The essence of the Douglas cause: To which is subjoined, some observations on a pamphlet lately published, intitled, Considerations on the Douglas cause.

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- ADVERTISEMENT.

- THE ESSENCE OF THE DOUGLAS CAUSE:

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

THE ESSENCE OF THE DOUGLAS CAUSE.

To which is subjoined, SOME OBSERVATIONS ON A PAMPHLET LATELY PUBLISHED, INTITLED, CONSIDERATIONS 〈◊〉 THE DOUGLAS CAUSE.

LONDON: Printed for J. WILKIE in St. Paul's Church Yard. MDCCLXVII. [Price Two Shillings.]

ADVERTISEMENT.

NEITHER the question with regard to general Warrants, nor any other question which has occurred for many years, has been so alarming as THE DOUGLAS CAUSE, which threatens a total destruction of the invaluable security of BIRTHRIGHT, in comparison of which all questions of Liberty or Property are but of inferior moment.

A fellow-citizen, warm in the cause of truth, thinks he cannot better shew his publick spirit and concern for the happiness of society, than in laying a fair state of this matter before THE IMPARTIAL PEOPLE of these kingdoms, that like a faithful watchman, he may warn them of their danger.

I was present during 〈…〉 •…∣mination of this cau•… 〈…〉 of Session in Scotla•… 〈…〉 notes, and I canno•… 〈…〉 the speeches of seve•… 〈…〉 been published in a 〈…〉

The greatest part of the arguments in this essay, are selected from the genuine notes of these speeches: Some are also taken from the memorial for Mr. Douglas, and a variety of hints have been furnished from different periodical publications. In particular, I am indebted to a spirited article in the Critical Review.

I beg leave to add, that the plan, the arrangement, and many new thoughts are my own.

THE ESSENCE OF THE DOUGLAS CAUSE:

Importance of the Douglas cause.

THE Douglas cause has now made a noise all over Europe; and indeed 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 illustrious house of Douglas, is, after nineteen years possession of his estate, to be deprived of it, and to be reduced to a situation 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 〈…〉 plaintiffs have with great expence, industry 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 kingdoms are very seriously concerned, and there are few who can submit to the fatigue 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 interested 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 〈…〉

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. Filiation or Birthright.

Filiation or birthright is of all things the most valuable to mankind; for all the blessings and comforts of life, the succession of property and of honours, all the rights and all the affections of blood flow from it: therefore it is that the wisdom of law hath been particularly careful that the birthright of the subject should be inviolably protected.

What kind of certainty law requires in filiation.

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 therefore, 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 certainty in the abstract, but a legal certainty. For law, like a kind parent ever watchful for the good of her children, hath established such solid rules as may check the uneasy waverings of scepticism, and make mankind pass through life with tranquillity and satisfaction.

Acknowledgment of parents and general report 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 principle. 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 a wretched state of uncertainty with regard to that great right from whence all their liberties and properties are derived.

A subject may be born in a foreign 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 America; 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 mindful of this.

Of this the law hath also been mindful; for it is a principle in law, that if a person is acknowledged by two married persons as their child, and has in his favour 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 privileges 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 〈…〉 subjects who are born beyond seas would be inevitably exposed to the wicked designs of interested people at home.

This strongly illustrated and brought home to the best families in these kingdoms.

Nothing is now more common than for younger sons of the best families in these kingdoms to settle in distant countries, 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 reports that the next heir of the family was an illegitimate or a supposititious child; and in that manner the real representative and rightful heir of the noblest in Europe might be injuriously prevented from enjoying the succession of his ancestors.

Alarming apprehensions of British Merchants, soldiers, sailors and travellers.

Should the law allow of this, then the respectable body of British merchants established all over the world, our soldiers 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 〈…〉

A plaintiff in an action of Partus Suppositio bound to prove all.

Holding it therefore as an inviolable principle of law, that a subject acknowledged 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 privilege of birthright: I also hold, that according to law, on which we all depend for protection, he must retain this possession 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 Suppositio 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 neighbourhood, and by every body in the country.

If a defendant should bring more proofs, their imperfection no argument.

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•… 〈…〉 belief of the country where he was born.

