colour, ſtrength, eyes, and every thing elſe.

From page 33. to page 43. this Juryman accuſes Lady Jane of falſhood, of flattery, of duplicity, and I know not what, for no other reaſon, than that ſhe, in one of her letters, commends two young gentlemen ſhe met with at the Hague;—that ſhe is in a paſſion with one of her relations for ſay⯑ing ſhe is living at Windſor, under a bor⯑rowed name, with Col. Stewart; and that ſhe denied her marriage to Lady Catharine Wemyſs, at a time ſhe was keeping it a ſe⯑cret from all the world.

If a perſon of her high rank, and remark⯑able good character for religion, good ſenſe, and other amiable accompliſhments, is to be abuſed in the manner this hireling (for he can be nothing elſe) has done Lady Jane, [13] for ſuch reaſons as theſe, it is certain no woman on earth can poſſibly eſcape falling a ſacrifice to the ſpite of ſuch illiberal, bad⯑hearted people. It is very true, that if ſhe was now alive, ſhe would probably think differently of ſome of thoſe young gentle⯑men, of whom ſhe had then ſo good an opi⯑nion. From her own letter, ſhe had much reaſon to be diſſatisfied at the perſon ſhe is angry with for many falſhoods ſhe had raiſed to her prejudice; and her denying her marriage does not, in her circumſtan⯑ces, appear to me at all culpable. If people are to judge of one's character from their writings, the author of theſe Conſiderations, if he is as diſintereſted in this ſuit as he pre⯑tends, is ſurely a very bad hearted man: for, at the very time he is employed in writing theſe Conſiderations, he muſt have been ſenſible he was ſaying many things which are abſolutely falſe, with an inten⯑tion to prejudice the world againſt a young man who never offended him.

He next ſays that Sholto was left ſixteen months at Paris, under the care of La Marre, and that if he had died in the mean time, no perſon knew where the child was, ſo he muſt have been loſt.

Sir John knew well at the time where the child was at nurſe, he had ſeen him fre⯑quently [14] when at Paris. He had viſited him from Damartine; he had wrote to Lady Jane an account of his health from Paris to that place, as appears from Mrs. Hewit's letter to the maids. He returned to Paris in Oc⯑tober 1748, and carried cloaths with him for the child; he went back again in the Spring 1749, for no other purpoſe but to ſee the child. How then can this man ſay that if La Marre had died the child would have been loſt? The only reaſon he has is, that Sir John ſays, when examined, in the year 1762, in the 74th year of his age, that he did not then remember the place where ſhe had lived in the year 1748.

The Juryman then goes on to ſtate, that when Sir John and Lady Jane were about to return to Britain, they went from Rheims to Paris, under the pretence of bringing away their ſecond child, that during the eight days they were then at Paris, a child of one Sanry was carried off from his father, by one Duverné, who was aged about ſixty, and that this Duverné was no other than Sir John Stewart, and the child Sholto.

As to this charge, without entering much into the particulars, it is as clear as ſun⯑ſhine that the child of Sanry and Sholto were different. The proof of the exiſtence of Sholto from his birth in July 1748, [15] is to me convincing, Sanry's child was four months older than the defender; yet Sholto was much leſs and weaker than his brother, as had been uniformly given out. Sanry's child was walking and ſpeaking when car⯑ried off, and yet the evidence is clear that Sholto did neither when brought to Eng⯑land, and for ſome time after: and every one of the purſuers witneſſes ſay, that appli⯑cation was made to the lieutenant of police to make a ſearch for the perſons who carried off this child, within two or three days after he was taken away from his parents; and there is the moſt ſatisfying evidence that this magiſtrate was not applied to till the 10th of January 1750, ſeveral weeks before which time Sir John had left Rheims, on his return to England, with both his chil⯑dren, ſo that he could not poſſibly have had the leaſt connection with this pretended en⯑levement.

His arguments upon the ſuppoſed impoſſibility of their not writing to Paris, when they heard of the ſuſpicions as to the legitimacy of their children, their writing to Aix for certificates of the preg⯑nancy, &c. are not worth minding, they are trivial and totally immaterial: only it is very clearly proved, that they took the ad⯑vice of a gentleman very eminent in his pro⯑feſſion, then a lawyer, if they ought to do [16] ſo, and were aſſured it was highly unne⯑ceſſary and improper; and had they, upon falſe reports raiſed in the manner theſe have been proved to have been, given themſelves the trouble of obtaining certificates, they would rather have increaſed than diminiſhed the ſuſpicions.

What he has ſaid as to Godefroi is al⯑ready noticed, and it is needleſs to take more time upon it at preſent.

His obſervations upon Lady Jane's preg⯑nancy are puerile and trifling to the higheſt degree. If ever woman on earth was with child during the whole nine months prior to the birth, Lady Jane Douglas was. Her appearance of pregnancy was not ſudden, as alledged by this author, but gradual; obſerved by her ſervants and the people about her from the firſt hour, and conti⯑nued gradually increaſing till ſhe was deli⯑vered of the defender and his twin brother. The ſuppoſal of her appearance of preg⯑nancy being ſtronger at Aix than at Rheims is ridiculous, when it is ſuppoſed ſhe was at this very time deceiving onè of her own maid ſervants who was about her at both theſe places.

This author concludes with an idle and unneceſſary account of the popularity of [17] the defender and his cauſe in Scotland; that the whole country were incenſed at the judgment; but that the judicious and moſt valuable part of ſociety, though perhaps the leaſt numerous, applauded the deciſion.

The purpoſe of this declamation I do not ſee; nor did I ever hear who the valuable part of ſociety alluded to are, unleſs they be the tutors of Duke Hamilton,—the heirs of line of the Duke of Douglas, and their friends, and ſome of the authors of the ſcandalous reports which were falſely raiſed againſt Lady Jane.

This gentleman however is pleaſed to ſay that every humane heart muſt compaſſionate the defender; and that he applauds his pa⯑troneſs, by whom, I ſuppoſe, he means the Ducheſs of Douglas, for her unwearied ſupport of him.

Whether this gentleman is one of theſe humane hearted people will appear from his pamphlet. The defender, I am perſuaded, deſpiſes his pity as much as his pamphlet, and as much as the Ducheſs of Douglas, if I am not much miſtaken of her character, does his praiſes. She has done what ſhe thought her duty, and what ſhe owed to the fa⯑mily of Douglas in ſupporting it, and pro⯑tecting a young man of uncommon merit, [18] againſt a very extraordinary combination of the moſt relentleſs, implacable and malici⯑ous enemies. Neither ſhe or her pupil have the leaſt reaſon to doubt of obtaining that juſtice in another country which they have been refuſed in their own.