VOL. 37.---No.6.] LONDON, SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 1820., [Price, 68.

TO

THE CLERGY

OF THE

additional vigour. Who so forward as you in obeying the, injunctions of Sidmouth against the press? And who so active in all the measures of hostility

CHURCH OF ENGLAND, against the Reformers?

ON

To what, then, are we to ascribe your silence upon the present occasion? Here is a

Their Conduct relative to the Queen, and on other Matters Queen attacked, and your loy in which they are deeply con-alty is dormant. Here it is procerned. posed to dissolve the marriage of a King and Queen by a mere act of Parliament; and you are silent! The Queen is not even

London, 22d August, 1820.
REVEREND SIRS,

You, who act so conspicuous a accused of adultery; and yet it part in all other questions of is proposed to. put her away. great public interest, have kept Now, you know well, that Je yourselves close and snug upon sus Christ positively forbids the the present occasion, while putting away of a wife on any your flocks have been uncom- account other than that of her monly active and zealous. When haring committed adultery. If the late war was like to flag, we are to disregard his words in who so eager to urge on the this case, what is to induce us continuation of it with vigour as to attend to them in any other If the Queen be put you? A sort of panic seized case?

you at every prospect of a away, or attempted. to be put sheathing of the sword. In away, upon any other than this

one ground, and if you continue silent on the subject, what are

1812, when the nation in general sighed for peace, you came forward with addresses, urging we to think of the matter? We a pushing on of the war with have seen you active enough on

Printed and published by W. BENBOW, 269, Strand.

other occasions: we have heard many good men, contains this your pulpits resound with de-base and savage assailant; this nunciations against the French son of corruption and hypocrisy, and against the Reformers, nei-who pretends that the Queen' ther of whom pretended to at- was not acquitted in 1806, and tempt the violation of any pre- who has the audacity to say, cept of the Gospel; and, there-that she ought now to be set fore, if you continue silent now, aside for the sake of the morals what is the conclusion that we of the country! ought to draw? Your parishioners As these are, probably, the are, in every quarter, express-grounds that you all take, I ing their attachment to the per-will endeavour to place them in secuted Queen, and their abhor- their true light. You do not rence of the conduct of the per-need this: you know how false secutors; but never has one of these grounds are: but it may you been seen at the head, nor be useful to shew their falseeven at the heels, of any body of the people, engaged in so truly a religious work. One would think that this was, of all cases, a case to call for your interference; and yet you are silent as the tomb.

hood, in order that those who may affect to act upon them may be duly estimated; that is to say, that they may be loaded with public execration.

The Lancashire parson (who dates his infamous publication Not all of you, however, for from Manchester) affects to beone has dared openly to assail lieve that, although the Queen her Majesty, and that, too, with was acquitted of the charge of a degree of malignity worthy a having had a child, she was not Dominican Monk. The Queen acquitted of levity of conduct; has been assailed by the editors that the four Lords found her of the Morning Post, the Cou-guilty of that; that they adrier, and by other hacks, noto-vised the late King to remonriously the tools of corruption. strate with her on the subject, But it was reserved for the Church to send forth a champion of corruption in the shape of a pamphlet; and the county of Lancaster, which contains so

and to request that she would be more reserved in future; and that the King did act in conformity with this advice.

This is true; but this reve

rend slanderer chooses to forget, of the proceeding just then' that this finding guilty of levity closed. He convinced the Prinwas by a tribunal, before whom cess that he was satisfied of her the accused person was not al- innocence. He received her at lowed to appear; that she had his court; he frequently visited no means afforded of rebutting her himself; and he prevailed the charge; that she was, in on her to let the matter rest. short, never made acquainted To this she, in her great goodwith the existence of the in- ness and generosity, consented; quiry, until after the inquiry but, she is now punished for was all over, and the tribunal that goodness and generosity by dissolved! The reverend re- the foul accusations of men like viler chooses to forget, that the this reverend slanderer. moment this innocent woman This foul-mouthed priest heard of this charge of levity, would have us believe, that the she repelled it; she declared it Queen received a reprimandTM to be false; she wrote to the King complaining that justice had not been done her; and demanding a full and fair invesligation. She asserted, that fact is, that she did not receive those who had sworn to the the reprimand; she rejected it ;"" levities were as much perjured she repelled the charge; she as those who had sworn to the said it had proceeded from the child-bearing: she asserted, that lips of perjured witnesses; and the whole had proceeded from she, accordingly, requested a a foul conspiracy against her; full investigation, that she and she pledged herself to might prove this. Did this arprove this, if she were allowed gue guilt? Did this argue truth the opportunity. on the side of her accusers? She

from the late King; that she took it in silence; that she ta citly pleaded guilty to the charge of levity of conduct. But, the