Any such additional proof must from the nature of the thing be imperfect.

Any such additional proof which a defendant may choose to bring must in almost every case be exceedingly imperfect from the very nature of the thing to be proved. The birth of a subject is a transient act which often happens unexpectedly. 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 Suppositio 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 direct, not presumptive.

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 the acknowledgment of parents correborated by universal fame.

A trial of Partus Suppositio different from a trial of other crimes, and therefore it requires a different 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 republicae 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 nature 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 therefore I deny that a presumptive evidence from circumstances all made to refer to a supposed crime can be allowed in an accusation 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 〈…〉 he who would overthrow an established filiation, must bring such a proof as renders the filiation impossible.

These important principles of law become stronger by length of time.

These important principles of law become gradually stronger in proportion to the time that a subject has been in possession 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 bringing 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 presumption 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 reasonably 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 •… 〈…〉

The motives for undertaking an action of partus suppositio should be most unexceptionable.

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 influence us more than any other motive, and they who would proceed with calmness, and with justice, in a matter of mere interest, will be guilty of violence, and of dishonesty, when actuated by revenge.

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 happiness 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.

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 adherents, 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 dutchess of Douglas, who was fully convinced of the iniquity of all the accusations 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 undeceive 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 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 Hamilton 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 consequently, if they had any business to interfere in the affairs of that family?

Instead of which the present suit was commenced.

Instead of this, the family of Hamilton commenced the great suit known by the name of the Douglas cause, with intention to prove that the present defendant 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 interest 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.

On the contrary, it is against the interest 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 nephew Mr. Douglas, the present defendant, his estate should go to lord Douglas Hamilton, the present duke of Hamilton'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 Hamilton. 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 himself 〈◊〉 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 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 consequence, we cannot do justice to the defendant, 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 defendant.

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 attendant of lady Jane, being pr•… 〈…〉 was what the plaintiffs 〈…〉 but they never attemp•… 〈…〉 after the death of lady Jane 〈…〉 fourteen years after the 〈…〉 Douglas.

Mr. Andrew Stuart their agent, is sent privately to Paris, and a criminal process is raised before the Tournelle.

Instead of applying to the court of session 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 already convicted of the crime of partus suppositio, and insisting to have them punished 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 intention of it to obtain partial evidence.

The real intention of it was to obtain partial depositions in support of the plaintiff'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.

The horrid nature 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 written, 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 opportunity for an opposite party to ask such questions as may make a witness recollect himself when in a mistake, or as may entrap 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 establishment 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 dark, and to gain a most undue advantage over the defendant.

They publish an infamous libel called a monitoire.

But not content with employing the Tournelle, that horrid engine of tyrannical power, they had also recourse to the terrors of Popish superstition. Application was made to the Church, and the archbishop of Paris most readily issued what was called a monitoire important, an infamous libel, in which the whole story which the plaintiffs wished to prove was fully narrated: Nay, such descriptions were given of the persons accused, that not a man or woman in all France, could fail to form ideas of Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Hewit, so that every interested wretch, and every deluded creature, 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 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 proceedings inspire.

Can we without detestation and abhorrence, 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 themselves, and to forfeit the birth-right of one of the noblest of his majesty's subjects.

The iniquitous effects of the French proceedings clearly discovered 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 distinct 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 lady Jane put on the appearance of pregnancy [*]. This we may well believe to have been the case, whether the birth was true or supposititious; and we must believe, that all who saw lady Jane, concurred in telling him she had that appearance: 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 appearance 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 Hibert comes to be examined after the Tournelle proceedings and Monitoire, she swears expresly that she observed no appearance of pregnancy about lady Jane.[†]

Francois La Marre informs Danjou the plaintiff's procureur, of the connection between Pierre La Marre and Madame 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 correspondence 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 acting for the defendant.

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 informed them of all that he knew, except as to Madam La Brun, which shews, that Francois La Marre was by this time pretty 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 Michelle informs the plaintiff's agents that Lady Jane had all the appearance of being newly brought to bed.

In one of the plaintiff's French memorials, we find that they had a conversation with Madam Michelle, who told them, that Lady Jane had all the appearance of a woman newly brought to bed.

