410 DEFENCE OF QUEEN CAROLINE. [1820. 



whatever to repeat, a conversation at Denman's table, 

 in which he and Williams and myself took part, as well 

 as Charles Butler, the celebrated conveyancer. The 

 objection was taken which I have mentioned, of the 

 Royal Marriage Act, and was at once disposed of, not 

 only by all of us who had been the Queen's counsel, 

 but clearly and without hesitation by Butler. So far 

 the account is correct ; but a gross error is added 

 namely, that Butler asked me why we did not make 

 the Fitzherbert marriage our defence 1 and that I an- 

 swered, Because we had not proof of it. This I never 

 said or could say, for we had well considered it, and 

 knew that we had the means of proving the marriage. 

 Butler took an interest in the subject beyond that of 

 most people, from being a strict Catholic. 



The common belief was that the marriage took place 

 on board ship, with the view of avoiding the penalties 

 imposed on those who celebrated it and those who 

 witnessed it. I, many years after the proceeding in 

 the Queen's case, had the most material particulars 

 from Sam Johnes,a clergyman of large preferment, both 

 in the City and in Hertfordshire, where I went to see 

 him from Brocket Hall. He had been one of the 

 Prince's friends, and had promised to perform the cer- 

 emony ; but as he was walking home from Carlton 

 House, he recollected having some time before given 

 Admiral Payne (another of the Prince's friends) his 

 promise not to do so, the Admiral being anxious to 

 throw all the obstacles he could in the way of what he 

 knew was intended. So the next morning he returned 

 to Pall Mall, saw the Prince, and informed him of his 

 previous promise, and refused to break it. The Prince 

 never forgave him, nor for many years did Mrs Fitz- 