The King was advised not to said, "I will not receive this grant this request. The motives" reprimand: it is unjust: your for this were, on his part, natu- Majesty has had the result of ral enough. He knew, that" false witnesses laid before such inquiry must operate, in" you give me a full and fair its result, injuriously to those" investigation; and 1 will prove who had been the instigators" these wretches to be per

1

"jured." In answer to this, the induced the "high-minded" nosame persons who had advised bleman; who it was that prethe secret tribunal, advised, that vailed on him to act in this cashe should not be heard before pacity (he being Master General an open court; and they also of the Ordnance at the time) I found out, that the tribunal, know not. Well; Fanny was which they had before devised before these two personages, was of a sort, that to swear and, so being, Fanny swore, falsely before it was not to com-that, in 1802, an Apothecary at mit perjury! Greenwich, who used to attend

.

any such a thing; but that such

Upon what ground, then, does at the Princess's, told her, that this malignant hypocrite pre- he was sure, that the Princess tend, that her Majesty was con- was with child. Oh, oh! Here victed of levities in 1806? If, came in a Doctor! The Doctor indeed, she had submitted to be was sent for by Lord Moira, and reprimanded, it would have been the Doctor said, that Fanny had another thing; but she never sworn to a lie; for, that, not did; and, there was no more only had he never told Fanny ground for it than there was for sentencing her to death on the a thought had never come into charge of adultery. The wit- his head! This was strange. nesses, who swore to the levities But, the Doctor had a partner -were, some of them, amongst and it might have been he. No those who swore to the child- better luck here. So that Fanny's bearing. A Fanny Lloyd was evidence, as to this point, reone of these. And, here we mained a lie a clear, sheer, unhave an instance of the manner, qualified lie. Nevertheless (and in which the affair was con- now mark!) Fanny was sent ducted. Lord Moira, now Mar- before the Tribunal after this! quis of Hastings and Governor There Fanny swore stoutly to of India, acted a conspicu- the levities. But, that which ous part in this affair. He had Fanny had sworn about the a hand in collecting evidence for Doctor and the child-bearing the tribunal. Fanny Lloyd was was suppressed. The Doctor's brought, by some means or other, name was never more mento his house, and before him and tioned; and, while the King Lowten, the attorney. What had a full account of what Fanny

L

༄།

"

had sworn about the levities,

he had no account at all of what" ter, who is

she had before sworn to about the Doctor!

1

Geld's garden with Mr. Chester, who is a pretty young man." But, Mr. Whitbread showed, that, in fact, Mrs. Lisle

"

through the nieans of discussions as the one here contained. Havin parliament. Mr. Whitbread ing been asked, whether the then showed how unfair was Princess did not walk out alone the representation, that had been with Mr. Chester, she said. made to the King respecting" Yes." She was asked: “ Mr. those levitics; and, amongst Chester is a handsome young other things, he stated this mat-" man, is he not?" To which ter relating to Fanny Lloyd and she answered, "he is pretty. the Doctor. Lord Moira wrote This is very different indeed a letter to Mr. Whitbread, ex-from saying, that the Princess plaining his conduct, but, that walked out alone with a pretty letter only proved the fact: it young man. And, in short, Mrs. did nothing at all towards re-Lisle, upon seeing an account of moving the impressions, which her evidence published, in 1813, the fact was calculated to make. went to Mr. Whitbread and told

1813.

"

i

"This is a specimen, and a mere

Fanny Lloyd's is merely a him, that she never meant to exspecimen of the evidence, on press the insinuation, contained which the charge of levity was in the report of her evidence founded. In the documents, and, which report, let it be oblaid before the King, was a de-served, she had never seen, untail of the evidence; but, the til THE BOOK was published answers only of the witnesses in were given, and not the questions which produced those an- specimen, of the means by swers. And, all the world which the late King was inknows how very different things duced to send a reprimand to appear in consequence of the the Princess. This reprimand, suppression of questions. For I repeat, she never received; instance, in the report of Mrs. that is, she never acquiesced in Liste's evidence, there was this: it; she never allowed it to be "the Princess walked out alone, just; she denied the facts on “for some time, in Lord Shef-which it was founded; she said: