ページの画像
PDF
ePub

proving something which must, particularly as with regard to Captain Manby, be credited till contradicted, and as deserving the most serious consideration. From the examination of Mrs. Fitzge. rald I collect, that she was asked whether Captain Manby ever slept in the house at East Cliff, to which she, to the best of her knowledge, answers in the negative. Is this evidence then of Fanny Lloyd's relied upon to afford an inference that Captain Manby slept in my house; or was there at an improper hour? or in a manner, and under circumstances, which afforded reason for unfavourable interpretations? If this were so, can it be believed that I would, under such circumstances, have taken a step, such as calling for breakfast, at an unusual hour, which must have made the fact more notorious and remarkable, and brought the attention of the servants, who must have waited at the breakfast, more particularly and pointedly to it?

But if there is any thing which rests, or is supposed to rest, upon the credit of this witness--though she is one of the four, whose credit Your Majesty will recollect it has been stated that there was no reason to question, yet she stands in a predicament in which, in general, at least, I had understood it to be supposed, that the credit of a witness was not only questionable, but materially shaken. For, towards the beginning of her examination, she states,* that Mr. Mills attended her for a cold; he asked her if the Prince came to Black, heath backwards and forwards; or something to that effect : for the Princess was with child; or looked as if she was with child. This must have been three or four years ago. She thought it must be sometime before the child (W. Austin) was brought to the Princess.

* Appendix (A.)p. 13.

To this fact she positively swears, and in this she is as positively contradicted by Mr. Mills ;* for he swears, in his deposition before the Commissioners, that he never did say to her, or any one, that the Princess was with child, or looked as if she was with child ;that he never thought so nor surmissed any thing of the kind. Mr. Mills has a partner, Mr. Edmeads. The Commissioners therefore, conceiving that Fanny Lloyd might have mistaken one of the partners for the other, examine Mir. Edmcad's also.' Mr. Edmeads,t in his deposition, is equally positive, that he never said any such thing--so the matter rests upon these depositions; and upon that state of it, what pretence is there for saying, that a witness who swears to a conversation with a medical person, who attended me, of so extremely ini portant a nature; and is 'so expressly and decidedly contradicted in the important fact which she speaks to, is a witness who se credit there appears no reason to question ? This important circumstance must surely have been overlooked when that statement was made.

But this fact of Mr. Mills and Mr. Edmeads's contradictionof Fanny Lloyd, appears to Your Majesty, for the first time, from the examination before the Commissioners. But this is the fact which I charge as having been known to those, who are concerned in bringing forward this information, and which, nevertheless, was not communicated to Your Majesty. The fact that Fanny Lloyd declared, that Mr. Mills told her the Princess was with child, is stated in the declarations which were delivered to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and by him forwarded to Your Majesty. The fact that Mr. Mills denied ever having so said, though known at the same time, is not stated.

* Appel.

p. 32,

Appendix. (A.)p.30.

That I may not appear to have represented so strange a fact, without sufficient authority, I subjoin the Declaration of Mr. Mills, and the Deposition of Mr. Edmeades, which prove it. Fanny Lloyd's original Declaration which was delivered to His Royal Highness, is dated on the 12th of February. It appears to bave been taken at the Temple ; I conclude therefore at the chambers of Mr. Lowten, Sir John Douglas's solicitor, who,* according to Mr. Cole, accompanied him to Cheltenham to procure some of these Declarations. On the 13th of February, the next day after Fanny Lloyd's Declaration, the Earl of Moira sends for Mr. Mills upon pressing business. Mr. Mills attends him on the 14th; he is asked by his Lordship upon the subject of this conversation; he is told he may rely upon his Lordship’s honour, that what passed should be in perfect confidence; (a confidence which Mr. Mills, feeling it to be on a subject too important to his character, at the moment disclaims; )--that it was

* Appendix (B.) No, 103.

his (the Earl of Moira's) duty to his Prince, as his counsellor, to inquire into the subject, which he had known for some time.-Fanny Lloyd's statement being then related to Mr. Mills, Mr. Mills, with great warmth, declared that it was an infamous falsehood.--Mr. Lowten, who ap, pears also to have been there by appointment, was called into the room, and he furnished Mr. Mills with the date to which Fanny Lloyd's declaration applied. The meeting ends in Lord Moira's desiriog to see Mr. Mills's parte, ner, Mr. Edmeades, who, not being at home cannot attend him for a few days. He does, how-, ever, upon his return, attend him on the 20th of May: on his attendance, instead of Mr. Lowten, be finds Mr. Conant, the magistrate, with Lard Moira. He denies the conversation with Fanny Lloyd, as positively and peremptorily as Mr. Mills, Notwithstanding however all this, the Declaration of Fanny Lloyd is delivered to His Royal Highness, and accompanied by these contradictions, and forwarded to Your Majesty on the 29th. That Mr. Lowten was the Solicitor of Sir John Douglas in this business, cannot be doubted, that he took some of those Declarations, which werelaid before Your Majesty, is clear; and that he took this De claration of Fanny Lloyd's, seems not to be ques tionable. That the Inquiry by Earl Moira, two days after her Declaration was taken, must have been in consequence of an early communication of it to him, seems necessarily to follow from what is above stated ; that it was known, on the 11th of

May, that Mr. Mills contradicted this assertion; and, on the 20th, that Mr. Edmeades did, is perfectlyclear; and yet; notwith standing all this, the fact, that Mr. Edmeades and Mr. Mills contradicted it, seems to have been not communicated to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, for he, as it appears from the Report, forwarded the Dea clarations which had been delivered to His Red Highness, through the Chancellor, to Your Majesty; and the Declaration of Fanny Lloyd, which had been so falsified, to the knowledge of the Earl Moira and of Mr. Lowten, the Solicitor for Sir John Douglas, is sent in to Your Majesty as one of the documents, on which you were to ground your Inquiry, unaccompanied by its falsification by Mills and Edmeades ; at least, no declarations by them are amongst those, which are transmitted to me, as copies of the original Declarations which were laid before Your Majesty. I kuow not whether it was Lord Moira, or Mr. Lowieir, who should bave communicated this circunstanceto Bis Royal Highness ; but that, in all fairness, it ought unquestionably to have been communicated by

ome one.

I dare not trust myself with

any inferences from this proceeding ; I content myself with re. marking, that it must now be felt, that I was justified in saying, that neither His Royal Highness, nor Your Majesty, any more than m' self, had been fairly dealt with, in not being fully informed upon this important fact; and Your Majesty will forgive a wea'k, unprotected woman, like myself,

« 前へ次へ »