b'\nClass JbMMiSQ \n\n\n\nREPLY TO A PAPER, \n\nCIRCULATED \nUNDER THE NAME OF \n\nTHE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN. \n\n\n\ny2 ^?7/ /sca? ^^//^^ \n\n\n\nA \n\nREPLY TO A PAPER, \n\nCIRCULATED \n\nUNDER THE NAME OF THE \n\nLORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: \n\nTHE OBJECT OF WHICH IS \n\nTO COUNTERACT A VERDICT \n\nIN AN ACTION \n\nBROUGHT BY THOMAS MEADE, ESQ; \n\nAGAINST THE \n\nREV. CHARLES DAUBENY, \n\nBefore Lord Kenyon, and a Special Jury, in the \nCourt of King \'s- Bench, in June 1792. \n\n\n\nBY THOMAS MEADE. \n\n\n\nQui poft femel inventam veritatem, aliud quserit, merida* \n" cium quaerit, non veritatem." \n\nConcil. Chalced. Act. 3. quoted by \nJewel, Bifhop of Salisbury. \n\n\n\nPRINTED BY \nRICHARD CRUTTVVELL, ST. JAMES\'s-STREET, BATH. \n\n1806. \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nTHE contents of this pamphlet are di- \nvided, for the convenience of the rea- \nder, into feparate parts. \n\nThe firfi contains a hiftory of the fubject \nin queftion, together with a vindication of \nthe verdict, and of the teftimony of Mrs. \nMeade, in opposition to the " endeavours"* of \nthe Bifhop of Lincoln to counteract the one, \nand to falfify the other. \n\nTo this is added an Appendix, containing, \nunder letter (A.), a mort account of the efforts \nmade by the different parties to promote, and \nto prevent, family reconciliation. \n\nUnder letter (B.) is a fliort but important \ncorrefpondence between the Rev. Dr. Blay- \nney and the Rev. Mr. Daubeny, on the fub- \njecl of reconciliation. \n\n* See his Lord/hip\'s paper in the Appendix. \n\n\n\nvi \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nUnder (C.) are given the letters of William \nStevens, efq; on the fame fubje\xc2\xa3t, in reply to \nMr. Daubeny\'s application to him, which is \nalfo given. In this part will be found an \naccount of Mrs. Meade\'s interview with her \nmother, which the reader will naturally com- \npare with the account given of it by the \nBifhop of Lincoln. \n\nUnder (D.) is a fhort hiftory of the Bifhop \nof Durham\'s interference, which the reader \nwill alfo compare with the Bilhop of Lincoln\'s \nreprefentations of it. \n\nUnder (E.) is Mrs. Meade\'s correfpondence \nwith Mr. Daubeny, after he had acquainted \nher with the death of her mother, and the \ndifpofition of her fortune. \n\nUnder (F.) is given, verbatim, a copy of \nthe Bilhop of Lincoln\'s manufcript as fent \nby his Lordfhip to Mr. Meade. \n\nAnd under (G.) is Mr. Meade\'s correfpon- \ndence with his Lordfhip previous to this \npublication. \n\nThe affront offered to Mrs. Meade> which \nis the fubjecl of this pamphlet, was of fuch \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nVll \n\n\n\na nature, that Mr. Meade confeffes he was at \na lofs how to proceed. He therefore con- \nfulted with thofe whom he thought compe- \ntent to give him found and temperate advice ; \nand he has alfo waited, not only to fubdue, \nas far as he could, any fentiments of irritation, \nbut likewife to fee clearly what fteps his op- \nponents propofed to take; that by them he \nmight be guided in his meafures to repel the \nattack* And finding that copies of the Bi- \nIhop\'s manufcript are multiplied, and exten- \nsively circulated in public and private with \nincredible incluftry, Mr. Meade has deter- \nmined that his defence mall keep pace with \nthe injury, that the antidote may at lean; \nfollow the poifon. And he trufts with con- \nfidence that there will be, and can be, but \none opinion on the fubjeft among difpafli- \nonate readers. \n\nAs a retired individual, Mr, Meade would \napologize for carrying the fubjeft of his own \nprivate concerns beyond the circle of his \nimmediate connexions : But he perfuade;s \nhimfelf, and he is Supported in that perfua- \n\n\n\nVlli \n\n\n\nPREFACE, \n\n\n\nfion by very high authority, that his caufe \nwill be confidered not unimportant in a more \ngeneral view, as involving in it the interefts \nof humanity and the fecurity and protection \nof the laws themfelves. \n\n\n\nThe Reader is requested to make the following Corrections. \n\nPage 12, 1. i, dele about. \n\n14, 1. 15, for the paper, read his paper. \n\n27, in the notes, for See Appendix, read See page 71. \n\n28, in the notes, for See Appendix, read See p&ge 66. \n30, in the notes, for See Appendix, read See page 73* \n45, 1. 16, after father put a comma only. \n\n47, 1. 13, for her, read Mr. Meade. \n\n76, 1. 17, for means read mean. \n219, 1. 9 from the bottom, for taking, read to take, \n265, in the note, for twenty, read sixteen. \n\n\n\nA \n\n\n\nREPLY to a PAPER, &c. \n\nnr^HE writer of the following pages is fully \nA confcious in how uninterefting a light \nappeals on the fubjecT: of family differences are \nregarded by the public. However the review \nof fuch difputes may gratify the ill-nature of \nfome, or the officioufnefs of others, few feel much \nConcern in the fubject, and frequently pronounce \nboth parties wrong, rather than take the trouble \nof an accurate examination into the merits of \nthe caufe* \n\nNotwithftandihg thefe discouragements, the \nwriter of this pamphlet has ventured to give a \nftatement, the facts contained in which he is \nprepared to verify by inconteftable evidence; and \nonce more to appeal to the juftice of mankind \nagainft the affertions, or infinuations, or by what- \never other names the arrows of calumny may be \nmarked* which have been again fo wantonly \naimed at the reputation and moral character of \nthe perfon moil: dear to him. He mud confefs \nhimfelf alfo to be influenced by a motive not \nlefs powerful than the foregoing 5 which is, that \n\nB \n\n\n\n[ \xc2\xab J \n\n\n\nthe children of the beft of mothers may, when \nher defender is no more, have an unanfwerable \nvindication of her fpotlefs fame 3 and that the \nfriends who have loved and efteemed her, may \nconfront, with the language of truth, the fabri- \ncated tales of falfhood and dishonour. \n\nTo the upright, difinterefted, and unprejudiced, \nlie makes his appeal : and when he refle&s that \nfifteen years are elapfed fince the difpute in ques- \ntion commenced, and more than thirteen fince it \nwas decided in the Court of King\'s-Rench; that \nthe Judge, with many of the Jury, and the greater \npart of the witneffes, have patted to the grave; \nhe cannot but think it providential that proofs on \nproofs flill exift to eftablifh the innocence of his \nwife, under perfecutions, infults, and injuries, \nalmoli without example. \n\nThough little difpofed to a wanton cenfure of \nhis wife\'s New Opponent > whofe mifreprefentations \nmight almofl juftify any feverity of animadverfion, \nhe hopes and expecls that in their judgment of \nthe prefent queition the readers of this book will \nforego the coniideration of his Lordfhip\'s high \nrank, or his great merits as a theologian. His \nconduft, not his opinions or his flation, mull be \nhis defence. \n\nTo thofe who will take the trouble to read this \npaper, it is probably known, that in June 1792, \nMr. Meade found himfelf under the neceffity of \n\n\n\n[ 3 ] \n\n\n\nbringing an action againft the Rev. Charles \nDaubeny, for flander; the object of which flan- \nder was dated to be to prevent a marriage j # and \nthat a verdict, with jool. damages, was given \nagainft Mr. Daubeny. \n\nOf the three gentlemen who fought to accom- \nmodate the difference without recourfe to law, \none, the Rev. Dr. Blayney, late Regius Profeffor \nof Hebrew in the Univerfity of Oxford, has al- \nready permitted his account of the tranfaction \nto be printed. Another, the late Archdeacon \nCoham, appeared in Court as one of Mr. Meade\'s \nwitnefles ; and at an advanced period of life un- \ndertook a journey to Bath, to fet Mrs. Barnlton \nright in regard to mifreprefentations of her \ndaughter\'s conduct, And the third, the late Mr. \nGoddard, of Woodford-Hall, one of the moft va- \nlued friends of Mrs. Meade\'s late father, has left \nevidence in abundance of his attachment to the \ncaufe of Mr. and Mrs. Meade, and of the exer- \ntions he made " to undeceive the deluded part \n" of her family." \n\nThe characters of Dr. Blayney and of Arch- \ndeacon Coham are well known $ but of Mr. \nGoddard, whofe life was more private, it is with \nconfidence averred, (and his brothers-in-law, the \nArchbifhop of York, and Mr. Hope, with his \nother numerous and honourable connexions, will \n\n* With Mr. Daubeny\'s fifter-in-Iaw. \n\n> 2 \n\n\n\nC 4 ] \n\n\n\njuftify the affertion) that few men exceeded him \nin foundnefs of judgment and integrity of heart. \n\nPrevious to the trial, thefe gentlemen, dis- \ngufted at the conduct of Mr. Meade\'s opponent, \nhad given up all hope of fuccefs from friendly \nexplanations. After the trial, all unprejudiced \npeople thought alike as to the part which Mifs \nBarnfton ought in juftice and honour to aft. Mr. \nMeade, fhe well knew, had been attacked on \nher account alone, and he had publickly vindi- \ncated his chara&er. Her aged mother, under \nearly influence and prejudice, had been induced \nto fend her a meffage previous to the trial, de- \nclaring that if fhe obeyed a legal fubpcena, and \nappeared as a witnefs in court, u (lie could never \n" fee her again." \n\nThefe circumftances led Mifs Barnfton to Jiften \nto the advice of her other friends, and efpecially \nof Mr. Goddard, who had received her into his \nhoufe as his own child, when her mother\'s houfe \nwas no longer open to her; and at his earneft \nrecommendation, and with the fanQion of fome \nof her deareft and neareft relations, fhe deter- \nmined to marry Mr. Meade. Mifs Barnfton was \nupwards of thirty years of age; her father was \ndead; her fortune was independent and confi- \nderable; and her mother, at the age of between \nfeventy and eighty years, was cruelly and moll \nungeneroufiy influenced againft her. In this fitu-. \n\n\n\n[ 5 ] \n\n\n\nation Mr. and Mrs. Goddard acted by her in every \nrefpect as parents, until they gave her away in \nmarriage; and from their houfe fhe went to the \nhoufe of her uncle, the only brother of her mother 3 \nby whom, and by others of her relations, fhe and \nMr. Meade were treated with the utmoft regard. \n\nBut Mrs. Barnfton, long deluded, and at this \ntime inflamed with anger by a falfe account,* \nwhich an interefted party immediately fent to her \nof Mrs. Meade\'s evidence and conduct in Court, \npiGNED at once a long Manifefto, the very firft fen- \ntenceof which betrayed her ignorance of whather \ndaughter fwore ; and at the fame time fent two \nletters, one to her brother Mr. Sawbridge, and \nthe other to Mr. Goddard, reproaching them with \ntheir kindnefs to her daughter, and declaring that \nthe evidence fhe gave on oath was falfe, and that \nme would herfelf have oppofed it; although it is \nplain that fhe did not know what that evidence \nwas. But her brother and Mr. Goddard well \nunderftood her fituation; and perfuaded that fhe \nwas but an infirument in the hands of others, \nthey indulged the hope that reafon and religion \nwould in time recover her from the delufion under \nwhich fhe laboured, and overcome the influence \nunder which fhe had afted. \n\n* As appears by her miftating what her daughter depofed. The \nManifefto is quoted in the Appendix, in the Bifhop of Lincoln\'\xc2\xa9 \nattack on Mrs. Meade. \n\n\n\nt- 6 ] \n\n\n\nImmediately after her marriage, Mrs. Meade \nwrote toher mother, foliciting reconcilement with \nevery expreffion of duty and affection ; alluring \nher of her forrow that the ftate of the family re- \nduced her to a neceffity of acting for herfelf, \nwithout applying at the time to her mother, and \nrequefting mutual oblivion, &c. Of her manner \nof writing one example mall be quoted in full; \nand that one mail be felected, becaufe it is a \nletter to her mother from which the Bifhop of \nLincoln has made an extract, in order to infer \n\xe2\x99\xa6an acknowledgment of criminality. But his \nLordfhip took care to quote only the firft part \nof the fentence, fuppreffing the fequel, whieti \ndirectly overturned his argument.* \n\nThe anfwers which Mrs. Meade always re- \nceived from her mother, were plainly in the \nlanguage of Mr. Daubeny;f who at length \nprinted a book in his own name, about eighteen \nmonths after the trial, in which all his former \nabufe was revived, with more caution, but with \nincreafed bitternefs. \n\nThis book was anfwered by Mr. Meade ; and \namong difpaffionate men he has heard but one \n\n* The letter is given in the Appendix, page i ; and from the \nbeginning to the end of it there is not a fentiment or paflage that is \nnot direttly contrary to the fenfe the Bifhop of Lincoln would infer \n\nfrom ito \n\n" f Even whole fentences being the fame as ufed by him. \n\n\n\nC 7 ] \n\n\n\nopinion of it, that it was a complete refutation \nof the calumny which it propofed to anfwer. \n\nDuring ten fucceeding years, various efforts \nwere made by relations, friends, and ftrangers, \nto effeft family peace ; to which Mr. and Mrs. \nMeade always acceded, only propofing as the \nballs the chriftian condition of mutual oblivion. \n\nBut Mr. Daubeny, who took the leading part \nin every correfpondence, required, with affected \nferioufnefs, that Mrs. Meade mould, as a preli- \nminary, confefs that me was perjured; and Mr. \nMeade, that he was a liar and a hypocrite; and \nthen fhe was to be received to the affections of \nher family ! \n\nAmong thofe who at different times lent their \nfriendly fervices, were Archdeacon Coham, the \nBifhop of Norwich, and Mr. Stevens. Thefe all \nexerted their good offices for peace, but declined \nentering into the quarrel. \n\nDr. Blayney, Dr. Falconer, Admiral Stanhope, \nthe Bifhop of Durham, Mr. Aclom, and others, \nbeing applied to by Mr. D. or his friends, to \nreview and rejudge his caufe, the two former, in \nreply, gave their reafons for declining it, but of- \nfered their fervices, or expreffed their wiflies, for \npromoting peace. The Bifhop of Durham de- \nclared to Dr. Blayney, " that he Ihould give no \n* c anfwer to Mr. Daubeny\'s application to him ; \n9 and that he did not believe that any bifhop^ or \n\n\n\nt 8 J \n\n# any other man, would take upon him to judge \n" a caufe which had been decided at law."* \nAdmiral Stanhope and Mr. Aclom having firft \nheard and given entire credit to Mr. D.\'s volumi- \nnous ftatements, applied at length to Mr. Meade, \nand foon changed their opinions. But decided \nas thefe gentlemen were againft Mr. D., they nei- \nther published inve&ives againft him, nor circu- \nlated anecdotes reflecting on his character. Dis- \nappointed in their hopes of effecting peace, they \nquitted the fubjeft without infulting him whom \nthey thought wrong. \n\nAt length, after thirteen years had elapfed, Mr. \nMeade received through the Rev. Dr. Randolph \nan application from the Bifhop of Lincoln for his \npapers; and at the fame time a lady aflfured him, \nas flie heard it from the Bifnop himfelf, " that he \n" was perfectly difpaflionate and unprejudiced, \nsc equally a ftranger to both fides, and that he \na mould not liften to parties or partisans." And \nMr. Meade, having made it a rule never to obtrude \nhis papers on any one, nor to withhold them when \nthere appeared a liberal motive of enquiry, did \nnot think it right to refufe them to his Lord- \ni"hip; prefuming that he had the fame intentions \nthat other people had, and that his exhortations \nmight be added to thofe of all who preceded him^ \nto induce Mr. Daubeny to reftore peace in Mrs., \n^Teade\'s family. \n\n* See Appendixy^ <2 f+ \n\n\n\nI 9 3 \n\n\n\nWith this view he fent* to the Bifhop the pam- \nphlet which he had written eleven years before, \nin reply to one by Mr. Daubeny; and added \nfeveral fmaller unconnected papers, written at \nvarious times, containing the occafional corres- \npondence of Mrs. Meade and others with her \nmother, on the fubject of reftoring peace ; and \nalfo fome letters and papers which marked the \ninfluence that prevented it, and the probable \nmotives of the parties. Mr. Meade had feen \nnone of Mr. Daubeny\'s voluminous papers, which \nthe Bimop had been ftudyingf while he remained \nin Bath, and was ignorant of the arguments and \nthe mifreprefentations which they contained. \nConvinced that no perfon of fenfe or candour \ncould queflion the fafts which he related, he felt \nlittle concern about the reprefentations of his \nopponent. \n\nIn the papers tranfmitted to the Biftiop, Mr. \nMeade lamented ce the reftlefsnefs of Mr. Dau- \n*\' beny, and the abfurdity of his affe&ed demands \nct of a new private trial. Such a refource, Mr. \nu Meade-faid, would have been defirable previous \n\n* If it be thought injudicious to have trufted his Lordfhip with \nhis papers, Mr. Meade does not mean to write an apology for him- \nfelf. He is ready to admit that he had not that prudent jealoufy \nwhich a man might reafonably entertain in trufting his character \nto an utter ftranger. \n\nt His Lordfhip tells Dr. Randolph, that he had finimed them \nonly the Saturday evening previous to his leaving Bath on the \nMonday. \n\n\n\ni 10 ] \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab to the trial at law, to avoid the diftrefs and the \n" expence of a public inveftigation ; but after fuch \n" public decifion, to go into a private trial of the \n" fame caufe, without, judge, jury, witneffes, oath, \n" or reftraint; without means, and without end, \n" (for the object could not be to reftore family \n" peace, nor to prevent expence, nor to avoid the \n\xe2\x82\xacC expofure of domeftic quarrels ;) all this appeared \n" to Mr. Meade fo abfurd, that he had made up \n" his mind to reject the pretended and affected \n" demands of new trials; but at the fame time \n<c that he mould never be indifpofed to give to \n" any gentleman, who liberally and difpaffionately \n<c enquired into the fubject, every information \ncc that would fatisfy him ; adding, that the legal \n" queftion being already decided, the moral one \n4\xc2\xa3 alone of family peace remained unfatisfied." \n\nThe Bifhop\'s application for Mr. Meade\'s \npapers was written critically before his Lordfhip\'s \nleaving Bath; and as he exprefled a wifh to have \nthem during the few days which he was to pafs \nat Lymington, Mr. Meade took fome pains to \nconvey them to him as expeditjoufly as poffible \nin the Hate they were in. In about ten days they \nwere returned; and during fome weeks Mr. \nMeade heard nothing directly from the Bifhop ; \nbut he heard enough from other channels to \nprepare him for the fequel. \n\n\n\n[ 11 1 \n\n\n\nAmong the few families in Bath which zea- \nloufly fupported the caufe of Mr. Daubeny, Mrs. \nMaltby and her daughter particularly interefted \nthemfelves; the latter having been very eamelT, for \na considerable time, to deprive Mrs. Meade of the \nefteem and confidence of a perfon who was known \nto be much attached to her. Thefe ladies were \nperfect ftrangers to Mr. and Mrs. Meade, who \nnow learned that they were clofe connections of \nthe Bifhop of Lincoln ; one being his mother-in- \nlaw, and the other his fifter-in-law; and his Lord- \nfhip being a vilitor in their houfe was foon en- \nlifted in their favourite caufe. He was introduced \nto the other partizans of Mr, Daubeny, and to \nMr. Daubeny himfelf; and living within a few \ndoors of each other, they had conftant opportu- \nnities of intercourfe. To the Jail: evening of his \nvifit in Bath the Bifhop was employed in reading \nMr. Daubeny\'s papers, and in receiving impres- \nfions from Mr. Daubeny himfelf, and from his \nadvocates and partizans. But it never occurred \nto his Lordfhip that in this, as in every other \ncaufe, there were two parties; for although Mr. \nMeade lived near Bath, and many of his friends \nin it, yet the Bifhop did not perceive the propriety, \nor even the common juftice of feeing any of them: \nnor did Mr. Meade even know that the Bifhop \nwas in Bath, when he was judging and deciding \non his character. \n\n\n\nC 12 1 \n\n\n\nIn about about fix vveks his Lordlhip being \nreturned to London, and Mr. Daubeny having \nagain met him there, a clofe-written manufcript \nbook was fent by poll to Mr. Meade, figned, \n<c G. Lincoln;" in which he not only pretends to \nan authority paramount to law, and declares that \nhe has fully vindicated a perfon whom a jury had \nfound guilty thirteen years before; but, by an \neafy progrefs, his Lordihip affumes a higher pre- \nrogative, and pronounces the intentions of Mrs, \nMeade\'s heart to have been wicked; triumphantly \nafTerting that Mr. Meade had not anfwered Mr, \nDaubeny\'s arguments, nor refuted the Bifhop\'s \nauthorities, nor contradicted evidence or infe- \nrences;\xe2\x80\x94 which is very poffible,becaufe Mr. Meade \nhad no opportunity of alluring his Lordfhip that \nmoftof the facts he recited were untrue; that his \ninferences were confequently unjuft;* and that his \npaper was full of perverfions and miftakes. In- \ndeed, it is ftrange that the Bifhop could have \nexpected that Mr. Meade\'s papers mould be a \nreply to anecdotes and affertions which he had \nnever feen, \n\n* The Bifhop\'s paper of invectives, mall be given in full in the \nAppendix; and the reader will judge whether any qualification to \nwhich he may lay claim, can authorize the language he has applied \nto Mrs. Meade; and whether the return he made for Mr. Meade\'s \nconfidence and candour was either generous or juft. His Lordfhip \nthought proper further to infult Mr. Meade by a letter, accompa- \nnying his invectives, with apologies for not being able to fend them \nto himfooner* \n\n\n\n[ 13 ] \n\n\n\nThe affront thus offered to Mrs. Meade was \nfuch, that Mr.Meade thought it right to take fome \nnotice of it ; and his friends perceiving that the \nBifhop\'s paper was full of glaring errors in every \npage, which his Lordftiip, as a man of candour, \nmight probably be glad to correct, it was ear- \nneftly advifed that Mr. Meade would give him \nthe opportunity by a perfonal meeting, which he \naccordingly propofed. But fufpecting, from fome \nhints, that his Lordfhip might be unwilling to \nreview what he had done, Mr. Meade thought it \nright to point out fome direct untruths recited in \nhis Lordfhip\'s paper, of which he might eafily \nfatisfy himfelf; and which, though auxiliaries only \nto the principal charges again ft Mrs. Meade, \n(for the compafs of letters would not admit of \nthe examination of thefe laft) were yet fufficient \nto prove that the object of Mrs. Meade\'s oppo- \nnents in relating them was to excite an unjufli- \niiable prejudice againft her, and to difpofe his \nLordmip to believe her capable of any enormities. \n\nThe propofed meeting was declined by his \nLordfhip, as will be feen in the Appendix; and \nMr. Meade ftill conceiving that fome explanations \nwere neceffary, a correfpondence took place, by \nwhich it will appear that inftead of apologizing \nfor the affront offered to Mrs. Meade, his Lord- \nfhip has only added to it. And the copies of his \npaper of invectives being multiplied, and circu- \n\n\n\ni \n\n\n\nt u 1 \n\n\n\nlated with great zeal by Tome of his Lordfliip\'s con- \nnexions, Mr. Meade deems it neceffary to lay the \nwhole before the Public ; which he does with the \nmore confidence, as the attack on Mrs. Meade \nhas relation to a caufe which was publickly \ndecided in the Court of King\'s-Bench almoft \nfourteen years ago. \n\nThis method, which Mr. Meade takes to do jus- \ntice to his family, will be confidered (as he trufts; \nat lean 1 not intemperate, by thofe who read the \nincautious provocation he has received ; and Mr. \nMeade declares that fuch as it is, he can prove \nthe circulation of it, and bring it home to fome \nof his Lordfliip\'s^clofeil connexions. Mr. Meade \nlaments that tfce paper is fo long, although he has \ndone what he could to render it as concife as \npoffible. He can therefore only requeft that thofe \nwho will not take the trouble to read his pam- \nphlet, will not judge his caufe. He feeks no repu- \ntation from the book, and hopes he (hall lofe none. \n\nHere Mr. Meade cannot help remarking, that \nthe Bifhop\'s early bias in favour of Mr. Daubeny, \nwho as a writer was well known to his Lordfhip, \nis more naturally to be accounted for than his \nperfeverance in thofe mi flakes into which he \nfeems to have been led, and which he too readily \nadopted. The interefting connexion between the \nBifhop and Mr. Daubeny (independent of family \nmotives, which appear alfo to have had their \n\n\n\nC 15 ] \n\n\n\nfiiare of influence) filled his mind with prejudices \nllronger perhaps than he himfelf might at firft \nhave been aware of. \n\nMr. Meade trufts that his habits and principles \nwould lead him alfo to defend the Church and \nits Minifters; and if his Lordihip had known him, \nhe would have feen that mod of his clofe attach- \nments in life have been to men exemplary as \nMinifters of the Church. But in zeal for any \ndefcription of perfons, the fundamental principles \nof juftice and charity mult not be forgotten. \n\nIf a deliberate judgment of a court of law is to \nbe rejected ; if folemn oaths are to be pronounced \nperjury ; a juft and temperate man would proceed \nwith cautious fteps. He would liilen to both fides, \nand mew at leaft equal attention to both parties. \nHe would afk, before he condemned, " What ad- \n" vantage could redound from the com million of \n\na monftrous a\xc2\xa3tof guilt? What was the former \n"conduct of the party accufed? Was it irre- \ncc gular or fufpicious; or was it uniformly religious \n" and eftimable? Who are the accusers? Are \n" they difinterefted and difpaffionate? Has their \nu conduct been candid ? Are their anecdotes and \nf< affertions touching the character of the accufed \n" proved to be correct:? or can abfolute want of \n" truth be difcovered in them?" In a word j a \nman who would venture to judge in fuch a cafe, \nShould aik himfelf, " Have I any prepcffeffions or \n\n\n\nZ 16 ] \n\n\n\ncc bias of my own ? Have I affociated with, and \n\n" converfed frequently with, one of the parties, and \n\nC( with his partizans; and have I ever feen the \n\n* f other party, or any of his friends? And fhould \n\nc< I not emphatically have done this latl aft of \n\n" juftice on the prefent occafion, if I am confcious \n\ntfe that thofe clofe connexions of my own who \n\ntc introduced the fubje\xc2\xa3l to me, are among the \n\n\xe2\x82\xacC moft decided fupporters of one of the parties; \n\n* \xc2\xa3 while the other does not know the evidence on \n\n* \n\n" which I am going to decider" \n\nBut before Mr. Meade examines this affront, \nfo unprovoked by himfelf, and fo unfeeling to- \nwards Mrs. Meade, he cannot help afking the \nBifhop of Lincoln, " Who made his Lordfhip \ncc a judge and a divider over them?\'* A paper \nis circulated, which, if not cognizable by law$ \neffects the mifchief of which perhaps by legal \npunctilio it may efcape the confequences. By \nwhat right is this done? How comes it, that \nafter profeffions of impartiality, and after having \ndefired Mr. Meade\'s papers at Lymington, \nwhere the Biihop faid " he ftiould be at leifure m \n<c read them he referved himfelf till he returned \nto London, where Mr. Daubeny was again ad^ \nmitted to him ? \n\nAfter the decifion of a tribunal, to which Mr. \nDaubeny himfelf fays, " he thought it his duty \ncc as a good citizen to fubmit," what does his \n\n\n\nLordfliip mean by obtruding the affair agaiil \nupon the public? Has he difcovered any new \nproof? Has he produced a fingle article which \nwas not equally open to Mr. Daubeny, and as \nmuch in his polleffion before the trial as at this \ntime? And if Mr. Daubeny thought it any wife \nmaterial for his own j unification, or for the con- \ndemnation of Mr. and Mrs. Meade, why was it \nnot then brought forward? Is there an argument \nnow produced by the Bifhop, which was not \nanfwered in Mr. Meade\'s pamphlet, written \neleven years ago, in reply to one by Mr. Daubeny? \nWith tendernefs*for the feelings and character of \nMrs. Meade, few will now be difpofed to credit \nany of her opponents. \n\nBut in thefe repeated endeavours to injure her \nchara&er, it is hoped that her reftlefs enemies will \nftill find themfelves difappointed ; and that they \n\\fill have to blame thmfelves only for reducing \nMr. Meade to the neceffity of again expofing theif \ninjuftice. \n\nAs the Bilhop of Lincoln feems unconfcious \nof having fallen into that error of felf-deception \n\n* The Bifhop, who feems never to have heard of the caufe till \nmany years after its decifion, pretends " that Mr. Daubeny /pared \n" Mrs. Meade from tendernefs and delicacy" But who alked him, \nWho defired him to fpare her? Not Mifs Barnfton, nor any of her \nfriends. Did he love her better than himfelf ? Did he facrilice his \nmoney, and what he mofl valued, to his delicacy to her ? Let his \nconduct* in public and private, for thirteen years, be the anfwen \n\nC \n\n\n\n[ 18 ] \n\n\n\nwhich he charges on others, and anxioufly pro- \nfefles, even before any one could be fuppofed to \ndoubt it, the moft difmterefted motives for enter- \ning on this affair, Mr. Meade would afk him, \n" Who was the Lady* that offered his Lord- \ncc fhip the pamphlets? Who was the friend in \ncc London that had changed his opinion on the \n" fubjecl ? Who was it that mentioned to Mr. \nt( Daubeny his Lordfhip\'s willingness to enter \n" on the bufinefs? Had his Lordfhip\'s con- \ncc neclions no influence? and had he himfelf no \n<c communication with Mr, Daubeny both before \n(e and after he received Mr. Meade\'s papers?" \nThefe queftions are only put to give the Bifhop \nan opportunity of proving that he had no bias \nfrom thofe that introduced the fubjecl: to him, \nand that he had not prejudged the caufe. \n\nHis Lordlhip, in the outfet, was led into an \nerror, from which he was not likely afterwards to \nextricate himfelf, by receiving as a document a \npaltry publication, of no name, no credit, falfe \nin the verdi\xc2\xa3i, in the fortune flated to be Mifs \nBarnfton\'s, in the damages laid in the declaration, \nIn the names of witneffes, in the evidence, &c. : \na defpicable printed account of the trial from \nnewfpapers, which Mr. Daubeny knows to be \nabfolutely without authority, and for the moft \npart void of truth : and, on the whole, fuch non\xc2\xab> \n\n* See the Bifhop\'s paper in the Appendix* \n\n\n\n[ 19 1 \n\n\n\nfenfe, that it is unaccountable that any man would \ndifgrace himfelf by appealing to fiich as authority. \n\nBut Mr. Meade will have many occafions to \nmark incorrectnefs and rafhnefs. And when he \nhas fatisfied the reader of the utter falfehood of the \ncharges invented or propagated to injure the moral \ncharacter of Mrs. Meade, he trufts that every \nman of feeling and integritity will join with him \nin difregarding the Bifhop of Lincoln\'s " endea- \n" vours" as he expreffes it, to prove that me fwore \nfalfely ; and indignantly afk his Lordfhip, " Is no \n" period of time, no judgment, public or private, \n" to protect perfons from fuch endlefs perfecution." \n\nThe object of the Bifhop of Lincoln is to coun- \nteract a verdict of the Court of King\'s-Bench, and \nto vindicate Archdeacon Daubeny from the effects \nof it 5 which his Lordfhip propofes to do, by im- \nputing to Mrs, Meade unheard-of wickednefs, \nconcluded by wanton and malicious perjury. \n\nIt is neceiTary that the reader mould have fome \nprevious knowledge of the facts which originally \nled to this attack; and a fhort fketch of them fhall \nbe laid before him.