[167] He had murdered a man in his own castle, where he always lived, and the affair had been winked at on supposition of his insanity, and perhaps from the difficulty of bringing to justice or of getting evidence against so great a lord in the centre of his dependants, and in so remote a country.
[168] Colonel, afterwards Sir John Stewart, Bart., of Grandtully. The marriage took place on the 10th of August, 1746. He died in 1764. It appears from the pleadings that when he married Lady Jane Douglas he was reduced in health, spirit, and circumstances, but was a man naturally of an ardent temperament, and had led a bustling dissipated life.--E.
[169] She was delivered of twins on the 10th of July, 1748, at Paris, in the house of Madame le Brun, in the Fauxbourg St. Germains, according to the evidence in the cause.--E.
[170] It should be observed, however, that in the judgments they delivered in the House of Lords, both Lord Camden and Lord Mansfield argue very strongly from Lady Jane’s conduct to her children that she was their mother.--E.
[171] This was the general impression. Lord Mansfield, on the contrary, was satisfied that the children in every way resembled Sir John Stewart and Lady Jane,--“the one was the finished model of Sir John, the other the exact picture in miniature of Lady Jane.” (See his Speech.)--E.
[172] The Douglas cause began in 1762. The judges in the Court of Session were divided--being seven to seven. The casting vote of the Lord President gave the decision to the Hamiltons. This judgment was reversed in the Lords on Feb. the 27th, 1769.--E.
[173] Lady Susan Stuart, daughter of the Earl of Galloway, and third wife of Earl Gower, was the intimate friend of the Duchess of Hamilton, and governing her in all other points, was very zealous for her in this cause, and had engaged the Bedford connection to support it.
[174] The speeches of Lord Mansfield and Lord Camden are to be found in the Collectanea Juridica, vol. ii. p. 386, and Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 518. It is scarcely possible that the report of Lord Mansfield’s can be correct. It is equally poor both in composition and in argument; the main argument, indeed, being that a woman of Lady Jane’s illustrious descent could not be guilty of a fraud. The report contains none of the invectives against Andrew Stuart to which the text refers,--an omission which has been attributed to Lord Mansfield’s extreme caution or timidity,--and had no other effect than to encourage Mr. Stuart to attack him afterwards with greater fierceness; whilst against Lord Camden, whose speech was at least equally severe, he made no assault whatever.--(Lord Brougham’s Historical Sketches, vol. iii. p. 195.) Lord Camden’s speech has been reported with unusual care, and is no doubt a fine specimen of judicial eloquence. Still, it does not fairly grapple with the difficulties of the case, and some of the strongest objections, too, in the way of the Douglas claim are left entirely untouched.--E.