Madam Michelle upon oath minces this down to a fickly air.

But after the Tournelle 〈…〉 Monitoire, Madam Michelle 〈…〉 the matter, and, when up•… 〈…〉 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 acquaintance of Pierre La Marre, applied to M. Morand, a surgeon of eminence, desiring him to enquire at M. Gilles, what he remembered of sundry particulars, concerning which a note containing questions was given to M. Morand.

Messieurs Morand and Moreau have questions put to M. Gilles.

Monsieur Morand not being particularly acquainted with M. Gilles, employed M. Moreau, first surgeon of the Hotel Dieu, to put the questions: and accordingly M. Moreau returned the questions, with answers dictated by M. Gilles, and written by M. Moreau in his presence.[*]

M. Gilles's answers are clear and strong in favour of the defendant.

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 fortune, 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 brought to bed of two children, in the house of Madame Le Brun.

Monsieur Morand and Moreau are gentlemen of undoubted character.

Both M. Morand and M. Moreau, are Gentlemen of the highest reputation in their profession; and it cannot be supposed that they would use the least endeavour to influence a witness, or obtain unfair 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 recollect 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 〈…〉 some circumstances which he had formerly told, is so apprehensive least the circumstances 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 upright men, that justice would here be perverted.

So fatal to the defendant were these most iniquitous proceedings in France, which every wise and upright man condemned 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 attempted to justify in their elaborate memorial; 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 betake 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, 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 delivered 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 argument 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 Tournelle, locked up; so that no person could have access to see it, but upon the plaintiff's application.

It becomes necessary to prove the contents of Michelle's book.

In the course of the proof, it was necessary to have evidence of what was contained in this book; the proper way of proving which, was no doubt by producing 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 〈◊〉 dilemma.

A desperate expedient resolved upon.

But they had now gone too far to retreat; and a desperate expedient was resolved 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 Monitoire and Tournelle; and they were pretty well hardened to the most severe accusations.

Duruisseau is brought forth to swear with regard to Michelle's book.

This desperate expedient was to bring forth a champion in swearing. They adduced one Monsieur Durruisseau, a gentleman with a great many sounding titles after his name—Maitre Pierre Charles Duruisseau, 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 recollect the number; neither does the deponent recollect if the Visa of the Inspecteur does immediately follow the article of Fluratl, or is put after one or several 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 writing, 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 evidence, that Michelle's book
〈◊〉

not be true, and it is produced.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 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 plaintiffs agents had kept it locked up, and why they had brought forth a man to swear to its contents.

The shameful perjury of Duruisseau.

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 handwriting 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 Michelle'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.

The plaintiffs French agents having examined Michelle's book, must have been in the knowledge of Duruisseau'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 perjury?

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 Duruisseau submitted to prostitute himself to this shameful perjury, without being rewarded. We are therefore well warranted 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 contaminate the whole of his proof.

As this is only the Essence of the Douglas cause, I do not mention various perjuries, 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.

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 channels of justice have been corrupted 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 atrocious proceedings of the plaintiffs. These judges have done no less, since they have solemnly affirmed it in judgment. And as these two only, of the whole fifteen, had access to know the real truth in this important 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 pronounce a verdict upon their evidence.

〈◊〉 •…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 maintain, that no jury could pronounce a verdict upon such rotten evidence.

The Douglas cause may be decided on conduct alone.

Therefore the Douglas cause may admit 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 succeeded 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 defendant's being the son of Lady Jane Douglas; and, 2dly, Circumstances which look like presumptions against it.

First general head contains two articles absolutely conclusive 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, 〈◊〉 innkeeper in Paris; and so consequently could not be delivered that day at the house of Madame Le Brun.

The age of Lady Jane now given up, though the very foundation of all this calumny.

With regard to the pregnancy, the objection arising from the age of Lady Jane is now given up; though it is material to observe, that it was her age alone which originally furnished a pretence to her enemies to raise a calumny against her.

No proof that Lady Jane feigned 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 being pregnant, evident to multitudes.