* \n\n* The reader is requefted to keep in mind the four points which \nthe Bifhop endeavours to prove againft Mrs. Meade, viz. " that? \n" Mr. Daubeny did not interfere to prevent her marrying;" " that \n" her mother never confented to her marrying;" " that Mr. Dau- \n" beny did not make thofe communications to her refpecling a will, \n" which me declared on her oath;" " and that if he did make \n" fuch, the effect which thefe communications and their coofe- \n\nC 2 \n\n\n\nC 20 ] \n\n\n\nAfter the death of the^firft Mrs. Meade in May \n1788, Mr. Daubeny folicited Mr. Meade for many \nmonths to join his party abroad; and received \nhim in July 1789, at Spa, with the utmoft kind- \nnefs. He had fpoken of him conftantly in terms \n6f the higheft regard, and often declared, as he \nwrote to Mr. Meade, " that he and all the friends \n" of his late fitter were for ever bound to love and \nS\xc2\xa3 esteem him." It is plain therefore that he did \nnot then confider him fo exceptionable a chara&er, \nas he has fince been pleafed to reprefent him. * \n\nMr. Daubeny was accompanied in a foreign \nexcurfion by his wife\'s fiHer Mifs Barnfton, a lady \nabout thirty years of age, and of independent \nfortune. She had patted almoft the laft thirteen \nyears of her life with Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny, and \nher kind attentions and fervices had rendered \nher peculiarly acceptable and neceffary to them. \nHer fortune placed her above owing pecuniary \nobligations, and flie made one of the travelling \nparty on terms of perfect equality. \n\nMr. Meade, after repeated folicitations, joined \ntheir party at Spain July 1789, where they all met \n\n" quences had on her conduct, were not fuch as (he depofed to." \nIt is prefumed that the reader will foon fee that his Lordfliip is \ninifiaken in every point. The anecdotes and ftories recited by the. \nBifhop are but auxiliaries to the four principals, and feem defigned \nchiefly to fecure credit to them, or to any enormities. But when \nthe falfhood of thefe laft mall be alfo manifefled, it is hoped their \ndFectswill b\xc2\xa3the reverie of what their fabricators, defigned. \n\n\n\n[ 21 ] \n\n\n\nas brothers and fillers. But the jealous eye of \nMr. Daubeny quickly fufpe&ed what might fdf> \nlow, and he foon difcovered unaccountable marks \nof uneafinefs. At length the matter was opened \nby himfelf in a conference with Mr. Meade, who \nwith aftoniihment heard him defcribe the fentiU \nments of Mifs Barnfton and her family as ex- \ntremely averfe from him, with expreffions that \nboth wounded and mortified him in a great \ndegree; and piqued at what he had heard, and \nparticularly hurt at Mr. Daubeny\'s account of \nMifs Barnfton\'s conduct, who, as he faid, defired \nthat he would put a flop to Mr. Meade\'s purfuit s \nhe readily and inftantly difclaimed all idea of any \nfuture engagement, and defired that Mrs. Dau- \nbeny and Mifs Barnfton might both be called, in \norder to fet their minds at reft, and put an end \nto the fubjecl for ever; adding, that his affe61ion \nfor Mr. Daubeny was fuch, (and fo it was at that \ntime) that he fhould be miferable if any thing \nmould interrupt the happinefs he enjoyed at pre- \nfent and in profpecl from the friendship of a \nbrother-in-law, in whofe fociety he hoped topafs \nmuch of his life. Mr. Daubeny eameftly inftfied \non not calling in Mrs. Daubeny and Mifs Barn/Ion-, the \nfirft, on account of her ill health ; and the latter, becaufe \nof the indelicacy of calling her in on fuch an occajion \nalone*, and when Mr. Meade urged him to wave de- \nlicacy for once 3 he refiejled and injijled that it mud not \n\n\n\nt M ] \n\n\n\n6e; and holding Mr. Meade\'s hand, and remark- \ning that the affair being for ever at an end, he \ndeiired, as a particular favour, that the fubject \nfhould never again be mentioned to his wife or \nMifs Barnfton, which Mr. Meade promifed; and \nthus was that promife obtained, with the breach \nof which he fo bitterly upbraids Mr. Meade. \n\nBy means fimilar to thofe practifed on Mr. \nMeade, Mr. Daubeny contrived alfo to hamper \nMifs Barnfton with fimilar affurances or promifes* \nand with fimilar injunctions of fecrecy; fo that, as \nfhe expreffed herfelf, in a letter* to her mother, \n" he feemed to have laid a fnare from the be- \n<c ginning to entrap :" and to Mrs. Gunning, in \nOctober 1791, " Mr. Daubeny was from the be- \n" ginning telling me that Mr. Meade had no re- \n" gard for me; and to Mr. Meade, that I was \ntc not attached to him/\' \n\nIt may be alked, what could have been Mr. \nDaubeny\'s motives for this violent oppofition? \nIn point of fortune, of family, of age, of rank in \nlife, Mr. Meade was no unfuitable match for \nMifs Barnfton ; and as a hulband, no man had \nborne more affectionate and friendly testimony to \nhis character than Mr. Daubeny. What could \nhe object to, but that for reafons beft known to \nhimfelf, he did not like that his fifter-in-law mould \nmarry at all; for as he told Mr, Meade, " flue \n* In Oftober 1799. \n\n\n\nV 23 ] \n\n\n\ncc had refolved never to leave him and her lifter \n" by marrying." And as he himfelf expreffes in \nhis letter to Mifs Barnfton, " you declared that \n\xe2\x82\xacf you never would facrifice me or Betfey to any \n\xe2\x82\xac * man whatever "\\ \n\nBut he now pretends, " that the obje\xc2\xa3Hons \nce lay with all the Barnfton family, and with Mrs. \n" Barnfton efpecially, who could not hear of the \n" matter without averiion." But how could he \nknow of thefe violent objections? When Mr. \nDaubeny left England, the firft Mrs. Meade was \nftill living; and Mr. Meade\'s joining the party \nas a fingle man could not then be even matter of \nfurmife. And can the family be fuppofed to have \ndeclared their fentiments of a matter, of which \nthere was not a diftant probability? and of a man, \nwhom they all appeared ever to like? to whom \nMrs. Barnfton, when he left her houfe, which he \ndid immediately before his going abroad, exprefled \nherfelf in terms of mod afTe&ionate regards, de- \nfiring, that, on his return, her houfe mould be \nhis home. \n\nIt had been Mr. Meade\'s early defign to vifit \nItaly ; and after fome hefitation the whole party \nrefolved on the fame. But although a more dis- \ntant referve had taken place between him and \nMifs Barnfton, yet it was impoffible not to fee \nthat they were far from thinking of each othe? \n\nt The original is in Mr. Meade\'s pofleffion* \n\n\n\nC 24 ] \n\n\n\nas Mr. Daubeny reprefented 5 and it was his ab* \nfurd jealoufy that furthered the difcovery, and \nperhaps contributed to that end which he endea- \nvoured to prevent. He regarded their anions \nwith inceffant vigilance, and on the mod infig- \nnificant occafions betrayed exceffive emotions \nwhich are not worth relating. \n\nUneafy at living under perpetual conftraint, \nMr. Meade determined to leave the party. But \non mentioning his defign to Mifs Barnfton, fhe \nmade ufe of every argument and intreaty to de- \ntain him, urging, " that to leave Mr. Daubeny \n" would make the breach everlafting; that a little \nte time mufl heal it 3 that Mr. Daubeny\'s temper \n" was peculiar; and as fhe bore it, (he requefted \n" Mr. Meade to do fo too. She was miferable, \ntc fhe faid, at the thought of occafioning a breach \n" between brothers, who had met in fuch affec- \n<s tion and harmony; and fhe fuggefted another \n<c argument, which fhe knew mufl: have great \n" influence on Mr. Meade," But Mr. Daubeny\'s \nbehaviour growing ftill more offenfive, Mr. Meade \nwould bear it no longer, and at Geneva declared \nhis intention of flaying behind, in order to learn \nItalian, before he croffed the Alps. But Mrs. \nDaubeny fpoke to Mifs Barnfton on the fubjecl, \nwho told her that Mr. Daubeny\'s altered condu\xc2\xa3l \nwas no doubt the caufe : and an explanation \ntaking place, and all uniting in requefting Mr. \n\n\n\n[ 25 ] \n\nMeade at lead to crofs the Alps, he conferred \nto proceed. \n\nIt is unneceffary to relate the behaviour of \nMr. Daubeny, at the leaft mark of civility fnewn \nby Mifs Barnilon to Mr. Meade ; who at length \navailing himfelf of an opportunity to enquire of \nher into the caufe of Mr. Daubeny\'s unaccoun- \ntable conduct, the whole plan of his mifreprefen- \ntations was difcovered. " A time would come/\' \nMifs Barnilon faid," when fire mould fpeak outj" \n" that neither her mother or her friends would be \nH difpleafed at Mr, Meade\'s attentions to her;** \nand " for herfelf, Mr. Daubeny well knew me \n" was far from being unhappy at them." " But/* \nflie alked, " why Mr. Meade mould have fpoken \n"Jo difresJieBfully of her, as he had done to Mr, \n" Daubeny ?" \n\nIt was impoffible not to perceive immediately, \nthe part Mr. Daubeny had been a\xc2\xa3Hng by both, \nMifreprefenting each to the other, he availed \nhimfelf of the fifterly affection of one, and of the \nunbounded confidence of the other; and having \nentangled them with declarations which he con- \nfirmed into irrevocable promifes, he laid his plan \nto keep them always in ignorance, by ftrift in- \njunctions of fecrecy. Mr. Meade defired inftantly \nto fpeak to him, not in confidence, but in reproach; \nbut Mifs Barnilon knew his temper too well to \nVenture on it, fubject as fhe was to him while they \n\n\n\nwere travelling. Mr. Daubeny was entitled to no \nparticular refpe& or confidence. They owed \nhim no duties, nor would any breach of hofpita- \nlity have been committed; for the party was alf \nequal, men and women, brothers and fitters, tra- \nvelling together at a joint expence. But Mifs \nBarnfton convinced Mr. Meade that nothing \nwould make her fo unhappy at prefent, or give \nMr. Daubeny fuch an opportunity of prejudicing \nby letters her family againft Mr. Meade, as open- \ning herfelf to Mr. Daubeny in reproach, or other- \nwife. She refolved therefore, from neceffity, to \nadopt the painful plan of ftri\xc2\xa3t referve, while me \nfhould remain abroad ; taking every opportunity \nof correfponding and converfing with Mr. Meade \nthat was poffible, without alarming Mr. Daubeny \'s \njealoufy or fufpicions. Mr. Meade quitted the \nparty fome months after, and Mr. Daubeny and \nhe parted, not with much cordiality, but with \ndecent civility and reciprocal good wiihes. \n\nWhatever may have been the ftate of Mifs \nBarnfton\'s alfe&ions, fhe returned to England free \nto difpofe of herfelf or not ; as flie proved, when \nMr. Meade afterwards propofed to her. \n\nMr. Meade having arrived from the Continent \na few weeks after Mr. Daubeny, and being affured \nby Mifs Barnfton of her affe&ions, in compliance \nwith her advice to addrefs her openly, he went to \nBath for the purpofe^ and called at her mother\'s \n\n\n\n[ 27 3 \n\nhoufe to breakfaft. But he was foon convinced \nthat the ground had been pre-occupied, and Mr. \nDaubeny\'s prefence prevented his opening him- \nfelf in perfon to Mrs. Barnfton. As foon as he \nhad retired, Mr. Daubeny addrefted Mrs. Barnfton \nwith angry and violent inve&ives againft him, \nconcluding with informing her, <c that he was \n" come to make propofals of marriage for her \ntc daughter,"and declaring himfelf decidedly averfe \nfrom Mr. Meade. To this Mifs Barnfton alluded, \nin a letter* to Mr. Daubeny a few weeks after. \n\nBut Mifs Barnfton, unwilling to leave her caufe \naltogether in Mr. Daubeny\'s hands, and confident \nthat her mother had no perfonal objections to Mr. \nMeade, foon took an opportunity of talking with \nher alone in her chamber; and having explained \nto her the ft ate of her affe&ions, and gently touched \non Mr. Daubeny\'s unfairnefs abroad, Mrs. Barn- \nfton replied, " My dear, you are your own miftrefs, \n" you are to pleafe yourfelf; it is your concern." \n6 But after what you heard Mr. Daubeny fay, \nc will you receive Mr. Meade as a fon ?\' " Y es, \nw my dear, that I will." c But will you think \n6 my following my inclinations a breach of duty \n< to you?\' " Not I, indeed, my dear." 6 But \n* you have heard, Madam, what Mr. Daubeny \ne faid/ " Well, you muft go and perfuade him." \n<\xe2\x96\xa0 Oh, Madam, I wifti I could. 5 \n\n\n\nC 28 ] \n\n\n\nAs foon as Mifs Barnfton left her mother, me \nmet Mr Daubeny, and having told him what \nhad paft, he replied, " that (he had extorted con- \n" fent; for what could a mother do, when (lie \n* \xc2\xa3 faw a daughter fo interefted; that he knew her \n" mind better ; Jhe had ftrong objections to Mr, Meade. \n" Befides, what did Mifs Barnfton think of him, \nu and his wife; were they to be Sacrificed?* He \n< c would never affociate with Mr. Meade. He \n* c would feparate his family for ever from her \n<c mother\'s houfe, if Mr. Meade was admitted \n" into it." Mr. Daubeny addrefled himfelf im- \nmediately to Mrs. Barnfton alfo; and, after a long \nconverfation w T ith her on the parade before her \nhoufe, he appeared to have worked her up to a \ncompliance with all his fentiments. \n\nBut Mr. Meade, unacquainted with thefe cir- \ncumftances, had engaged the wife of his friend, \nthe Rev. Dr. Gunning, to be the bearer of pro- \npofals to Mrs. Barnfton; and Mrs. Gunning ac* \ncordingly waited on her the next day, and having \nftated her bufinefs, " What can I, as a mother, \n\' e do?" faid Mrs. Barnfton. " How can I, after \n" what Mr. Daubeny has declared, how can I \nce bring divifions into my family? But my daugh- \n" ter is her own miftrefs, fhe is to judge for her- \n" felf, and to pleafe herielf." Mrs. Gunning \n\n* This lingular expreflion occurs twice in Mr. Daubeny\'s Utt& \nto Mifs Barnfton, See AppGt&&*JiA~ \xc2\xa3\xc2\xa3 \n\n\n\ni \n\n\n\n[ 29 ] \n\n\n\nretired, little fatisfled with the fubjection of the \nfamily to Mr. Daubeny, and particularly con- \ncerned that Mifs Barnfton did not decide at once \nfor herfelf, as her mother had made no perfonal \nobjections to Mr. Meade, and left her daughter \nwholly to herfelf. \n\nAs Mrs. Gunning was retiring, Mr. Daubeny \ndetained her, to juftify hlmjelf for the part he \natled againft Mr. Meade ; which he did with fuch \nIntemperance, as fhocked Mrs. Gunning ex- \ntremely;* declaring, as he had faid to Mifs Barn- \nfton, " that he would not live in the fame family \n*\' with him \xe2\x80\x94 that Meade had got io,oool. by one \n\xe2\x82\xacC mter,f and wanted to get as much more by \n" another." \n\nAfter a few days, Mifs Barnfton reflecting with \nmuch pain on the mortification to which fhe had \nexpofed Mr. Meade, and learning that he was \nabout to leave England, infilled on permiffion to \nfee him at her mother\'s houfe, to convince him \nand his connections, that me perfonally meant no \nunkindnefs, nor countenanced the incivility to \nhim. Great objections were made to his coming \n\n* See Mifs Barnfton\'s letter to Mr. Daubeny, written a fe\\\xc2\xa3 \nweeks after, defcribing this fceney^C \n\nf The reader is requefted to judge, whether Mr. Daubeny does \nnot feem by thefe words to hare himfelf afligned a motive which \ncan explain his conduct! \n\n\n\n[ 30 ] \n\nthere, but Mifs Barnfton for once refilled with \nfuccefs, and Mr. Daubeny retired to bis chamber. \n\nDuring Mr. Meade\'s fhort vifit, Mrs. Barnfton \ncame into the room, and expreffing her willies \nthat her daughter mould not be agitated, Mr. \nMeade in great pique declared, <c that he mould \n" not have come to her houfe, if he had not been \n" invited; that he would never obtrude himfelf \n" on her\'s or on any family;* and that he mould \nte never come there again until he was aiked," \nor words to that erTe\xc2\xa3l. Mrs. Barnfton immedi- \nately departed, and Mr. Meade foon after took \nhis leave. \n\nMifs Barnfton had much time to reflect on what \nwas paft, and always with diftrefs. " Her nerves,^ \n\n* The Bifhop of Lincoln dwells much on a promife alleged to \nhave been thus made by Mr. Meade to Mrs. Barnfton, of never \nmarrying Mifs Barnfton without her mother\'s confent ; and Mr. \nMeade is heavily charged with a breach of this promife. But if \nhis Lordfhip were informed of the real circumftances, he would in \ncandour have called it, not a promife, but a natural expreflion of \npique, in confequence of very unkind treatment: for after Mr. \nMeade had been invited to Mrs. Barnfton\'s houfe, and then in effect \ndefired to quit it, he haftily declared as is ftated in the text. But \nafter two years, when Mifs Barnfton was rejetted from her mother s \nfamily, and when thofe relations and friends who adopted her, \nadvifsd and exhorted her to marry, it would be ftrange indeed, if \nMr. Meade had declined to perform the part, which honour and affec- \ntion dictated, on account of what palled as above. Mr. Daubeny \ngives this incident the high colouring of a binding promife, intro- \nducing, as is ufual with him, a religious folemnity to accompany \nit; which Mr. Meade afferts to be merely an invention of the \nimagination. \n\n% Vide letter in &?\xc2\xa7^X.Ji/L y3 \n\n\n\nC 31 1 \n\n\n\nas (lie tells her mother, <c were too much affected \n<c to admit of her re-opening the affair, while Mr, \nfe Daubeny and his party were at hand. But \n" fhe refolved to do it, as her mother did not \n<c know half what paffed between Mr. Daubeny \n" and her. She w T as not fatisfied in reafon or \ncc confcience with yielding." In fa& fhe formed \nrefolutions and indulged hopes, and again aban- \ndoned them; Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny defcribing \ntheir fuffetings fo as to afflicl her to the foul ; " Mr. \n* c Daubeny particularly charging her with cruelty \n" to him."f \n\nHaraffed and diftra&ed, file knew not what to \ndo. In the mean time her health and fpirits de- \nclined, while Mr. Daubeny\'s influence on her \nmother and filter (Mrs. M. Barnfton) grew daily \nftronger. " My mother," fays Mifs Barnfton, in a \nletter to Mrs. Gunning, " feems fo turned againft \n<c Mr. Meade, by the effect it has on Mr. Daubeny\'s \n" health, that I don\'t wonder my health is lefs \n\xe2\x82\xacC attended to." Again, " My mother thinks Mr. \n6e Daubeny can never love Mr. Meade fo as to \n" receive him as a brother. Let me intreat you, \n\nif ever you mention this fubjecl, to enjoin fe- \n\xc2\xa3C crecy about Mr. Daubeny.\'* \n\nMifs Barnfton had even the pain of expofing \nMr. Meade a few months after to frefh infults, by \n\n\n\nt See Mifs Barnfton\'s letter to Mrs. Daubeny. \n\n\n\n\nf \n\n\n\n[ 32 ] \n\nfequefting him, with the advice of her relations, \nto write to her at her mother\'s houfe ; me propo- \nfing to come to Bath upon it, and to make an effort \nin confequence. But Mr. Meade\'s letter was not \nonly intercepted, but anfwered by Mr. Daubeny \nwith a torrent of infult and abufe. And Mr. \nDaubeny had the addrefs to perfuade Mrs. Barn- \nfton, that what Mr. Meade thus did at the requeft \nof her daughter, and others of her nearell relations, \nwas an injury and an infult to Mrs. Barnfton, and \na violation of honour and confcience. \n\nBut the time was coming when the hardfhipof \nfubje&ing an amiable woman, independent in \nher fortune, to the controul of a brother-in-law, \nin a point moil effential to her happinefs, and on \nwhich her age and her underftanding rendered \nher competent to judge, could not heJp linking \nevery reafonable perfon. \n\nMifs Barnfton had for fome time flu&uated be- \ntween a regard to her own happinefs, and an \nhabitual fubmiffion to Mr. Daubeny\'s influence on \nher family. But feeing that no arguments or \nconfideration for her had effect on him, me de- \ntermined at length to act for herfelf. It was \nnever denied cc that her mother declared her to be \n* f her own miftrefs, and that Mr. Meade would \n*\' be received as her fon-in-law."* But flie knew \n\n* Mrs. Barnfton\'s letter in 1796, quoted hereafter. \n\n\n\n[ 33 ] \n\n\n\nmuch more ; " that her mother did once abfo- \ncc lutely give her full and free confent " and, \nce that not one fpecific objeftion was ever made \n" to Mr. Meade on her -mother s account. " \n\nIn confequence therefore of her determination \nto aft for herfelf, flie came from her uncle\'s houfe \nto Bath in January 1 791, accompanied by fome \nof her uncle\'s family, who were anxious that her \nmother fhould fee the whole affair in a true and \nfair light. But the Bifhop of Lincoln argues, \n" that fhe having given way at that time to her \n" mother, therefore that any flander Ihe might \n" afterwards have heard, could not be a caufe \n" of her not marrying at a future time." On this \nground Mr. Meade meets the Bifhop j and would \nrejoice, if on this, or on any one point, his Lord- \nfhip would take his ftand like a man; prove its \ntruth, or acknowledge its falfehood, to fpare the \nfliame of endlefs contention. Mifs Barnfton did \ngive way at that time, but certainly not to her mo- \nther. Her mother was not even fpoken to, when \nme gave up. Her relations were prevented from \ntaking any fteps for her by the circulation of whis* \npers refpe&ing a will, for which they were wholly \nunprepared, and which were fo alarming, that \nthey thought it needlefs even to mention to Mrs. \nBarnfton the objeft that brought them to Bath. \nAs they are at this time alive and well, they can. \nthemfelves inform the Bifhop of the faft. Theft \n\n\n\n[ 34 j \n\n\n\nwhifpers were firft conveyed at the time to Mifs \nBarnfton by a Dr.Hanfter,a phyfician, who aifured \nher " that Mr. Meade\'s character was loll, and \ncc that her perfifting in her attachment to him \n<c would kill her mother.\'\' Dr. Hanfter was a \nforeigner, who knew nothing of Mr. Meade, but \nfrom Mr. Daubeny, in whofe houfe he was a \nvifitor, and from whence he ufually went every \nday to vifit Mrs. Barnfton! \n\nMifs Barnfton then yielded without an effort, \nnotwithftanding her refolutions; but {he cau- \ntioufly avoided even to hint to thofe under Mr. \nDaubeny\'s influence, that flie did fo on account \nof the flander ; which would in fact have been \nto unite with thofe who were active againft Mr. \nMeade, in deftroying his character. She therefore \nlet it be underftood that fhe gave way on account \nof her mother > and for family peace ; without faying \na word of the flander, by which fhe knew that \nher mother and the others of her family were \npoifoned. For it was then, as ever afterwards, \nher earneft defire to conceal as much as flie could \nfrom thofe who propagated thefe ftories, the ef- \nfect they had on her own mind, or the perfualion \nflie had of their effect on others; for, as fhe ex- \npreffed herfef in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Hooker, \n" Triumph as it feems to Mr. Daubeny, to me \n" it only conveys horror and agitation." Thofe \nin her confidence 3 not thofe who were practifing \n\n\n\n/ \n\n\n\nt 35 ] \n\n\n\nagainft her happinefs, were made acquainted all \nthrough with every fentiment of her heart, as ap- \npears by her letters to them, which have been \nalready printed/\' and will appear again. \n\nHaving thus given up all expe&ation, with a \nprofpeft fo hopelefs, and having her choice of two \nreafons to affign for yielding, fhe faid, " that it \n<c w r as on account of her mother s quiet and hapfd- \n" nefs;" for fhe faw no occafion to fay more. \n\nIt thus appears that Mifs Barnfton\'s heart had \na fevere conflict, to fuffer, in the early part of the \nbufinefs, between affection for a man, whom, after \nfixteen years acquaintance, fhe had chofen for her \nhufband; and fubmiffion to a mother, who, after \nhaving once confented, was unjuflly and cruelly \nbiafTed againft him by one whom till that time \nfhe believed to be her fincereft and moft affect- \nionate friend. Her mother\'s confent had been \nno fooner given, than Mr. Daubeny declared that \nhe would break up all connection with the family \nforever if Mr. Meade was received into it; and \nMifs Barnfton, though her own miftrefs, had \ngiven way to preferve family peace ; hoping that \ntime, and the facrifice me endeavoured to make s \nwould foften Mr. Daubeny\'s refentment, and re- \nmove the objections he had raifed againft Mr. \nMeade; and that the affair might be re-affumed \nunder more favourable circumftances. But Mr. \n\n* In Mr. Meade\'s pamphlet, in 1794* \nD 2 \n\n\n\n[ 36 j \n\n\n\nDaubeny\'s oppofition continuing inflexible, and \nher relations perceiving the ill ftate of her health \nand fpirits, and encouraging her not to compli- \nment her happinefs away to a man who did not \nappear to feel for her, (he went to Bath in January \n1 79 1, as is juft related, and found her opponent, \nwho was prepared for her coming, provided with \njrrefiftible means to counteraft her ; for as (he faid \nin a letter to Mrs. Daubeny, " When I came to \n" Bath to vindicate Mr. Meade, where he was \n" not to blame, I heard frefli alarms about his \n<c chara&er, and was anxious they mould not \n(\xe2\x82\xac appear to come from Mr. Daubeny." But can \nthe Bifliop of Lincoln fay what elfe but the flander \ninduced the Sawbridge family at that time to retire \nwithout efFe&ing their purpofe ? or Mrs. Meade \nto give up the freedom of her choice, which fhe \nand they came to affert? \n\nAnd was it unnatural that a woman of common \nfenfe and feeling mould make fome enquiry in \nthe courfe of time into thefe charges againft a \nman to whom fhe had been attached? That fhe \ndid fo, is very certain; and her relations knew it. \nIt was not to Mr. Daubeny, or to thofe that were \ngoverned by him, that fhe opened herfelf. She \neven requefted her Aunt Ravenhill, in a letter \nwritten a few months after, " not to let her filter \ntfc Mary know what fhe did, for that that would \n* c be as bad as letting Mr, Daubeny know it ^ and \n\n\n\nC 37 J \n\n\n\ncc that (he was fure that her brother-in-law Mr. \nff Sikes would have exerted himfelf more for her* \n" but that he was afraid of offending Mr. Dau- \n" beny by it." \n\nIn a little time, however, Mifs Barnfton difco- \nvered that moft of the charges againft Mr. Meade \nwere falfe, and the reft probably fo; and her af- \nfections and her former determinations confe- \nquently revived. And as flie became more fen- \nfible of the unjuft means that were pra&ifed againft \nher hapinefs, fhe was the more determined to aft \nfor herfelf, as foon as an opportunity mould offer. \n\nBut Mr. Daubeny, who watched every fluctua- \ntion and movement of her mind, laid before her, \nin June 1791, for the firft time, all the proofs in \ndetail of Mr. Meade\'s fuppofed guilt ; which (he \nhad before heard more vaguely, but which now- \nappeared of fuch a nature, that fhe faw his cha- \nracter was irretrievably gone in her family, and \nthat all her plans of happinefs muft be given up \nas loft. Then it was that fhe wrote to Mrs. \nGunning, to defire Mr, Meade " not to think of \nf\xc2\xab her, but to defend his character for as Mrs. \nGunning wrote to Mr. Meade, * f Mifs Barnfton \ncc tells me, that you are now charged with per- \n" jury and forgery ; that an account has been fent \n" to Mr. Coham, and Mr. Blayneyj and that \ntc Dr. Bridle advifes the Daubeny\'s to pufh the \n\n\n\n[ 38 ] \n\n\n\na affair into a court of law."* After this it was* \nthat for fome months every letter Mifs Barnfton \nwrote to her confidential friends expreffed the \nanguifh of her mind, and the heavy charges againft \nMr. Meade. It was about this time that her coufin \nMr. Ravenhill advifed her " to guard herfelf in \n" the will affair;" and that Mr. Hooker told her, \n* 6 that if every thing elfe could be made eafy, the \n" will affair could never be cleared up;" " that \nsc he advifed her to guard herfelf with caution;" \nand told her, " that he underftood from Mr. \n" Daubeny, that Mr. Meade\'s friends, Coham and \ncc Blayney, had declared themfelves unfavourably \n<c towards him." It was about this time alfo that \nher aunt Ravenhill told her, " either that Mr. \n" Meade was a very bad man, or a very injured \n" man." \n\nIt availed Mifs Barnfton nothing that in fome \ntimefhe herfelf fawreafons to believe him innocent. \nThe mifchief was done. Had fhe thought of \nmarrying Mr. Meade, not one of her family could \nor would have acknowledged him as a man of \ncharacler; a few of them might afterwards have \nwiflied any end put to fo difgraceful a contefl, \nwhen the caufe was going into a court of law; \nbut not one would have openly acknowledged \nhim to be a man of character, or have taken any \nftep that would mark him as fuch. And when \n\nf Originals in Mr. Mead^s pofleta. \n\n\n\n[ 39 ] \n\n\n\nMrs. Gunning, with the belt intentions to all \nparties, " advifed Mifs Barnfton to marry Mr. \n" Meade me replied, cc that me could never \n" think of marrying a man whofe character was \n" under fuch a cloud." \n\nDetermined, however, as me was, not to marry \nhim, (lie was equally determined not to be made \nan inftrument of giving a death-blow to his cha- \nracter; and when Mrs. Daubeny had written to \nher that Mr. Meade\'s brothers-in-law were going \nto (hut their doors againft him on the will bulinefs 5 \nand with fevere unkindnefs infulted her about \nhis character, MifsBarnfton felt it the more poign- \nantly, as me was confcious of having always fa- \ncrificed her own peace but too much to Mrs. \nDaubeny\'s hufband. And perfuaded, that if it \nhad not been on her account, Mr. Meade would \nnever have been attacked, (he was ftill more \nwounded by Mr. Daubeny, who wrote in reproach \nand refentment to Archdeacon Coham, for ven- \nturing to fay in her family that Mr. Meade was \ninnocent refpecting the will. Refolved therefore, \nat leaft, that her name and conduct mould not \nbe made ufe of by them in purfuing Mr. Meade \nwith vengeance, me anfwered Mrs. Daubeny in \nOctober 1791, " that fhe would not have it faid \n" (meaning in the world) that me gave Mr. Meade \n" up becaufe he was infamous, but that fhe \n* c yielded to her mother $ declaring her conviction \n\n/ \n\n\n\nC 40 ] \n\n\n\nof his Innocence and honour." The meaning \nof thefe expreffions is explained and confirmed \nby her conduft, and by all her letters written at \nthe fame time. To Mrs. Gunning fhe wrote in \nSeptember 1 79 1 : \xe2\x80\x94 <c They have broke up Mr. \n< ( Meade\'s reputation among my friends. I can- \nftf not flatter myfelf with a chance of any turn. \nu I wrote to my mother that nothing would make \n" me forget her happinefs, but that if Mr. Meade \n<c was acquitted with honour, my attachment mud \ne f remain as before." To her mother, in the fame \nmonth:\xe2\x80\x94" If Mr. Meade\'s character mould be \n" proved clear as noon-day, my regards muft re- \n" main unchangeable." And to her aunt Raven- \nhill, in March 1792: \xe2\x80\x94 " I confider it neceffary to \n" my own honour and charaElcr, that Mr. Meade \n<\' mould clear himfelf." \n\nBut the Bifhop of Lincoln catches eagerly at \nthe above detached expreffions to her filler, and \nargues from them that the flander uttered by \nMr. Daubeny did not injure Mr. Meade in her \nopinion, or prevent a marriage. But what elfe \nprevented a marriage? or for what other purpofe, \nbut to prevent it, was the flander related by Mr. \nDaubeny, who, as the Bifhop now fays, <c did \ncc not believe it." Did Mifs Barnfton\'s private \nor partial opinion, fuppofing it to be as decided \nas fhe chofe to exprefs it to her filler, undo the \neffeft of the calumny; wipe away fufpicions* and \n\n\n\n[ 41 ] \n\n\n\nreftore Mr. Meade\'s chara&er with her mother, \nwith her connexions, and with the world? Was \nevery bar removed to her plans of happinefsj and \ndid file conlider it unneceftary to her chara&er \nthat Mr. Meade\'s mould be cleared ? The anfvver \nwill be found, not only in her conduct and in her \noath, but in the letters which (he eonftantly wrote \nafter the time of hearing the ilancler from Mr, \nDaubeny in June 1791.* ct If Mr. Meade does \n" not clear himfelf of thefe dreadful charges, I \n* c forfeit my character in being attached to him," \nfaysflie,in a letter to Mrs. Gunning, in July 1791,. \nTo Archdeacon Coham, about the fame time, \n" It is a juftice I owe to myfelf to enquire and. \n** examine into fuch charges as now appear againft \nH Mr. Meade." To the fame, " I owe it to my \n" own honour to have thefe points cleared up\xe2\x80\x94 \n" he is now charged w 7 ith robbery, perjury, and \n" forgery." To the Rev. Mr. Hooker, " Tri- \n\numph as it feems to Mr. Daubeny, to me it \n*\' conveys only agitation and horror; proof alone \n<c can make me yield my opinion, whatever I may \n*/ do of my will and inclination." To Mrs. Gun- \nning, in July 179 1, (c My mother cannot bear to \n\xe2\x82\xacC have any fubjecl: between brothers and lifters \n<c to agitate her. Mr. Daubeny fays, he has \nu fearched the matter to the bottom, and the \n\nrefult is, the whole family are to fhut their doors \n\nt The original? are i\xc2\xbb Mr, Meade\'? pQffeffion, \n\n\n\n[ * ] \n\nV \n\n*\' againfl: Mr. Meade." To the fame, Cf I am ftill \n\xe2\x82\xac\xc2\xa3 defirous of proving Mr. Meade worthy of my \n<\xc2\xa3 regards. The inward triumph and confolation \n" this affords me, is almoft beyond the pain of \nu difappointment." To the fame, " Mr. Hooker \n" fays, if Mr. Meade has the fpirit of a man, he \n\xe2\x82\xacC muft wifli to clear himfelf in the eyes of my \n" friends, or I forfeit my characler in being at- \ntached to him. He owes it to me, and to \n\xc2\xab himfelf. My friends are perfuaded that Mr. \n" Daubeny only regards my happinefs." To the \nRev. Mr. Meade, " Sir, if you regard your own \n" honour, and that of your brother and family, \n<e defire all his refpeclable friends to give tefti- \n" mony to the world of his chara&er. Do not \n" conceal an atom of what is alleged, as it leads \n" to fufpicion. My friends fuppofe him guilty \ncc of the loweft, bafeft crimes. It is not enough \nfor me that his moral honefty is proved ; I \niC would have it appear to the world, that to \n<e fufpecl fuch a man as your brother is calumny. ,, \nTo her Mother in September 1791, " Should \nC\xc2\xa3 Mr. Meade prove guilty of one of thofe heavy \n<c charges, my regard muft vanim of courfe; as \n" I truft it is impoffible I could ever love vice \n" under any form; but mould his characler \nc< be proved clear as noon-day, I confefs my re- \ncc gards muft remain unchangeable." To her \nAunt Ravenhill, a few months later, I look \n\n\n\n[ 43 ] \n\n**\' upon it as neceffary to my character as Jus \n* ( own, that he clears himfelf, and I have ever \n* c told him fo." \n\nCan there be a doubt then, that me not only \nheard the flander, but that it affecled her mind \nand conduct? Was the (hocking crime of perjury \never imputed to a Chriftian woman on more fri- \nvolous grounds? \n\nWhen queftioned on her oath, why me had not \nmarried Mr. Meade, (he declared that the flander \nagainft his character was the caufe. Slander, the \norigin of which fhe never pretended to account \nfor; but which fhe firft heard vaguely and in \nwhifpers from Dr. Hanfter, but afterwards in full \nparticulars from Mr. Daubeny : the effeft of this \nflander on her mother, on her connexions, and on \nherfelf, as well as on the world, this prevented \nher marrying Mr. Meade. \n\n<\xe2\x82\xac I know," fays fhe in a letter to Mrs. Raven- \nhill, " the poifon of fufpicion that has been fpread \ncc on your mind, and on my mother\'s." \n\n<c My friends," fays fhe to Mr. Hooker, in July \n1 79 1, " are perfuaded into a belief that Mr, \n<c Meade is the moll execrable villain on earth." \n\nMrs. Barnfton, in September 1 791, writes to \nMifs Barnfton, " the thoughts of Mr. Meade \n6C coming into my family affii&s my heart; nothing \n** can juftify his conduct." In October 1791, \nArchdeacon Coham wrote to Mifs Barnfton., " Mr, \n\n\n\n[ 44 ] \n\n\n\n" Meade is now with nie, but if he (hould not \n<c clear himfelf, my doors mull be fhut to \n<c him. I (hall urge him to the niceft inveftigatiom \n" From the long habit of friend (hip, from the \n* c thorough knowledge I had of him and his wife, \n" I jeft under the fulleft conviftion of his inno- \n4C cence, and no labour of mine mail be wanting \nf c to make it appear to the world." \n\nHow Mrs. Barnfton\'s mind was really poifoned \nby the flander, is nothing to Mrs. Meade. She \nbelieved it was fo poifoned, and had reafon to be \nconvinced of it; and before the Bifhop of Lincoln \nfhould have prefumed to pronounce as he did \nagainft Mrs. Meade, he ought to have known, \nwhether or not (he intended to facrifice herfelf to \nMr. Daubeny\'s influence over her mother, if no \nflander had been uttered a gain ft Mr. Meade, and \naffected his character. When Mifs Barnfton was \naflced in Court, whether fhe mould marry Mr. \nMeade after the trial; me could not anfwer a \nqueftion which depended on the verdict, and \ntherefore declined it. But it was probably fup- \npofed from thence, as well as from the impreffion \nthe trial made, that the marriage was not irrepa- \nrably loft. But it was admitted that it had been \nprevented, and the Jury brought in their verdict \naccordingly, with 500I. damages, exprefsly for \nthe jlander, and for the lofs of marriage. But if \nthey hacj fupDofed that the marriage was \n\n\n\n[ 45 ] \n\n\n\nabsolutely and for ever loft, the damages would \nhave been for many thoufand pounds. \n\nThe Bifhop\' s injinuation that Mifs Barnfton fwore \nthat the marriage was altogether loft, feems only \ndefigned for the fake of the (hocking imputations \nthat follow. If Hie wanted proof againft his \nLordfhip, he himfelf fupplies it, that fhe fwore \nno fuch thing; when he recites, that on being \nalked whether fhe fhould marry Mr. Meade or \nnot after the trial, (lie neither anfwered yes or no, \n\nMifs Barnfton\'s mifery at its being a trial atlazv, \nand not before friends, will be hereafter explained. \nBut -never w 7 as an appeal to law more neceffary! \nUntil it took place, no relation could fupport her \nchoice, no friend could confcientioufly juftify her. \nEven that excellent man who acled as her father, \neven he would not have performed that office, if \nMr. Meade had not firft eftablifhed his chara\xc2\xa3ler \nby bringing it to the proof.* Lord Kenyon ex- \nprefsly declared that Mr. Meade could not do \notherwife ; and the Bifhop of Durham himfelf, \nwhom Mr. Daubeny confulted eleven years ago, \nas his bifhop, gave it under his hand, after atten- \ntively examining both fides, " that it was not \n<c owing to Mr. Meade or his friends, that the \n\ntrial was not a private and amicable ont."f \n\n* See Mr. Goddard\'s letter.^*. /Jj , \nf The original is in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffion-, \n\n\n\n[ 46 ] \n\n\n\nBat the neceility of a trial at Jaw has been \nproved by the event. For if, in oppofition to a \nverdi6t before Lord Kenyon and a fpecial jury, \nMr. Daubeny has ftill ventured to infinuate his \nold charges under the guife of reafonable fufpi- \nclons, what would he not do if Mr. Meade had \nnot appealed to the laws of his country? Then \nwould his enemies have attacked him with fome \ncolourable pretences; and afferting that he had \nfacrificed his character for a wife, might charge \nhim with not defending it, when the opportunity \nwas in his power. \n\nThe infmuation that Mifs Barnfton was a party \nin going to law, is untrue. She appeared in \ncourt with grief and forrow, fubpoenaed like the \nreft of her family, and required on oath to give \nevidence as a witnefs. And if, not only every \nrelation and friend of Mr. Meade\'s demanded a \nlegal inveftigation, but if Mifs Barnfton\'s confi- \ndential connexions and friends were alfo equally \nearneft that fhe fhould guard herfelf eautioufly, \nuntil the obje6f. of it was cleared up; if fhe her- \nfelf " thought it neceflary to her own character/* \n* ( a juftice due to her own honour," " a juftice fhe \n" owed to herfelE," that Mr. Meade mould appear \nin the world above the fufpicion of guilt and \ninfamy : if every effort made by herfelf, and by \nthofe relations who interfered to promote a mar- \nriage, on the ground of Mr. Meade being received \n\n\n\nt 47 ] \n\n\n\nas a man of character, failed, bccaufe the condi- \ntion could not be obtained ; what could me con* \nfcientioufly fay prevented her marriage with Mr. \nMeade, or what elfe can the Bifhop, or any man \nof common fenfe or honefty fay, but the effeft of \nthe flander on his character ? \n\nThe law-fuit removed all objection to Mr. \nMeade, as was forefeen by thofe who had rea- \nfon to flatter themfelves that he mould be able \nto defend himfelf when his caufe was brought \nbefore the public. \n\n" Dr. Bridle has advifed pufhing the affair into \ncf a Court," fays Mrs. Gunning in a letter to Mr. \nMeade; " I am glad of it, as I know you can clear \n* c yourfelf." " Haflen your journey to England/\' \nfays Archdeacon Coham," and at prefent treat the \n" fcandal with contempt ; it can pafs with none \n<c but thofe that are Grangers to your chara&er." \n\nThat a trial at law was neceffary, was a fub- \nje\xc2\xa3l much deplored by Mr. Meade; for, as he \nwrote to one of his brothers-in-law, "he would \n<c have thought nothing humiliating that might \n" bring brothers back to friendfliip." But when \nthreatened with " the feverity of juftice; zvitk \n" being held up to the world in his proper co~ \n" lours y 9 what could Mr. Meade, or what would \nany man do, who had a chara&er in the world \nworth defending? Thofe alone are anfwerable \nfor the confequences, who invent or propagate \n\n\n\n[ 43 .3 \n\n\n\n{lander; or who, hearing and giving credit and \nfanclion to it, and refuting, either publicly or \nprivately to acknowledge their miftakes, render \nfuch legal refource unavoidable. \n\nBut now to proceed to the Bifhop\'s paper. \nHis Lordfhip, diftruftful, as it mould feem, of \nproving againft Mrs. Meade, all he endeavours to \nprove, ventures to adopt the afifertion, that " fhe \n* c confeffed her own criminality, at an interview \n" fhe had with her mother ; and that Mr. Dau- \n" beny, and two ladies, wrote accounts of what \ncc paffed there, which agreed in fubftance,* with- \n<c out their having feen each other s zvriting till finiJJied?