APPENDIX to the CHRONICLE. 



125 



also ; and my embarrassment only 

 arises at being obliged to discuss 

 this question m a public court of 

 justice, which if 1 were enab:cd to 

 refer, I shcruid f;'el no manner (;f 

 embarrassment inbeinj: called upon 

 to settle it. — My embarrassment is 

 abundantly increased wlien 1 see 

 present a noble person, high, very 

 high in rank, in this kingdom, but 

 not higher in rank than he is in my 

 estimuion. I speak of the noble 

 duke of Norfolk, who most un- 

 doubtedly feels somewhat at being 

 obliged to come here as a witness 

 in the cause of a person so nearly 

 allied to him. I am persuaded there 

 is no man in court who has so little 

 sensibility as not to feel, that a per- 

 son in my situation must be a little 

 embarrassed in discussing a question 

 of this sort, between such parlies as 

 I liave described. Ke desired you 

 would take care, not to suffer argu- 

 ment, observation, or eloquence, to 

 be called into the held to draw your 

 minds from the evidence, on which 

 alone you ougiit to decide. I wish 

 at the same moment he had not 

 introduced himself as a witness, 

 without the ordinary ceremony,, by 

 telling you, he w'as an eye-witness 

 to tiie agony of his noble client. I 

 will not follow his example. This 

 part of the cause standi on his sin- 

 gle, unsupported, unsworn evidence. 

 No relation is called to support it, 

 tliough we are told the whole house 

 of Fauconberg, Bellasyse, and Nor- 

 fo'k, are in the avenues of the court 

 ready to be called at my discretion; 

 and yet he is the only witness to it, 

 though it might have been proved 

 by so many iilustrious persons. 



He states, that the child born on 

 the I'itU of August, 17<J], must 

 have been the child of its honour- 

 ab'c parent ; and therefore Mr. How- 

 ard caimotsay theparental mind has 



been wrung. He cannot say, 

 "hereafter no son of mine succeeds.'' 

 He can say noneofthe.se things. As 

 this child was born August I2tii, 

 1791, Mr. Howard must be suppo- 

 sed to have been the author of its 

 existence in 1790 ; and therefore I 

 have a right to say, that during all 

 that interval this gentleman could 

 not have the least reasonable cau-se 

 to complain against Mr. Bingham. 

 Mr. Erskine said, the next day 

 stated was July 24, 1793, and said 

 there was no evidence that there 

 was any thing improper between 

 lady Elizabeth and Mr. Bingham, 

 previous to that time. He wished 

 to disembarrass the cause fromano- 

 tlier diilicuUy, that a divorce could 

 not take place before the birtli ot 

 the cliild, and that, if a son, under 

 certain contingencies, he mcst be 

 duke of Norfolk. That he denied. 

 In a similar case, that of Mr. Ste- 

 wart, a gentleman in Scotland, the 

 lords and commons of England not 

 only passed an act of divorce ; but 

 on finding there was no access on 

 the part of the husband, and that 

 consequently the (^hild was not the, 

 child of the husband, bastardized 

 that issue. VVhat then remained in 

 this cause which must stand on the 

 evidence? How did the plainiitf 

 make out that he had lost, and had , 

 beet) deprived of the comfort and 

 society of his wife bv the miscon- 

 duct of th; defendant ? The loss of. 

 socie'y, of domestic happinrss, and 

 of p-ace, was the fouixlation of the 

 action. Before any thing could be 

 lost, it must have existed. Before 

 any thing could have been taken 

 away, it must have been possessed. 

 BelX)rc the seduction of a woman's, 

 affectionsfromamat, henuist liave 

 ]< -i.se.s.^tjd those afl'ecticiis. K it 

 iiuned'out that the case was sup- 

 ported, the jurv would (ir;d w;th 



it 