But a fact which was open to the observation 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 order of this cause, and attempt another 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 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 another alibi at Michelle's, totally contradictory 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 Madame 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 Scotsman, and his family, entered to the Hotel d'Anjou, kept by her and her husband, 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 Inspecteur, 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 payment, which runs from the day when the apartments are hired[†].

The first alibi proved by Monsieur Michelle.

Monsieur Michelle, husband to the preceding 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 designation of Fluratl, was entered in the book 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 Madame 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 exactly know the day[†]: and from the account this witness gives of the transactions 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 correspond 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 believes, a little less than a month[‡].

The first alibi proved by Madame Favre.

Madam Favre, employed by Sir John and Lady Jane as a nurse, swore that she 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 consequently could not have been there so long a time as was deposed to unless they had entered upon the eighth of July, according 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 officer 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 Inspecteur 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.

Blainville, Breval, 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 destroy the plaintiff'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 manifest that he has been suborned. He was brought to swear solely to the contents of Michelle's book, with which the plaintiff's French agents were well acquainted; and as they might have produced the book itself, what reason can we possibly assign for their bringing Duruisseau to swear to its contents, except their intending that he should give false evidence concerning it as he has accordingly 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 Michelle'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.

Two things necessary 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 houshold book; so that notwithstanding of that accurate police which our neighbours 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 phantom 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 house at night and go away in the morning 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, according to the books, and at no time during the years 1748 and 1749, can the plaintiffs 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 happened 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.

No dependance to be had upon Godefroi's books.

Therefore Godefroi's books are so imperfect and irregular, no dependance can be had upon them.

Godefroi's books, though regular, could be of no avail, unless 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 Godefroi and his wife.

By the oaths of Godefroi and his wife, who swear it applies to these three persons, 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 evidence of the plaintiffs inconclusive.

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 treasure is indeed but a slender inheritance.

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 supper; 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 thirteen 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 recommended 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.

Farther improbability of Godefroi'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 houshold 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 ordinary, so it is impossible they could be in Godefroi's book.

As therefore Sir John and his family eat in their own apartments, it is impossible that an article in the ordinary book of the inn can be applied to them.

This is evident to all who have travelled in France.

This is evident to all who have had occasion to travel in France, and indeed it is plain, that an inn-keeper can entertain a dozen or twenty people at one table at a much lower rate than he can entertain the same number of people in separate companies.

Duke Hamilton's agents though artful have been inadvertent in the article of Godefroi.

The Duke of Hamilton's agents, who in most instances appear so artful, have been a little inadvertent in this great article 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 memories 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 unsurmountable.

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 volume of the plaintiff's proof any circumstance absolutely exclusive of the defendant'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 presumptions.

The second general head of the plaintiffs proof consists of circumstances which look like presumptions against the defendant.

These to be considered 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 gentleman whose spirit upon this trying occasion proves him to be of noble blood.

One circumstance 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.

The external circumstance is the enlevements.

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 parents, 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 enlevements have been trumpeted abroad, and a foolish calculation has been made with regard 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 inserted, to make shallow people imagine that there was mathematical demonstration against the defendant.

These enlevements have nothing to do with this cause.

But when these enlevements are attentively 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 Rheims, had black eyes and a dark complexion[*]. 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 presumption against the defendant, arise from the conduct of Sir John and lady Jane.

Sir John and Lady Jane not now alive to explain their conduct.

In considering these it is proper to observe, that we are considering the conduct of two persons who are not now 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 circumstances accounted for very naturally.

Yet several pieces of their conduct, which at first sight appears suspicious, may be accounted for very naturally.

Sir John and Lady Jane's concealment at Paris 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 nothing 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 indeed, if half an hour after, a six pence of it would be in his pocket.

Sir John and Lady Jane were anxious to conceal 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 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 readily 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 concealment.

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 apprehensive were he and Lady Jane that their being at Paris should get air, that they did not trust even Johnston, a cousin of Mrs. Hewit's, with the secret.

Other circumstances admit of a double interpretation.

Other pieces of their conduct will admit 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 plaintiffs 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 witnesses 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 difficulties in which it places them.

Leaving the maids difficult to be explained.

It must be owned that we cannot account 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 Frenchman 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 explained.