* \nSuppofmg this laft to be true, does it prove that \nthere was no previous agreement, no undef- \nftanding between them ? How came declared \nenemies of Mrs. Meade into her mother\'s room, \nwhen fhe went, after an abfence of thirteen years, \nto implore her bl effing, and had a previous pro?nife of \n\n* The Bifhop is miftaken. The three accounts do not agree* \nMrs. Meade finds proof even in the teftimony of her enemies ta \nprotecl her. Mr. Day, a refpectable magiftrate near Bath, having \nfeen the Mifs Mafons\' account, was of opinion, that even their \nown report did not convey to his mind any idea that Mrs. Meade \nmade the confeffion as imputed to her. Yet Mr. Daubeny\'s ac- \ncount roundly afierts, " that Mrs. Meade admitted that fie gained \n" a verdict for Mr. Meade hy her own notorioujly fatfe evidence? * \nAnd a third account, namely Mrs. M. Barnfton\'s, makes Mrs, \nMeade\'s not co?ifefiing, a ground for fhutting her mother\'s doors \nagainft her and her children. \n\n\n\n[ 49 ] \n\n\n\nfeeing her alone ? How came three perfons, living \nmuch together, to draw a formal ftatement of fuch \na fcene at all, without previous concert? What \ndid they go for ? Why were utter Grangers to \nMrs. Meade fele&ed to furprife her? If witneffes \nwere neceffary, why not have fome unprejudiced \nrelations, or family connexion, or friends, or fome \ntemperate clergyman, rather than two ladies, new \nacquaintances of the family, but who had diftin- \nguifhed themfelves as mod determined opponents \nof Mrs. Meade, and fticklers for Mr. Daubeny? \n\nBut let any one fuppofe himfelf placed in Mrs* \nMeade\'s fituation at that interview, and then judge \nof her danger! With much difficulty and ad- \ndrefs fhe had, once in twelve years, obtained a \npromife to fee her mother, and to fee her alone. \nShe had dated* her object to be " to throw her- \n** felf at her feet, to folicit her bleffing for herfelf \n" and her children, and to entreat her influence \n" in reconciling the family." Contrary to pro- \nmife and to honour, fhe found herfelf introduced \nby furprife, without friend or witnefs, into a room \nwith five perfons, who had taken a decided part \nagainft her character , perfons, who from that part \nwhich they had taken againft her, could not be \nconfidered admiffible as witneffes; one being a \nparty, another the wife of the party, the third, for \n\n* In a letter to her mother^ the week before* \nE \n\n\n\nC 50 ] \n\n\n\ntwelve years the mo ft ufeful and decided partifan, \nand the two Mifs Mafons, whom Mrs. Meade \nhad never before feen, having diftinguifhed them- \nfelves as Mr. Daubeny\'s moft zealous advocates \nand fupporters, depofitaries of his papers, em- \nbarked in his caufe, and having on other occafions \nbeen led by their ardour againft Mr. and Mrs. \nMeade to fuch lengths, as to carry the fubjeft \ninto their neighbourhood in the country,* with a \ndegree of heat and earneftnefs, as if they had \nbeen actually principals in it. \n\nIf all this appear found to the Bifhop of Lin- \ncoln, he probably Hands alone in his judgment. \n\nThe Biihop fays,f Cf that Mrs. Meade fwore \n6e that her mother gave her full and free confent \n" to her marrying, but that in confequence of \n" what Mr. Daubeny dated to her in June, 1791, \n" me gave it up;" and on this foundation of fand, \nhis Lordihip, with great induftry, erects a fuper- \nftru&ure, which a breath overturns. \n\nHow his Lordfhip was led into this ilatemenr, \nis not eafy to fay ; certain it is that he Humbles \nat the very threfhold, his whole argument refting \non a confufion, introduced by a dextrous fup- \npreffion of dates. \n\nMifs Barnflon Hated her mother\'s confent to \nbe given in June, 1790; and Mr. Daubeny\'s con- \n\n\n\n# At Orchardleigh. \n\n\n\nt See Appendix. \n\n\n\n[ 51 ] \n\n\n\nverfation with her, to which the Bifhop alludes* \nto have been in June, 1 79 1 . Does the Bifliop \nmean that (lie did not marry in June, 1790, be- \ncaufe of flander which fhe was to hear in June, \n1 79 1? Would a Court or Jury tolerate fuch \nnonfenfe? The manifefto itfelf, (i. e. a paper \nsigned by Mrs. Barnfion, and beginning with \nWHEREAS) which the Bifliop quotes fo empha- \ntically, and which he feems to confider as Mrs. \nBarnfton\'s, becaufe it is faid to be signed by her, \neven that admits, " that the marriage was given \n" up twice in that interval." Of courfe Mifs \nBarnfton muft have refumed her intentions of \nmarrying after 1790, and fomething muft have \nprevented her. And before his Lordfhip can \nfucceed in his endeavours to prove Mrs. Meade \nperjured, he muft prove, " that he knew her \n" heart better than herfelfj" and " that after the \n" fpring of 1 79 1, ihe never had thoughts of mar- \n" rying Mr. Meade, and that calumny had na \n" efTeft upon her." But of that, thofe will judge \nwho have read the preceding account, with the \nfollowing extracts from her letters written after \nthat period, and immediately after fhe had heard \nthe charges again!! Mr. Meade in June 1791, \nfrom Mr. Daubeny. To Mrs. Gunning,* in July \n\n* The originals are in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffion, having fortunately \nbeen indorfed, and fet by, by the Rev. Dr. Gunning, who gave them \nto Mr. Meade. \n\n\n\nE 2 \n\n\n\n[ 52 J \n\n\n\n1791, " a friend of mine is unhappy, left I ftiould \n\xe2\x82\xacc make engagements before Mr. Meade\'s inno- \n\xe2\x82\xacC cence is proved. If he does not clear himfelf \n\xe2\x82\xacC of thofe dreadful charges, I forfeit my character \n\xe2\x82\xac< in being attached to him." In another letter to \nthe fame, July 1791, ee I can hear nothing openly \n" of Mr. Meade\'s vindication or condemnation \nef but by Mr. Daubeny, who has already pafTed \nst fuch decifive fentence, that he thinks it wilful \n6i obftinacy not to believe what he and his bro- \n<c thers think fuch (bong proofs. Thofe that \ncc know him will not believe that for the fake of \n" giving away a few hundreds, he would be guilty \nec of perjury, forgery, and other dreadful crimes. \nci The Daubenys and my family alone will think \ncc him guilty. It feems the Daubenyshave thought \n\xe2\x82\xacf fit to convey their fufpicions to Mr. Coham and \nCf Dr. Blayney." Again to the fame, in the fame \nmonth, <\xc2\xa3 Mr. Hooker fays, that I mould tell my \nCJ family that the peace of my mind depends on Mr. \ncc Meade\'s clearing himfelf." To Archdeacon Co- \nham, in July 1 79 1, " it is ?ijujlice I owe to my f elf \n<e to enquire and examine into fuch charges as \nCf now appear againfl Mr. Meade ; it would ill be- \n" come a woman of thirty years of age to be \n" blindly attached to a per/on, who, if proved guilty \n" of fuch perfidious villainy, ought to be deferted \n" by friends and foes." To Mrs. Daubeny, in \n\n\n\n[ 53 ] \n\n\n\nJuly 1 79 1, Cff do not think me obftinately bent on \ntc fhutting my eyes ; I mould abhor villainy as \n" much as you, in any one." To the Rev. Mr, \nHooker, in July 1 791, " it is not enough that my \n" friends are perfuaded into a belief that Mr. \n" Meade is the mofi execrable villain on earthy \n" guilty of perjury, forgery, hypocrify, and deceit; \n" I am called upon to hear thefe dreadful charges, \n" Nor fhall I wonder at your being impreffed with \n<c doubt and apprehenfion that I am blinded, and \n<c that Mr. Daubeny is right. But you know me \n" too well to believe that any partiality could force \nci me to unite myfelf to vice; or induce me, at the \n" age of thirty-one, to take as a hufband a man I \n<c could even doubt of being guilty of fuch dread- \n" ful crimes?"* \n\nIn July 1 791, Mrs. Gunning wrote to Mr. \nMeade, " How am I mocked at the perfecution \n<c I hear is carried on againft you ! For God\'s \n" fake come as foon as you can to England, and \n" clear yourfelf. Regard nothing fo much as \n" your character. They have written, Mifs Barn- \n-** fton tells me, to Mr. Coham and Dr. Blayney. \n" Dr. Bridle has, advifed them to pum it in a \n\n* The originals of thefe letters are ftill in exiftence, and for the \nmoll part in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffion. Except Archdeacon Coham 9 \nthe parties are living; but he, as well as Dr. Blayney conveyed to \nMr. Meade what papers they had on the fubjecl;. \n\n\n\n[ 54 ] \n\n\n\n" Court.* I am not forry for it, as I know \ncc you can clear yourfelf. I believe you have \n" been fadly fet forth to Mr. S. Mifs Barnfton \n" fays, they now accufe you of forgery. I would \n" do but every thing to gain my character. \\ ou \n" have been too Jong mild. I know you will \ncc take what I fay as it is meant 3 and I a flu re \n" you that things are gone fo far, that your pre- \ncc fence is abfolutely neceffary. Your only bull- \n" nefs is to prove what they fay about the will to \n" be falfe: and when that is fettled, and your \n<c innocence is cleared, what objections can fhe \ncc have to make you and herfelf fatisfaction ? \n" But llie fays it will be impoffible for them ever \n" to be reconciled. I am fhocked at the agita- \ncc tions into which Mifs Barnfton is continually \n\xc2\xab thrown." \n\nWhen it is confidered that all thefe letters,f \nand a great many more to the fame efFe\xc2\xa3t, v/ere \nwritten after the end of June 1791, that is, imme- \n\n* This was probably another impofltion on Mifs Barnfton, Dr. \nBridle having mentioned Mr. Meade with friend/hip in his will, and \nleft him a legacy. \n\nt The following is an extract from Mifs Barnfton\'s journal, in a \nnote which (he conveyed at the time to Mrs. Gunning. June. After \nreciting two meffages from Mr. Daubeny, and having at length \ngone to his houfe, and ftated what he had told her there, fhe adds, \n(t that fhe had never before heard the affair from himfelf, and that \n" (he mould have been reproachedif mefhuther ears from conviction. \n" The evidence collected would ftartle himfelf, (Mr. Meade) if he \n\n\n\n[ 55 ] \n\ndiately after Mifs Barnfton\'s hearing the ilander \nfrom Mr. Daubeny; the world will judge whe- \nther me was not attached to Mr. Meade, and \nwhether fhe did not hear certain Chocking and \nalarming charges againfl: him, and whether, as \nflie declared upon oath, her mind and her conduct \nwere not influenced by the effect which thefe \nflanderous charges produced. \n\nOf the Manifefio signed by Mrs. Barnfton, and \nbrought forward by the Bifnop of Lincoln, it is \nright to take fome notice. And as his Lordfhip \n(who never faw her) afferts that (he was in full \npofTeffion of her faculties, why was it only ftgned \nby her ? Who drew it up? The author peeps out \nwhole-length in the very firft word, (" Whereas") \nas in every line afterwards. But the Bifnop, an- \n\n" was to hear it. Suppoflng all to be true, it feems impoffible to \n\'* ftand out againft conviction \xe2\x80\x94 it fignifies nothing holding out \xe2\x80\x94 it \n" is blindnefs and folly \xe2\x80\x94 facts are plain; and I am not facrificing \n" to the anger of a prejudiced brother; for whoever calls on him \n" to give his objections, they are ready on black and white, for \nu their eonviction." \n\nAgain, July. " Mr. Daubeny was forry to fee by my looks the \n" fubject ftill preyed on my mind; he opened the converfation at \n\nmy Aunt\'s to pin me down. I could receive nothing but morti- \n" fication to hear Mr. Meade\'s character fet forth before my Aunt, \n" who I am fure is taught to believe Mr. Meade guilty, by her \n" anxiety that he mould clear himfelf. \n\n" Mr. Daubeny is gone to Bradley \xe2\x80\x94 what quiet and peace have \n*\' I had flnce! My mother and I could go on thus for ever. If \ni( Mr. Meade does not call on his accufers, they will call on him| \n" the fignature, \xe2\x80\x94 Anne being turned out of the room, is odd. Some \n" fatisfa&ion I muft have, for it is impoflible not to be anxious to \n" a degree." \n\n\n\n[ 56 3 \n\n\n\nticipatlng fufpicions, fays, <e that it was written \n" before Mr. Daubeny\'s return from London after \ncc the trial." A perfon was convicted fome years \nago of poifoning a baronet, principally from faying, \n& Remember, Gardener, I was in fuch a place at \n" fuch an hour." \n\nBut did not the pod bring an account to Mrs. \nBarnfton, before Mr. Daubeny\'s return, even " of \ncc Mr. H. Sawbridge* foaking hands with her \n(( daughter on coming out of Court." And why \nfliould not a copy of a manifefto be as eafily fent?f \nBut compare it with Mr. Daubeny\'s manifefto in \nMr. Meade\'s pamphlet, J or with any of Mrs. \n.Barnfton\'s own letters or writings, and all doubt \nvanifhes ! \n\nBut the Bifliop of Lincoln, to give importance, \nas it mould feem, to this paper, avers with pom- \npous formality, " that it was dated the i ith of \'June \n" 1792, and signed by herfelf 7 ,? \n\nThis manifefto fays, <c that Mr. Daubeny did \n" not influence Mrs. Barnfton againft Mr. Meade." \nBut the affertion is fo contrary to known fa\xc2\xa3ts, \nthat it is not worth notice. What elfe, or who \n\nf See the Bifhop of Lincoln\'s paper, in the Appendix. \n\nf But to bring the point of evidence to any thing like an equa\xc2\xbb \nJity with Mrs. Meade ? s, will any one Jhvear that the manifefto was \nnot prepared by others for Mrs. Barnfton \\ofign? \n\n% Page 100. \n\n\n\n[ 57 ] \n\n\n\nelfe, influenced her? What other caufe did Mrs. \nBarnfton affign to Mrs. Gunning? What did \nMr. Daubeny himfelf affign to Mrs. Gunning, \nwhen he endeavoured to juftify himfelf? What \ndoes Mrs. Barnfton herfelf mean in this manifefto, \nwhen her chief objection to Mr. Meade is, his \nconduct as reprefented by Mr. Daubeny? What \ndid Mrs. M. Barnfton mean, the laft time Mr* \nMeade fpoke to her in prefence of Mifs Barnfton, \nin July 1790, when giving him her hand me faid, \n" Why did you not come home at once from the \n<c Continent, and fpeak to my mother in the firft \n" place, and all would have been eafy r" \n\nAs to engagements between Mr. Meade and \nMifs Barnfton in private, to correfpond with each \nother, how will any one venture to\'affert what \nengagement patted between two perfons alone? \nThe fa\xc2\xa3r. is not true. And as for Mr. Meade\'s \nufing Mrs. Barnfton ill, he defies the ingenuity \nof malice to point out the fmalleft inftance, in \nwhich he ever treated her but with marked re- \nfpec~t. and regard. \n\nIn this manifefto, which is indeed a melancholy \nexhibition of weaknefs and delufion, the only- \npertinent part is what relates to the confent; the \nreft is mere aflertion of what Mrs. Barnfton had \nbeen told, and would not or could not inquire \ninto. Mrs. Barnfton\'s mind had been filled with \nprejudices againft her daughter, and the Bifhop \n\n\n\nt 58 ] \n\nwould have thefe prejudices received as proofs. \nOn the authority of ajjertions in thefe papers, his \nLord 111 ip argues that Mifs Barnflon never received \nher mother\'s confent to marry, and therefore that \nflie was perjured* But the falfehood of this \nmocking charge was fully explained eleven years \nago, in a pamphlet which Mr. Meade then wrote \nin reply to one by Mr. Daubeny. \n\nIt was with inexpreffible grief and horror that \nMrs. Meade then heard that her beloved and ho- \nnoured mother had been prevailed on, by the \nafcendancy which Mr. Daubeny had over her \nmind, to throw her weight into the fcale againft \nher child, who for more than thirty years had \npoffeffed her unbounded love and confidence, and \nto difclaim the account of that confent as un- \ntrue, and merely fabricated for the occafion. Mrs. \nMeade had too much reverence for her mother, \n\n* The infatuation of Mr. Daubeny\'s partifans would indeed be \nunaccountable in drawing this affair again into public view, but that \nthey feem to flatter themfelves that a paper figned by a mother \nagainft her daughter is an argument which muft ftagger people. \nBut when this very paper is fairly and fully conlidered, it will pro- \nbably turn out to be an argument of no fmall weight againft them- \nfelves. They probably build alfo on the death of Mr. Meade\'s \nwitn\'effes and friends. The lofs of thefe laft is indeed fuch as he \nmall ever feel ; but his caufe is ftill fecure. They have left their \nteftimonies for>his protection. The documents and authorities re- \nferred to are in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffion : they were fortunately \npreferved by the good fenfe of thofe in whole hands they were. \nWhere the few original letters in the hands of Mr. Daubeny\'s friends \nare quoted, it is from the original drafts in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffioiu \n\n\n\n[ S9 ] \n\n\n\nand too high an opinion of her intentional vera- \ncity, to fuppofe that (he did not believe what fhe \nthen wrote; fujijiofing that JJie did really write it. \nBut fome allowance is to be made for w 7 ant of \nrecollection in regard to a tranfadtion of more than \ntw r o years (landing, and the failure of memory in \nan aged woman, between feventy and eighty, \nwhofe memory, never good, latterly failed her \nmanifeftly.* Nor is her firnple denial, with a view" \nto fupport Mr. Daubeny, to be fet in oppofition \nto the beft evidence that can be had, where no \nwitnefs was prefent; and alfo againft the folemn \nuncontradicted oath of a thinking and religious \nwoman, fupported alfo by reafon, common fenfe, \nand natural feeling. But haraffed with the fub- \nje\xc2\xa3r. as Mrs. Barnilon was, at a very advanced \nage, and every day more and more irritated againft \nMr. and Mrs. Meade; furrounded by perfons \ndevoted to Mr. Daubeny, and fubjeft to him; \nprepofTe fifed by his paffion, and corrupted by his \nprejudices, me forgot every thing, or faw every \nthing through a falfe medium, and gave herfeif \nup wholly to Mr. Daubeny : fo that, asMrs. Meade\'s \nmuch-loved brother-in-law Mr. Sikes w 7 rote to her \nin July 1 793, when " 1 attempted to interfere, and \n" fuggefted to Mrs. Barnfton that miftakes might \n\n* If theBifliop want evidence of this, Mr. Meade can fatisfyhim \nby the testimony of themoft difpaflionate and the moft competent \nwitnefs. \n\n\n\n[ 60 ] \n\n\n\n" have occurred, fhe flopped me fhort, and \n" would hear nothing." And other branches of \nthe family having made fimiJar efforts had the \nlike ill fuccefs. And to fuch a pafs was Mr. \nDaubeny\'s influence at length openly carried, that \nMrs. Meade was direSed " to addrefs to him any \nfic letters fhe may have to write to her mother in \n" future;" proving what the fagaciousMr. Burke \nobferves, " that if we [termit any fierfon to tell us \n" his ftory morning and evening for one twelvemonth > \n" he will become our mqfter" Mrs. Barnfton poffibly \nforgot alfo that me told Mrs. Gunning, at the \n\'firft application to her, that " her only objection \n* c was on account of Mr. Daubeny ; and that \n** ihe never made one folid objection of her own \n<c at any time to Mr. Meade." She forgot perhaps \nthat her houfe was once as his home; and that \nwhile he travelled with her daughter, fhe was told \nby Mrs. Gunning and Mrs. Coham, that it was \nfaid they were to make a match, and that ihe \nreceived the account with merely remarking, that \nfhe had not heard of it; and then, as at all times, \nfpeaking of Mr. Meade with kindnefs and efteem. \n\nThe converfation between Mifs Barnfton and \nher mother when the confent was given, toojc \nplace in June 1790. Mifs Barnilon mentioned \nit to Mr. Daubeny immediately, who faid, " that \n" he knew her mind better;" and alked her, "what \ni( did {he think of him and his wife 3 were they to \n\n\n\nL 61 ] \n\n" be facrijiced?" She mentioned it, and alluded to \nit in letters to her mother* and others, about \nthat time, and none of them thought of denying \nit until after the trial, when it was confidered as \nneceffary to Mr. Daubeny that it mould be denied. \nShe told it to Mrs. William Sawbridge at a time \nwhen it was impoffible to forefee that fuch com- \nmunication could have any confequence; to the \nRev. Henry Sawbridge, of Wickharn, as appears \nby his letter ; to her coufms at Haddon, who well \nremember it ; and to her fifter Mrs. Sikes, who, tho* \nwarmly in Mr.Daubeny\'s intereft, had the juftice \nand humanity to declare it, when applied to. \n\nExtracl of a Letter from Mrs. Wm, Sawbridge. \n\n" My dear Mrs. Meade, Wefton,0&. 27, 1 793. \n\n" I remember hearing at Haddon, fome time \n* c between the months of July 1 790, and February \n" 1 79 1, of the converfation having paffed between \n" you and Mrs. Barnfton. You left Haddon,f I \n<c believe, in February 1 791, with full expectation \n<c of reconciling all parties.^ \n\n" Very (incerely and very affectionately, \n\n" Your\'s, Mary Sawbridge." \n\n* Quoted in this book. f The houfe of Mrs. Meade\'s uncle. \nt It was then that Mifs Barnfton was going to Bath with fome \nof her uncle\'s family to avow the ftate of her affections, and her \n\n\n\nC 62 ] \n\nExtrad of a Letter from the Rev. Henrt Saivbjridge. \n\n" Dear Catherine, Wickham, Oct. 1793. \n\n" I will not attempt to call to mind the par- \n" ticular words of a converfation related to me \n" more than two years ago. But I remember \n4t you told me, in the autumn of 1790, that acon- \n<c verfation had paffed between your mother and \n<f yourfelf, in her own room, to the fame purport, if \nnot in the fame words, you relate in your letter. \n< c I am, &c. Henry Sawbridge.\'* \n\nThe following is Mr. Sikes\'s reply to Mrs. \nMeade\'s requefl, that he and his wife would alfo \nvindicate her, by reminding her mother that the \nftory was not fabricated for the occafion, as was \nafferted. \n\n" Dear Sifter, \n\n" In confequence of the a flu ranee I gave \n" you from Bath, I tranferibed from your letters \n" to my wife thofe paffages which will anfwer \n" your purpofe, and fent them to your mother. \n\n" Your affectionate brother, \n\n" Thomas Sikes." \n\ndetermination in confequence to marry, and to declare her uncle\'s \nfentiments in her fupport. She hoped too, that by refolute conduct: \nme might in the end reconcile the parties. But neither me nor her \nfriends forefaw that a new ground of refiftance was prepared againft \ntheir arrival ; the charges about a will being feafonably brought \nforward, which effectually defeated her intentions at that time. \n\n\n\n[ 63 ] \n\n\n\nThe following letter has reference indeed to \nanother converfation, but is inferted to mew how \nwell difpofed Mrs. Barnfton was to favour her \ndaughter\'s inclinations when left to herfelf, \n\nMifs Barnston to her Mother.\xe2\x80\x94 Haddon, Oil. 1790, \ncc I ever fliall and mull think Mr. Daubeny\'s \nprejudices againftMr. Meade ill-founded. And \n" when, after all, he afked me to give up Mr. \n<c Meade to oblige him 9 and him only, and when he \n\xe2\x82\xacC found my attachment fo ftrong, that he feared 1 \niC Jhoidd not be able to make him the facrifice ; when \n" he heard you tell me that I was of an age to judge \n"for my [elf, and wifhed me to confult my own hajifii- \n" nefs; then, oh heavens! do I fee my friend, my \n" brother, my confidant, one of thole whom I \n" have loved beft in the world, labouring to ren- \n" der Mr. Meade odious in your eyes, in order to \ncc give a fanclion to the very active part he takes \n" againft him. I cannot but fee his cruel letter \n" in every fenfe unjuftifiable. I told him, in a \n<c letter at Weymouth, after looking over his ac- \n<c cufations in three meets, that fome were un- \n" fairly ftated, and others I had anfwered over \n" and over. I told him, that the more I reflected \n" the more I was fatisfled, that his happinefs was \n" the motive of my conduct. Attached to Mr. \n" Meade on the bed principles, not blindly, as I \n" have been told, like a girl of fifteen, but with \n\n\n\n[ 64 ] \n\n\n\ncc the deliberate judgment of a woman of thirty, \n* c what can I do? Can I facrifice my happinefs to \ncc Mr. Daubeny\'s anger? Think, my dear Madam, \ncc I befeech you, for my happinefs, and perfuade \n" Mr. Daubeny not to lofe fight of it. I did think \n4t the change in my health would have convinced \n** him of what I fufFered in mind; but to my \n66 grief I find him inflexible. I muft there- \n" fore apply to you, becaufe I am mod unhappy, \n" My friends* here are anxious for me to fend this\' \ncc letter; and I trujl 1 \' fliall ever be able to fubfcribe \n46 my \xe2\x80\xa2/ "elf your mcft dutiful, becaufe no power on \n45 earth can make me otherwife than your moft \n" affectionate, daughter,! C. Barnston." \n\nThis letter was written more than a year before \na trial was thought of. \n\nThe Bifliop of Lincoln fays, " There is no evi- \ncc dence of Mrs. Barnfton\'s confent being given, \ncc or fuppofed or underftood to be given." The \nproceedings of the Court of King\'s-Bench would \nhave inftrufted him better. His Lord (hip con- \nceives it \xe2\x82\xacC improbable" that a very old, irritated, \nand deluded " perfon fiould forget. 9 \' But he \nthinks it very probable that Mrs. Meade invented \n\n* Her uncle\'s family, \nt It Is worthy of remark, that although Mifs Barnfton in this \nletter, as in many others, expreffes or alludes to the confent hei i \nmother had given, as a matter well known and acknowledged, yet \nher mother never denied it, nor was any denial of it pretended \nuntil after the trial I \n\n\n\n[ 65 ] \n\n\n\nthe ftory of the confent ; and that die perjured \nherfelf deliberately, for the fiurfiofe of giving a criminal \ncolour to an action brought againft the hujband of her \nfijler, her beloved favourite fijler 9 her earlieft friend^ \nand her chcfen companion till then through life! 1 1 \nIs fuch a remark, even from the Bimop of Lincoln, \nworth notice? Mr. Meade, with all his refpe\xc2\xa3t \nfor his Lordfhip, could hardly read this ingenious \nargument with proper gravity. \n\nTo the foregoing documents mall be added the \nteftimony of a letter written by Mr. Daubeny him- \nfelfio Mifs Barnfton, in the fummer of 1 790, a few \nweeks after Mrs. Gunning had made application to \nMrs. Barnjlon with Mr. Meade s addrejfes to her \ndaughter. The length of the letter makes it in- \nconvenient to recite the whole, it filling twelve \nfolio pages. It is a laboured compoiition, written \nfor the purpofe of juftifying to Mifs Barnfton\'s \nfamily Mr. Daubeny\'s conduct towards her and \nMr. Meade; for his letters were generally in* \ntended for other eyes befides thofe to whom they \nwere addreffed. In this letter not a fyllable is \nfaid, from beginning to end, of Mrs. Barnfton \nhaving refufed confent, although it would have been \na conclufive argument for him. He avers, <c that \n" Mifs Barnfton promifed him at Spa, in July or \n* Auguft 1789, that flie would not think of Mr. \n" Meade." He fays, " that me gave his wife and \n\xc2\xab him a moft decided proof of her affe&ion by \n\nF \n\n\n\n[ 66 ] \n\n* c giving up Mr. Meade, as a man with whom, \nCf as circumftances flood between him and Mr, \n" Meade, (he could not be completely happy." \nHe adds, <c that his gratitude was fo unbounded \nC( for the ftriking mark of her affeciion, that (he \n" could not fujifiofe he could ever fee the matter differ- \nce entity\'* " You told me at Spa, (he fays, in p. 4) \n" that yon would never facrifice* me or Betfey to \n" any man whatever" This was a year before the \naffair was announced to Mrs. Barnflon. In p. 5, \nhe again fays, " that, on their return from Italy, \n\xe2\x82\xacC fhe told him, (Mr. Daubeny) that though it \n" might coil her a little, fhe was determined \n" to give up Mr. Meade, that fhe would never \nC( facrifice either him or Betfey." " Yet no fooner \n" (fays he) did Mr. Meade appear on the ground \n" at Bath, than you behaved as if the idea of \nce giving him up never entered into your head." \n" You told Mrs. Gunning, in my prefence, that \n\n* What does he mean by afTerting that Mifs Barnfton faidthat \nfhe would never facrifice him ? Does he pretend to a dominion over \nher perfon, becaufe he married her lifter ? or when he told Mrs. \nGunning, " that Meade wanted to take away another 10,0001." \ndid he imagine that Mifs Barnfton would not carry her fortune \nwith her whenever fhe fhouid marry ? Mr. Daubeny\'s wife brought \nhim treble the fortune of her lifters, but none of them talked of their \nbdngfacrificed, when fhe gave it to Mr. Daubeny. Much lefs did \nMr. Sikes fuggeft fuch an idea, who had married another of the \nfilers. Does not Mr. Daubeny himjfelf here prove the point on. \nwhich all turns? Mr. Meade quotes Mr. Daubeny\'s own words; \nwhether they were uttered by Mifs Barnfton, or in the fenfe he \ngives them, is another queftion. \n\n\n\nC 67 ] \n\n\n\n<f you were ready to receive him as a hufband, but \n(( after what I had /aid, zvhat could you do." " You \n" told her that I had ufed you more cruelly than \nCi your father would have done," &c. If Mrs. \nBarnfton had refufed her confent three or four \nweeks before, as is now pretended, it is obvious \nthat Mr. Daubeny would have juftified himfelf by \nit. But he does not even hint at any fpecific ob- \njections being ever made againft Mr. Meade in \nany refpeft. He reminds Mifs Barnfton, that at \nGeneva he told her, " that Mr. Meade " had loft \n" his affeclions for ever " that is, after fifteen years \nconnexion, and after profeffions of unalterable \nefteem, in five or fix weeks Mr. Daubeny\'s af- \nfections were for ever loft to Mr. M^eade, when the \nformer fufpected that he might like Mifs Barnfton, \nwho was therefore expe&ed to facrifice her af- \nfections and her independence for ever! After a \nrecital of promifes, which he had obtained at Spa \nfrom Mifs Barnfton, Mr. Daubeny concludes with \nan addrefs to work on her affeclions ; and a fer- \nraon to alarm her, by calling in the aid of reli- \ngious fear to induce her to fulfil thofe promifes. \n" When I am dealing with you, my dear Kitty, I \n" confider that I am dealing with a perfon who \n" has a better guide than nature to follow. The \n" world, my dear Kitty, is not the keeper of your \n" confeience, confequently ought not to be your \nes director. The world judges wrong every day; \n\nF 2. \n\n\n\nI 68 ] \n\n\n\ncs &nd thofe who follow the world muft perifh with \n" It. We are fliort-iighted creatures; the event \nC\xc2\xa3 alone can determine what is beft for us. If, \n\xe2\x82\xac( when we are going wrong, we defift from our \n\xe2\x82\xacC courfe, this is all that is required of us; it is \n<f wilful perfeverance in error that leads to fatal \n\xe2\x82\xac f confequences. On this head, my dear Kitty, \n" you have nothing to lay to your charge. Your \n\xc2\xa3i confcience tells you that you are now doing \n* right : and although it may coil: you fomething, \n" yet I am confident a contrary proceeding would \n" coft you more. In one cafe you fuffer at pre- \n<c fent; you deny yourfelf, but you do it on prin* \n<c ciple.* Had we not been deceived, you would\\ no$ \n" be in your prefent condition. You muft know, my \n" dear Kitty, that both Betfey and myfelf have^ \n" fuffered much on your account. If you love- \n" us as we love you, you will not wim us to fuffer- \ncc more. Convince us that we are the fame to \nec you, and all will be happy. This being the \nce cafe, and the fubjecl: gone by, you will be eager \n" to convince us that you continue to fee us both \n" in the light in which we ought to be feen \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n* This fevere moralift feems not to recoiled a certain gentle- \nman., who was engaged two years to marry a young lady contrary \nto the wifhes of her father and mother; that the marriage was to \ntake place as foon as her father mould die, and leave her an inde- \npendence ; and that the match was only prevented by the lady \nmarrying another! \n\nf Can he prefume, after this, to fay he never interfered? Does \nhe not, in thefe words* take all on himfelf? \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa3 69 ] \n\n\n\n" Betfey as the mod affectionate of fitters, and \nu myfelf as the moil affectionate of brothers, and \n" fincerefi of friends* Charles Daubeny,\'* \n\nIt is not intended, in this place, to go into a \ndifcuffion of the right, to which Mr. Daubeny, \nas a brother-in-law, lays claim of requiring per- \npetual or any promifes of this kind, without \nconfulting any of the family, from two perfons, \nwhofe age, fortune, and condition in life, rendered \nthem independent. Nor is this the place to enter \ninto the unjuftifiable manner by which thefe pro- \nmifes were obtained. But the impartial reader \ncan judge better than Mr. Daubeny, what impres- \nfion fuch reafoning as his letter contains could \nmake on the mind of Mifs Bamfton. Was there \nan argument in it that could tend to diminifh \nher regards for a man, whom Mr. Daubeny fays, \n" fhe ftromifed him to regard only in the light of \ncc a friend?" Was it juft or generous in him, even \nif the promifes had been fairly and voluntarily \ngiven, to hold her to them, merely for the purpofe \nof her pracrifing felf-denial ? \n\nThe promifes are admitted. And Mifs Barn, \nfton, after her return home, unwilling to charge \nMr. Daubeny with want of fairnefs and generofity \nin obtaining them, fought rather, and expected \nfrom his affection, that he would yield to her hap* \n\n* The original paper is in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffioi^ \n\n\n\nI 70 J \n\n\n\npinefs. And from attachment to him, and to her \nfamily under his influence, fhe gave way to him \ntoo long and too much; flattering herfelf, from \ntime to time, that as herhappinefs and her health \nappeared at flake, and no objections were ever \nmade to Mr. Meade, Mr. Daubeny would not, \nand could not, continue inflexibly to oppofe her. \n\nHis letter has been now quoted only to prove \nthat he was, and that he confidered himfelf at that \ntime as, the fole bar to Mi fa Barnfton\'s marrying. \n\nThe anfwer which Mifs Barnfton wrote to Mr. \nDaubeny\'s long letter of three fheets, or twelve \nfolio pages, is too important not to be quoted ; \nand the reader will obferve that thefe letters were \nwritten before any of thofe circumftances were \nforefeen, which afterwards took place ; as, the \ncharges and flander about a will, the negociatioi} \nfor arbitration, the law-fuit, &c. \n\nMifs Barnston to the Rev. C. Daubeny. \n\n1790. \n\n" I have delayed thus long to anfwer the three \n" fheets of paper which you gave me the other \n" day, that I may have time to fubdue every fpark \n<c of warmth, which in the belt of us fometimes \n" rifes in the mind on feeing what we think \n" unjuft and heavy charges made againfl: us; and \n" that I may alfo take due time to reflect and \n^ weigh every circumftance that may have de\xc2\xab \n\n\n\nC 71 ] \n\n\n\nu ceived you into the opinion you have of Mr, \n" Meade and myfelf. The refult has been at- \n" tended with the utmoft fatisfa\xc2\xa3lion to my own \n" mind. I cannot accufe myfelf of having ufed \nw you cruelly and I am as clear that Mr. Meade. \n" has not in any inftance, I am free from all \n* c engagements but thofe of my own heart. Does \n" not this account for my burfting out before \n" Mrs. Gunning, when I fat and heard you ac- \n\xe2\x82\xacC cufe Mr. Meade of perjury^ and treachery ^ and \n<c deceit^ with fuch a degree of anger, as I faw \naffe&ed her prodigioufly. She faid immediately, \n\xe2\x82\xac if I had known all this, I would no more have \n\'f come on fuch an embaffy than I would have \n4 flown.\' Believe me, I was more fhocked for \n\'* you than for Mr. Meade. You plainly told Mrs, \n- c Gunning from whence the difficulty arofe : and you \ncc fpoke to me alfo in a manner unworthy of you, \n" Confcious as I was of this, was it extraordinary \ni( that I fhould be difpleafed at your reprefenting \ncc the cafe to my mother in the manner you did?* Would \n*< it not be the height of injuftice in me to fuffer \ncc a man to be accufed of fuch crimes, when I \nfC knew them to be groundlefs, and not attempt \n" to vindicate him ! I mud and ever mail fay, \n" Mr. Meade has behaved to me in the moll: \n"honourable and generous manner; nor can I \n\n* The morning of Mr. Meade\'s arrival at Mrs. Barnfton\'s, where \nhe went to make propofals to Mifs Barnfton, \n\n\n\n[ 72 ] \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xacC conceive that he has done any thing by you \ncc that can poffibly juftify the anger you feem to \ncc feel againfl: him. The more I view his conduct, \n" the more I approve it.; and I am fure a time \n<c will come when you will allow that you have \n" been miftaken in your accufations. You fay \ncc you acted for the comfort of my famiiy. What ! \n<f to prejudice my mother againfl: Mr. Meade, \n" becanje you conceived I could not give him up for \n" your f elf. Was this acting with the generofity \n" I had reafon to expect from your affection ? Was \n<c this necefTary to the comfort of my family? \nce Surely the leaft I expected from you was to \n" leave every thing to me. If my happinefs was \n<c really the thing you fought, I told you by what \nic means it was to be obtained. What the facri- \n(( flee of it may coft me, God only knows. I \n" believe it will be the firft inftance where abro- \n" ther ever alked it, or a fifter ever paid it." \n\nIf more proof be required on the fubject: of \nMr. Daubeny\'s difintereftednefs, take the follow- \ning letter from Mifs Barnfton to her mother, and \nthen judge whofe confent me had obtained, and \nwhofe me had not. \n\nMifs Barnston to her Mother. \n" My dear Madam, End of the year 1790. \n\n" I muft entreat vou to let me have fome \niC private converfation with you. You have heard \n\n\n\nI 73 J \n\n\n\n* r much on one fide, nothing on the other. But \ne< believe me this does not arife from my having \n** nothing to fay; far from it. You have not \n< e heard half what has paffed between Mr. Dau- \ncc beny and me. But it is time yon fhould, and \n" I always propofed to talk with you when I \nee mould have an opportunity of being with you \n<\xc2\xa3 alone. You charge me with having, as you \n*\' fuppofed, given the matter up. You certainly, \n4e my dear Madam, was not ignorant that I fuffered \n" much on writing the letter I did to Mr. Meade. \n* 6 And when I carrre afterwards to refleft that \n" what I did was in compliance to Mr. Daubeny\'s \n<c will, who refolutely flood out againft me, that \n(( he never would fee Mr. Meade, though I told him \n<c you would, and that nothing was wanting but his \n" compliance to make me happy, I own I fuffered \n<c more than can be imagined. I lamented my \ncc yielding fo much to him mo ft bitterly ; I was \n" neither fatisfied in reafon or confcience,* be- \n" caufe he never urged one fingle reafon for pre- \n<c venting my happinefs. After what had paffed, \n" I wifhed of all things to have a little quiet; my \n" nerves were very much mattered; and while we \n" were all together at Weymouth, I felt myfelf \n\n* Does not this expreflion particularly, as well as every letter \nMifs Barnfton wrote, prove that it was not to her mother that flic \n.gave way, but to Mr. Daubeny? \n\n\n\n4 \n\n\n\n[ 74 ] \n\n\xc2\xa3: unequal to refuming the fubje\xc2\xa3t. But my dear \ncc Madam, if you thought I had nothing more to \ncc fay to you, you was indeed miftaken ; for 1 had \n" looked over my conduct, Mr. Meade\'s, and Mr. \n" Daubeny\'s. I weighed and reflected on each; \n" and had determined in my mind, whether I \n" ever faw Mr. Meade again or not, to give you \n" my account of things. When you charge me \n" with concealment and referve, believe me I \nei wiflied at that time you knew all, and now I \n" lament molt heartily I was not more open; \n"\xe2\x9c\x93though my brother, (Mr. Daubeny) was then, \nu as he has been through the whole, the caufe \n" of my not faying what I ought to have faid. \ncc But after all, he and Betfey knew perfe&ly \n* well my fentiments ; for not content with my \n" feeling concern at giving up a fure profpecl: of \nCf happinefs to Jileafe him, he ftates down every \n" poffible circumftance he could remember, many \n" of which he had down on paper, juft as if he had \n" laid a fnare from the beginning to entrap us, \n" criminates Mr. Meade as much as he could, \n" and then gives it to me, faying, c that I mufl \n<c 6 allow that we had done wrong, and therefore \n<c c ought to fiuTer.\' To this my reply is, that \n" i could not agree to what he faid ; if I was \n" on my death- bed I would fay to Mr. Daubeny, \n" c if I give up Mr. Meade, it is contrary to my \n^ c affection, my reafon, and underftanding, it is \n\n\n\n[ 7S ] \n\nf< 6 merely to pleafe you ; you will not be happy If I \nC( c marry him; and v\\hen I confider the unreafon- \n" 6 ablenefs of your averfion to him, I cannot but \n<f c fufFer much difappointment that you will not \nec c confider me a little, whofe happinefs muft in \ntc * the nature of things, be more injured by my \n<c c giving up to you, than your\'s can, by your \n<c c giving up to me," \n\nTo thefe letters it is hardly necefTary to add \nmore, but one farther extraft mall be quoted from \na letter of \n\nMifs Barn sr on to her Jijler Mrs. Daubeny. \n\nJune 1790. \n\n" Oh! my deareft Betfey, if you knew the wounds \n* c your letters have given me, you would have \n" reftrained your pen from fuch reflexions. What \n<c is my crime? How have I loft all confcience? \n" What have I done ? If I am indeed void of all \n" feeling, and am guided only by the blind im- \nfC pulfe of paffion* why did I not determine at \n<c once to pleafe myfelf? Why was my heart \n" torn by two affections, or why ftagger between \n* c love and friendihip,* when you tell me that I \n(( muft for ever renounce the latter, if I indulged \n\n* The reader will naturally obferve, that not a hint is given all \nthrough thefe letters, either by Mr. Daubeny or Mifs Barnfton, of \nbreach of duty to her mother ; it all turns on the duty Mr. Daubeny \njclaimed from her himfelf. \n\n\n\n[ 76 j \n\n\n\n*f the former? Why does Mr. Daubeny take fucli \nCi pains to make me miferable, and try with fuch \n" earneftnefs to make you do the fame ? Why \n" has he dealt unfairly by me from the beginning? \n<f Why take conftant uniform pains to mew his \n<6 averfion for Mr. Meade, and then tell you that \nCi his coming into the family would make a breach \n" in it? When I declared my attachment for \n<c Mr. Meade, c he was a rafcal\' When I was \n" earneft to make my attachment appear, c the \n46 c more ftrenuous was Mr, Daubeny to criminate him* \n" I defifted from averting it too abfolutely, know- \n\xc2\xab ing that time and patience would certainly \n<c prove it ; c then I gave it up from conviction of \n" c confcience, and was happy! If Mr. Meade de- \n" clared his attachment, c he was a hypocrite, and \nCl c meant to urge a thing he found dij agreeable. 9 If \n" he is lilent, \' he does not care for me\' It is faid y \n** when / am filent, 4 that I give up from convic- \n<c c tion of confcience, and am happy;\' this I \n" deny moft firmly. Had I but forefeen my own \n** bofom friends would have thought thus of me, \n" I would have fhewn them a very different con- \n<c du\xc2\xa3t. I did indeed think of doing fo, but then \n<c Mr. Daubeny calls me cruel, and works on my \n"feelings" \n\n\n\nIn another letter to Mrs. Daubeny, in July \n1 79 1, me fays, cc my firft giving up the matter I \n\n\n\nI 77 ] \n\n\n\nCff confidered to be totally on your accounts; and \n" when I afterwards received three meets* of \na papers from Mr. Daubeny all tending to crimi- \n" nate Mr. Meade in the eyes of my family, I \ncc did think it ungenerous, and was nettled. You \ntf< may guefs how mortified I was, when prornifing \n<c to reftore Mr. Meade\'s character where he \n** was not to blame, I heard frefli alarms about \nc< his character. Condemned as he was before, \ncc what had I to hope ? I was anxious to a de- \n" gree that they (liould not be fuppofed to come \n\xe2\x82\xacc from Mr. Daubeny. But to go through letters \ncc with him, pointing out every little eircumftance, \nu would agitate me too much. But do not think \n" me obftinately bent on fhutting my eyes; I \n\xe2\x82\xact mould abhor villainy as much as you in any one." \n\nIf the Biiliop of Lincoln wants living evidence \nof Mr. Daubeny\'s interference in the family, or of \nhis motives, Mrs. Gunning can tell him, as fhe re- \nlated to Mrs. Quicke and to Mr. Meade, the hour \nof her return from that embaffy alluded to in Mifs \nBarn (Ion\'s letters^ u that Mr. Daubeny with much \n45 heat exclaimed, that Mr. Meade got io,ooo/. by \n\xe2\x82\xacC one Ji/Ier 9 and wanted to get as much, more by ano- \nCi titer." Mrs. Gunning could tell his Lordfhip, \nthat Mrs. Barnflon made no other objections to \nMr. Meade, but that Mr. Daubeny quarrelled \n\n\n\n* The twelve folio pages mentioned already. \n\n\n\n[ 78 ] \n\n\n\ntvlth him. Nor did Mr. Daubeny then or at \nany time fpecify any objections of Mrs. Barnfton \nor of her family to Mr. Meade. He endeavoured \nto juftify Mr. Meade\'s being rejected, on the \nground of circumftances perfonal to himfelf. \n\nThe Bimop can now probably anfwer his own \nqueftion himfelf, and fay who or what prevented \nMifs Bamfton\'s marrying, after her mother\'s con- \nfent was once obtained. And he may now in \nturn put a queftion to Mr. Daubeny, and aik him, \ncfi how could you, after Mifs Barnfton told you \n4C that her mother confented to her marrying Mr. \n4C Meade, be fo unfeeling as to prevent it, by \n44 vows that you would feparate your wife and \n4C her children for ever from her mother\'s houfe, \n44 if Mr. Meade was admitted into it? You furely \n44 juftiried fully what Mifs Barnfton faid, (as you \n" yourfelf have quoted her) that you ufed her mors \n(i cruelly than her father could have done; and after \n" vj hat you had faid, what could fhe do." \n\nBut the Bimop has alleged,. " that there is no \nc * evidence of Mrs. Barnfton\'s confent being gi- \n44 ven, or fuppofed or underftood to be given.\'* \nIt is prefumed he will think differently now, \nThe Records of the Court, the Judge, Jury, Ver- \ndict, Counfel on both fides, might hare inftru&ed \nhim better. His hordfkip fflould have faid, 44 that \n44 there was the evidence of an uncontradicted \n44 oath of a compe tent witnefs to prove the fac\\ \n\n\n\nL ?9 ] \n\n\n\ncc and #0 fort of evidence to quejlion it. " But he \nfays, ct If the evidence I quote had been produ- \n" ced at the trial, the verdift would have been \n<c different." A few ifs being granted, any ver- \ndict would be different. Does he mean, that if \nMrs. Barnfton had fworn to what Mr. Daubeny fays, \nand to what his Lordfhip recites, the verdict \nwould have been different? Even in that he is \nmiftaken. Had Mrs. Barnfton even gone into \nCourt, and depofed on oath " that me never con. \n" fented to her daughter\'s marriage," what had \nthat to do with the flander, for which the Jury \ndiftinclly brought in their verdift. And how does \nit appear that Mifs Barnfton would not have \nmarried, if it had not been for the flander, fince \nher mother admitted* " that fhe was her own \n" miftrefs, and that Mr. Meade would be received \n" as her fon-in-law." \n\nBut fuppofe it poffible that the mother would \nhave ventured to fwear as above, is the Bifliop \nfure that a jury would implicitly believe the oath \nof a feeble, forgetful, deluded old perfon, rather \nthan the deliberate oath of a thinking religious \nwoman, whofe faculties were entire ? Does his \nLordfhip imagine that a jury would, like himfelf, \nfce content with feeing and hearing only one fide? \n\n* See Mrs. Barnfton\'s letter in the year 1796. \n\n\n\n[ 80 1 \n\nSuppofing that the oaths of Mrs. and Mifs \nBarnfton were confidered equal in credit, and that \nit is poffible they could be brought to clafh with \neach other, would not a jury examine, and enquire, \n#c Why did a mother, upwards of feventy, refufe \n<c her confent? What reafon, what moths did fhe \nec ever affign for acting, apparently, againft reafon, \n"juftice, and nature, and againft that indepen- \ncc dence which fhe herfelf declared her daughter \n<c poffeired?" If no fpecific reafon was affigned, \nwould a jury prefume that a mother would have \nacted thus harfhly, and in a manner fo inconfiftent \nwith her former language and conduct? Would \nthe jury not fee thofe teftimonies which concurred \nfrom every fide to confirm the oath of an unim- \npeached witnefs, againft the want of recollection, \nor the fubjeciion, of one that was both deluded \nand incenfed ? But his Lordfhip may reft as- \nfured that Mrs. Barnfton would as foon have \nfacrificed her life as have ventured to take fuck \nan oath-y although fhe did rafhly fign a paper that \nhad been prepared for her, and which it is clear \nthat flie would never even have figned> if fhe had \nfairly known what* her daughter fwore, and if \n\n* The miftakes and mifreprefentations prove it. It ftates that \nMifs Barnfton fwore what fhe did not fwear. The very firft fen- \ntence is incorrefr. The delufive argument is adopted, of the verdidt \nbeing for lofs of marriage only. The word approbation is mifap- \nplied ; fo is the expreflion of Mrs. Barnfton\'s not nuijljing for the \nmarriage: whole fentences are the fame as Mrs. Meade reads m \nletters of Mr. Daubeny\'s, &c. Sec \n\n\n\nC 81 ] \n\n\n\nJhe had then feen thofe tefiimonies which were afterwards \nbrought before her, and which drew from her reluclant \nacknoivledgments* And let it be remembered, that \nthe manifefto was signed the ioth or nth of \nJune 1 792, a few days after the trial, at a moment \nof exceffive irritation, through falfe reports of her \ndaughter\'s evidence, and a miftaken view of her \nconduct, as conveyed to her by that daughter\'s \nenemies. Let it be remembered alfo, that the \nproofs and authorities already quoted were not \nat that time brought to her recollection; but that \nwhen fhe afterwards faw them, her language was \nin confequence evidently changed on that fubject; \nfor Mrs. M. Barnfton reluctantly admits, in her \nmother\'s name, " that the utmof fhe faid was no \n<c more, than that if her daughter chofe to marry \n" Mr. Meade, flie certainly mud receive him as \n" her fon-in-law; that fhe was her own mis- \nt( trefs, and to do as fhe pleafed; but that (he \n" never approved of the bufinefs." Now al- \nthough Mifs Barnfton was convinced that her \nmother implied and expreffed indirectly her ap- \nprobation, when (he defired her to go and perfuade \nMr. Daubeny ; yet as the word approbation was \nnot in the converfation with her mother, fhe did not \nrecite it on oath. She declared, on her oath, that \nfhe had her mother\'s full and free confent: even \nthe above paffage from Mrs. Barnfton\'s letter is at \n\n* See Appendix, letter A\xc2\xbb \n\nG \n\n\n\nC 82 ] \n\n\n\nieaft an acknowledgment of confent not being re- \nfufed; and if the Bifhop and Mrs. M. Barnfton \nthink that confent and approbation are fynonimous, \nall that can be faid is, that others think differently. \nBut is not a charge of feerjury from a bifliop rather \na harfli one for a philological difference ? And as \nhis Lordfhip muft fee that Mrs. M. Barnfton was \ngiving as reftrained an account of the confent as \ncould be, (for no doubt Mr. Daubeny wrote the \ncopy) he will probably by this time be difpofed \nto fufpeft, that the confent was not quite fo circum- \nfcribed. Let it be alfo obferved, that Mrs. Barnfton \nherfelf does not feem to have ever produced this \nmocking paper. But as Mr. Daubeny either kept, \nor pofTeffed himfelf of it as her executor, he trans- \nferred it to the Bifhop of Lincoln to be made ufe of \nagainft the char abler of her daughter, thirteen years \nafter it was written; two years after Jhe had given \nher embraces and blejing, or, according to their own \naccount, her chriftian forgivenefs to her daughter; \nand more than a year after the good old lady had \npiaffed to the gravel \n\nTo the reproaches on Mrs. Meade in the fame \nletter, for calling herfelf " an outcaft from her \n" family," flie has only to reply, that when Mr. \nSikes wrote in Mrs. Barnfton\'s name to Mr. \nGoddard, at whofe houfe Mifs Barnfton then was, \n" that if flie went into court as a witnefs, the \n\xe2\x82\xac < mother and daughter could never fee each other \n\n\n\n1 \n\n\n\n[ 83 ] \n\n\n\n<c again," {he underftood, and fo did her friends, \nthat (he was caft off from her mother\'s houfe, \nThis perhaps was another philological miftake. \nWhen the Bimop declares it to be his opinion that \nit is " improbable" Mrs. Barnfton gave her con- \nfen t; Mr. Meade ventures to fay, that even pro- \nbability would be againft his Lordfhip\'s opinion. \nThat Mifs Barnfton was paft thirty, and her mo- \nther between feventy and eighty, is well known,, \nSo it is, that of all her daughters, none was more \nefteemed and loved by her than Mifs Barnfton. \nHer mother invariably declared, that me was to \njudge for and to pleafe herfelf, as being her own \nmiftrefs; and in point of fortune, her father made \nher abfolutely independent. Is it then fo pro- \nbable that a mother under thefe circumftances \nwould refufe her confent to her daughter marry- \ning a man in every view equal to her, even fingu- \nlarly fuitable as a match for her; and that flie \nmould do this without ever furmijing one objeclion. \n\nThe alfertion of Mr. Daubeny, " that to his \n" knowledge Mrs. Barnfton had ever a great \n" diflike to Mr. Meade," is a bold one, but Is \nneceffary to juftify his conduft. This, however, \ncan be eafily difproved; Mr. Meade having lived \nfor fixteen years in uninterrupted friendfhip with \nthe Barnfton family. It was his acquaintance \nintroduced Mr. Daubeny into it; who married \n\n\n\n[ 84 ] \n\n\n\nout of Mr. Meade\'s houfe.* And not only \nMifs Barnflon knew the attachment of her family \nto him, but many others alfo, who witneffed \nthe familiarity in which he lived with them, \nboth before and fince Mr. Barnfton\'s death; for \nwhom a mourning ring was given to him as a \nfriend. Previous to his going abroad he remained \nfome time at Mrs. Barnfton\'s houfe, where he \nnot only received every mark of the mo ft cordial \nregard from her, but (he even infifted, at parting, \nthat her houfe mould always be his home when- \never he came to Bath. Mrs. M. Barnfton was \nno lefs kind and affectionate, always calling him \n\xe2\x82\xacs Brother Meade " and me wrote to him after he \nleft the houfe with the mod friendly intereft. For \nthe truth of this he appeals to the family which \nwere hi the houfe, and to many who vifited in it, \nwhile he was there. Even the fervants themfelves \ncould all teftify it. Can it be fuppofed, then, that \nlie was difagreeable to Mrs. Barnfton? After- \nwards, when Mr. Meade was abroad, Mrs. Gun- \nning told Mrs. Barnfton, that it was reported by \nevery one that he was to marry Mifs Barnfton. \nMrs, Coham alfo did the fame. If ftie had then \n\n* It Is pretended that Mr. Daubeny was a boarder with Mr. \nMeade, probably left Mr. Daubeny fhould be fuppofed to be fub- \nJed even to a debt of hofpitality. The fadfc is not fo; he was \npurely a vifitor with Mr. Meade; for nearly a year and a half, \nuntil he married. \n\n\n\n[ 85 ] \n\n\n\nthat averfion which is falfely fuggefted, furely fhe \nwould not have refted fo quiet as not to enquire \nor write a line on the fubjeft ; which it is certain \nIhe never did, although Mr. Meade was then \ntravelling with her daughter, and was probably \nto continue To for a year at leaft, as fhe well knew. \nAnd when Mrs. Gunning was afterwards em- \nployed to make propofals to Mrs. Barnfton in \nMr. Meade\'s name, me was given to underftand \nthat the only obje&ion was on account of a breach \nbetween Mr. Daubeny and him. Too well in- \ndeed has he been fince convinced that every means \nwere pra&ifed to imprefs Mrs. Barnfton with ha- \ntred and abhorrence of him; but he alfo well \nknows to whofe machinations he is indebted for it. \n\nMr. Meade has now done with this fubjeft as \nfar as regards the confent. His only difficulty has \nbeen to felecl: proofs from abundance. His Lord- \nmip confiders that a paper figned by a very old \nand irritated lady, under the influence or direction \nof others, muftbe her own compofition; and that \nit probably muft be true: but did he not fee, \nthat Mrs. Barnfton had been inftigated before the \ntrial to put her name to angry aflertions which \nfhe could not intend? Is it lefs to be wondered \nat, that after the trial, when every means were \npra&ifed to irritate and impofe on her, fhe did \nthe fame? \n\n\n\n[ 86 ] \n\n\n\nIn one letter Mifs Barnfton is threatened with \nher pofitive affurance, " that fhe mould go into \ncourt to oppofe what her daughter mould fwear." \nDid Ihe perform, or even attempt it? On the con- \ntrary, was flie not terrified and miferable when \nMr. Meade\'s fubpoena was ferved on her? In \nanother letter me afferted with equal confidence, \n<c that if Mr. Meade began law, Mr. Daubeny \nwould go on." Was there the fmalleft ground \nto warrant this aflertion? And when Mr. Meade, \nregardlefs of thefe impotent threats, fubpoenaed \nall the family, and juftice had taken place, then \nMrs. Barnfton is again quoted, as afferting that \nflie would or could have oppofed her daughter\'s \nevidence. But will thinking people liften to \nfuch unwarrantable means of fapping the foun- \ndations of law and juftice? In evidence they \nprove nothing; in party spirit they prove too much; \nand for the fober language of a parent towards \nher child, they are too fhocking and unnatural ; \nand plainly difcover that fhe faid and did, as \nothers dire&ed her. But the Bifliop is fo pleafed \nwith this long manifefto, w T hich was no more \ncompofed by Mrs. Barnfton than by his Lordihip, \nthat he quotes the whole of it, irrelevant as it is \nin almoft every point. The folemn declaration \nin it, u that Mrs. Barnfton did not wijh her daugh- \nter to marry Mr. Meade," may or may not be \n\n\n\n[ 87 ] \n\n\n\ntrue; but it is nothing to the purpofe, for no one \never fpoke of her wiflies. Nor is the aflertion \nmuch more to the purpofe, " that Mrs. Barnfton \nhad always objections to Mr. Meade," becaufe \nif (he had, ftie kept them to herfelf; me never \nexpreffed them to her daughter, or to anyone elfe, \nthat fhe heard of. The two long letters to Mr. \nSawbridge and Mr. Goddard, accompanying this \nmanifefto, and bearing the fame date, and which \nare recited in full by the Bifliop, equally difcover \nMrs. Barnfton\'s exceffive irritation, her ignorance \nof the whole truth, and her delufion; and the \nfamily well knew it. For her uncle Mr. Saw- \nbridge\'s opinion of Mrs. Meade, and for the \nopinion of every branch of his refpe&able family, \nMr. Meade refers his Lordfliip to themfelves. \nAnd he cannot but obferve, that if his Lordfliip \nhad applied to them, it would have been more in \npoint for the attainment of information, than the \nlong letter he has publiflied from a Mr. Watfon 3 \na gentleman who has never feen Mr. or Mrs e \nMeade, or known of them but through the me- \ndium of Mr. Daubeny and his friends. And \nas for the opinion of the late Mr. Goddard, to \nwhom the other letter is addrelfed, the beft \naccount of it is found in his letter to Mrs. \nMeade\'s uncle, about the time of his receiving \nMrs. Barnfton\'s letter. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa3 88 ] \n\n\n\nJohn Godbard, efq; to Henrt Saivbridge, efq. \n\nWoodford-Hall, June 1792. \n\n" The fincereft tribute of veneration I could \n<c pay to the memory of Mr. Barnfton, I deem \ncc the protection I have given to his truly amiable \nu daughter, Mifs C. Barnfton, under her late in- \n\xe2\x82\xacc numerable fufferings ; a duty the more incum- \n*\' bent on me, in proportion as me has been \n?* relinquiflied by her own family; the good part \nu of which will, I truft, in time, however preju- \nec diced at prefent, be convinced of their mifguided \nec conduct towards her, and applaud me for having \n\xe2\x82\xacC flood forth the friend of the innocent. From \n\xc2\xab c the opinion I entertain of your affection for fo \n\xe2\x82\xacc truly worthy a niece, I need not apologife for \nie addreffing you on the part I now pride myfelf \n* c to act for her as a parent. Convinced of the \n* c rectitude of Mr. Meade\'s heart, and his ftrict \n" honour, the higheft teftimony I can give of my \nu fenfe of them is, having advifed her to make \n\xe2\x82\xacc no farther delay in doing, what was expected \n" by every one on her coming out of Court, and \n<f marrying him. That nothing may be wanting \nfc to complete in the moft honourable way our \n<c duty as a father and mother towards her, Mrs. \n" Goddard and I will affift ; that every thing may \n* c be expedited before we leave home, as we are \nu obliged in a few days to fet off for the Weft of \n\n\n\nt 89 3 \n\n\n\nV England, determined not to leave her in a forlorn \nft fituation, though our houfe mould be for ever \n" a home to her. I have difcharged my duty to \nff her by my previous attention in providing every \n" fecurity refpe&ing fortune, and I may fay, more \niC to her emolument than I would or indeed have \n<c done for my own daughters; and in juftice to \nCi Mr. Meade I muft add, not only with his con- \n* c currence, but his wifhes.* John Goddard." \n\nThe Bifliop proceeds to fay, " that Mifs Barn- \n" fton having refufed to marry Mr. Meade in \n<c Auguft 1790, and in January 1791, the conver- \n6e fation that took place in June 1791, could \n" not have prevented the marriage." No! not \nat thofe times ! But Mr. Daubeny had feen that \nafter Mifs Barnfton had been two or three times \nworked upon to give up her intentions, circum- \nftances had arifen which induced a determination \nto overcome her difficulties ; for as fhe told her \nmother, " fhe was neither fatisfied in reafon or \n" confciencef that fhe had yielded, Mr. Daubeny \n\n* Mr. Meade has the original draft In Mr. Goddard\'s writing. \nAnd when Mr. Goddard mentioned that Mifs Barnfton was " re- \n" linquimed by her family/ \' he had the beft reafon to know it, for \nit was to him that Mr. Sikes conveyed Mrs. Barnfton\'s mcffage, \n\nthat if her daughter mould go into Court as a witnefs, fhe and \n, f< her mother could never fee each other again." \n\nt See p. 73. \n\n\n\nC 90 ] \n\n\n\n" not having produced one folid objection to Mr, \n<c Meade." ButMr.Daubeny had prepared in good \ntime, and laid before her, the particulars in detail, \nof fuch deep criminality and wickednefs, refpect- \ning a will, as could not but produce the effect \nhe intended, and decided her fucceeding conduct. \n\nHis Lordfhip adds, u that a letter of Mrs, \n* c Meade\'s to her fitter Mrs. Daubeny proves \ncc that her fufpicions about the will were fubfe- \n<c quent to the refufal." But which refufal? as \nthat is the term they ufe. The Bifhop blindly \ntakes up a notion that Mifs Barnfton having once, \ncontrary to her judgment, to her affections, and \n(as Hie told her mother) " contrary to her confci- \n" ence," given up her intentions of marrying, \nnever altered them. Mr. Daubeny could have \ninformed him better. His efforts, thofe of Mifs \nBarnfton herfelf, and of her relations, could tell \nhis Lordfhip a different ftory. " But how could \n" fhe," he afks, " fpeak in her letter to Mrs. \n<c Daubeny, of Mr. Meade as a man whom c fhe \n" * thought every thing fhe could wifh in a hus- \n" ( band," and yet fwear that the fufpicions ex- \n" cited by Mr. Daubeny prevented her marrying \n" him?" His Lordfhip will find the anfwer in \nall her letters written at the time. Her own \nhonour, as well as Mr. Meade\'s, required that he \nfhould appear in the world an honeft man, not a \nvillain. Her friends all infilled on this. Mr. \n\n\n\n[ 91 ] \n\n\n\nDaubeny had robbed him of his good name, and \nfhe could not,* and (as fhe told Mrs. Gunning) \nwould not, marry a man under fuch circumflances. \nNo friend or relation of hers would countenance \nher marrying. He who afterwards a\xc2\xa3led as a \nfather to her, Mr. Goddard, told her it was ne- \nceffary to her honour that Mr. Meade mould clear \nhimfelf before fhe married him. She herfelf \nconflantly required that he fhould clear himfelf, \nor be acknowledged as blamelefs by thofe who \ngave fan&ion and importance to the calumny. \nTo Mrs. Gunning fhe wrote, defiring " that Mr. \n\nMeade would not think of her, but defend hirh- \nc< felf and to Mrs.Ravenhill, her aunt, fhe wrote \nin effecl: the fame; and to her fifter Mrs. M. \nBarnfton, and to her mother, her language was \nuniform and confiftent in this. \n\nThe letter quoted by the Bifhop was to her \nlifter, Mr. Daubeny\'s wife, as has been already \nfaid, in anfwer to one, which unkindly wounded \nher by reflexions on Mr. Meade\'s character, \nwhich naturally excited her refentment.f \n\n* See p. 39. \n\nf The Bifhop, who knows nothing of wh^t pafled at the trial, \nyet affects to fpeak of it with confidence, and would have it believed \nthat Mrs. Meade fwore that the effect of the flander on her own \nmind alone was the caufe why fhe did not marry. But it is pre- \nfumed that every one who reads this pamphlet, will be able to cor- \nrect his Lordfhip, and inform him how the flander prevented her \nmarrying. \n\n\n\n[ 92 ] \n\nThe Bifliop takes his report of " the verdicY\' \nfrom Mr. Dabeny\'s pamphlet, which fuppreffes \nthe chief part of it; and his Lordfhip accordingly \nflates it to be for \xc2\xa3C lofs of marriage. " But if he \nhad looked to better authority he would have \nfeen that the verdift was exprefsly and difiinQly \nfor flander, and\\ for lofs of marriage : or, as the \nBifliop has feen it exprefled in the manifefto he \nhas been at the pains of copying, <c for the delay o^ \n" the marriage. " And as his Lordfhip reafons all \nthrough as if it was/br lofs of marriage only, he mull \nexcufe Mr. Meade for putting to him the queftion^ \ncc whether his LordjJiip, did not know that it was for \n\xc2\xab flander alfo r% \n\nThe account of the Rev. Mr. H. Sawbridge\'s \ncommiffion in January 1792, is a mifreprefenta. \ntion; and as his Lordfhip defires original docu- \nments, he is referred to Mr. Sawbridge himfelf, \nwho would neither have received or conveyed fo \nundutiful a meflage to his aunt, as is recited by \nthe Bifliop. \n\nWhen the Bifliop again aflerts that Mrs. Barn- \nfton\'s two letters to Mr. Goddard and her brother, \n\nf That Mr. Meade may not be again accufed of not referring \nto original documents, vide Records of the Court of King\'s-Bench. \n\n% The Bifliop in defending a theologian forgets a verdift; and \nsf his Lordfhip confined himfelf to his defence of a favourite, none \nwould object. But if he lifts a load from the moulders of the guilty \nto place it on thofe of the innocent, he mould be reminded that \nthere is neither Chriftian charity nor moral juftice m fuch an action* \n\n\n\nt 93 ] \n\n\n\nalready fpoken of, were written before Mr. Dau- \nbenfs return from London, how does he know it? \nWho told him fo? Or how does he know that \nthey, or inftruclions for them, were not fent down \nfor her to copy ? Or does he mean roundly \nto aver, that none of thofe letters were compofed \nby others, which pretend to be Mrs. Barnfton\'s \nand Mrs. M. Barnfton\'s? This queftion is put \nonce for all. \n\nHis Lordlhip fays,* " that becaufe in Auguft \n\xc2\xab* 1791, Mrs. Barnfton had objections, therefore \n<{ Mifs Barnfton did not receive her mother\'s \n*\' confent." Does he mean by this, that previous \nto Mr. Daubeny\'s pra\xc2\xa3tifing on her mother, Mrs. \nMeade had not received her confent in June 1 790? \nHow is that proved? The Bifhop\'s argument \nmay prove that Mrs. Barnfton mightf have with- \ndrawn her confent in 1791, but it proves nothing \nelfe. \n\nThe three or four letters which the Bifhop \nquotes,^ as proving " that the marriage was given \n<c up to Mrs. Meade 9 s mother,\' 1 are really nothing \n\n* See Appendix, letter F. \n\nt Mr. Meade fully admits that Mrs. Barnfton virtually withdrew \nher confent \xe2\x80\x94 that me was gradually worked up from kindnefs to \ndiflike, and even to averfion ; fo that as Mifs Barnfton wrote to \nMrs. Gunning," they have broke up Mr. Meade\'s reputation, fo that \n<f J cannot flatter myfelf with any chance of a turn." \n\ni See Appendix. \n\n\n\n[ 9* ] \n\n\n\nto thepurpofe for his argument; but when properly \ntmderftood are proofs for Mrs. Meade. The rea- \nder has already feen that Mr. Daubeny\'s influence \nhad poifoned Mrs. Barnfton\'s mind, and Mifs \nBarnfton yielded nominally to her mother; that is, \nto Mr. Daubenys influence on her mother \xe2\x80\xa2, and to no \nother caufe whatever. And when fhe brought the \naffair on again, {he was again and again thwarted \nby the fame influence acting in proportion to the \noccafion. Yet it was ftill Jaid that fhe nominally \ngave way to her mother. But the Bifhop would \nlind it very difficult to difcover any caufe why \nMifs Barnfton did actually give up, but to Mr\xe2\x80\x9e \nDaubeny\'s influence in the firfl inftance\' y and when \nfhe was difpofed to refill that influence, after- \nwards to the effect of the flander. But when the \nBifhop fays " that the marriage was given uft-" \nhow does he mean? Does he mean irrevocably \ngiven njif If he do, let the various efforts that \nwere made for and againft be the anfwer to him: \nlet the object of Mr. Sawbridge\'s journey to Bath \nin Jan. 1792, prove the contrary. For the mani- \nfefto fays, (how truly is another queftion) " that \n" he came to Bath to tell Mrs. Barnfton that her \n" daughter was determined to marry at all events. \nDoes his going prove that he confidered\'the mat- \nter as given ufi ? Mrs. Barnfton fays, " fhe did not \n" know till then that the affair was going on;" \nthus admitting that fhe then perceived " that it \n\n\n\nC & ] \n\n\n\n^ was not given u/i" in her daughter\'s mind. In \nfa\xc2\xa3t it was affeded and wilful blindnefs that \nmade them fuppofe Mifs Barnfton\'s mind at \neafe. Her letters to her mother in October 1 790, \nand in September 1 79 1, were proofs enough that \nher affe&ions were not changed. " Attached to \n" Mr. Meade on the bed principles, with the de- \nc c liberate judgment of a woman of thirty, can \n"I facrifice my happinefs to Mr. Daubeny\'s \n" anger ? " and " mould his character be decided \n" clear as noon-day, I confefs my regards mull \n<f remain unchangeable." But if Mr. Daubeny \nreally believed that Mifs Barnflon had given up \nall thoughts of Mr. Meade, why did he relate the \nflanderto her at all? efpeciaJly, as the Bifhop fays \n" Mr, Daubeny did not believe it himfelf;"* \nWhv endeavour to fecure her from marrying Mr. \nMeade, even after her mother\'s death? as the \nBifhop recites. \n\nThe Bifhop goes on to reafon from an extract \nof a letter from Mr. Meade to Mr. John Daubeny, \n" that becaufe Mrs. Barnflon did not at laft confent, \n" therefore that (he had never done it." This is \na Q. E. D. which his Lordfhip would not admit \nat Cambridge. And here let it be remarked \n\n* How do*es the Bifhop know this f It\' Mr. Daubeny told him \nfo, it is an efpecial mark of his confidence and intimacy with the \nBifhop ; for Mr. Meade never heard that he had candour enough \nto avow it to any friend before* \n\n\n\n[ 96 ] \n\n\n\nonce for all, that his Lordfhip\'s mode of reafofi^ \n\nin 2", that an affair of the heart between two inde- \ned 7 \n\npendent perfons, once dropped, through manifeft \nviolence and imposition, mould never be revived, is \na mode of reafoning that was never adopted be- \nfore. But if his prejudices are rigid againft Mrs. \nMeade, his partiality on the other fide is manifeft. \nHe relates a ftory of Mr. Daubeny preffing \nMifs Barnfton, before her aunt, to decide againft \nmarrying Mr. Meade; and his Lordfliip had feeri \nthat the object of that interference was to fecure \nher by a promife not to marry Mr. Meade after \nher mother\'s death j for (as the Bifliip recites in \nanother place) when Mr. Daubeny addreffed Mifs \nBarnfton at Mr. Sikes\'s for the fame purpofe, me \nis faid to have hinted or intimated that ftie mould \nmarry Mr. Meade after her mother\'s death. Yet \nhis Lordihip is fo blind as not to perceive, in this \nconduct of Mr. Daubeny, an open violation of \njuftice, and an outrage againft the liberty of an \nindependent woman. But it is ftill more extra- \nordinary that his Lordftiip does not fee that this \nvery ftory which he relates, proves two or three \npoints, which his labours in forty-one pages were \nemployed to controvert ; as " that Mr. Daubeny \n" did interfere." " That Mr. Daubeny knew that \n<c Mifs Barnfton had not altogether given the matter \n" up" And, cc that he had other views, than fuch \n" as concerned Mrs. Bamjlon" for he was then \n\n\n\nC 9t ] \n\n\n\npleading in the event of her death. But after all, \nwhat could be expected from a felf-madejudge,who \naffociated with one party alone, and received im- \npreffions,glo{res 5 and comments from one fide 5 and \nnot only never faw the other, but never intimated \nthat he meant to judge the caufe, nor afked for a \nfingle explanation, norever hinted at the arguments \nor pretended facls^until the condemned party* faw \nthem in his fentence of condemnation? \n\nHis Lordfhip is taught to fpeak of" Mrs. Meade\'s \n" family" as confifting only of Mr. Daubeny, and \nthofe that are influenced by him. But Mrs. Meade \nhas the happinefs of knowing in her family nume- \nrous branches, of whom his Lordfhip is ignorant, \nand of whofe character it was intended to keep him \nin ignorance; fome of them indeed are mentioned \nin his papers as having been interefted for Mifs \nBarnilon, on coming out of Court; and it is very \ntrue. Relations, old connexions, family friends, \nunited, with hearts and hands, to fupport and \ncomfort her ; except thofe who were influenced \nby Mr. Daubeny. All expreffed thofe regards \nwhich they have continued ever fince. Among \n\n* This example affords a ferioiis leflbn how dangerous it is to \ntruft any man with papers. For under the guife of impartiality, he \nmay, if difpofed to become a partizan, adopt and circulate any \ncharges. For there can be no more fecurity than rellraint, if any \none is at liberty to receive from one party unfounded anecdotes, and \nwithout enquiry into their truth, publifh them, or fuffer them to be \npublifhed, to the world as fads, and refufe to retracl: or acknowledge, \nthe impofition, when their falfhood is difcovered. \n\nH \n\n\n\n[ 98 ] \n\n\n\nthem her neareft and dear relations, the Sawbridge \nfamily, were not the laft; and in particular her \ncoufm the Rev. H. Sawbridge, who is charged with \ntc having taken her by the hand on coming out of court" \nOf the letters quoted by the Bifhop as Mrs, \nBarnfton\'s, and Mrs. M. Barnfton\'s, it need only \nbe faid, as they are very long, that they are mani- \nfeftly of Mr. Daubeny\'s compofing, and that his \nLordfhip has as ufual kept back the anfwers. \n\nThe application by Mr. W. Sawbridge to Mr. \nSikes was, like his brother\'s, purely benevolent. \nBut the refult proved the effeft which the flander \nhad on the family. \n\nThe letter* of Mrs. Meade produced by the \nBifiiop only proves, cc that me did not know that \n" Mr. Daubeny meant to deny or conceal what he \ncc had told her at his houfe in the Crefcent." Nor \nwould any remark on it be neceffary, but that the \nBilhop ventures from it to affert that Mr. Daubeny \ncould not know what Mifs Barnfton intended to \nfwear, and therefore was unprepared. But his \nLordfhip and Mr. Daubeny mould remember that \nthe declaration contained the chief part of what \nflie fwore, and that Mr. Daubeny faw it fome \ntime before the trial. And did he not give a \nfhrewd guefs at what me muft fwear, when her \nmother wrote, commanding and terrifying her \nfrom obeying the fubpcena, and threatening her \n\n* All letters here quoted are given in the Appendix. \n\n\n\nE 99 1 \n\n\n\nthat flie would go into Court to contradi& her \noath ? How could Mrs. Barnfton venture to affert \nthis, if flie did not know what her daughter muft \nfwear? And if flie did know it, why did fhe not \nappear in Court, as fhe had been ferved with a \nfubpoena; and, as the Bifliop afferts, that her \nfaculties were fo perfeft* for many years after. \nThe anfwer is a very plain one; in Court fhe \nwould have been examined upon oath, and flie \nmuft have anfwered for herjelfl \n\nMrs. Barnfton\'s letter of January 1 797, to Arch- \ndeacon Coham, written by fome one for her, and in \nMr. Daubeny* s own words, fhe being then in her \neightieth year, is produced by the Bifliop; altho\' \nit quotes no fact, but that Mr. Daubeny fays fo and \nfo. But his Lordfliip, as ufual, keeps back the \nreply, which fliall however be quoted in the Ap- \npendix ; and the reader will probably fee fome \nimportance in it, although it is prefumed the \nBifliop faw none, by his fupprefling it. \n\nAs to the letter from Mifs Barnfton to Mr. \nDaubeny, from Mr. Hooker\'s, it only goes to fliew \nthat (he did not think, and that fhe imagined \nMr. Meade did not think, that Mr. Daubeny did \nreally believe the flander which he had propagated ;\\ \nbut it does not go to prove that he did not utter it. \n\n* His Lordfhip takes this for granted, as Mr. Daubeny\'s party \naffure him of it. He himfelf never law her. \n\nt The Bifliop fays, " Mr. Daubeny did not believe the flander." \nMr. Meade thinks the fame. What then ? Is this any palliation ? \n\nH 2 \n\n\n\nC loo ] \n\n\n\nMr. Meade was juft then returned to England \nto enquire into the calumny, about which his \nfriends had been anxioufly writing to him ; and \nhearing that Mifs Barnfion was near London, \nwhere he was, he thought it right to endeavour to \nfee her, that he might, if poffible, learn diftinclly \nwhat he had to explain, or to defend himfelf \nagainft; for he had then feen none of his confi- \ndential friends. \n\nBut the whole hiftory conne&ed with the above \nletter of Mifs Barnfton to Mr. Daubeny is very \nlingular, and would alone prove, not only the \ndeep and ferious effect of the flander, but the \nunexampled degree of terror in which Mr. Dau- \nbeny held herfelf, and the power which flie knew \nhe had over her mother\'s family. And as Mr. \nDaubeny had always affected to talk to her with \nliberality and impartiality, and of an amicable \nenquiry into Mr. Meade\'s bufmefs, fhe thought it \nright to endeavour to conciliate and win him by \nevery exprefiion of kindnefs. \n\nBut as the Bifliop argues that Mr. Daubeny did \nnot believe the flander, why did he not deny it before \nhe went into Court f Why not once fay fo, to \nthofe clergymen who were negociating with him \nduring ten months? Why imprefs Mr. Sikes and \nall his family with a belief of criminality? Why_, \ndid Mr. Sikes wonder that Mr. Meade did not \ncome fooner to England to char his character ? and \n\n\n\n[ 101 ] \n\n\n\nMr. T. Sikes afk Dr. Blayney, tc whether he could \n< c really think there was nothing wrong about the \n\xc2\xab will?" Why did Mr. R.Ravenhill, Mrs. Meade\'s \ncoufin, who was always a zealous advocate for \nthe freedom of her choice, advife her to great \ncaution about the wiJIs and why did Mr. Hooker \ndo the fame, who heard the account of it from \nMr. Daubeny himfelf? Why did her aunt Raven- \nhill tell her, " that Mr. Meade was either a very \n" bad, or a very injured man?" In ftiort, what \ninflamed Mrs. Barnfton to fuch a degree of horror \nagainft Mr. Meade? For furely the honourable \naddreiTes of a gentleman to her daughter were \nneither an injury nor an infult, much Jefs would it \nwarrant fuch an averfion as hers. And although \nMr. Daubeny thinks proper to deny what Mifs \nBarnfton depofed,yet he neitherdenies inlinuations \nof the dander, nor conceals his intentions of impu- \nting criminality ftill to Mr. Meade. And how he \nwifhed her mind to be affe&ed, is pretty evident \nby his remarking to her, when the affair was \nfomewhat clearing, c: that the very fusfiicion of \n" fuch things ruined a man\'s character." And \neven when he faw that the affair was likely to go \ninto a court of law, he averred that Mr. Meade \ncould not even then clear himfelf, becaufe he \nftiould deny that he made any charges, and there" \nfore that it could not be brought to trial. \n\n\n\nI 102 ] \n\nThe letter from Mrs. Daubeny to Mifs Barn- \nflon only declares, as a wife would naturally \ndo, that her hufband was a blamelefs man ; for \nMr. Daubeny juft then began to be alarmed by \nMr. Meade\'s return to England, and by Dr. Blay- \nney\'s announcing his determination to inveftigate \nthe flander about the will. \n\nOf the only interview which Mrs. Meade could \nobtain with her mother in thirteen years, and \nwhich took place in Sept. 1803, the Bifhop of \nLincoln has indeed givenanextraordinaryaccount, \n" Mrs. Meade went there (he fays) by her own \n<e appointment." And, " it was the intention of \n" Mr. Daubeny and the family to confine the inter- \n" view to the purpofe for which it was requeued." \n\nFrom this eafy reprefentation of his Lord- \nfliip, one would fuppofe that the interview took \nplace by confent, and with a kindly mind. \nBut the contrary was notorious to his Lordfliip; \nevery requeft and effort of Mrs. Meade to fee her \nmother having been rejected for more than twelve \nyears. But hearing that Mr. Daubeny was abfent \nfrom Bath; earneftly advifed by her friends to go \nrefolutely to her mother\'s houfe, and to claim the \nright of a child to fee her parent, as the only ftep \nflie had left untried ; tempted alfo by Mr. Stevens\'s \ntruly-charitable fentiments* on the fubje\xc2\xa3t, which \nhad been conveyed to her mother, Ihe refolved to \n\n* See the hiftory of the interview in the Appendix./?*-* \n\n\n\n[ 103 ] \n\n\n\nmake one perfonal effort for the purpofe; and \nbeing unknown by her mother\'s fervants, and \nfuffered to go up flairs, and having tapped at the \ndoor, Mrs. M. Barnfion opened it, and refifted her \nentrance with all her power. But Mrs. Meade\'s \nheart being fet upon it, me refolved to carry her \npoint; nor was fhe moved from it until Mrs. M. \nBarnfion c pleaded her mother\'s illn-efs/ faying, \nc that fhe had taken medicine, and that an inter- \n% view would hurt her then extremely;\' and fhe \npromifed, that \' if Mrs. M. would give it up at \n\n* that time, fhe mould fee her in a day or two, \n\n* and that {he would write to her to fix the time.* \n" Shall I fee her alone r faid Mrs. Meade. 1 No!\' \nreplied her fifler, ( my mother will not fee you \n4 without Mr. Daubeny.\' <c Then it will be of \n" no ufe," faid Mrs. Meade, ce and I am refolved \n" to fee my mother now; it can never hurt her to \n" fee her daughter at her feet, imploring her bles- \n" fmg." Mrs. M. Barnfion then promifed, c that \nc if fhe would give it up then, fhe mould fee her \n\n* alone : at leafl,\' faid fhe, * I will do all I can \n6 for it.\' Mrs. Meade foon after returned to the \ncountry ; and the fame evening a meffenger was \ndifpatched to Mr. Daubeny, who in confequence \narrived in Bath; and the next morning a very \nunkind note* was fent by Mrs. M. Barnfion, ap- \npointing the following day for the interview, \n\n* See it in the Appendix, 4^ a. 3 / \n\n\n\nf 104 ] \n\n\n\nAll this the Bifliop of Lincoln mildly defcribes \nby cc JJie faw her mother, by her own particular requeft, \n" the firfl: time fince the trial." Bat it is the more \nunaccountable that his Lordfhip mould give this \ncomplexion to the fact, as he mil ft have feen that \neven a few days before this interview, Mrs. Meade \nwas not only denied all hope of ever feeing her \nmother, but was even commanded not to write \nto her; her fifter, Mrs. M. Barnfton, directing her \nto addrefs in future to Mr. Daubeny what fhe \nmight have to fay to her mother! \n\nThe Bifliop proceeding adds, <f that it was the \nu intention of Mr. Daubeny and the family to con- \n* ( fine the interview to the purpofe for which it \n<c was requefted." This at leaf! mews who di- \nrected the bufinefs ! " Confine the interview!" \nA clergyman thus countenanced in confining an in- \nterview between a mother and a daughter, whofe \nmeeting was exprefsly for peace, for love, and for \nreconciliation! What right had he to confine it ? or \nto interfere? As a Party, did juftice warrant him? \nAsaMinifter and a Chriftian, did charity counte- \nnance him? As a Brother-in-law, did Nature au- \nthprife him ? Confine it to the purpofe for which it \nwas requefted! The Bilhop may anfwer for other \npeople\'s purpofe : but Mrs. Meade\'s uniform \nconduct and letters, even the very laft* (he wrote \nto her mother a week before the interview, ex- \n* See the correfpondence in the Appendix. \n\n\n\nt 105 ] \n\n\n\nplained her purpofe too clearly to need a commen- \ntator. She requefted a return of peace and love ; \nflie implored her mother\'s bleffing for herfelf and \nher children ; and her influence in promoting \ngeneral reconcilement, defiring mutual oblivion* \nwith every expreffion of duty to her mother, and \ngood-will to all her relations. Did fhe requeft \nto fee Mr. Daubeny in her mother\'s apartment? \nor to be furprifed by a party of ftrangers or ene- \nmies? or on rifing in agonies from her mother\'s \nfeet, to be encountered with charges and argu- \nments from a book, which Mr. Daubeny held in \nhis hand, ready noted and marked for the attack? \nDid flie carry her youngefl daughter there, only \nto be refufed the comfort of prefenting the little \nchild, once in her life, to her grandmother? \n\nBut letfacls fpeak for themfelves, and not the \nBimop of Lincoln ! The morning after the in- \nterview, a letter was fent by exprefs to Mrs. \nMeade, through Mr. Daubeny, forbidding her and \nher children in future from her mother\'s houfe^ \nif they would avoid the pain of being refufed ad- \nmittance. In a few months after, Mrs. Meade \nheard that her mother had paid the debt of nature, \nand that the chief part of her\'s and her children\'s \nportion of her mother\'s fortune was given to Mr.. \nDaubeny, by a will, made a few months before \nthe above interview; Mrs. Barnfton being then \nin the 85th year of her age! \n\n\n\n[ 106 ] \n\n\n\nThe reader will probably be able, without the \nBifhop of Lincoln\'s help, to judge of the inten- \ntion in confining the interview between a mother \nand her daughter ! ! ! \n\nThe infidious ftatement, that Mrs Meade went \nfor forgivenefs, as implying an acknowledgment of \nher being in the wrong, me trufts it is not inde- \ncorous to fay, is unworthy of notice > it is a paltry \nperveriion ; and there will be, and can be, but one \nopinion on the fubjett. But when his Lordfhip \nfays, " the interview was reqiiejled for forgivenefs"* \nMr. Meade again ventures to fay, that his Lord- \nIhip owes it to his own rank and ftation to make \napologies for this mifreprefentation, and for this \nattack on the character of Mrs. Meade. There \nis not the fmallefl: foundation in fa\xc2\xa3t for the afTer- \ntion! Why did not the Bifliop produce any one \nletter of Mrs, Meade\'s to fupport him, even the \nvery laft which me fent to her mother previous to \nthe interview ? For being never permitted to \nfee her mother, her fentiments could be exprelfed \n\n* The Bifliop is pleafed to charge on Mr. Meade, what in ficT: \nhis Lordfhip alone praclifes; viz. fuppremng principal features, and \nbringing forward thofe that are fubordinate. Indeed his Lordfhip does \nmore, for he not only fuppreffes principal features, but he fupplies \nothers out of his own imagination, as it fhould feem; for certainly \nthey are not taken from Mrs. Meade. Her application to her mo- \nther Hated her object to be, " reconciliation, mutual oblivion, old \n" charities." But his Lordfhip fuppreffing thefe, fubftitutes the \nword " forgivenefs." \n\n\n\n[ 107 ] \n\n\n\nonly in her letters. What is the reafon that \nevery document is fuppreffed that difcovers the \ntruth? Such a fentiment as confeffing wrong to \nMr. Daubeny, or injury to any one, never in thir- \nteen years efcaped her pen or her lips. And \nMr. Meade ventures to fay, that no one whatever \nis out of the reach of danger; that there is no \nfecurity either in law, innocence, or truth; if un- \nfounded affertions or malignant perverfions be \nadmitted in judgment. \n\nThofe who feel an intereft in the fubject of \nthis pamphlet, will not be difpleafed to learn, \nthat in every application to her mother, Mrs. \nMeade forgot both injuries and infults, and only \nremembered, that the perfon (he was addreffing \nwas her mother, and that that mother was de- \nceived. Her letters therefore uniformly expreffed \nhumility, arTe&ion, and duty. Mrs. Meade, as \nhas been already faid, married without applying \nat the time to her mother. Her motives for \nadopting the advice of her other relations and \nfriends, and for availing herfelf of the indepen- \ndence, which me was acknowledged to poffefs, \nhave been already explained. But as her mother \nwas by falfe reprefentations, influenced to revoke, \nwithout affigning any reafon, the confent {he had \nonce given, declaring (he would never again fee \nher; and Mrs. Meade, fupported by eminent di- \nvines, as well as others, thought proper to aft for \n\n\n\nt 108 ] \n\n\n\nherfelf, without offering the infult of again afking \nher mother\'s confent at that moment of irritation; \nfhe never ceafed during thirteen years to implore, \nwith every expreffion of duty, her mother\'s for- \ngivenefs for that unintended appearance of difre- \nspecl to her. \n\nThe artful infinuation that thefe expreffions of \nfilial love and piety were acknowledgments of \nher guilt, is a perverfion of a chriftian virtue into \ncriminality, and none knew it better than thofe \nperfons who mifapplied them. The bait of con- \nfeffing criminality, in order to exculpate Mr. \nDaubeny, was often held out to her with cunning \nallurements; but flie as uniformly rejected it \nwith indignation and horror. When infulted \nwith a fimilar (hocking propofal in the year 1797, \nflie gave a final anfwer from which fhe never \nvaried. \n\nMrs, Meade to her Mother. \n\nDec. 28, 1797. \ncc To your conditions of reconcilement I return \n" with a forrowful heart this anfwer. Yon require \n" that I proclaim my felf a perjured wretch; that \n" I confefs that all I have declared for five years \n6C paft, even at the altar, is falfe ; and that all \nc< thofe that bore teitimony to my truth, are liars! \n" Oh, Nature ! Oh, Charity ! This is the fum of \n\n\n\n[ 109 1 \n\n\n\n<c what yon are taught to demand of your daugh- \nic ter, and thus covered with infamy I am to he \n" received to your affe&ions and family ! \n\n" To be reftored to your love I would give the \n" world, but I cannot facrifice for it confcience \nu and truth. God will not abandon me, although \n" my mother does. \n\n" I received the Sacrament on Chriflmas-Day, \ncc and Heaven is my witnefs, when I declare my \n" truth, and the innocence of my intentions to- \n" wards all my family. I never wilfully injured \n" any one; I am in love and charity with all; \n" I have never been wanting in filial duty to you, \n" and God grant that you may not have to re- \nC( proach yourfelf with want of maternal affetHon \n" towards me. \n\n" Put your hand on your heart, Madam, and \ncc afk yourfelf, whether during thirty years I lived \nic under your eye, you ever obferved in me a \n6C want of duty and love, or a difregard of truth \n" and religion. Yet now you overlook the habits \n" of my life, the proofs of my innocence, and even \n" my folemn oath ; and I declare 3 on the autho- \n" rity of the moll pious minifters, that the very \ncc fpirit of the gofpel is mifapplied againft me. \nfc You adopt the conduft and fentiments of a \n" prejudiced and interefted perfon; you refer from \n6< my oath to a falfe printed trial, for which I am \n" no ways anfwerable; and to extracts of letters, \n\n\n\nC "o ] \n\n\n\ntc whole meaning is mifunderftood or perverted j \n" and you reject from your houfe a charitable \n<c minifter of peace,* after inviting his interfe- \n" rence, and after he had travelled with exertions \n" almoft too much for his age, in order to point \nC\xc2\xa3 out to you the means of reconcilement. \n\n" If you continue inflexible in thefe mocking \n\xe2\x82\xacC conditions, God forbid that I fhould accept \n" them ! \xe2\x80\x94 but if the grace of God mould turn \n** your heart to me, I will fly at a moment to \n64 throw myfelf at your feet, and to implore your \n" bleffing ; perfuaded that neither abfence, nor \n" any other hardfliip you may inflict on me, will \n\xe2\x80\xa2 c ever extinguifh that affection with which I \ne< remain, your much-injured and afflicted daugh- \n" ter, Catherine Meade." \n\nOn the examination of Mrs. Meade at her \ninterview with her mother, little comment is ne- \nceffary. The world will judge of the fituation \ninto which fhe was furprifed. They will judge \nwhether it was humane or decent at fuch a time, \nwithout notice, and without witnelfes, to have an \nhoftile crofs-examiner prepared to attack, and \nreporters to record or to conftrue the expreffions \nof a lady, who being raifed from her mother\'s \nfeet, and carried out of the room to recover her- \n\n\n\nArchdeacon Coham. \n\n\n\n[ 111 ] \n\n\n\nfelf, had returned to it only to folicit reconciliation \nand bleffing. \n\nThe Bifhop of Lincoln recites a fpeech, which \nMr. Daubeny then addreffed to Mrs. Meade in \nprefence of her mother; and is it not ftrange that \nhis Lordfliip does not perceive that the fpeech \nwould have been barbarous and unfeeling, even \nif the faSi ajjerted in it had been true, " that the late \n<c Bifliofi Mofs pronounced Mrs. Meade perjured, if \ncc ever woman was fo" Was that a moment to \ninfult her, the fir ft time fhe had feen her mother \nin thirteen years, and the lad time me was ever \nto behold her ? Was fuch a speech ever addreffed \nto a lady in prefence of Grangers? Or was it de- \nlicate, or becoming that man, in whofe favour a \nwill had been juft figned, conveying to him Mrs, \nMeade\'s (hare of her mother\'s fortune. \n\nThe Bifhop might have recited a fimilar (lory \nrefpe\xc2\xa3ting the late Dr. Blayney, which Mr. \nDaubeny alfo addreffed at the fame time to Mrs. \nMeade; but his Lordfhip probably declined do- \ning fo, becaufe it has been fo publicly proved to \nbe unfounded, that Mr. Daubeny and his friends \nwith to have it forgotten, and give it up as a \nmiftake. But they were little aware, that like Dr. \nBlayney, the late Bifhop Mofs has left indignant \ndenials of the affertion refpe&ing his Lordfliip. \nWhatever impreffions, however, thefe denials \nmay now make on the world, the impreffion which \n\n\n\n[ ] \n\nMrs. Barnfton received, fuch as it was, me carried \nto the grave, and her acts in confequence are \npaft remedy. \n\nBut even as the Bifhop of Lincoln relates the \nflory of Bifhop Mofs, is there any thing like ar- \ngument or proof in it } The old maxim of cc audi \n\xc2\xa3C alteram partem" mult be rejected, before this \nmode of reafoning can obtain credit. If the late \nBifhopof Bath and Wells liflened to Mr. Daubeny, \nit was becaufe the latter would not otherwife* \nferve the New-Church. And if his Lordfhip ex- \nprefled an opinion, it could not and did not affect \nMrs. Meade; becaufe whatever credit was given \nto ex-parte evidence, was given to the per/on, not \nto the facl, of which latter his Lordfhip could not \nbe a judge, having heard but one fide. And in \nfact Mrs. Meade knew that he never did pronounce \nas the Bifhop of Lincoln recites from Mr. Dau- \nbeny. The Bifhop of Lincoln however, to give, \nas it mould feem, a fort of importance to the \nflory, fays, that Mr. Daubeny related it to Mrs. \nMeade in the prefence of her mother. So muck \nthe worfe ! And indeed Mrs. Meade was fo fur- \nprifed at Mr. Daubeny\'s other flory in prefence \nof her mother, " that Dr. Blayney had alfo fa- \n" voured his caufe juft before his- death," that \nnothing ot that kind could in comparifon affect. \n\n\n\n* Dr, Mofe\'s letter to Mr. Meade, Jan. 7, 1795. \n\n\n\nC "3 ] \n\n\n\nher. But to fave the time and trouble of com- \nments, Mr. Meade denies altogether the truth of \nMr. Daubeny\'s affertion, recited by the Bifliop of \nLincoln : and he can fortunately produce de- \ncifive authority for contradicting it.* \n\nExtract of a Letter from the Rev. Dr. Moss \n\nto Mr. Meade. \n\n" Jan. 7, 1799. \n\ncc That you may no longer remain under any \ns< mifapprehenfions in regard to my father and \n" myfelf, I mail tell you once for all, that we nei- \n" ther faid nor wrote, nor encouraged the writing \n" of, any thing whatever that reflected on Mrs. \nf* Meade or yourfelf." \n\nAnd the Bifliop of Bath and Wells himfelf, \non hearing that this ftory which the Bifliop of \nLincoln has recited in his paper, was in circula- \n\n* Mr. Meade here publicly calls on the Bifliop of Lincoln to \n{late what grounds, what document, or authority, he had for afcri- \nbing to a lady, who was a ftranger to him, a monftrous and (hocking \naft of wickednefs, as under the fan<\xc2\xa3tion of the name of a deceafed \nbifliop ? Mr. Meade ventures to tell the world, that the Bifliop of \nLincoln had no fort of proof to fupport this (hocking aggrellion, \nbut the word of that perfon whom of all others he ought in this \ncaufe to have diftrufted ! The affertion is falfe, falfe. But if it \nwere true that a bifliop, or any man, on hearing one lide, had been \nrafli enough to decide a caufe, will any man of fenfe fay that fuch a \ndecifion is any thing like proof? Or will any man who has an idea \nof juftice call fuch " a fall inveftigation," as the Bifhop of Lincoln \nterms it ? If fuch means of attacking characters be tolerated} what \nfecurity or protection does the law afford ? \n\nI \n\n\n\ntion, declared it, under his own hand, to be "foul \n" and villainous calumny" Thefe are his Lordfhip\'s \nwords* \n\nIn the following month, February 1799, Dr. \nBlayney wrote to Mr. Meade from Oxford, cc I \n" had a civil meffage from Dr. Mofs, by Mr. \n(< Barker, to affure me that he was perfectly fa- \n<c tisfied with refpeft to you and that neither he \n" nor his father meant to take any other part re- \n" Reeling the matter between you and your \n" adverfary than what is explained in his letter \n" to you;"f which related to Mr. Daubeny\'s pro* \nfeffional character, and his fitnefs to ferve the \nNew Church. \n\nInftead of a reply to this, the Bifhop of Lincoln^ \nkeeping out of fight the only point at ifTue, di- \nrects the mind to what is abfolutely irrelevant* \n" If the Bifhop of Bath and Wells" fays he " did not \n" pronounce Mrs. Meade perjured^ he gave an \n<( unequivocal proof of his being fatisfied with \ncc refpeft to Mr. Daubeny, by licenfmg him to the \n\n* As the Bifhop of Lincoln requires original documents, Mr. \nMeade refers his Lordfhip to the Rev. Mr. Sibley, in Bath, to whom \nthe Bifhop of Bath and Wells wrote; and who gave his Lordfhip\'s \nletter twice to Mr. Meade, that he might clearly underftand it ; and \nat th e fame time to the Rev. Dr. Gardiner, who accompanied Mr, \nMeade Mr- Sibley no doubt has preferred the letter, in which \nwere the above expreffions, and others not Jefs pointed ; and as g. \ngentleman of known candour and confeience, he will not decline tQ \nperform an acl of juftice, if properly called upon to mew it. \nt Mr. Meade has the original. \n\n\n\n[ lis ] \n\n\n\n<\xc2\xa3 Free Church at Bath, after a c full inveftigatiovi* \n" of the cafe between you and Mr. Daubeny; and \n" I have Dr. Mofs\'s authority to fay, that his \n" father did exprefs the moft complete fatisfa&ion \n" with refpect to Mr. Daubeny\'s character. The \n" ]ate Archbifhop of Canterbury, who was con- \n. " fulted, as being a fubfcriber to the Free Church, \n<c gave his full confent and approbation to Mr. \nP Daubeny\'s appointment to the Free Church, ,, 8cc. \n\nMr. Meade attacked neither Mr. Daubeny\'s \npublic nor private character, much Iefs did he in- \nterfere with the opinion which any bifhop or other \nperfon might entertain of him; he merely fpoke \nto a faff, in defence of his wife; to a Clocking, \nunexampled, and fpeciEc charge, recited by the \nBifliop of Lincoln, and which Mr. Meade had \nproved to be falfe. And when the Bifhop of \nLincoln quotes extracts of letters, which he pro- \nfeffes to have himfelf juft received on this fubjecl", \nwhere are his own letters, to which thefe were \nrepliesrf How did his Lordfliip reprefent facts? \nAnd by what ftatements did he folicit thefe letters? \nThe anfwer to thefe queftions is by no means ir- \n\n* This full invejligation was hearing one fide I \n\nf Did the Bifhop of Lincoln receive or call for thefe replies, \nbefore he uttered his paper of invectives ? Did he not firji circulate? \nFor the circulation by his family, of a paper written by himfelfj \ncannot be prefumed to be without his concurrence. \n\nI % \n\n\n\n[ "6 ] \n\n\n\nrelevant. Let his Lordfhip fhew the letters which \ndrew forth the replies; for there need be no \nmyftery in the matter. \n\nThat Mrs. Meade made confeffions* of guilt as \nis ungeneroufly afferted, fhe pofitively denies. The \nftory carries its own refutation : and Providence \nfeems to have made her enemies the inftruments \nof confuting themfelves; for in the letter her \nlifter fent to her through Mr. Daubeny himfelf, \nthe morning after thefe pretended confeffions are \nfaid to have been made, and the fjrft ftep taken \nby either party, me is told that her mother\'s \ndoors are to be (hut againft her and her children. \n" Juftice," fays Mrs. M. Barnfton, " muft firft be \n" done to my mother\'s and to Mr. Daubeny\'s \n" chara&er, before you can be received into the \nec family. Moreover, (Mr. Daubeny\'s own favour \n<c rite word) moreover {he defires that your chil- \nf c dren may not be fent, as that can anfwer no \n" purpofe while their mother is not received. I \n\n* Mrs. Meade has never feen a ftatement of the confeffions which \n{lie is faid to have made ; but from what me hears, they confift of \ninterpretations put on her words by zealous partifans, who pro- \nbably thought as they wifhed. Mrs. Meade herfelf did not con- \nceive that any expreffions of her\'s could, by the raoft ardent ima ? \nginations, have received the contraction which fhe hears has been \napplied to them. But fhe believes that the hiftory and circumftances \nof the pretended confeffions fpeak for themfelves, without any ne- \nceffity on her part to declare in a more folemn manner, which me is \nready any moment to do, that the fentiments afcribed to her were \nnever in her thoughts* \n\n\n\n[ 117 ] \n\n\n\n" write this to prevent the difagreeable circum- \n" fiance of your being refufed admittance. You \n" have been told on what terms alone you can be \n<c received! 1 \n\nIt is plain then that fhe had not complied with \ntheir terms ! For if flie had, every bar to her being \nreceived into her mother\'s houfe mult have been \nremoved, even by their own account. Will any \nman of common fenfe now give credit to that \nfhocking allegation conveyed to Mrs. Meade by- \nMr. Daubeny, 66 you know that you admitted that \n"you gained\' a verdicl for Mr. Meade by your noto- \ncc rioujly-falfe evidence" Does not the aflertion \ncarry with it its own condemnation, as well as its \nrefutation? Mr. Meade requefts the reader to \nperufe the letters, and the hiftory of that trans- \naction in the Appendix. \n\nHis Lordfhip, proceeding with his paper, re- \ncites the aflertion, " that Mrs. Meade imputed \n" motives to Mr. Daubeny. " Mr. Meade informs \nhis Lordfhip, that he is again miftaken. She only \nrelated facls. The Jury afcribed motives. \n\nMrs. Meade alfo begs leave to proteft againfl the \nBifhop\'s readinefs to find out motives for her. She \nknew her own, and fwore to them! \n\nAgain, his Lordfhip adopts the impofing pre- \ntence of Mr. Daubeny being " the refirefentative \n" of Mrs. Meade\'s father/\' No doubt he endea- \nvoured to be the representative of the whole \n\n\n\n[ 118 ] \n\n\n\nfamily I But who made him reprefentative ? He \nhad married one of Mrs. Meade\'s fitters, and had \n*been one of her father\'s three executors, jointly \nwith an elder brother-in-law Mr. Sikes, and \nMrs. Barnfton\'s brother Mr. Sawbridge, both of \nwhom were alive. But what authority had he, \nas executor of a- will, over perfons ?\xe2\x96\xa0 or when did \nit ceafe? or was it to extend over Mifs Barnfton, \nat thirty- two, as over her mother, till at eighty- \nfive years of age ? \n\nThe Bifhop\'s recital, cc that Mifs Barnfton being \n"determined on marrying, had made prepara- \ntions for her wedding;" and his Lordfhip\'s wife, \nMrs. Tomline, having confidently averred ee that \n<( Mifs Barnfton had even fixed on the wedding- \ncc day previous to the trial," are new proofs of \nthe unfitnefs of his Lordfhip for the office into \nwhich he obtruded himfelf. How could he or \nMrs, Tomline know her intentions or determi- \nnations, or venture to poifon the minds of her \nfriends by fuch ungenerous ftories, even before \nthe Bifliop had feen Mr. Meade\'s papers? The \nfact, is abfolutely unfounded. That friend of \nher late father, into whofe generous family me \nwas received, that prote&or and fecond father, \nwho, with his excellent wife, had conducted her \nInto Court, laid before her after the trial her whole \nlituation, and earnefily advifed her to marry \nMr\xc2\xbb Meade, himfelf and Mrs. Goddard affifting \n\n\n\nC 119 ] \n\n\n\nc< to expedite all matters before they fliould be \n" obliged to leave home."* \n\nOn the fame foundation does the Biftiop recite, \nie that the carriage was befpoke before the trial.\'* \nHow can his Lordfhip fuffer his name to be thus \ntrifled with? The coachmaker\'s books can fupply \na contradi\xc2\xa3Hon to this affertion. Mr. Meade\'s \ncarriage was not bespoke, either before or after the \ntrial. For prefled by Mr. Goddard, who, as he \nhimfelf fays, was in hafte to go to the Weft of \nEngland,t and only waited to perform the part of \na parent by Mifs Barnfton, Mr. Meade fearched, \nfmd found a carriage ready made, and within a \nfew days of being finiflied, which he bought of \nKemp, in Long-Acre.^ The Bifliop even adopts \nan incorre&nefs in flaring the time of Mrs. Meade\'s \nmarriage, for the purpofe, as it fliould feem, of \ngiving a little more plaufibility to his argument. \n\nHis Lordfhip having difcovered a want of \nprecifion in one ftatement, where indeed preci- \n\n* See Mr. Goddard\'s letter to Mrs. Meade\'s uncle already quoted. \nDr. Blayney alfo wrote to Mifs Barnfton an excellent paper on the \nfame fubjec~t ? now in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffion. \n\nf See his letter already given. \n\n% If the Bifhop thought thefe ftories worth reciting when he \nbelieved them to be true, was it not common juftice to retract them, \nwhen he found that they were falfe? But as his Lordfliip and Mrs. \nTomline would fcorn to invent fuch tales to injure the reputation \nof perfons whom they do not know, Mr. Meade calls on them to \nrecoiled who it was that thus impofed on them; and when they \nhave difcovered the author of thefe calumnies, then let the Bimop \n\n\n\n[ 120 ] \n\nfion was neither affected, nor appeared neceffary, \nhas noted it with his ufual fagacity ; and he \nis welcome to all the triumph it can give him. \nMr. Meade, defcribing Mrs. Barnfton as an aged \nperfon, whofe memory was more likely to fail \nthan that of a perfon who was younger by forty \nyears, mentioned loofely, " an old lady, near \n" eighty." If Mr. Meade had faid, " between \n" feventy and eighty," he confeffes it would have \nbeen better. But when the Bifliop of Lincoln \ngravely marks this mighty error, in what light \nwill that cenfor appear, who really needs correct- \nion in that very point on which he prefumes with \nfuch ftri&nefs to correct another ? His Lord- \nfhip pofitively avers, " that Mrs. Barnfton was in \n" truth in her Jeventy-fecond year at the time of the \n" trial" Mr. Meade informs his Lordfhip, " that \n* \xc2\xa3 Mrs. Barnfton was in truth in her feventy- fourth year \n" at the time of the trial."* \n\nThefe ftories would be hardly worth notice, but \nthat the circulation of them by his Lordfhip and \nhis family manifeft both his hafte and his partiality. \n\napply his own pofition, " that a perfon detected in falfehood is not \n" entitled to credit on any other occafion." \n\n* It is remarkable too, that his Lordftip faw Mrs. Barnfton\'s age \nftated by Mrs. M. Barnfton, in a letter to Mrs. Meade, in Septem- \nber 1803, when me mentions that her mother had thenpaffed her \neighty-fifth year. But the Biftiop has only to look to mourning- \nrings of the family, or any other document, and he will fee that \nMrs. Barnfton wanted only three months of feventy-four, when his \nLordftiip ventured to alTert " that fhe was in truth in her feventy- \nu fecond year." \n\n\n\nt MB J \n\n\n\nFor he never waited to afk whether they were \ntrue or not ; nor, when they were proved to be \nunfounded, had he the candour to acknowledge \nit. On the contrary, forgetting that thefe (lories \nwere brought forward as arguments againfi Mrs. \nMeade; and that their falfehood marked the tem- \nper of her opponents, his Lordfliip thinks it \nenough to fay, " that thefe are nothing to the \n" other points." As if he would infinuate, that \nMr. Meade, by proving thefe to be falfe, meant . \nto evade any other points. But Mr. Meade ven- \ntures to fay, that there is not a fingle page of his \nwhole paper that has not glaring miftakes, not \nto fay more. \n\nHis Lordfliip proceeding gives what he is \npleafed to call " Mrs. Meade s representations T He \nmould rather have faid, " Mr. Daubeny s rejirefen- \n" taiions for Mrs. Meade." Mrs. Meade would \nhave anfwered for herfelf, if me had been applied \nto. And when the Bifhop fays, " that all idea \nc < of her marrying Mr. Meade was underftood to be \n" at an end:" by whom was it underflood? Not \nby Mifs Barnfton ; although fhe was not obliged \nto reveal all her hopes and fears to fo unfeeling a \nrelation as Mr. Daubeny. \n\nAs to Mifs Barnfton\'s betraying what Mr. \nDaubeny faid, (which admits that he did fay \nit) it is fo clearly proved to be falfe, that it is \naftonilhing the Bilhop would be made the in- \n\n\n\n[ 122 ] \n\n\n\nftrument of circulating fo unjuft and ungenerous \nan affertion; her endeavours to give Mr. Meade \nan opportunity to. defend himfelf, by know- \ning clearly the charges againft him, being not \nmore earneft than her anxiety to preferve Mr. \nDaubeny from the fufpicion of being Mr. Meade\'s \nenemy. In July 1791, fhe wrote to Mrs. Gun- \nning, \xc2\xab Don\'t tell Mr. Meade half what is faid, \n" it will make him mad.\' 5 To Archdeacon Co- \nham, July 1 791, (< I leave it to your difcretion, \ncc my dear fir, to tell him what you think proper* \n" afraid of his knowing the worft."* To the fame* \nin the fame |month, " The will bufinefs is the \n" matter of importance to be cleared up, to be \n" fure; but to whom? not to Mr. Meade\'s friends^ \n" not merely to the Daubenys ; but certainly to \n* c my friends, who alone are the people infected." \nTo Mrs. Gunning, July 1791, \xc2\xab Be fureyou don\'t \n<*\xe2\x96\xa0 tell Mr. S\xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x80\x94 s that Mr. Daubeny is concerned; \nt( nothing would mortify him fo much," To \nArchdeacon Coham, Aug. 1 791, " Mr. Daubeny \n\xe2\x82\xacC mu ft not be fpoken to, for my aim is to keep \n" him out of fight." To her fitter Mrs. Daubeny, \nAuguft 1 79 1, " I was anxious to a degree that \n" the frefh alarms about his character mould not \n64 be fuppofed to come from Mr. Daubeny." To \nher aunt Mrs. Ravenhill, in the fpring of 1792^ \n\n\n\n* Thefe letters are in Mr. Meade\'s poffeHion. \n\n\n\nt 123 1 \n\n\n\nef God only knows the forrow I have felt on Mr. \n* f Daubeny\'s account, that he has brought things \n<c to fuch a pafs, that one character cannot be \n<c cleared, but at the expence of the other." \n\nIn a letter, October 1 791, from Dr. Blayney to \nMifs Barnfton, he remonftrates with her on the \nidlenefs of her endeavours to fcreen Mr. Daubeny. \n<c He is not now," fays Dr. Blayney, " to be made \n<c a bitter enemy; he is already a declared and \n<c implacable one. It is idle to think of leaving \nc: him out, who has been the moft atlive in the \n<c abufe. Recoiled what you have acknowledged \nce to have heard imputed to Mr. Meade; and by \n" whom have you heard it imputed ? Who has \n* c reprefented Mr. Meade in fuch an odious light \ncc to your mother, and poifoned her mind with \n<c calumnies ? Not Mr. James Daubeny nor Mr. \nce J. Daubeny, but the perfon whom you wiJJi u \nie spare. All your relations have imbibed from \n<c one and the fame mouth their prejudices againft \n" Mr. Meade." Mifs Barnfton to her fitter Mrs, \nM. Barnfton, early in 1792, from Mr.Sikes\'s houfe. \n" Unlefs you can effect, fome condefcenfion on \n<c Mr. Daubeny\'s part, it is in vain to talk of \n" peace. You grieve me to the foul, but I cannot \n<c help you. I know you think, that becaufe I \n" (hall be fummone I take part againft Mr, \n"Daubeny. God forbid! I go there no more \n\xe2\x82\xacS voluntarily than you will; nor mall I fay more \n\n\n\n[ 124 ] \n\n\n\nC\xc2\xa3 than the law will compel me to. People are \nte obliged to appear, I underftand, and bound by \n* c oath f-y what they know. Mr. Daubeny \n" knows as well as I do what he has faid to me. \n" I charge you, as you love your family, that the \n" fteps you now take mult be to conciliate, if you \nfic would do them real fervice. I am, your mod \n* c afflicted, but mod affectionate fitter, \n\n" C. BARNSTON." \n\n<c P.S. Pray read this to Aunt Ravenhill, and \n<c advife with her what to do." \n\nNothing was plainer, ihan that as Mifs Barn- \nfton from the firft conceived it neceflary that Mr. \nMeade (hould know the charges againft him, in \norder to explain them and to clear himfelf; fp \nIhe wifhed that not a word more mould be related \nto him than was neceflary for that purpofe. It \nwas her earned requeft that nothing mould be \nneedlefsly repeated, which might irritate angry \nparties; but that by benevolently concealing what \nmight prevent future reconciliation, fhe might \nlay a foundation, as far at lead as me could do, \nfor a return of good-will, when paflion mould \nfubfide. \n\nThis referve, arifing from the pureft motives \nof the heart, and chiefly in favour of Mr. Daubeny \nhimfelf, the Bifhop of Lincoln, forgetting that a \n\n\n\n[ 125 ] \n\n\n\nfoft word fometimes turns away wrath, has thought \nproper to term deceit. And becaufe Mrs. Meade \nexpreffed or wrote, " that when me was required \n** in a court of law to fpeak the whole truth on \nCf oath, there was an end of benevolent referves;" \nhis Lordfhip again argues as if he had difcovered \nfomething allied to perjury. But in this part of \nhis manufcript the pointing and the narrative are \nfo confufed, that Mr. M: r ade has not always been \nclear whether the fentiments and expreffions are \nthofe of the Bifho j or of Mr. Daubeny ; whether \nthey mean to ftate Mrs. Meade\'s words, or Mr. \nDaubeny\'s deductions; whether they are impli- \ncations from her filence, or conftruclions of what \nher opponents exprefs for her. \n\nBut the idea of betraying confidence did not \nenter into Mifs Barnfton\'s mind. When per- \nfuaded that Mr. Meade was perfecuted for no \nother caufe than his attachment to her, could (he \nin honour have done otherwife than inform him \nof what was faid in his abfenCe to the ruin of \nhis character, that he might be prepared to vin- \ndicate it ? There was ftill another reafon that \nurged her to do as fhe did, which was, that her \nown happinefs feemed to be interested in it. \nNotwithstanding Mr. Daubeny\'s influence with \nher mother and fame of her relations, there was a \nvery refpefrable branch of the family who faw \nnothing to object to Mr. Meade on account of \n\n\n\n[ 126 ] \n\n\n\nMr. Daubeny\'s quarrel with him. By thefe Mn \nMeade was encouraged to renew his addreffes in \nJanuary 1791, when their united intentions were \nfruftrated by alarming infinuations of great crimi- \nnality refpecting a will. But Mifs Barnftpn \nhaving difcovered in the courfe of time much \ninjuftice in thefe infinuations, her confequent \ndeterminations, together with the interference of \nher relations, mult have prevailed, if Mr. Daubeny \nhad not come forward in time with his mocking \nallegations. Then it was, that her friends repre- \nfented to her the impofiibility of their counte- \nnancing a connexion with a perfon, whofe cha- \nracter was queftionable; and pointed out the \nneceffity of Mr. Meade clearing himfelf, if he \ncould. Her own ideas correfponded exaclly \nwith thofe of her friends. She could not bear \nto marry a man of blafted reputation, and per- \nfuaded, as Hie might afterwards have been, of his \nblaimeleffnefs and integrity, her own honour, fhe \nthought, required that the world fhould think \nwell of him too. What then was me to do? She \n\xe2\x80\xa2was not enjoined fecrecy by Mr. Daubeny as to \nwhat he reported to her. On the contrary, **. If \n" 1 had afked Mr. Daubeny, (fays me, in a letter to \n" her mother} whether I fhould tell it again, he \n" would have faid, Yes, with all my heart." And \nagain, in a letter to her filler, " I told Mr. Meade \n\'* and Dr. Blayney what Mr. Daubeny told me, \n\n\n\n[ 127 ] \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xact as coming from his brothers; I faid> as you faidj \nu that he was not the author of this affair ; and \n" I knew he did not care for my repeating what \n<c he told me, becaufe it did not come from him, \n" and becaufe he faid they had themfelves in- \n" formed Mr. Meade of the particulars." In \nfa\xc2\xa3f Mifs Barnfton did not at the time believe \nthat Mr. Daubeny had fpoken any thing from \nhimfelf, but at fecond-hand from his brothers, \nwho were prepared, as he toid her, to make good \ntheir affertions. She therefore fuppofed they \nwould do as he faid, and that matters would be \nbrought to a difcuffion between them and Mr; \nMeade, (not in a court of law \\ 9 which never entered \ninto her head, but before a meeting of friends) when \nfiie hoped that Mr. Meade would be able to make \n.his innocence appear, to the fatisfa&ion even of \nhis accufers. And thus me flattered herfelf with \nthe momentary belief, that me might become the \nrrieans of reconciling perfons, who through mis^ \napprehenfion only had been eftranged from each \nother. Unhappily me was but too foon convinced \nthat nothing lefs was meant than to allow Mr. \nMeade an opportunity of vindicating himfelf from \nthe charges which had been brought againft him. \nBut on which fide foever the propofed arbitration \nfailed, it certainly was not her fault that it did fo. \nHer mifery on the occaiion was extreme, and can- \nnot be better expreffed than by Hating the letters \n\n\n\n[ 128 ] \n\n\n\nthat paffed between her and her friends before \nthe trial; fome of them preffing and terrifying \nher from giving any evidence in Court, others \nurging every argument to convince her of the \nduty and neceility of it. Her mother wrote to \nher thus: " I mud tell you, that if Mr. Meade \nCc begins with law, your brother (Mr. Daubeny) \ntfc will go on with it, and other perfons in the \n6\xc2\xa3 family be brought forward; in which cafe your \ncc mother, if God enables her, mud appear to \nCi give evidence againft her daughter, as me will \n" not fit quiet, and fee her fon-in-law\'s character \n" <c facrificed to Mr. Meade " \n\nAbout the fame time another letter from Mr. \nSik.es to Mr. Goddard was fhewn to Mifs Barn- \nfton, in which were the following words: " Mrs. \ncc Barnfton fees her daughter\'s conduct in appear- \n" ing againft Mr. Daubeny in fuch a light, that \n" the mother and daughter can never fee each \n* { other again, if {lie goes into Court." \n\nMifs Barnfton was fo diftrefted by thefe letters, \nthat flie wrote to Mr. Meade in the following \nlanguage: " My comfort is for ever broken up; \n<c alienated from my mother, and driven to ap- \n" pear a chief evidence againft a brother, with \n* c whom for twelve years I lived in perfect amity \ncc and friendfhip, and the hufband of my deareft \n<c filler, the whole world is indifferent to me ; \n*\' and what was once a paradife of peace and \n\n\n\n[ m ] \n\n\n\nCs harmony, is now a fcene of wretchednefs and \nu difcord. If you muft purfue law, I only pray, \n" that I may die when the trial is over." \n\nIn the fame affli&ed ftile fbe wrote alfo to Mr. \nCoham and Dr. Blayney, and flie received the \nfollowing anfwers. \n\nArchdeacon Coham to Mijs Barnston. \n\n" Dear Madam, Potterne, May 1792. \n\ncc I received your diftrefling letter, and could \n" fill this with lamenting your hard cafe; but nei- \n" ther charity to your relations, nor your own \n<c reluctances, muft be indulged to the injury of \n" my friend or his caufe. You know that Dr. \n" Blayney was always an advocate for arbitration; \n" but now he doubts with me. If our virtue \n" feem fomewhat auftere, you are to confider \n<c what two rigid mafters you have to ferve a \ncc truth andjuftice; thefe muft be your counfellors \n" for confolation. \n\nu I am, dear Madam, &c. \n\n" A. Coham." \n\nDr. Blayney, finding that {he ftill wanted great \nfupport to fatisfy her mind, and ftrengthen it for \nan appearance in Court, exprelfed himfelf in the \nfollowing energetic terms. \n\nk \n\n\n\n[ 130 ] \n\n\n\n" Dear Madam, Poulfhot, May 27, 1792, \n\n" With refpeft to your perfonal diftrefs, \ni( heaven knows how fincerely I pity you, and \ncc would go a great way to relieve you, if I \ncc knew how to do it without violating the prin- \n\xe2\x82\xacc ciples of honour, juftice, and friendfhip. But \n6( can I perfuade Mr. Meade, would you even \ncc wifh he fhould be perfuaded, to facrifice the \n<c deareft interefts of his life, for the fake of fpa- \ncc ring you thofe uneafy fenfations of which you \n" are fo apprehenfive? Call to mind, how often \ni( you have yourfelf urged upon him the neceffity \nic of vindicating his character. Nor can you now \n<c think of giving him up, without incurring even \n" greater infamy than would fall to his fhare. \n" How am I fhocked at hearing of a parent, of \n" relations, and friends, foliciting you to bid de- \n\xe2\x82\xacc fiance to every moral and religious confideration, \n<c and preffing you to proftitute your confcience, \ncc for the fake of fparing an unfeeling brother-in- \n\xe2\x82\xacc law (a mo ft unfeeling one he has been to you) \n" a difgrace which he has, you know, moft auda- \n" cioufly provoked. I will not fay with what \ncc eye the laws of their country will be difpofed \nf< to regard and refent fuch pernicious attempts \n<c to corrupt the evidence which public juftice \n" calls for; but I will be bold, as a Chriftian Mi- \na nifter, to fay, that in the fight of God they are \n\n\n\ni i3i i \n\n\n\ncc mofl abominably wicked. For what in the name \nu of God do they tempt you to do? You cannot \n" evade appearing in Court, whither you are fum- \n" moned. It is well known what you have already \n<c openly and voluntarily declared: and do they ex- \n" peel: you publicly tofalfifyand contradict yourfelf? \n" Do they expect you to prevaricate in the face \n<k of God and the world ? Do they require you \nCf to perjure yourfelf, by fuppreffing one tittle of \n** the truth ? Heaven forbid that you mould be \n" fo profligately wicked, and at once give up all \n" hopes of both prefent and eternal happinefs ! \n<f Did Mr. Meade\'s caufe require any fuch fupport, \n" believe me, I would inftantly and with abhor- \ncc rence renounce it. But no fuch thing; truth, \n6t and truth only, is its fure ground of dependence. \nu They terrify you with threats of bringing your \n" mother into Court to fwear againft you ; truft \n" me, they dare not do it ; they dare not expofe \n" her to public examination. How muchfoever \ni* under undue influence, I cannot believe her fo \n<e unprincipled as to deliver an evidence upon \nc< oath contrary to truth. And you muft know \n<c how much her fpeaking what me knows \n<f to be true, muft ferve Mr. Meade\'s caufe. No- \n" Thing but pity and compaffion for her and for \n\' c you has prevented Mr. Meade from fubpcena- \n" ing her. But if (he appear, let the inhumanity \n44 be with thofe that brought her forward; fhe \n\nK 2 \n\n\n\n[ 132 ] \n\n\n\nc<r muft be clofely and ftri&ly interrogated. Your \nsc fituation, Madam, I muft confefs to be a hard \ncc one. You are called to a fevere trial, a pain- \ncc ful ftruggle between natural affection and con- \nCi fcience. But the greater the difficulty the \ncc greater will be your reward, if you ftedfaftly \n" perfevere in doing what is right. The laws of \n" God, you know, are ever to be preferred to the \nie will of man; nor are we at liberty to comply \ncc with the requifitions of an earthly parent, when \n&i inconfiftent with thofe eternal obligations of \n" truth and juftice, which are laid upon us by our \n(C Heavenly One. On the contrary, our religion \n\xe2\x82\xaci exprefsly requires us to give up the nearer! and \nCi deareft relations, rather than forego one of thofe \n" primary duties, which it enforces on our practice, \nt: 6 He that loveth father or mother more than me, \nCi 6 is not worthy of me.\' Do they threaten you \ncc then with breaking off all connection with you? \n" Fear them not. If they forfake you for doing \niC what is juft and right, there is yet one that will \n" take you up, that both can and will compenfate \n<<r the lofs by other friends. And dread not the \nec reproach of men, whilft you have the teftimony \nfC of your own confcience in your favour, and the \nec certainty of being approved by Almighty God. \n<e But mould you be prevailed upon to do, what \n" God and your own heart muft condemn, you \n"may well tremble for the confequences j the \n\n\n\n[ 133 ] \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab lofs of peace of mind here, and eternal mifery \n" hereafter. \n\ncc You will pardon me, Madam, for having thus \n" taken upon me to remind you of your duty; \ncc not that I think you ignorant of it, but to keep \n" you fledfaft under trial, and to oppofe the arti- \n" fices of thofe who would miflead you. Let \n" Mr. S. if you pleafe, or any other, fee what I \n" have written; if they can difprove it, let them \n<c do it; if not, let them ceafe to trouble you. \n\n" I purpofe being in London on Tuefday; I glory \n<c in Handing by Mr. Meade, as an oppreffed and \n" injured man ; and I trull I fhall not be afhamed \n<c of the juflice of his caufe. You know my \n<c principles, and as far as they allow, I fhall be \n" ever happy to approve myfelf, Madam, \n\n" Your molt obedient humble fervant, \n\n" Benjamin Blayney." \n\nMr. Goddard alfo wrote to her thus, cc I am \nH more and more confirmed, that it is indifpen- \n" fably neceffary that the profecution be conti- \n" nued, fo as to obtain a legal decifion, be the \n" iffue what it may; as there is no other method \n<e for the juftification of Mr. Meade\'s character, \n<\xc2\xa3 in which your own is involved ; it is an act of \n" juflice you owe to yourfelf to vindicate it. \n" Conciliatory meafures are never to be departed \n\n\n\n{ 134 ] \n\n- w from when they can be adopted; but unfortu- \n* c nately thefe have been excluded ; not by you, \n" nor by Mr. Meade, but by his opponent, on \n" whom folely the whole blame mud reft, in \n" having driven Mr. Meade to the neceffity of \n" obtaining a public juftification. \xe2\x80\x94 How could \n" you refpecl: a man under a ftigma in the world ; \nf( would not the world fay, you cared not what \n" his character is, provided you married him ? \xe2\x80\x94 \nie He made, or acceded more than once to, pro- \n* c pofals of arbitration, which by one or other \n" quirk were as repeatedly evaded by his oppo- \n" nent; this is a folace to you. I hold chara&er \nfC in a very different light from money tranfa&ions; \n" however ready I might be to facrifice money \n" for peace, I would not fuffer character to be \n" frittered away. Can they be your friends, who \n" advife you to the contrary ? \n\n" Our hearts and doors are ever open to you; \nu deny us not the gratification of keeping up \n" your fpirits, and affording you every comfort \nw by proving to you the fincerity of our friendftiip \n\nand attachment. I am, &c. \n\n" John Goddard."* \n\nThefe, together with Mr. Goddard\'s perfonal \nattendance, on whofe judgment me greatly relied, \n\n\n\n* Mr. Meade has the original draft in Mr. Goddard\'s writing, \n\n\n\n[ 135 ] \n\n\n\nenabled her to go through the difficult and \npainful talk allotted to her; in doing which her \nconfcience does not reproach her with the leaft \nwilful exaggeration, or deviation from the truth. \n\nWhat candid mind, then, muft not perceive the \ncruelty and injuftice of taxing her with being \nacceffary to her brother-in-law\'s puniflimenr, \nwhen her appearance in Court, and the evidence \nflie gave there, were impofed upon her by ftrong \nneceffity, and could not be evaded, without vio- \nlating the moil facred obligations of duty, religion, \nand honour? \n\nWhen the Bimop pretends to give the chara&er \nof Mrs. Meade in her family, from whom is \nhis character of her drawn ? Is it from her only \nUncle ? her only Aunt? any one of her numerous \nand refpe&able Coufins? old Friends, Acquain- \ntances, or Connections of the family ? Is it from \nany of her Neighbours, rich or poor? No, in \ntruth ! His Lordfhip has given a long letter, and \nhas thought proper, irrelevant as it is, to quote it \nin full, written to Mr. Daubeny by a friend of his, \na total ftranger to Mr. and Mrs. Meade, having \nnever feen either of them in his life; a gentleman \nwho married one of the junior ladies of the fa- \nmily, a niece of Mrs. Meade\'s, fome years after \nMr. Daubeny\'s trial, and who knows nothing \nof Mr. or Mrs. Meade, but through Mr. Daubeny \nand his friends, and whofe letter was a reply to \n\n\n\n[ 136 ] \n\n\n\nMr. Daubeny s own Jiatementl What can his \nLordftiip\'s object be in this? Is there one argu- \nment or proof brought forward on the queftions \nat iffue ? His Lordfhip could not feel pleafure \nmerely in reciting fuch letters* againft a lady; \nitill lefs could he feel gratification in promoting \nfamily difcord, rather than harmony ! \n\nBut for Mrs. Meade\'s character, an appeal \nmight be made from the Bifhop\'s prejudices, and \nfrom the refentments of Mr. Daubeny, to Mr. \nDaubeny himfeif in his temperate days ; and on \nthis occafion, it is prefumed not one of her family \ncan deny the facts. From her youth up to the \nmiddle age of her life, that is, from the age of \neighteen to thirty-two, no one knew her better, \nfew fo well as himfeif. She lived almoft wholly \nin his fociety; me was as a fecond mother to his \nchildren, and his value and efteem of her had \ntheir foundation in a raoft intimate acquaintance \nand unprejudiced judgment. During the whole \nof that period, me continued his favourite and \nfriend, his condant companion, confidante, and \ncounfellor; his expreffions were the mon: affecti- \nonate towards her, and his confidence in her un- \n\n* Mrs. Meade fincerely laments that any of her connections are \ndeluded. She is not un acquainted with the means adopted to excite \nand to keep up that delufion; and me can for that reafon the more \neafily excufe it. She would hope that the time is not diilant when \nthey may fee their miftakes, which they cannot be more delirous^ \ntfcan fhe will be ready, to forget, \n\n\n\n[ 137 ] \n\n\n\nbounded. But the moment that the affections of \nher heart difpofed her to marry, he firft tried all \nmeans to defeat her plans, and afterwards never \nceafed to be her cruelleft, bittereft enemy. Since \nher marriage, he knows nothing of her chara&er \nas a wife or a mother, as the miftrefs of a family, \nor a neighbour; but thofe that do know her \nwould tell his Lordfhip, that there does not live \na woman of a more pure and fpotlefs name; nor \none whofe character is more beloved and efteemed \nby all who are acquainted with it. \n\nMr. Meade can well believe that the Bifhop \nwas at firft. completely deceived, and that, as na- \nturally as the dropping of water hollows a ftone, \nhis Lordfhip caught the prejudices of inflamed \nparties and partizans, to whom he had confined \nhimfelf, and foon became a decided enemy to Mr, \nand Mrs. Meade. His name and zeal excited \nhigh expectations in his party, and he encouraged \nthem; fo that he feems to have forgotten even his \nown idea of his being a Judge, for in the outfet of \nhis manufcript he fays that he {hall " endeavour" \nto prove that what Mrs. Meade folemnly fwore \nwas falfe ; and " that the fubjecl: was important, \nC( as it involved Mr. Daubenys char after ^ without \nany feeling for Mrs. Meade\'s. How elfe would \nany gentleman have voluntarily applied to a lady \nfuch expreffions,as u incorretl principles" \xe2\x80\x94 " deceit, 1 * \n\xe2\x80\x94 " tying" \xe2\x80\x94 "falfe-fwearing,"\xe2\x80\x94" perjury " and fuch \n\n\n\n[ 138 ] \n\n\n\nlike? What but the madnefs of prejudice could \nmake him overlook a number of contradictions \nrecited by himfelf? In the firft document he \nquotes, he faw the difficulty of rinding out fome \nplaufible objections for Mrs. Barnfton againft Mr. \nMeade. She avers " that her objections were \n" prior to the affairs abroad. " Again, " that the \ncc affairs abroad were the ground of her object- \n* c ions.\'* " She and her daughter Mrs. M. Barn- \nct fton attefted a paper which would have been \n" important for Mr. Daubeny\'s caufe, but it came \n" too late for the trial;" forgetting that Mrs. M. \nBarnfton was at the trial. Mrs. Barnfton fays, \nCc that Mr. Daubeny did not influence her by his \n" accounts again, <c that her opinion was fully \n* c decided by thefe accounts. " " Mr. Meade\'s \ncc treatment of Mrs. Barnfton affected her ob- \ntc je\xc2\xa3tions $" and, " her objections were faid to be \n<c prior to this treatment. " The Bifliop recites \nMrs. Barnfton flating Mifs Barnfton to have \nfworn, C{ that her mother was dejirous of her mar- \n* rying Mr. Meade that <c her mother wi/Iied \ni( it " &c. Mifs Barnfton fwore no fuch thing. \nHis Lordfhip continues his recital, c< that nothing \n" could alter Mrs. Barnfton\'s opinion." This lan- \nguage, though neither natural to a parent, nor to \nthe mind of Mrs. Barnfton, was much in character \nwith thofe who conveyed to her the falfe accounts \nof her daughter\'s oath, or who prepared a paper \n\n\n\n[ 139 ] \n\n\n\nfor her to fign on the fubjeft. His Lord (hip \nquotes Mrs. Barnfton faying " that her daughter \n<c was to judge for her own happinefs." And \nhe alfo quotes Mr. Daubeny defiring " that the \n" mother would judge for her daughters happi- \n" nefs." Perhaps they would all have done better \nto have left an independent woman at thirty to \njudge for her own happinefs, efpeciaily when all \nthe objections fpecified againft the manftie chofe, \nfeem to be, " that he was born in Ireland." \n\nWhy does the Biftiop pafs over, " that the letter \n" mentioned to have been written by Mrs. Meade \n" to her fifter was an anjwer to one received P Why \nnot give Mrs. M. Barnfton\'s firft letter, and Mrs. \nMeade\'s anfwer? Can it be, becaufe that firjl \nletter proves " that Mrs. Meade did not make the \n" required confeffions fo falfely imputed to her?" \nHow does it happen, that the Biftiop never quotes \nbut for one fide? Mrs. M. Barnfton\'s letter was \nfent exprefs by Mr, Daubeny to Mrs. Meade, the \nmorning after the interview, and was the firft \nftep* taken after it. \n\nThe Biftiop again fays, " that Mrs. Meade did \n<c not mention, in any letter to Mr. Daubeny or \n" other relations, the words fhe fwore to have \n" heard from him:" and therefore he would in- \nfer that Mr. Daubeny never uttered them. But \nif he had read Mifs Barnfton\'s letters, even thofe \n\n# See it in the hiftory of the interview in the Appendix. \n\n\n\n[ 140 ] \n\n\n\nwhich were before his eyes, he would have feen \nthat fhe mentioned it over and over again ; not to \nMr. Daubeny ; for why mould me ? It is difficult \nto conceive a reafon for her telling him what he \nhad told her; but to her intimates, whom it con- \ncerned to know it, (lie mentioned it, and wrote \nit almoft every day from July to Oclober. But i \nIt was Mr. Daubeny\'s aim to keep himfelf out of \nfight; and to infinuate both to Mifs Barnfton, and \nto every one elfe, that all the fufpicions and \ncharges refpefting the will originated with his \nbrothers, and not with him. Mifs Barnfton at \nfirft believed it to be fo ; and afterwards, when \nflie had good reafons for altering her opinion, fhe \nconcealed her real fentiments, and fpoke to him \nand of him in the moft favourable terms, in pros \npeel of differences being in time reconciled, and \nfamily peace reftored. " My aim," fays fhe, in \na letter to Mrs. Gunning, December 1791, " has \n" been all along to keep Mr. Daubeny out of \n*\' light; any thing to counteract this widens the \n" breach, not between Mr. Meade and Mr. Dau- \nce beny, but with all my family." But whether \nMr. Daubeny was or was not the inventor, it was \nhe who adopted and propagated the flander, and \ntherefore it was Mr. Daubeny alone whom Mr. \nMeade could make accountable for it. \n\nBut there was another evidence befides Mifs \nBarnfton\'s which was intended and ought to \n\n\n\n[ 141 y \n\nhave been called for at the trial. Why it was \nomitted is not eafy to fay; except it was that \nthe counfel faw the fa\xc2\xa3t fufficiently proved with- \nout it. In the interview which Mifs Barnflon \nhad with the Rev. Mr. Kooker, at Mr. Daubeny\'s \nhoufe, in July 1791, Mr. Hooker told her, " that \n" he had heard every thing from Mr. Daubeny \n" about the will;" he even told her, CJ that Mr. \n" Meade\'s particular friends did not care to have \ncc any thing to do in it;" and he added, " that if \nt* the quarrel between Mr. Daubeny and Mr. \ncc Meade could be adjufted, the will bufinefs was \n" too ferious a matter not to be rigidlv fcru- \n<c tinized;" and he advifed her "to guard herfelf \n<c with caution." But the Biihop fays, " there is \n" no evidence of the converfation between Mifs \n" Barnfton and Mr. Daubeny." What evidence \ncan there be of the private converfation of two per- \nfons, but the oath of the parties, and records made \nof the converfation at the time? For the dire& \nteftimony, fee Mrs. Meade\'s uncontradicted oath, \nnear fourteen years on record. For the collateral \nevidence, fee her various letters and journals al- \nready quoted, and afk her intimate friends; for \nalthough fome are dead, yet many ftil] furvive. \n\nAnd when his Lordfhip fays, " that no other \n" witnefs was called to prove the converfation," \nin the name of wonder, what witnefs could he \nexpect ? He could never expeft that Mr. Daubeny \n\n\n\n[ 142 ] \n\n\n\nwould turn againft himfelf ; and he only was \nprefent. But when his Lordfhip adds, 8 * that \n<c evidence was produced that Mr. Daubeny held \n" a different language in his family what does \nhe mean by evidence!\' Is the uncontradicted \noath of a difpaffionate witnefs no evidence; and \nthe word of an interefted man, againft whom a \nverdift on that very ground (lands recorded, re- \nceived by the Bifhop as good evidence ? In what \ncourt or code is this ufage found ? Has not the \nBifhop feen, that on the continent Mr. Daubeny \nendeavoured to prevent Mifs Barnfton attaching \nherfelf to Mr. Meade, on his own* account, and on \nhis own account folely? And that on his return \nto England he found it expedient to urge the \nmore plaufible pretence of breach of promifes, \nand of ill treatment of himfelf? And that when \nboth of thefe pleas were reje&ed by the thinking \nand independent part of Mifs Barnfton\'s family, \ninfinuations about a will were brought forward, \nand became a more ferious engine in his hands? \nAnd that when he faw this laft bulinefs muft bring \nhim into a court of law, then he might conveni- \nently have held a different language, j aft enough \nto fcreen himfelf, leaving the plot to work for \nitfelf? His Lordfhip may reft affured that there \nwere few of the Barnfton family, but muft have \ngiven a teftimonv.not inconfiftent with Mifs Barn- \n\n* See his own words in his letter already quoted, \n\n\n\n[ 143 ] \n\n\n\nfton\'s, if they alfo had been put on their oath, as \nme was. \n\nHis Lordfliip\'s language as he proceeds is very- \nextraordinary indeed! Who before him ever \nprefumed to infmuate, " that Mrs. Meade was \n" convi&ed of falfe fwearing?" Convicted! What \ndoes he mean? Does his Lordihip, w r ith all \nhis references to courts and legal ufage, know \nthe import of thefe w T ords? Does he forget the \ntrial and the verdict? Is fuch an affertion con- \nfident with juftice, or truth, or decency, or law? \nRegardlefs, however, of direct or collateral evi- \ndence, he prefumes to fay, applying it to Mrs. \nMeade, u that where a witnefs is convicted of \n** falfe fwearing in one inftance, his or her tefti- \n4( mony deferves no credit !" But Mr. Meade will \nleave the reader to judge of this language, and \nproceed with the Bilhop\'s paper. \n\nH o w h i s Lor d flii p c a n fp e ak o f c e t h e improbability 9 \nof Mr. Daubeny\'s faying any thing to prevent the \nmatch is wonderful, after he had feen Mr. Dau- \nbeny\'s own acknowledgment in his letter* to Mifs \nBarnfton; and after he had heard of his language \nbefore Mrs. Gunning; and after his Lordfhip \nhad related Mr. Daubeny\'s endeavours, in the \nprefence of Mrs. Ravenhill, to fecure Mifs Barn- \nlion from marrying Mr. Meade. All the world \nknew, that from the fird moment he fufpected an \nattachment at Spa, he proceeded from one clegree \n\n* Already quoted. \n\n\n\n[ 144 J \n\n\n\nof contrivance to another " to prevent," as he \nexpreffed it to Mrs. Gunning, " Mr. Meade from \n" carrying off a fecond io,oool. from the family.\'* \nAnd as to what Mr. Daubeny fays " that he \n" related to Mifs Barnfton, at his houfe in the \n" Crefcent, in regard to other circumftances that \n" happened at Spa;" fhe being little interefted \nin that part of the converfation, can neither fay \nwhether it is true or falfe. But it is wholly irre- \nlevant, and the Bifhop faw it was fo, and by no \nmeans proves that Mr. Daubeny did not fay the \nwords which (lie depofed to. \n\nThe Bifhop fays, " Mr. Daubeny is ready to fwear \nto the jubftance " Mrs. Meade has fworn to the \nwords ! His Lordfhip and Mr. Daubeny infer what \nher fentiments were. She has [worn to her own ! \n\nThe Bifhop\'s remark u on the confummate ad- \n" drefs with which Mr. Meade\'s papers are drawn \ncc up," is very unexpected; becaufe Mr. Meade \nnever confidered his papers as drawn up in any \norder, or indeed drawn up at all. They were \nmerely detached defcriptions of paffing circum- \nftances, with the original letters, or their copies \nconnected with them, and committed to writing \nat the time, as the events occurred, during the laft \ntwelve years. They could be no anfwer to an \nadverfary\'s ftatement, which Mr. Meade had not \nfeen. But the Biihop\'s remark appears to be \nmade for the purpofe of contrafting Mr. Meade\'s \n\n\n\n[ 145 ] \n\n\n\nhead with his heart; for it is followed by the as- \nfertion, " that there is a want of correct principle \n" in both Mr. and Mrs. Meade." An aflertion, \nfupported by fo unfair a reprefentation of a fatl \nbefore his Lordfhip\'s eyes, that it is prefumed his \nLordfhip again owes it to his character to make an \nacknowledgment for his own want of corre&nefs ; \nby which, from whatever caufe it proceeded, he \nhas fliewn himfelf unfit for the office he ajjumed \nof a judge in this cafe. His Lordfhip ventures to \nquote Mr. Meade as juftifying a violation of pro- \nmifes, on grounds fo palpably unfupported by the \npaper from which he quoted, that a more marked \ninftance of partiality or carelefsnefs was perhaps \nnever exhibited. The paper from which the \nBifhop profeffes to quote, was written by Mr. \nMeade, and was one of thofe which he entrufted \nto his Lordmip on his application; defcribing, \namong other matters, the nature of certain pro- \nmifes obtained by Mr. Daubeny from Mr. Meade \nand Mifs Barnfton feparately, the object of the \npromifes being to prevent their ever thinking of \neach other with a view to marriage. \n\nIn page 8 of that paper, it is faid, " But \n" Mr. Daubeny\'s conduit foon appeared very \nk< unjuftifiable. For availing himfelf of the afFec- \n" tion and confidence of two perfons not lefs in- \n" dependent than himfelf, he reftrefented each to \n" the other in fuch a light as to deceive both ejfeclually" \n\n\n\n[ 146 ] \n\n\n\nAgain, in pages 35, 36, 38, " Mr. Daubeny re* \n" quefted of Mifs Barnfton a facrifice out of friend* \n\xe2\x82\xacS (hip tohimfelf; adding, that Mr. Meade had \nse fpoken of her with indifference, and even with \n" difresjiecl." Again ; " and that facrifice Mr. \n<c Daubeny obtained, not by mifreprefentations only, \n<c and by engaging each feparately not to men- \n<c tion the fubjeft to the other; but by addreffing \n" both foon after their meeting, and before their \n" minds could be decided on the fubje<\xc2\xa3L" Again; \n" the facred manner of appealing, which Mr. \n* \xc2\xa3 Daubeny afcribes to Mr. Meade, he abfolutely \n66 difavows; although it makes little difference to \n*\' him whether it be true or falfe ; becaufe it is \n" clear that no one is morally or religioufly an- \n" fwerable for promifes, made with good faith, \n" but obtained by falfe refirefentations" Again; C\xe2\x82\xac c the \n" c offence,\' fays Mr. Daubeny, c is, that he was \ngc 6 deceived by Mifs Barnfton, and that Mr. Meade \n" c broke his folemn word/ Admitting this for \n" a moment to be true, without any qualification ; \n* c and admitting what is true, that fuch conducl \n<c would be zveaky unfortunate, and highly reprehen- \n" fible ; yet would it not perhaps be criminal to \n" that degree, and to that extent, in which Mr. \n\nDaubeny would have it to appear; for the inge- \n" nuity of malice cannot difcover the moft diftant \ncc fentiment of unkindnefs or injury to any one \n" living ; and the heart might have been fincere \'m \n\n\n\nt w ] \n\nafTurances, which it was unable to fulfil. But \n\ntc if every firomife was obtained by imjiojition^ then \n" perhaps there will be little queftion as to the \n* f intentions of Mr. and Mrs. Meade, and the part \n" they mould have adled." \n\n* It was plain that deception, mifrefirefentation, and \nhnfio/ition,wei\'e the grounds, all through that paper, \non which Mr. Meade expreffed the promifes not \nto be binding. But the Bifhop was pleafed to \nfujiftrefs Mr. Meade\'s reafons, and to fupply others \nfor him, " charging him," in a philippic of fome \npages, tC with a want of correct principles, in. \n" juftifying a breach of folemn promifes on the \ncc ground that Mifs Barnfton and himfelf were \n" independent, and travelled with Mr. Daubeny \n" at a joint expence;" alferting, " that Mr. Meade \n" calls a violation of facred promifes referve" \nand adding, u that deceit led Mr. and Mrs. Meade \nu to a difregard of truth 5" and this to falfe fwear- \ning, &c. with much more fuch language as this.