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 circumstance 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 circumstances 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 infer that had they all been enquired into at an earlier period, they would all have been as plain to us as this now is.

Alledged contradictory accounts, 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 material circumstance, but one mistake which was soon corrected.

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 concerted and uniformly told: To forget circumstances, or remember them in various ways, is what we commonly observe in the course of human life; and I can appeal to any two of my readers, who have been present at the same transactions, and desire them to try, if after some years have elapsed, they do not vary in the remembrance of many particulars. One memory is more distinct and comprehensive than another, and some people are apt to confound the ideas suggested by fancy, with those preserved by memory, as was the case with Sir John Stewart, and is the case with most people 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; therefore, 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 inadvertency, from dullness of hearing, or from a fallacious memory, people who are equally honest, will give very different accounts of what they heard in conversation; and it is evident at first view, that one of these ladies, either the countess of Stair, or Mrs. Primrose, must have been in a mistake with regard to Lady Jane's saying that she was delivered immediately upon her arrival in Paris, which was upon the 4th of July, because we find the 10th of July marked in her pocket-book as the day of her delivery; and upon every occasion she gave the same account of it. Lady Jane is allowed by all parties to have been a woman 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. Several 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 forgeries.

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.

The existence of such letters clearly 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 evidence, that the letters now charged as forgeries could not be so.

From a critical analysis of these letters, 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 impossible to suppose that Sir John could ever have thought of palming them upon a court of justice as French letters.

Sir John's behaviour 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; because, 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 letters, how far will this go? Truth indeed does not require the aid of falshood; and 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 practised in support of religion.

If there were really a forgery, it is well balanced by Duruisseau.

At any rate, the plaintiffs attack this circumstance with a very bad grace, considering 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 anxiety made him take an improper step.

Allowing the plaintiffs unworthy supposition 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 neglect of disproving the calumnies against them.

The last circumstance of conduct which has been vehemently urged in this cause, is the neglect shewn by Sir John and Lady 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 undeniable evidence of the truth of the birth, which, it is said, they might easily have done, had the birth been real.

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 disdained these calumnies.

Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane Douglas were high-minded people, and disdained such calumnies, as they had a contempt 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 impression.

Lady Jane went to Douglas castle to ask what proof would be necessary.

Besides, Lady Jane had gone to Douglas castle with intention to ask her brother the Duke, what proof would satisfy him that the children, which she had with her, were really hers; but her relentless 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 beset with dragons, these proofs could have been of no service to her. Had she produced 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 Douglas castle, to swear to the truth of the birth, it would have been said that they were accomplices, and perjuring themselves to support a falsehood; for we have lived to see such accusations laid against people infinitely less suspicious.

This demonstrated.

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 consults 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 Prestongrange, 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 would bring any proof that should be thought proper[*].

His Majesty's Advocate assures her, that no proof was necessary.

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 children, there was no further proof necessary; for it behoved those who challenged the birth to prove that they were not her Ladyship's children[†].

The same advice given by a judge of the
〈◊〉

of session.The same advice was afterwards given to the Duchess of Douglas by an honourable 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 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, nothing more can possibly be inferred, 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 believed 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 conduct exemplified in a wonderful manner.

I need not go far for an instance of this. The tutors of the Duke of Hamilton 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 Hamilton's tutors begin this expensive process, when it is probable his Grace shall never get a shilling in return.

But what has been their conduct in this process? Why, after the court of session had found that the Duke of Hamilton had no right to the estate of Douglas, 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 Hamilton's money, when, in all probability, his Grace shall never get a shilling in return, and his brother, Lord Douglas, shall be cut out of a chance which he had of succeeding to the Douglas estate.

Duke Hamilton's tutors authorize the Tournelle process and Monitoire.

These tutors also authorized the Tournelle process and Monitoire, which of themselves might have been sufficient to destroy their cause before a British jury.

Therefore the conduct even of Duke Hamilton's tutors not the most prudent.

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 unprejudiced person must be convinced that the plaintiffs have a very bad cause.

I flatter myself, that every unprejudiced person is now convinced how very bad a cause these plaintiffs have been disguising, with all the art that money can purchase.

What the plaintiffs would have us believe.

Let us shortly consider what they would have us believe..

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 abandoned as to enter into a plot to perpetrate the most villainous imposition upon the illustrious house from whence she sprung.

That Lady Jane and her husband should buy a subject of the French king, at the risk of dreadful punishments.

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 subjected them.

That they should do this in the most dangerous manner.

When they go about this, they take a recommendation from the chief magistrate of Rheims to the inn at Paris, where all the people from Rheims put up.

That they should deliberately remain 16 months exposed to detection, and all its dismal consequences.

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 punishment, to torture, and to absolute infamy and disgrace.

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 upon 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 given 16 month, before he was seen, and that he should be the very picture of Lady Jane.

What was, if possible, still more wonderful, this second weakly child, which they picked up by mere chance, answered 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.

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 mention charity, take upon him to pronounce a sentence, finding Sir John Stewart, and Lady Jane Douglas guilty of an infamous imposition; and declaring Archibald 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 oppressive proceedings, have been able to bring against him.

Part IV. But Mr. Douglas 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 enquiries 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 pregnancy, and the reconvalescence of recovery.

Sir John Stewart and Mrs. Hewit swear to the actual delivery.

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, renders him a suspicious witness.

Answer.

To this it is answered, that he is a witness called by the plaintiffs themselves, 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 being 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 almost the only witnesses who can be expected 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.

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 always 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 witnesses 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 without a real pregnancy. At least, if they do ever so exist, it is not above once in a million of times. Bountiful nature does not leave us in such a state of uncertainty, with regard to what interests us so much.

Corroboration of the proof of Lady Jane's pregnancy.

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 appearances.

Let us lay together the different appearances 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 appearances could not possibly be assumed.

It is material to observe, that these appearances 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 appearances of her person.

Lady Jane's appearance before the time when she is said to have been delivered.

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 appearance 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.‖

These different appearances could not be without some intermediate illness.

Now I desire to know of every person of experience, and of every sensible physician, if Lady Jane could possibly have had these different appearances without some intermediate illness?

This intermediate illness childbirth.

If Lady Jane had an intermediate illness, why shall we doubt that it was childbirth, as solemnly deposed by two witnesses?

The circumstantial proof brought by Mr. Douglas.

The circumstantial proof, in confirmation of the direct proof now stated; is exceedingly strong, unless we can suppose a number of witnesses, having no knowlege or acquaintance one with another, all combining different facts and circumstances, so as to make one connected story.

Monfieur Menager's circumstantial 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 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 argument that Monsieur Menager is perjured.

The plaintiffs therefore are obliged to have recourse to their usual desperate argument of representing Monsieur Menager as a man grossly perjured.

Monsieur Menager accidentally discovered by those acting for the defendant.

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 Menager 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 discovered, 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 themselves to any injurious imputation.

Monsieur Mena¦ger a good witness.

Therefore it follows that Monsieur Menager must by every impartial person be held as a good witness.

Objection to Monsieur Mena¦ger.

The only objection therefore to Monsieur 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 Menager is supported by Mr. Gilles.

But he is not a single witness, for M. Gilles must be held as a concurring witness 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 Menager is supported by other witnesses.

But Monsieur Menager is not supported by Gilles alone, for there are other witnesses who depose to a variety of circumstances; all of which wonderfully concur in supporting the story of Monsieur Menager, 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 this Garnier, and Madame Boucault, her neighbour.

Deposition of nurse Garnier in support of Monsieur 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 expressed such a concern about him that she supposed he was the father, and at last at the end of eighteen months, or thereabouts, 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 reduced to their desperate expedient of an accusation 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.

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 circumstantial evidence 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 argument can break; nay, were that link of the chain which has been formed by Menager, or that link which is formed by Garnier, and the evidences concurring 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 Stewart, 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 intercourse or in subscribing letters; for his contract of marriage produced by the plaintiffs being a formal deed, is no proof of the manner in which he signed his letters. His being called Louis as well as Pierre, must appear a very frivolous objection; 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 Montreuil 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 Stewart's declaration candidly considered.

In answer to this, let the candid and unprejudiced consider that Sir John Stewart was all his life long a man of vivacity and dissipation, and was particularly remarkable 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 forgetfulness 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 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, being 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 shewed a constant affection and concern 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 Walker, 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 when they themselves were in the greatest poverty and distress.

The affecting letters between Sir John and Lady Jane an invincible 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 possible to suppose, that these letters, written in so noble a stile of piety, and expressing such warm sentiments of tenderness and love for their children; is it possible to suppose, that these letters were also dictated by dissimulation?

The letters as strong as if Sir John and Lady Jane had been overheard talking together in their most private 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 correspondence, it is just as if two alledged confederates 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 find there but the sincerest parental affection?

The dying declarations 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 declarations are stronger than circumstantial poofs.

I do maintain, that these dying declarations 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 seemingly tend to prove the contrary. In the present case, such circumstances are opposed 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 totally inconclusive, while I have also shewn an amazing weight of evidence in his favour, considering the distance of time. Providence indeed has preserved more proofs than could have been expected, in order to defeat the designs of unjust revenge. But I desire and call upon my readers, to remember, that this cause might be decided on conduct alone. Perjury, 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 alarming cause is now far advanced. The feelings of indignation and of humanity are equally roused. I leave then the DOUGLAS CAUSE with THE IMPARTIAL PEOPLE OF THESE KINGDOMS.

THE END.

Notes

*
Purs. Pr. p. 1021.
↵

†
Purs. Pr. p. 902.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 1031.
↵

†
Def. Pr. p. 1031.
↵

‡
Purs. Pr. p. 933.
↵

†

〈…〉
p. 112, and p. 849.

↵

*

〈…〉
p. 536.

↵

‡
Def. Pr. p. 533.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 1026.
↵

†
Append. to Def. Memor. p. 58.
↵

*
It will be shewn in the fourth part of this Essay, that a cloud of witnesses believed Lady Jane pregnant, whereas not a single evidence has been brought who even pretends to have had a suspicion that her appearance of pregnancy was false or affected.
↵

*
Purs. Pr. p. 848.
↵

†
Purs. Pr. p. 856.
↵

‡
Purs. Pr. p. 859.
↵

†
Purs. pr. p. 865.
↵

‡
Purs. pr. p. 875.
↵

‖
Purs. Pr. p. 879.
↵

*
Purs. Pr. p. 834.
↵

†
Purs. Pr. p. 833.
↵

*
Purs. Pr. p. 849, and p. 851.
↵

†
Purs. Pr. p. 852.
↵

‡
Purs. Pr. p. 835.
↵

*
Purs. Pr. p. 742.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 603.
↵

†
Purs. Pr. p. 798.
↵

‡
Def. Pr. p. 366.
↵

‖
Purs. Pr. p. 775, 776.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 489.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 370.
↵

†
Ibid.
↵

‡
Purs. Pr. p. 32
•
.

↵

*
Purs. Pr. p. 377.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 9.
↵

†
Def. Pr. p. 18. Purs. Pr. p. 50.
↵

‡
Def. Pr. p. 9. ib. p. 18.
↵

‖
Purs. Pr. p. 868. ib. p. 876.
↵

§
Def. Pr. p. 526, et seq.
↵

¶
Def. Pr. p. 541.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 533. et seq.
↵

*
Def. Pr. p. 558.
↵

†
Def. Pr. p. 559. et seq.
↵

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 almost every person in the united kingdom, as well as in other countries. In the beginning of these Considerations, we are told that they are composed by a person, no lawyer, 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 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 juryman 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 Scotland, 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 preliminary steps of the cause. The plain meaning of this insinuation is to convey an idea as if only two of these seven judges were to be considered as disconnected with the defender: 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 judges who gave their opinions for the defender, have the most distant connection with him.

In the next place, this impartial juryman, who by the bye, is clearly some hireling employed by the pursuers, (and who has only assumed the title of a disconnected person, that his Considerations may have the greater appearance of impartiality) goes on to inform, that he begun the examination 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 abridgement 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. Haldene, gave a false account of her destination, 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.

It is not true that ever Lady Jane concealed or gave a false account of her destination 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 circle 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 Accoucheurs at Rheims, is also clearly in proof, and not the vestige of evidence to the contrary; so that this very suspicious circumstance 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 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 contrary to clear evidence. Lady Jane did, in her own life time, mention all the circumstances of her delivery, the time when, the person in whose house, and the Accoucheur by whom. The evidence of Lady Jane's 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; consequently this part of her oath is not very much to be depended upon, and is also contradicted by positive testimony. It is an absolute untruth, that the defender is forced out of this account given by Lady Jane, by the scrutiny since made. At the defender's service, 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 Paris; 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 false in every article; and to substitute another 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, rejected 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 inconsiderable mistakes, in answering questions 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 undeniable evidence of its having happened subsequent to La Marre's marriage, which was in the 1747, and in summer 1748, when he 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 delivery, 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 former observations. Sir John mentioned one landlady in place of another, by mere unintended mistake. La Brun's had been mentioned in Lady Jane's life time, as the place of her delivery, so that it was not on the Michelle 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 informed of that enquiry.

He next says, that if a Scotch Lady of quality had been really delivered of twins 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 noticed, 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, Madame Sanry, &c. who are common beggars; so that her being a lady of quality was not so much as known, and the delivery of a lady of twins was surely no extraordinary affair. And it is not true, that every person with whom they lodged, except Le Brun, has been found. The landladies at Sedan are not found out. The person 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 admitted to have existed: and there is the clearest 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 arrived 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 partiality, 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 occupied, and how many days they staid, is such a memory as never was heard of before. 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 evidence, 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, disinterested, 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 enlevement 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 defender when he was given to Favre; so that he must be Mignion's child.

It is amazing what lengths party or interest will carry a person to, in questions which deserve the most unbiassed consideration. Madame Mignion, perjured as she is admitted to be, in favour of the pursuers, 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 saying she is living at Windsor, under a borrowed name, with Col. Stewart; and that she denied her marriage to Lady Catharine Wemyss, at a time she was keeping it a secret from all the world.

If a person of her high rank, and remarkable 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, for such reasons as these, it is certain no woman on earth can possibly escape falling a sacrifice to the spite of such illiberal, badhearted people. It is very true, that if she was now alive, she would probably think differently of some of those young gentlemen, of whom she had then so good an opinion. 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 circumstances, 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 pretends, 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 intention 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 frequently 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 October 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 sunshine that the child of Sanry and Sholto were different. The proof of the existence of Sholto from his birth in July 1748, 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 carried off, and yet the evidence is clear that Sholto did neither when brought to England, and for some time after: and every one of the pursuers witnesses say, that application 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 children, so that he could not possibly have had the least connection with this pretended enlevement.

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 pregnancy, &c. are not worth minding, they are trivial and totally immaterial: only it is very clearly proved, that they took the advice of a gentleman very eminent in his profession, then a lawyer, if they ought to do so, and were assured it was highly unnecessary 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 already noticed, and it is needless to take more time upon it at present.

His observations upon Lady Jane's pregnancy 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 continued gradually increasing till she was delivered of the defender and his twin brother. The supposal of her appearance of pregnancy 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 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 patroness, 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 family of Douglas in supporting it, and protecting a young man of uncommon merit, against a very extraordinary combination of the most relentless, implacable and malicious 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.

FINIS.

Information about this book

Title statement

The essence of the Douglas cause: To which is subjoined, some observations on a pamphlet lately published, intitled, Considerations on the Douglas cause.

Boswell, James, 1740-1795.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/5088

ID [isbn10]

1106020871

ID [isbn13]

9781106020871

ID [TCP]

K099385.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3305764857

ID [ECSS]

0652401300

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— The essence of the Douglas cause: To which is subjoined, some observations on a pamphlet lately published, intitled, Considerations on the Douglas cause., Boswell, James, 1740-1795.. [4],77,[1],[2],18p. ; 8⁰. London :: printed for J. Wilkie,. 1767.. [Anonymous. By James Boswell.] ['Some observations' has separate pagination; the register is continuous.] ['Some observations' was suppressed in later copies (Pottle).] [Reproduction of original from the British Library.] [Pottle, F. Literary career of James Boswell., 19] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT124613.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.