* \n\n* Mr. Meade pointed out difiinctly to his Lordfhip thefe his own \nmifreprefentations ; who, although he could not deny them, did not \nthink proper to apologife for them. On the contrary, he adopted \na lingular ground for defence. " Mr. Daubeny\'s conduct might \n" have been exactly what you ftate it to have been," fays his Lord- \nfhip, " yet would it not juftify a breach of promife in you and \n" Mrs. Meade." How far the Bifhop acted juftly in mifreprefenting \na paper confided to his honour, or liberally, in not acknowledging \nit, Mr. Meade will not decide. But when his Lordfhip avers that \nperfons are bound by promifes obtained by impofition and deception, \n(for thefe are exactly what Mr, Meade flated) Mr. Meade appeals \nwith confidence from his Lordfhip to the fenfe of mankind, \n\n\n\n[ 148 ] \n\n\n\nInMr.Meade r spaper juft mentioned, and which \nwas mifreprefented as above, it was dated, " that \n<< Mr. Meade did at one time, while abroad, \nce propofe to open his mind to Mr. Daubeny, not \n<c in confidence, but in reproach; that there could \ncc be no reafon for his not doing fo, for that neither \n" he or Mifs Barnfton owed Mr. Daubeny any \n" duties, nor even hofpitality; for they were a \n" party of brothers and filters, all equal, travelling \n<c together at a joint expence. But that on Mifs \n" Barnfton\'s account there were invincible rea- \nf? fons againft his doing as he propofed; for flie \nff was not only fubject to him while they travelled, \n< c but much at his mercy, from the representations \n" he might and probably would make, by letters, \ncc to poifon her family at home againft Mr. Meade. \n\xc2\xab* She therefore refolved, in common prudence and \n* c neceffity, to adopt a plan of the ftricteft referve \n" while me was abroad only intending on her \nreturn home to endeavour to obtain from Mr. \nDaubeny \'s juftice and affection a releafe from \nher promifes, rather than to infift on it by charg- \ning him with unfairnefs in obtaining them. But \neven the fcripture itfelf may be attacked with at \nmomentary fuccefs, as Mr. Meade\'s paper has \nbeen. Select a few paffages, keep back a few \nfentences, don\'t mind the context, and the work \nis effected. The learned Archdeacon Paley has \nwell obferved, C( that by fuppreffing evident facts \n\n\n\n[ U9 ] \n\n\n\n* to gratify any prejudices, the beft hiftorians \ne< would lofe all authority, and fink into the cha- \n" rafter of party writers." \n\nIt was with great furprize Mr. Meade perceived \na relu&ance in the Bifhop of Lincoln to fee him. \nHe had flattered himfelf, that when his Lordfliip \nwas affured that his whole paper was full of mis- \ntakes, he would be anxious to fee the gentleman, \nwhofe wife\'s character he had attacked j and would \npaufe, before he fufFered any inve&ives to appear \nin public under his name. On this ground it was \nthat Mr. Meade was requefted by three clergymen \nto propofe a meeting with his Lordfliip, which \nthe Biihop thought proper to decline ; and in the \nmean time his paper was eagerly circulated by \nhis connexions. Like an infallible judge, his \nLordfliip conveys his fentence to the party he \ncondemns; as if he would pronounce, "you \n" think yourfelves protected, becaufe a law-fuit \n" terminated in your favour thirteen years ago; \n" but / have overturned the judgment of law; / \n" have pronounced the verdicl erroneous, and a, \n\xc2\xa3\xc2\xa3 principal witnefs perjured; / have tried the \nsc caufe again, although one of the parties knew \n<* nothing of my intentions, for / am not like \nu ordinary judges, who fee and hear both parties, \n* c Ha ing thus condemned you here, I refer you \n* f to the everlafting judgment of Him-, whom / \n\n\n\n[ 150 ] \n\n\n\n$ know better than yourfelves that you have \n" offended." \n\nBut from the Bifhop of Lincoln\'s opinion Mr. \nMeade begs to refer the reader to another divine, \nnot fo high in rank as his Lordfhip, but in learn- \ning and integrity equal to any one, the late Regius \nProirffor of Hebrew in the Univerfity of Oxford- \nNo man ftudied this affair more, and no man fo \nwell underftood it, as Dr. Blayney. He was near \na twelvemonth correfponding* on it with Mr. \nDaubeny and his friends, and having heard and \nweighed the arguments, he has left his folemn \njudgment on this cafe,dire\xc2\xa3Uy oppofite to the hafty \nopinion which the Bifhop of Lincoln has given. \n\nAfter detailing all the circumftances, as be- \ntween A. and B. and C.f he concludes with a \nce Queftion. Whether, under the circumftances \n" ftated, the parties are bound by the ties of ho- \n" nour and conference to an obfervance of pro- \n^ mifes fo exa&ed and fo given ?" \n\n" Anjwer. I am clearly of opinion, from the \n\nabove ftatement of fa&s, fuppofmg it to be juft, \n\n* His account of his correfpondence on the fubjedl was by his \npermiffion printed in a pamphlet which Mr. Meade wrote eleven \nyears ago, as an anfwer to a former attack of Mr. Daubeny. A \nfew copies of which Mr. Meade ftill has. \n\nf The whole is an admirable compofition, and a fine fpecimen of \njuft reafoning. The original is in Mr. Meade\'s poffeffion, who has \nkeen always difpofed to mew this or any other document quoted \nor referred to in this book, to gentlemen whom a liberal motiye \ninduced to wifh to fee it. \n\n\n\n[ 151 ] \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab that neither A. nor B. are under any obligation \n" whatever to fulfil promifes made under fuch \n* undue influence. It is not ftated what intereft \n\xc2\xab C. had in the performance of thefe promifes : \n<c but be it what it will, no man is allowed in \n" juftice to avail himfelf of his own wrongdealing. \n** A court of equity would without any hefitation \nu dilfolve any obligation into which fraud or de- \n" ception had entered : the aft would not be \n\xc2\xab deemed voluntary; for it would be prefumed \n" that the will of the parties would not have con- \n" curred in it, had the matter been ftated as it \n" ought to have been. And I fee no reafon why \nu a court of honour and confcience fhould not \n" upon the fame principles determine in like \nM manner. It was not juft or honourable inC to \n" exa& fuch promifes by fuch means. But with \n" refpecl to the parties that promifed, I will take \n<c upon me to maintain, that if they are confcious \n" they mould not have entered into the engage- \nment, but for the impofltion ; they are as free \n" in honour and confcience to follow the bent of \n" their own inclinations, as if no fuch promife \n" had ever exifted. Benj. Blayney." \n\nTo the above fhall be added the opinion of \nanother dignitary of the church, formed after \nreacting the Bifhop of Lincoln\'s papers; and to \nwhom, as a perfeft ftranger to Mr, Meade, thefe \n\n\n\n[ 152 ] \n\n\n\npapers, with all other neceffary documents which \nthe Bifhop had feen, were referred by Mr. George \nSandford, for the candid opinion of a difpaffionate \nman, \n\ncc To George Sandford, Efq. \n" Dear Sir, \n\nct I return you Mr. Meade\'s papers ; and after \n" the moll impartial investigation of them, with \n(( the Bifhop of Lincoln\'s reafoning on the Subject, \n" the refult is a conviction in my own mind that \n(e Mr ? Daubeny, unwilling that his fifter-in-law \n" mould marry, did procure promifes from her and \n" Mr. Meade Separately, not to proceed in fuch \n<c a connection; who having difcovered imposition \n" that had been practifed on them, no longer \n(e confidered themfelves bound by promifes fo ob- \nec tained. That Mr. Daubeny having unbounded \n" influence over Mrs. Barnfton did prevail on her \n" to oppofe the match; and though Mrs. Meade, \nf ! very truly I believe, fwore that me had obtained \nKi her mother\'s confent ; yet * I think it equally \n<c clear, that, under the influence of Mr. Daubeny, \n" fhe did not wifli her daughter to marry Mr. \n" Meade, But I by no means confider this as \n<c inconfiftent with Mrs. Meade\'s oath; and that \n" ^ T .r. Daubeny did endeavour to prevent the mar- \n" riage, by afperfions on Mr. Meade\'s character, \n" is proved, I think, beyond a poffibility of doubt. \na And therefore, with the verdict of a jury againft \n\n\n\n[ ^3 1 \n\n\n\ncc him, I cannot agree with the Bifliop of Lincoln \n* that he has in every refpecl acted with the \n" flricTteffc propriety. But on the other hand, \n<e with regard to Mr. and Mrs. Meade, their con- \nM duel: appears to me confiftent with the ftricleft \n\xc2\xab honour; and Mrs. Meade exhibits, in her con- \n" duct and her letters, fuch an inftance of filial \n" piety and Chriftian charity, as is, I think, rarely \n" to be met with." \n\n* The above is the opinion of a divine, a dig- \nc nitary in our church, who w T as educated at \n\' Cambridge with the Bifliop of Lincoln, and \n\' who never faw Mrs. Meade, nor Mr. Meade,, \n\' until I laid before him the Biftiop\'s attack on \n\' them both in forty-one pages. \n\n* George Sandford.\'* \n\nIf the Bifhop of Lincoln had entered on this \naffair unprejudiced as others did, he would have \naiked Mr. Daubeny, " what do you mean by the \n" expreffions you ufed to Mifs Barnfton in June \n<c 1790, when me told you that her mother had \n<c confented to her marrying, and defired her to go \n" to perfuade you, c What do you think of my \n<c c wife and me ; are we to be Jacrificed?\' What \n" do you mean by reminding Mifs Barnfton, in \n<c your letter in July 1790, 6 that fhe affured you \n\xe2\x96\xa0 \xe2\x82\xac f abroad, that me would never facrifice you or \n\n9 Mr. Meade has the original of this letter. \n\n\n\n[ 154 ] \n\n\n\n** Betfey to any man whatever F What right had \n<c you to fuch a promife, fuppofing her to have \n" made fuch? What juft motive could have in- \n** duced you to affume the government of a \ncc woman, upwards of thirty years of age, whofe \n** father had left her independent, and whofe \ntc mother at all times declared her to be her own \n" miftrefs ? What pretence had you as a brother- \n" in-law, or any man, to procure promifes ineon- \n* 4 fiftent with her happinefs, and binding her for \n4C ever-, although if you really wimed to know her \n* c mother\'s opinion, ten days would have brought \n* c it to you ? But did not the line you purfued \ncc anfwer your purpofe better, by entangling her \n" with promifes, and then enforcing the obfer- \n<c vance of them by the fancYion of religion ?" \n\nThe opinion of the Bifliop, " that it is probable \n(i Mr. Daubeny would have written home mildly \n" and impartially to Mifs Rarnfton\'s friends," is \ncontradicted by fa\xc2\xa3ts, and by the event, and by \nMr. Daubeny himfelf. What he would have done> is \nproved by what he did! But his Lordfhip mould \npoint out, why Mifs Barnfton mould have men* \ntioned any attachment of her\'s to her brother-in- \n]aw, if me did not in prudence or in her own \njudgment think proper to do fo. \n\nThe Bifliop fays, " Indeed, Mr. and Mrs. Dau- \n" beny both repeatedly urged Mifs Barnfton to \nw write to her mother!" Indeed they did not I \n\n\n\n[ 155 ] \n\n\n\nAnd in this cafe Mr. Daubeny muft be the evi- \ndence againft his Lordfhip ; for in his letter to \nMifs Barnfton, July 1790, he reminds her that at \nSpa, immediately after Mr. Meade\'s firft arrival, \nand when Mr. Daubeny fufpecled that an attach- \nment might take place, " fhe made decided pro- \n<c mifes againft Mr. Meade he avers, " that his \n* c confidence in her was implicit, and his gratitude Jo \nCi unbounded for the finking mark of her affeclion, \nCi that (he could not fuppofe he could ever fee the \n<c fubjecl differently."* If he had then at the very \noutjet obtained promifes on which he imjdicitly \ndepended^ and which he received with unbounded \ngratitude as a mark of affe&ion to bimfelf, on a fub- \njecl on which he could never change his opinion ; \nhow can he pretend to fay, or how can any man \nof common fenfe believe, " that he urged Mifs \n<c Barnfton repeatedly to write for her mother\'s \nis opinion ?" \n\nIn the fame letter he again aflerts, that when \nthey were returning to England from Italy, Mr. \nMeade having quitted the party, fhe affured him, \n" that though it might coft her a little, fhe would \nc * give up Mr. Meade, that (lie would never facri- \n** fice him\\ or Betfey;" and he adds, \xc2\xab c this was the \n\n* The original is in Mr. Meade\'s pofTelEon. \n\nf Thefe are Mr. Daubeny\'s words; whether they were exactly \nMifs Barnfton\'s words and meaning, is another queltion. \n\n\n\n[ i$6 ] \n\n\n\nec firfi time you gave us to underftand you were to \nu deeply interefted in Mr. Meade." If then this \nwas the firft time he heard it, will any one believe \nthat he repeatedly urged her to write for her \nmother\'s opinion ; and on a matter to which he \neonfefles fo much averfion, and which he could \nnever fee differently ? \n\nHis LordOiip fays, " Surely there could be no \ncc other caufe for her not writing to her mother, \n" but the belief that it would be difagreeable to \n" her/\' Mrs. Meade\'s oath proved that that was \nnot the caufe! It was. Mr. Daubeny (he was afraid \nof, not her mother. Her mother " left her to pleafe \n* \xc2\xa3 herfelf" Mr. Daubeny bound her by p\'omifes I \nShe knew that if fhe had written to her mother \nfrom the Continent, the fame poft would proba- \nbly have conveyed letters from Mr. Daubeny to \nprejudice her mother and her friends againfl Mr. \nMeade. Nor did (lie fee occafion for writing j \nbecaufe fhe was convinced that a word of obje&- \nion would never have been furmifed againfl her \nchoice by any of her family. But in fhort (lie did \nnotwrite to her mother, becaufe the did not want \nto marry abroad. She did not choofe it. The \nBifhop aiks, " Why fhe did not open the matter \n" to her mother immediately on her coming home?" \n\nIf Mrs. Meade is to anfwer all the interroga- \ntories of a crofs-examiner, fhe would reply, u be- \n" caufe me thought proper to wait until Mr, \n\n\n\n[ 157 ] \n\n\n\n" Meade iliould come to make her an offer, 7 \' \nwhich he did within a fortnight after her arrival \nAnd fee are, as fhe flattered herfelf, of her mo- \nther\'s confent, and unwilling to charge Mr. Dau- \nbeny with deception, injuftice, or unfair influ- \nence in obtaining promifes from her abroad, flie \nrather indulged the hope that when her happinefs \nwas declared to be at (take, he might be prevailed \non to give way, and that family friendfhip might \nbe thus reflored. \n\nHis Lordtliip fays, cc that Mrs. Meade held a \nu different language in her family, to what fee \n" fwore to." Vague as this charge is, it is \nfounded in perverfion. The Bifhop mould have \nalked Mr. Daubeny, " to what part of her family? \ncc To thofe (he could truft in, or thofe me could \n" not?" If a perfon praftife againft my honour \nand happinefs, is referve towards him deceit P Is \nit any wonder, if a man want to break into my \nhoufe, that I do not mew him my faftenings ? \nMrs. Meade is ready now, as (lie was on former \noccafions, to acknowledge, that to thofe of her \nfamily under Mr. Daubeny\'s influence, fhe did \nnot always difclofe the whole of her heart; becaufe \npf what flic did difcover, Mr. Daubeny made vl \nbad ufe. She in faft adopted a line of conduct \nto which (lie uniformly adhered. Earner!: in en- \ndeavours for family peace, and having no hope of \nit but by conciliatory meafures, (he determined \n\n\n\nC 158 } \n\n\n\nto fay at all tim\xc2\xb0s every thing {he confcientioufly \ncould to (often, but not aword if poffible to irritate. \nOf which temper advantage was often taken, and \nher expreftions of kindnefs turned againft herfelf. \nBut the Bifhop, who was a ftranger to Mrs. Barn- \nfton\'s family, has little idea of the influence with \nwhich Mr. Daubeny reigned in it. \n\nThe Bifhop, though a total ftranger to Mr. and \nMrs. Meade and their connections, adopts the \nunfounded affertion, <c that they do all in their \nC6 power to injure the character of Mr. Daubeny \nFor this affertion the Bifhop produces no autho- \nrity! But if there were truth in it, it would come \nwith an ill grace from his Lordfhip, after the un- \nprovoked invectives which are circulating under \nhis name againft the characters of Mr. and Mrs. \nMeade, from whom he experienced nothing \nbut liberality and candour. But they venture to \ncite his Lordfhip on this occafion, as evidence \nagainft himfelf. He admits, (but with a very \ndifferent view) the uniform difpofition to peace in \nboth Mr. and Mrs. Meade. But his Lordfhip \nmakes this acknowledgment only to ground a \nfrefti attack on them. No wonder they mould \ndefire peace, " for it is obvioufly the intereft, (fays \n<c the Bifhop) of the offending party to prefs for \n4C reconcilement and oblivion." The common \nopinion of men is fomewhat different ; it being \nahnoft an axiom that the injurer never forgives* \n\n\n\nt 159 ] \n\nand that the wrong-doer is never at reft But if \nMr. and Mrs. Meade had not fought* for family \npeace, what would a Chrillian Bifhop then have \nthought and faid of them ? \n\nThe ftory which the Bimop recites from Mr. \nDaubeny, relative to a converfation with Mr. \nMeade at Spa about his brothers, is really fo per- \nverted as to affume a complexion totally different \nfrom what was intended. But fuch mifreprefen- \ntations have been not unfrequent with Mr. Meade\'s \nadverfary, and have fometimes been but too fuc- \ncefsful. The ftory is fo diftorted, that Mr. Meade \nmay almoft deny it altogether ; although Mr. \nDaubeny afferts that with cold and prudent fore- \niight " he noted down words," which a brother, \nin the clofeft bonds of friendship and confidence, \nfpoke to him without fufpicion or referve. What \nhe fays of Mr. John Daubeny in particular, is \nmifreprefented with lingular want of generofity. \nHe is now dead ; and Mr. Meade is ready to ac- \nknowledge that he experienced from him uni- \nformly brotherly kindnefs. And even after the \nunfortunate difference with the Rev. C. Daubeny \nterminated in a law-fuit, and when two or three \n\n* With this mode of i eafoning a fhrewd advocate might take up \neither fide of the queftion, and equally condem Mr. and Mrs^ \nMeade. If they are difpofed to peace \xe2\x80\x94 it is a fign of their being \nin the wrong. If they are averfe to peace \xe2\x80\x94 it is certain they are \nwrong. But the logician knows, that in the fpecies of fyllogifm \ncalled dilemma? " Argument atio nihil promt qua contradifioria \n* prbbat." \n\n\n\n[ 160 ] \n\n\n\nyears feemed to have worn out the fharpnefs of \nits remembrance, Mr. John Daubeny having oc- \ncafion to write to Mr. Meade, did it with a kind- \nnefs and civility that were highly creditable to him, \nand which Mr. Meade felt and acknowledged. \n\nTo the C\xc2\xa3 Three Queftions" gravely put at the \nbeginning of the Bifhop\'s fermon, Mr. Meade with \nequal gravity begs to jefer to the Bifhop himfelf \nfor the anfwer. His Lordfhip can by this time \ngive as fatisfa&ory a reply to them as any one. \nAnd in return Mr. Meade would a(k his Lord- \nfhip one queftion. " Is it confident with any \n<c principle of juftice, of candour, or of common \n" fenfe, that a perfon putting himfelf forward, and \n" pretending to be a Judge between two others, \n6S mould affociate with, and conftantly liften to, \n" and receive every impreffion which one party \n" chofe to give, and never think of feeing the \n" other, nor ever let him know the evidence on \n" which he was to be condemned; but on the \n" contrary, when informed that the fa&s he quoted \n<c could be fhewn to be falfe, and his authorities \n" could be all difproved, mould evade feeing the \n<e party who could fet him right; and in the mean \n" time fufFer his judgment to be circulated?" \n\nBut from the Bifhop\'s opinion that Mrs. Meade\'s \nmother, fitters, and other relations, that is, " thofe \n" immediately conne&ed with Mr. Daubeny, 5 \' \nwere required neither by religion nor morality to \n\n\n\n[ 161 ] \n\n\n\nlive with Mr. and Mrs. Meade in terms of friend- \n(hip until retribution be made,* whether it can \nbe eonfcientioufly made or not 5 Mr. Meade ap- \npeals to a divine of the old fchool, from whom \nMrs. Meade quoted the following paffage into \nthe lad letter fhe ever wrote to her mother: \xe2\x80\x94 <c If \n<c any one offend, the evil is with him, and he \n" has mod caufe to be troubled. Little injuries \n" fliould not move us; if great, there is more \n" magnanimity in forgiving; for it is the glory of \n" a man to pafs over a tranfgreffion. We muft \n" forgive one another, as God for Chrifl\'s fake \n" forgives us. But who is to go to be reconciled ; \n" the offender, or the offended ? Both ! that re- \n" concilement may be fure. If reftitution be firfl \n" required, if prefent fatisfac"h\'on be demanded, we \n" mould rather chide our unbelieving hearts that \ntc cannot wait for that day when it will be better \n" for the offended, and worfe for the offender, if \n\n* The Bilhop feems afraid to ftate the queftian fairly. He feems \nto feel certain doubts. Therefore he does not pronounce " that \n" religion and morality juliify the everlafting feparation of a parent \n"from her child, of fiflers from afifter but he includes all under \nthe fweeping expreffion of " thofe immediately connected with \nH Mr. Daubeny are neither required by religion or morality to Jive \n" with Mr. and Mrs. Meade in terms of friendfhip until, &c." Does \nhis L^dfhip mean roundly to fay, " that it is juftifiable to order \n(< fervants to put away children from their grandmother\'s doors^ \n(( and to refufe a daughter admittance into her mother\'s houfe, where \n" fhe goes with chriftian folicitations for reconcilement and love. ?} *- \nfor this is the way the queftion mould be ftated. \n\nM \n\n\n\n[ m ] \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xacC it be not done before. " And if on fo impor" \ntant a fubjeft as Chriftian Charity, Mr. Meade \nventures to differ from a bifliop,* he muft plead \nimpreffions early imbibed from venerable divines \nnow in their graves ; one of whom/j* perfuaded \nthat on this very point Mrs. Barnfton was miftaken \nwhen {he quoted her Bible,wrote to her, " that \n* c fhe ufed a commentator very different from his." \nAnd indeed, under any other interpretation of \nfcripture than the above, Mr. Meade profefTes \nhimfelf incompetent to underftand the chriftian \ndo\xc2\xa3trine and precept of charity, or to explain the \nmeaning of St. Paul in the laft verfes of the 12th \nEpiftle to the Romans, and 3d to the Coloffians. \n\nThe reader, after perufing this pamphlet, which \nis in fa& a vindication of the laws, as well as of \nindividuals, will judge whetherthere can be traced \nin it " felf-deception," \'* fophiflical reafoning," \n\n* In differing on this fubject from the Bifhop of Lincoln, and \nArchdeacon Daubeny, Mr. Meade has the fatisfa&ion of finding \nhimfelf fupported by every clergyman, and every confiderate lay- \nman, whom he knows. He finds that the doctrine of his opponents \nis not only new to him, but that the terms made ufe of are unintel- \nligible. In thofe excellent letters quoted in the Appendix, Mr. \nStevens having endeavoured, with chriftian perfuafion, to prevail on \nMr. Daubeny " to fuffer the children and grand-children of Mrs, \n" Barnfton to afTemble round the good old lady, and with a kifs \n" of love to bury every thing in oblivion Mr. Daubeny wrote \nin repiy that fuch conducl would not be " chriftian charity," but \n** chriftian folly I" What thefe laft words import, Mr. Daubeny an4 \nhis friends muft explain ! \n\nf Archdeacon Coham t \n\n\n\nI 163 ] \n\n" deceitful pra&ices," " lying/\' c< falfe-fwearing,\' \' \n" perjury," &c. ; for thefe are among the intem- \nperate expreffions which the Bifhop of Lincoln \nmifapplies to Mr. and Mrs. Meade. His Lordfhip \nwould even be thought to feel tendernefs for thofe \n.whom he would thus brand with everlafting in- \nfamy, calling on them to confefs all this compli- \ncated depravity, as a means " of reconciliation \nc c honourable to both parties." The world muft \njudge on which fide there is fophiftry ! \n\nHis Lordfhip having conveyed to Mr. Meade \nthe above catalogue of black accufations, apolo- \ngizes, with an appearance of ferioufnefs, (which \nMr. Meade confidered as irony) for not fending \nthis infult to him fooner ; his Lordfhip even gravely \nex pre fling " his farrow that he was not able to \n" do it before." And his excufe for this attack \non the honour of Mr. Meade\'s family is a Angular \none, viz. that the latter, with confidence in his \nown caufe, and with too unfufpe&ing liberality \ntowards a ftranger, had candidly trujied his Lord- \nfhip with papers. " For (to ufe the Bifhop\'s \n" words*) you had full power to withhold your \n" papers; and as you communicated them to me \ncc immediately, and without any objection, I muft \n" confideryou asvoluntarilyf fending them tome." \n\n* In a letter, O&ober 22, 1805. \nt The Bifhop fhould have ftated that Mr. Meade fent his papers \nnot fp taneoujly, bat that on application from his Lordfhip he volun* \n#rily- complied with what he conceived to be his Lordfhip\'s wifheq, \n\nM 2 \n\n\n\n[ m ] \n\n\n\nBut fuppofing this to be correctly ftated, did not \nMr. Meade deferve at leafl the return of knowing: \nthat his Lordfhip propofed to re-judge the trial \nand the whole caufe, on fuch papers as Mr. \nMeade might fend him? Was Mr. Meade not \nentitled to the juflice, if not to the civility, of an \nenquiry, whether the anecdotes, and ftofies, and \nreprefentations of an opponent were admitted, or \ncould be difproved ? The world muft judge, whe- \nther it is doing as a man would be done by, to \ncirculate, in public and private, fuch an attack as \nthe Bifhop\'s, on the grounds which his Lordfhip \nadopted; endeavouring even to poifon the public \nmindi by introducing the fubjecl: flyly, and as it \nwere obiter ^ into refpe&able and popular publi- \ncations of a literary kind, and unfuitable to the \ndifcuffion of perfonal quarrels. If the characters \nof perfons, even of perfons whom the laws of the \nland have publicly protected, are to be thus at \nthe mercy of an individual, who will venture to \ntruft even a letter out of his hands? \n\nMr. Meade has had his conflict with Mr. Dau- \nbeny ; and the laws have publicly pronounced \nupon it. \n\nAfter a lapfe of thirteen years, the Bifhop of \nLincoln has volunteered as a champion for Mr, \nDaubeny in the fame caufe. How his Lordfhip \nhas fucceeded in his part of the ftruggle, the world \nwill judge. \n\n\n\n[ 165 ] \n\n\n\nAnd now having gone through the Bifhop\'s \npaper, Mr. Meade will beg leave to apply to his \nLordfhip his own words. " It requires great \n" firmnefs of mind to make confeffions ; and that \n<c firmnefs can be derived only from thisconfider- \n<c ation, that however humiliating confeffion may \n" be thought in this world, it will certainly be \n<c profitable in the next. Let the Bifhop confider \nce that he has done his utmoft to deprive an inno- \n" cent woman of her character. She fmcerely \n<\xc2\xa3 forgives him, as achriftian; and me hopes that \n<c his Lordlhip, being undeceived, has magnani- \nu mity and juflice enough to confefs it." \n\nMr. Meade having finifhed his reply to the \nBifhop of Lincoln, and having ihewn the preju- \ndices with which his Lordfhip began the bufinefs, \nthe unfair manner in which he conduced it, and \nthe uncharitable conclufions deduced and propa- \ngated from it, rauft here take leave to make fome \ngeneral remarks on his Lordfhip\'s behaviour. \n\nAnd it is in the firft place to be obferved, that \nhis Lordfhip, having taken upon him an office, for \nwhich it is prefumed he had Mr. Daubeny\'s vote 5 \nlays down, more than once, canons of evidence. \nSome material rules, however, he has overlooked ; \nas that ec to contradict the oath of a competent wit- \n\n\n\n[ 166 ] \n\n\n\ncc nefs, the private ajfertion of any perfon, much \n" Iefs of an interefted party, is not confidered as \n" authority. \n\n<c Secondly, That the beft evidence, of which a \n* c cafe is capable, is always required. \n\n" Thirdly, That perfons who were able, and \n" were fummoned, to attend at a trial, and did \n" not venture to do fo, are not permitted to ftig- \n* c matize a judgment. \n\n" And, fourthly, That partizans, if liftened to \n" at all, mould be heard with caution, and never \n\xe2\x82\xacC implicitly relied on." \n\nIf thefe rules were not obferved, there would \nbe no prote&ion in the laws. \n\nThe Bifhop complains that Mr. Meade did not \nproduce original documents ; but his Lordfliip is \nmiftaken. Mr. Meade fent him fuch original \npapers, as in his own judgment were neceflary; \nand to fave trouble, he referred to other papers, \nand to perfons, as he does in this pamphlet; Mr. \nMeade conceiving it to be his Lordfhip\'s duty to \nwait on him, or on thofe perfons to whom he \nreferred, if it mould be required to compare re- \nferences with originals. But his Lordfliip never \nexpreffed for what purpofe,or with what views, he \nwas to perufe Mr. Meade\'s papers, nor hinted to \nMr. Meade that he would wifh for any other do- \ncuments than thofe he had. The intimation that \nhis Lordihip had feen all Mr. Daubeny\'s papers, \n\n\n\n[ 167 ] \n\n\n\nwas too vague for Mr. Meade to meet every in- \nvention of an a&ive mind. Mr. Meade fent to \nthe Bifhop fuch papers as he conceived would \nbe fufficient to fatisfy him, becaufe they had fatis- \nfled every one elfe ; and he promifed to Jupply^him \nwith any farther information, if he fhould wifli for \nmore. But Mr. Meade little expelled that his \ncharacter mould, without any notice, be fet afloat \nin the world by an unexampled torrent of Clock- \ning invectives, poured out againfl himfelf and his \nwife, in his Lordfhip\'s name; for, to ufe the words \nof the Bifhop of Durham, to whom Mr. Daubeny \nhad more than once applied, " he could not think \n" that any bifhop, or any man, would take upon \n" himfelf the re-judging a caufe that had been \n" already decided at law. 5 \' And Mr. Meade, in \nthe papers which he conveyed to the Bifhop of \nLincoln, having exprefsly told him fo, did not \nfend a fingle document refpecling the trial! But \nhis Lordfliip taking upon himfelf to decide on the \ntrial, without any legal means of judging; and on \nMrs. Meade\'s heart and intentions, without ever \nfeeing her, endeavours to invalidate by perverted \nor mirlaken fcraps of letters, the teftimony of an \nuncontradicted oath. And although his attention \nwas by Mr. Meade\'s papers directed to the point, \nhe will not fuffer his eye to glance towards any of \nthe motives that might have actuated Mr. Dau- \nbeny. He fpeaks decifively on a point which can \n\n\n\n[ 168 ] \n\n\n\nbe known only to God ; and will not admit even \nthe fuppolition of Mr. Daubeny\'s influence in the \nBarnfton family, of which there is pofitive proof. \n\nInftead of putting thofe queftions to Mrs. \nMeade at the end of his philippic, would it not \nhave been more candid in the Biftiop to have \nalked himfelf, cc Is it confiftent with any principle \nf e of juftice, to make bold aifertions to the injury \nCf of another\'s good name, without feeing the \n" accufed, as I have feen the accufer? Is it doing \n6e as I would be done by, to adopt facts, however \n" plaufible, from one party, without enquiring \ncc whether the other party could difprove them?" \n\nThefe are plain queftions: Will the Bifhop \nbe able to juftify his conduct by the anfvver? \n\nAnd before he ventured to decide againft a ver- \ndict, his Lordfhip might have put fome relevant \nqueftions to Mr. Daubeny. As, " If you owed it to \n<c the church, as you fay, and to your own family, to \nce defend your character, why did you not do it? \ncc If you were really unprepared for Mifs Barn- \n<c fton\'s evidence, why did you not move for a \n" new trial, when you had heard that evidence ? If \n" you thought it your duty, as a good citizen, to \ntc fubmit to a verdicl:, why have you without \n<c ceaftng oppofed it ? If you publifh to the \n<c world (hocking charges againft Mrs. Meade, \n" why did you not produce them where they \n" might have been examined?" And, " if you \n\n\n\nI 169 ] \n\nc< you are ftriving to deftroy her character, bow \n" can you affect tendernefs* for her.\'\' His Lord- \nflii p might alfo have added, " What was the rea- \n" fon, that after Mrs. Barnflon had been made \n4< ufe of to threaten that fhe was, determined to go \n" into Court to oppofe her daughter, what was \nf* the reafon, that when Mr. Meade\'s attorney \n* c ferved her with a fubpoena, (lie cried out in \n" terror to be let off; and that Mr. Meade, in- \n* c formed of her dillrefs, fent her a meffage, thro\' \n* her lifter Mrs. Ravenhill, that, whatever might \n" be the inconvenience to him and his caufe, he \n?! would not infift on her appearing in Court. "f \n\nInftead of fuch obvious enquiries, his Lordfliip \nmakes affertions which may fuit any caufe, and \ntalks with moil folemnity when his own is weak- \nell. In order to give weight to a very erroneous \n\n* The reader will recollect that Mr. Daubeny, who labours to \nbrand Mrs. Meade with infamy, avers that he bore public difgrace \nwith the lofs of his money, rather than defend himfelf at the ex- \npence of wounding her character in court ; yet his behaviour to her \nin court was fo unfeeling, that he was ordered by Lord Kenyon \nto retire from it. And with all his excefs of charity to her, he ftill \npronounced it to be chrifiian folly to admit of general oblivion and \nforgivenefs. \n\nf It was againft the opinion of Dr. Blayney that Mr. Meade did \nnot Infift on Mrs. Barnfton\'s attending in Court. The Doctor, as \nwell as Mr. Meade, was convinced that her evidence, if given on \n\xe2\x80\xa2atb, muft be important for Mr. Meade\'s caufe. See Dr. Blayney\'s \nletter already printed. Mr. Meade difpenfed with Mrs. Raven- \nhill\'s attendance at the fame time, and received her thanks for the \nindulgence. But his indulgence to Mrs. Barnfton is turned againft \nhimfelf. ... \n\n\n\n[ 170 ] \n\nand unnatural paper, reflecting on Mrs. Meade, \nhe gravely avers, i( that it was dated the nth of \n" June 1 792, and fignedby Mrs. Barnfton herfelf."J \n\nIn defcribing Mrs. Meade\'s interview with her \nmother, his Lordlhip relates every thing for one \nfide, not a word on the other. He ftates thus: \n6c Mr. Daubeny folemnly fays,\' 1 " Mr. Daubeny fo- \n" lemnly declares, fo and fo." 6C Mr. Daubeny Jent \n" an account to all the branches of the family " 6C In- \n" deed! Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny did, fo and fo/\' \n" The following is Mr, Daubeny s account " which \nis related in full. iC Mrs. Meade gave a different \n" account;\' 9 but not a word of it is mentioned. \n" To which the following anfwer was given" all of \nwhich is recited. \n\nSuch is the ftyle and mode of arguing for one \nparty. On the other fide, Mrs. Meade is convi&ed, \n" becaufe Mr. Daubeny and his party aver, that \ncc Mrs. Meade to this did not fay any thing " that \n\n% The Bifhop makes great parade about the evidence of two or \nthree papers figned by old people, who, for aught his Lordfhip \nknew, were misinformed, or dependent, or frightened. Did he \nafk, whether the papers were verified on oath? Whether thofe that \nfigned them, firft even read them by themfelves ? Whether they \nfairly enquired of unbiafTed people into the truth of what they were \ncalled on to fign ? Has it appeared on oath, that thofe who compofed \nthe papers were not interefted parties or partizans ? Has there been a \ncrofs-examination, or any examination ? Or has the Bifhop afcribed \na legal folemnity to papers which were deficient in every legal cha- \nracter ? And by fuch documents would he overturn the moft folemn \nidepifions of law? But after all, are the papers, even fuch as they \nare, any thing to the main queftions? \n\n\n\n[ 171 ] \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xac<r Mrs. Meade gave no anfwer" "that Mrs. Meads \n" could not deny" &c. \n\nWhen Mrs. Meade\'s chara&er and conduct \nfrom her childhood are fuggefted as alone argu- \nments againft odious charges, " her character is \nCi nothing to the purpofe," his Lordfhip fays; \nforgetting that he quoted, as an argument againft \nher, the letter of a gentleman who never faw her; \nand that he had quoted as arguments for Mr. \nDaubeny, " that the late Archbifhop of Canter- \nc< bury approved of his nomination to the New- \n" Church ; that the Bifhop of Salisbury made him \n" an archdeacon; that Biihop Mofs thought well \n" of him ; and that the Bifhop of Durham* under- \n<c ftood from thofe that knew him, that he was \n" above cenfure and fufpicion." \n\nThat thefe venerable and truly refpeclable \nBifhops did honour to any man, of whom ihey \nthought well, is unqueftionable ; and their notice \nof Mr. Daubeny is one, among many weighty \nreafons, for Mr. Meade\'s wifhing that this whole \naffair mould have funk into oblivion. But the \nBifhop of Lincoln has forced it into notice ; and \nwhether he has ferved the caufe of his friend, or \nthe caufe of religion, the world mult now judge. \n\nIf anecdotes and llories recited on the authority \nof Mr. Daubeny fliall appear to the reader abfo- \n\n* See, in the Appendix, the Biihop of Lincoln\'s correfpondence \nwith Mr. Meade. \n\n\n\n[ 172 ] \n\n\n\nlately unfounded, what will be thought of Mr. \nDaubeny\'s credit as an accufer? And if the \nBifliop of Lincoln cannot deny that he has mani- \nfeftly mifi eprefented the fenfe of a paper, which \nMr. Meade in candour and confidence trufted \nto him on his own application, what will be \nthought of his Lordfhip\'s impartiality as a judge \nin this cafe ? \n\nWhen affertions are made refpecting Mr. Saw- \nbridge,* which are proved not to be founded in \nfa&, the Bifhop fays nothing! When Mr. Dau- \nbeny ventures to quote Admiral Stanhope to a \nfact, which the Admiral declares not to be founded \nin truth, his Lordfhip thinks it unneceflfary to \nenquire. When it is afferted that " Bifhop Mofs \n* f pronounced Mrs. Meade perjured," and Mr. \nMeade proves the affertion falfe; the Bifliop \nof Lincoln fays only, that Bifliop Mofs thought \nwell of Mr. Daubeny and his caufe. When \nftories are recited by the Bifliop of Lincoln him- \nfelf, and circulated by his immediate family, tend^ \ning to injure the character of Mrs. Meade, and \nthefe ftories are proved to be utterly without foun- \ndation ; his Lordfliip again only fays, that they \nare nothing to other points. And when his own \npalpable mifreprefentations are pointed out^to \n\n* See inftances in Mr. Meade\'s firll pamphlet, page io5, and in \nthe Bifhop\'s paper in the Appendix. \n\n\n\n[ 173 ] \n\n\n\nhim, fo far is he from apologifing, that he fhifts \nhis ground, and ftates his opinion, that Mr. Meade \nmuft be wrong either way. Yet his Lordlhip \ncontinues faying, " if you prove l am miftaken in \n*f any point, I will give it up."f \n\nOf this however others will judge, when they \nare informed that Mr. Meade referred his Lord- \nfhip to the Rev. Mr. Sawbridge, who can contra- \ndict the alfertions refpe&ing him 5 \xe2\x80\x94 to Admiral \nStanhope, who will deny what is faid of him; \xe2\x80\x94 \nto the Rev. Dr. Mofs\'s letter for his father, to \nthe meffage brought by Archdeacon Barker to \nDr. Blayney from Dr. Mofs, and to Bifhbp Mofs\'s \nown letter, to difprove the fa& alferted of his \nLordmip; \xe2\x80\x94 to a coachmaker, who can contradift \nanother; \xe2\x80\x94 to Mr. Goddard\'s letters, which are \nfufficient to difprove another; \xe2\x80\x94 and to the paper \nwhich his Lordfliip mifreprefented, to decide \nagainft himfelf in that inftance. \n\nThe letters of approbation which the Bifhop \nof Lincoln quotes as written to himfelf, or to Mr. \nDaubeny, are anfwers to their own letters, which \nconveyed their own accounts-, and if they had added \nto their account, " that Mrs. Meade had commit- \n" ted murder," it would only have increafed the \nhorror intended to be excited. But in the name \n\nf Is not this like the man in the play, who fays, " Let me hear \n" your reafons \xe2\x80\x94 I love to hear reafons when my mind is made up 9 \n" for then they can dp no hgrm. ,J \n\n\n\nE 174 ] \n\n\n\nof common-fenfe and juftice, what have thefe \nletters to do with the argument ? \n\nHis Lordfhip fays, " that one of the parties \n* muft be guilty!" Lord Kenyon and a fpecial \nJury thought fo too ! And as to reparation, \nwhich his Lord (hip fays " is due to the injured \ncc party," the law, confidering Mr. Meade as \nthe injured party, fatisfied him by protecting his \ncharacter, which was all the reparation he defired. \n\nMr. Daubeny told Mrs. Meade in one of his \nletters, (it isprefumed, to make the family believe \nthat the penalty he had paid remained inher hands, \nand that the various expences of the fuit did not \nfwallow it up) he told her, " that he hoped the atrfe \nec of ill-gotten riches would not fooner or later \n* c reft on her and her children." But he knows \nrow at leaft, that (he is effectually fecured from \nthe danger of that curfel \n\nThe Bifttop, having pretty plainly afcribed to \nMrs. Meade a variety of wickednefs, charitably \nfinds out a motive for her, viz. cc that fhe fought \n" to give a criminal colour to innocent words, in \n" order publicly to convict an old friend and \n46 favourite in a Court of Law, and to obtain \nic money, from her brother-in-law, the hufband of \n" her beloved fitter!! !" \n\nMr. Meade thinks it unnecelfary to take farther \nnotice of this difcovery of the Biftiop, than merely \nto relate it. On the motives of people Mr* \n\n\n\n[ 175 ] \n\n\n\nMeade does not venture to pronounce; they \nare often concealed in the recefles of the heart* \nand are inscrutable by men. But when the con- \nduct of perfons is open to great latitude of con- \nftruction, fufpicions will arife ; and Mr. Meade has \nhad his. But when he fimply relates fa\xc2\xa3ts, and \nthat only when neceffity calls for it, no one has a \nright to complain. An erroneous account how- \never being ftated of Mrs. Meade\'s fortune, for an \nobvious purpofe conne&ed with this fubje\xc2\xa3t, Mr. \nMeade begs leave to fay, that the united fortunes \nof Mrs. Barnfton, and her two (then) unmarried \ndaughters, Mrs. M. Barnfton and the prefent \nMrs Meade, were not lefs than 36,000!. in pof- \nfeffion and reverfion. Mrs. M. Barnfton being \nvery unlikely to marry, if Mrs. Meade could have \nbeen induced to remain fingle alfo, to whom would \nall this money and the favings of it go? There \nwas no brother, nor any fifter, but Mrs. Daubeny \nand Mrs. Sikes ! At the fame time Mr. Meade \ndelires it to be underftood, that he never did pro- \nnounce on the motives of people, either principals \nor agents, whether they were altogether, or in \npart, pecuniary, or otherwife. \n\nOf the difintereftednefs of Mifs Barnfton in \nparticular, and of all her family, to Mr. Daubeny, \ninftances in abundance may be found ; of Mr. \nDaubeny\'s no traces are known to Mr. Meade, \n\n\n\n[ 176 J \n\n\n\nBy the kindnefs of the late Mr. Barnfton, Mr. \nDaubeny got a very large fortnne with his wife; \nfor though it was left to her in her cradle by a \nfriend of her father, yet a power was given to \nhim of withholding it, if fhe did not obtain \nhis confent in her choice of a hufband. Mr. \nDaubeny obtained it, and received her fortune: \nand Mr. Barnfton dying eight years afterwards, \nmade him one of his three executors, with Mr\xe2\x80\x9e \nSikes his other fon-in-law, and Mr. Sawbridge \nthe brother of Mrs. Barnfton. The latter declined \nstring; and Mr. Sikes left bufmefs chiefly to Mr. \nDaubeny, who of courfe proved and undertook \nto execute the will. \n\nMr. Barnfton appointed his three unprovided \ndaughters his refiduary legatees, intending thus to \ngive them the largeft mare of his fortune, and \nlimiting his bequeft to Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny \nto nool. in hand, and 5000I. B. L. A. on the \ndeath of Mrs. Barnfton. And this he did, be- \neaufe Mrs, Daubeny\'s fortune was more than dou- \nble that of her fitters. But fcarcely was their \nfather dead, when the daughters fhewed their \ndifinterefted refpeft for Mr. Daubeny, by con- \nferring to fet afide, in his favour, their father\'s \nwill. None was fo forward to gratify him as \nMifs Barnfton, the prefent Mrs. Meade, to whom \nhis wifties were always as a law. Without \nknowing or inquiring into the value of what they \n\n\n\n[ m 3 \n\n\n\ngave, they thus admitted Mr. Daubeny to aft \nequal fhare with themfelves, of a confiderable \nrefiduum. And a more difinterefted teftimony of \nregard and confidence could not be given, becaufe \nit was not only yielding up a large part of their \nfortune, but it was unfettling the will of a beloved \nfather, whofe conduct appeared fo judicious as \nwell as affectionate, and for whofe memory Mr. \nDaubeny alfo profeffed the higheft and mod un\xe2\x80\x9e \nbounded veneration.* Mrs. Barnfton herfelf, \nwhofe reluctances were faid to have been at firft \nvery great, yielded at length to the arrangement \nthat was made, and even confented to receive \nfor her life, in addition to 8ool. per annum left \nto her by Mr. Barnfton, iool. a year more, to \nbe taken from the refiduary eftate of the three \ndaughters. But fhe declared that flie did not \nwant it j and that it would come to the fame thing \n\n* Mr. Meade is aware that Mr. Daubeny had reafons to affign \nfor this alteration of Mr. Barnfton\'s will; and it is not intended here \nto examine thofe reafons. But whether they were juft or not, Mr. \nMeade\'s argument is not alfeded. Whether Mr. Daubeny had, \nin legal ftrictnefs, a claim to fomewhat more than Mr. Barnfton\'s \nwill gave to him; or whether that will had given him to the full \namount of what he could by any plea lay claim to ; or whether \nthe alteration of the will gave him two or three times as much as \nhe could by any pretence claim; the difintereftednefs of the Barnfton \nfamily was the fame. They neither faw nor defired any accounts; \nthey knew not, nor enquired into, what they gave ; but with confi- \ndence and generofity they admitted Mr. Daubeny into an equal \n(hare with themfelves of a confiderable property of unknown value I \n\nN \n\n\n\n[ 178 ] \n\n\n\nin the end, for that her daughters would have it \nafter her death. \n\nIf Mrs. Meade expected a child\'s fhare of what \nher mother had to leave, me and others thought \nme had good reafons for fuch expectations. But \non her mother\'s death, me learned that a new \nwill had been made in her 85th year, by which \nabout 1600I. or 1700I. was left to Mrs. M. \nBarnfton; to Mrs. Sikes, the fame; to Mr. and \nMrs. Daubeny about 3000I.; and to Mrs. Meade, \nnothing. A trifle, under iool. for each, was left \nk trufl for Mrs. Meade\'s four children, but rather, \nas it fhould feem, to convey infult than benefit; \nneither principal nor intereft being payable for \nfixteen years; the children having only a contin- \ngent intereft in this trifle, with a reverfion to Mrs. \nM. Barnfton, Mrs. Sikes, and Mrs. Daubeny; and \nduring the interval of fixteen years Mr. Daubeny \nand another gentleman being made the managers \nand truftees for them ! # \n\nThe pretence for all this was to perform an \nact of retributive jujiice to Mr. Daubeny, for cofts \nand damages under an unfavourable verdict. Mrs. \nBarnfton at eighty-four conceiving herfelf compe- \ntent to judge of retributive juftice! calculating \nand arranging like a folicitcr! when about the \nfame time Mrs. Meade was given to underftand \n\n* Vide in Doclors\'-Commons the will of Mrs. Mary Barnfton, \nof March, 1804* \n\n\n\n[ 179 3 \n\n\n\nthat her mother was too old even to receive \nletters from her daughter;* and Mr. Daubeny \nwas declared to be the perfon to whom me rauft \nin future addrefs whatever fhe might have to fay- \nto her mother! \n\nIt was furely not neceffary, even to fuck pecu- \nniary juftice, that a feeble poor old lady 5 at that \nage, mould leave a (hocking record againft her \nown child, unexampled in Doclors\'-Commons, by \nvoluminous and unnatural charges in her will. \nThus, after having deprived her daughter and her \nchildren of their mare of her fortune, endeavour- \ning alfo to ftrip them for ever of their reputation \nand honour, even after fhe had given to them her \nblefjing, or, as it is called, ker forg\'wenefi. \n\nThis laft wound has been indeed the fevereft \nwhich could be given to Mrs. Meade; and for \nwhat purpofe it was inflicted, but to gratify fpleen \nor vengeance,*)- is inconceivable. Even to defend \nherfelf is a painful neceffity; her furprife being \nequal to her grief at this unexpected blow from \na mother, who, when left to herfelf, had ever \nbeen the moft indulgent as well as the moft \naffectionate to her! And as to the pecuniary \ndifpofition in Mrs. Barnfton\'s will, if the object \n\n* See letter from Mrs. M. Barnfton to Mrs. Meade, already \nquoted. \n\nf This is the will, at the reading of which Mr. Daubeny invited \nMrs. Meade to be prefent at his houfe ! \n\nN 2 \n\n\n\n[ 180 ] \n\n\n\nwere really what it profeffes, " to make compen- \nc< fation to Mr. Daubeny," why did not the remain^ \nder of Mrs. Meade\'s (hare, after fatisfy ing him, \ngo to Mrs. Meade herfeif ? Bat Mrs. Meade, ftill \nregardlefs of pecuniary injuries, wrote again to \nher fillers, requeuing general reconcilement and \nmutual oblivion; but her offers were again re- \njected. The world will judge whether (he mewed \nthat interefted difpofition, which the Bifhop as- \ncribes to her, and will perhaps be not fo much at \na lofs as his Lordfliip is to find out the motives \nof the parties. \n\nMrs. Meade acknowledges that me did not \nimagine that any delufion in her mother could \nhave induced her to carry refentments beyond \nthe grave, either by cruel insinuations in her will \nagainft herfeif, or by depriving her and her child- \nren of the portion of her fortune, to which Mrs. \nMeade knew that truth, and juftice, and nature \ngave her fair claims. Circumftances alfo tended \nto confirm this perfuaiion; for her mother had \ntold her fitter Mrs. Ravenhill, about eight or ten \nyears before, that fiie had made her will at that \ntime, and hoped that (lie had not forgotten one of \nher relations, and that her will at lead would \nfatisfy all parties. \n\nIt was about the fame time alfo, that Mr. John \nDaubeny, being on a vifit in Bath, at his brother\'s, \n(Rev. C. Daubeny) and having called on Mrs. \n\n\n\n[ m ] \n\n\n\nLyte, mentioned, " that although Mrs. Barnfton \n" could not, in juftice to his brother, fee her \n<c daughter Meade, yet that me entirely forgave \n<c her; as would appear in her will, which was \n* c made, and which gave to Mrs. Meade an equal \n<c fliare of her fortune with her fitters."* \n\nIt was alfo much about the fame time that \nMrs. Meade, hearing in Oxford that her mother \nwas very ill, haftened to Bath, and wrote to her \nfiller, entreating permiffion to throw herfelf at \nher mother\'s feet, if but for one minute of her \nlife, which was refufed ; her filler telling her 9 \n" that her mother was recovered; and that fhe \n" perfeclly forgave her, hoping in her illnefs that \n* \xc2\xa3 it would not be imputed to her that fhe did \n\xe2\x82\xacS not fee her." On every occalion Mrs. Barnfton \nwas faid to have forgiven her daughter, but could \nnot fee her. And no parent could fhew more \ntendernefs on the only occafion, when (Mr. Dau- \nbeny being at a diftance) fhe faw Mrs. Meade\'s \nchildren. Nor could any one exprefs more \nkindly intereft than (lie did, when Mrs. T. Forfter \ncalled on her, and faid flie was juft come from \nfpending a few days with Mrs. Meade, the good \n\n* Mrs. Lyte naturally mentioned with pleafure this circumftance \nto Mrs. Meade at the time ; fhe not only thought that it would \ngratify her, but that probably Mr. J. Daubeny wifhed her to do \xc2\xa3o 9 \n&s fli :w ng that his brother either had not influence, or did not exert \nit againft her. \n\n\n\n[ 182 ] \n\n\n\nold lady earneftly enquiring about her and her \nchildren, and even kindly about Mr. Meade\'s \nhealth. It was therefore with much furprife that \nMrs. Meade learned, after her mother\'s death, \nthat a new will had been figned by her, in her \n84th or 85th year, of five folio pages; full of cal- \nculations and nice details, four-fifths of the will \nbeing on the fubject of that daughter to whom \nnothing was left ; even her (hare of a little eftate \nin Berkfhire being devifed away from her, altho* \nher mother had no dominion over it ; and what \n\xe2\x96\xa0was molt unkind of all, charges equally unjuft \nand unneceffary being introduced into this will, \nas records which could never be revoked, how- \never the facls may be afterwards explained or \ndifproved. \n\nNo notice was taken in this will of Mrs. Barn- \nfton\'s only brother, nor of her only fifter, nor of \nany of her nephews or nieces, notwithstanding \nwhat (he had allured her fifter eight or ten years \nbefore. What the caufe of this was, is now 3 \nfubjecT: of mere conjecture only. They were cer- \ntainly all known to be much attached to Mrs, \nMeade, and fo they had always been. \n\nThe Bifhop is pleafed to fay, " that fome who \n<c have read Mr. Meade\'s papers, have thought \n" favourably of him:" But his Lordfhip mould \nrather in candour have pointed out one individual \n\n\n\n[ 183 ] \n\n\n\ninftance of any man who had heard both fides, \nand was not favourable to Mr. Meade. \n\nHis Lordftiip, applying Mr. Meade\'s own ex- \npreffions againft him, fays, " that he keeps out of \n" fight the principal features, and dwells on \n" others that are lefs fo." The Bidiop has pro- \nduced no authority for this affertion, and Mr. \nMeade again ventures to defy him to prove it in \nany inftance. The facl applies to Mr. Meade\'s \nopponents, not to him. Dr. Blayney, in his print- \ned account of his negociation for an amicable \narbitration, terms Mr. Daubeny\'s conduct " a dex- \ncc trous piece of legerdemain\'\'\' The Bifhop himfelf \nkeeps out of fight that the trial was for flander, * \n\n* Mr. Meade\'s motive for going into a court of law was purely to \nprotect his character from flander; and his friends, his folicitor, and \nhis counfel knew it. But thefe laft, inftantly perceiving the object and \neffect of the flander, thought it right to ftate them in the Declara- \ntion. Mr. Meade obtained all that engaged his folicitude, when he \nhad protected his character by a verdict of his country. \n\nThe excufes fet up for his opponent are of little concern to him. \nOf what value is the pretence that the marriage was not prevented \nor delayed by the flander ? If the intention be manifeft, is calumny \nthe lefs reprehenfible, becaufe the full intent of it might not have \nbeen effected ? But in this cafe it is prefumed that the effect of hav- \ning prevented a marriage was not lefs manifeft than the intention. \n" The argument that flander did not affect Mrs. Meade\'s conduct, \nbecaufe fhe had previoufly refolved not to act againft her mother\'s \nwifhes, is weak as it is unfounded. Mrs. Meade did once fo re- \nfolve, and fincerely expreffed fuch refolution with as much piety \nand duty as ever a daughter felt. But is there not a condition im- \nplied in every fuch refolution ? Can no circumftance arife, which \nwill juft :y a change of fentiment? Are not common juftice an4 \naffection due to a daughter? Mrs. Meade always wrote and fpoke \n\n\n\nC 184 ] \n\nand the verdicl for flander, as well as for the lofs \nof marriage; that is, for having prevented a \nmarriage until the trial. He dwells on promifes \nmade to Mr, Daubeny, but keeps out of fight the \nmanner in which they were obtained. He refts \non the irritation in Mrs. Barnfton\'s mind ; but \nfuppreffes the means by which it was excited. \nHe fpeaks of the family difliking Mr. Meade ; \nbut he conceals their attachment to him previous \nto their being praclifed upon $ and in defcribing \n\nin the momentary fullnefs of a heart impreffed with the warmeft \nfenfe of filial duty for a parent, whom me believed that no delufion \nor influence could feduce into a forgetfulnefs of maternal affection : \nfor as me wrote to her mother in October, 1790, (fee page 64) " me \n" trufled me mould always be able to fubfcribe herfelf the moft \n" dutiful, as no earthly confiderations could ever make her other- \n8< wife than her moft affectionate, daughter But fuppofe a mo- \nther to have declared her own fentiments clearly to her daughter, \nand afterwards to fall under fubjection to the caprice or tyranny \nof another ! Suppofe this aged mother to be under the influence of \nan interested perfon, and unjuftly and irrationally to revoke a con* \nient me had once given to her daughter\'s plans of happinefs, and \neven tofet herfelf with feverity againft them; liftening only to an \nenemy, rejecting all reafon and conlideration for her child, and at \nlength even (hutting her doors againft her, for performing an una- \nvoidable act of juftice and duty: Will any one fay that a daughter is \nto confider fuch conduct as expreffive of her mother\'s real wifhes \nand fentiments? or will it be infilled on, that a woman paft thirty, \nwhom her father had thought fit to render independent, ought not, \nunder fuch circumftances, to think for her own happinefs ? Mrs. \nMeade\'s temperate and uninfluenced friends and relations not only \njuftified, but guided her conduct; the Rev. Dr. Blayney conveyed \nto her his opinion as a divine, as a father, and as a moralift, in an \nadmirable paper written exprefsly on this occafion, after taking 3 \nview of the whole circumftances. \n\n\n\n[ 185 ] \n\n\n\nthe family, he always reprefents a part for the \nwhole ! \n\nBut it is endlefs to point out the evafions and \nthe quibbles by which every argument is fup- \nported, and which induced a worthy and fenfible \nman to fay, that fince he had read the Bimop\'s \npapers he had a worfe opinion than ever of the \ncaufe his Lordfliip fupported. \n\nThe Bifliop mentions Mrs. Meade\'s aunt, as if \nhe would have her thought to be an evidence \nagainft her niece; and he quotes the good old \nlady, only as having figned a paper which was \nbrought to her for the purpofe, and which paper \nis in fa& a pompous nothing; although , his Lordfliip \ngives himfelf the pains to recite it in full. This \npaper only proves that me did not hear from Mr- \nDaubeny particular fafts, which no one ever faid \nfhe did hear from him; no mention having been \nmade of the principal or agent who communi- \ncated to her the information fhe received. \n\nThat Mrs. Ravenhill and her family heard ca- \nlumny from fome one, is certain ; otherwife fhe \nwould not have faid to Mifs Barnfton, " that \nt( Mr. Meade was either a very bad or a very \n" injured rnan." Nor would her fon, the Rev. \nMr. Ravenhill, u have fo earneflly cautioned Mifs \n" Barnfton againft him on the will bujinejs " Nor \nwould Mifs Barnfton herfelf have written to her \naunt,, i< that {he knew that hers and her mother\'s \n\n\n\n[ 185 ] \n\n\n\nCi mind were poifoned on the fubjecV\' But if the \nBithop had applied to this excellent old lady for \nthe chara&er of her niece in her whole familv, \nhe might have learned in what degree of efteeni \nand affection Mifs Barnfton was ever held by her \naunt | and alfo by her mother, until the latter was \npoifoned by falfe ftories, which no one could ven- \nture to correct.* He might have learned what \nis the opinion of Mrs. Ravenhili, and of her whole \nfamily, as well as of everyone elfe, on the prefent \nopening of this breach again ; and he might alfo \nlearn fome circumftances refpecting the always \nweak but latterly much-impaired memory of Mrs. \nBarniton, which might be ufeful to his Lordfhip \nin teaching him caution, when fpeaking of things \nwhich he could not know. \n\nHis Lordmip cannot poflibly conceive any mo- \ntives to account for Mr. Daubeny\'s conduct; but \nhe does not confider that it would be much more \nunaccountable, if two perfons of common fenfe \nmould have plotted, and contrived, and prac- \ntifed every folly and every wickednefs, for the \nfake of an object which it was in their power to \nattain any day of their lives, by means honour- \nable, eafy, and fimple. His Lordfhip, however^ \ngives one example of Mr. Daubeny\'s difintereft, \nednefs and liberality, of which he fhall not be \ndeprived. The Biftiop with gravity records, that \n* See Mr. Sikes\'s letter already quoted, \n\n\n\n[ 187 ] \n\n\n\nimmediately after Mifs Barnfton\'s return from the \ncontinent, Mr. Daubeny actually went, for one \nwhole week, to his own parifn, and to his own \nhoufe, leaving Mifs Barnfton in her mother\'s houfe, \nand in her own home ; to give her an opportunity \nof fpeaking to her mother without his being pre- \nfent!!! And his Lordmip cites evidence to the \nfaQ ! ! ! But Mr. Meade mud venture to relate \ntwo inftances, in which he dues not appear to \nhave been fo very liberal in leaving Mifs Barnfton \nto her own judgment and difcretion. \n\nMifs Barnfton\'s relations, feeing her defirous of \nexerting herfelf againft Mr. Daubeny\'s power, \nand propofing to fupport her, a plan was arranged \nfor her declaring it to her mother. But in order \nto countenance this, it was thought neceffary in \ndelicacy that an opening fhould be made by a \nrefpeclful letter from Mr. Meade to Mifs Barnfton, \nat her mother\'s houfe ; while me propofed to be \nin Bath about the time of the letter\'s arrival, to \nmeet it. But the letter having arrived firft, Mr. \nDaubeny took it, and, it is prefumed, read and \nkept it; for he never gave it to Mifs Barnfton, but \nanfwered it himfelf with the utmoft degree of \nbitternefs and infult, ftill making ufe of Mrs. \nBarnfton\'s name. \n\nThe other inftance is, that previoufly to Mr. \nMeade\'s leaving England in July 1790, after Mifs \nBarnfton had firft yielded to Mr. Daubeny \'s in- \n\n\n\n[ 188 ] \n\n\n\nfluence over her mother, flie defired that Mr. \nMeade would fend her a parcel of journals and \nother papers; but in the prejudiced ftate of her \nfamily, Hie begged that they fliould not fee them \ndelivered, as it would only add to her uneafinefs \nand vexations: and a refpe&able family in Bath, \nwho pitied more than blamed her fubjeclion and \ntimidity, undertook to fend the packet. But the \nbearer miftaking Mrs. Daubeny for her filler Mifs \nBarnfton gave it to her, who, having received it \nas Mifs Barnfton, did not convey it to her fifter 3 \nto whom it was addreffed, nor even to her mo- \nther; but fmgular as it will appear, it was to her \nhufband that flie carried her lifter\'s packet. Mr, \nDaubeny in a few days reftored the packet; but \nkept the letter, which was tied on the outfide a \nuntil fome time after, when Mifs Barnfton diftxr \nvered and demanded it. \n\nIf after all this any one can doubt Mr. Daube- \nny *s influence in the Barnfton family, it may be \nlaid to that perfon, in the words of the late ami- \nable and learned Bifhop Home, " that no evidence \n<fe in the world will make a man believe what he \ni\xc2\xa3 does not choofe to believe."* \n\n* If the Bifhop fhould fay that he views the affair now in a \ndifferent arrangement, and in a new light, Mr. Meade is ready to \naccept his acknowledgments. But he muft remind his Lordfhip \nthat he had feen almoft all that is given in this pamphlet, and that \nhe might have feen every document and proof in Mr. Meade*s \niJofTeffioDj if he Jiad enquired. Mr. Meade admits that he did nQt \n\n\n\nt 189 ] \n\n\n\nMr. Meade is at a iofs to conceive what the \nRifliop meant by profeffions of impartiality, which \nhe underftands that he made when he was apply- \ning for Mr. Meade\'s papers, or by his affurances \nthat he mould li fieri to no prejudiced parties or \npartizans. With one of the parties he had indeed \nno intercourfe, having never feen Mr. or Mrs. \nMeade. But it was not fo with the other party, \nThe Bifhop and Mr. Daubeny had conftant and \ndaily intercourfe ; every paper was handed in, \nwhich might work its effect; anecdotes infilled on, \nwhich might poifon a ftranger\'s mind, or deilroy \nchara&er by the deadly blalls of infinuation ; everj \nopportunity was open for commenting and glofs- \ning ; large packets were added, when all feemed \nfinifhed; and fent in fo critically, that, as his Lord- \nihip fays, he could hardly read them while in \nBath, and was forry he could not have fome con- \nverfation with Dr. Randolph on the fubje\xc2\xa3L His \nLordfliip\'s mind feemsto have been thus prepared \nfor fentence, rather than for trial! it feems ilrange \nthat reconcilement did not occur to his mind, as \nit did to every other per/on : or that he mould \nenter on the affair, without the knowledge of one \nof the parties : or that he mould be uneafy about a \nfriend\'s opinion in London, refpecting a matter and, \nperfons whom he fays he did not know: or that a \n\ntake the trouble to arrange his papers until his Lordfhip rendered \nit neceflary, becaufe he never thought of making them public* \n\n\n\nt w i \n\n\n\nfamily difagreement mould otherwi\'fe inrerett him, \nbut as he could make people friends, and obtain \nfor himfelf the bleffingof the peace-maker! Bat \nhis Lordftiip feems to explain his own meaning, \nwhen he fays that the fubje6f. was important, be* \ncaufe it involved the character of a theologian. \n\nThat religion is wounded by the difTentions of \nbrothers and fitters, and by a clergyman having a \nverdict recorded againft him in a public court, is \nbut too plain To all good chriftians. It mutt needs \nbe that offences come; but the woe is to them \nby whom they come. When with grief and mor- \ntification Mr. Meade heard that a brother-in Jaw, \nwho had known him for fifteen years, reprefented \nhim as capable of doing what no man more ab- \nhorred; did he not write to offer him every fatis- \nfaftory explanation, profeffing that he fhonld think \nnothing humiliating that might bring brothers \nback to friendfhip? Did he truft to prejudice \nand paffion for his conductors? or did he confide \nhimfelf to three gentlemen* of the higheft re- \nfpeclability and worth, whofe endeavours for an \namicable accommodation he encouragedf by \nevery means in his power; and who teftified their \nopinion of his conduct by accompanying him into \ncourt as his friends and fupporters ? When he \n\n* Dr. Blayney, Archdeacon Coham, and Mr. Goddard. \nt See Dr. Blayney\'s account of the negociation ? printed in \nMr. Meade\'s frrft pamphlet. \n\n\n\n[ 191 J \n\n\n\nmentioned the (hocking infmuations againft him \nwhich he knew it to be impoffible for his brother- \nin-law ferioufly to believe, did Mr. Daubeny ever \ngive him the fatisfa&ion of hearing that fuch \ncharges were not made? Was Mr. Meade not \neven dared into a court of law, threatened with \n** the feverity of juftice," and told, " that arbitra- \n\xc2\xab* tion was liftened to only becaufe Mr. Meade\'s \n<c friend Dr. Blayney propofed it?"* If then Mr. \nMeade was called upon to (land in his own de- \nfence, is he anfwerable for an adverfary\'sdifgrace I \nIs this wantonly injuring his character? \n\nSatisfied with having once more difcharged a \nduty which he owed to his wife and to his chil- \ndren, to his friends and to himfelf, Mr. Meade \nhere takes leave of his readers, afTuring them, \nthat as the vindication of thofe raoft dear to him \nwas the fole motive of his laying before them this \naddrefs, fo nothing but a fimilar imperious call \nfhall ever again induce him to take up his pen in \ntheir j unification. \n\nWhether the Bilhop of Lincoln has altered the \nopinion of the public, or increafed their informa- \ntion on the fubjecl: of Mr. Daubeny and his caufe, it \nis not for Mr. Meade to fay ; nor whether it would \n\n* Mr. Daubeny appears to have continued his defiance of Mr. \nMeade, until he discovered that there was proof fuffic\'mit againft \nhim to ground an action upon. \n\n\n\n[ 192 J \n\nnot have been well, if officious zeal had fuffered \nthe caufe to remain in that oblivion, where Mn \nMeade would gladly have left it. \n\nHaving no malice or defire of revenge, even \ntowards thofe who have endeavoured to injure \nhim in the mod tender part, Mr. Meade wifhes \nonly to be at peace with his enemies, and in cha-. \nrity with the world. \n\n\n\nTHOMAS MEADE. \n\nChatley, SomerfetJJiire. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX \n\n\n\n(A.) \n\nMrs. Meade\'s Correspondence with her Mother; \ntogether with the Account of Archdeacon Coham\'s \nInterposition to procure Family Peace, \n\n\n\nMrs. Meade to her Mother. \n\n\xe2\x82\xac< IT is a duty I owe to myfelf, to my children, and to \n\xe2\x80\xa2 my hulband; a duty I owe chiefly " to you, and to \nie the memory of my father, -to hold up my hands againft \n" unmerited charges; and to declare, as I mail anfwer \n(i it before God, that you are deceived, and that I am \n<e wronged. Are you fure, my dear Madam, that you have \n(C ac-ted as you would be done by? Have you enquired, \ne * or heard from difpaffionate men, the merits of this \nie unhappy difpute? Pardon me, Madam, for faying, \n4C that, inftead of fuch difpaffionate enquiry, you have (hut \nie your ears againft it; and as you firft received, fo you \n(\xc2\xa3 continue to take your bias from thofe who have unhap- \nCi pily made their credit to depend on my rejection. \nf( Under fuch circumftances, can you perfuade yourfelf \n" that you have heard and know the truth? If I ac- \n6( knowledged, 6 that you once confented to my marrying \n6 Mr. Meade, and deflred me to perfuade Mr. D/ do I \n(c really for this deferve to be publickly charged with the \n6i dreadful crime of perjury? That you forget it, I am \n<( perfuaded. Why will you not have equal indulgence for \n<e jne? But is it likely that fo kind a mother would have \nXi been fo Angularly fevere to a daughter at my age and \n\xe2\x82\xac< in my circumftances, as fternly to refufe confent to her \n\nQ \n\n\n\n194 \n\n\n\nAppendix. \n\n\n\n" marrying a man equal to her in every refpect, and whofe \ne( character was not then ftained by thofe heavy charges \n" which were afterwards whifpered againft it? Have I \n(( not alfo all poffible teftimony to fatisfy both yon and me \n6< that I fpoke the truth, and that you forget it? Do I \nse deferve for this to be publifhed by a Brother and a Mi- \n(c nifter, under my Mother\'s fanction, as a perjured, loft \nec woman? God help and forgive us all!* \n\n" I truft I could in every other refpect prove myfelf not \ni( lefs innocent. I betrayed no fecret, for none was ever \nec entrufted to me as fuch. The part I acled was no^ \nu more called for by humanity to one fide, than it was \n6e conliftent with the tenderefl friendmip for the other; \nce and I am perfuaded that you yourfelf would have a\xc2\xa3ted \n6( with the fame charitable mind that I did. I had no \n" object but the recovery of good-will among relations: \n** and furely common fenfe muft affure you that I could \nfe have no other view; for did not my own happinefs de- \n* e pend on preferring friendfhips, not in exciting animo- \ne( fities? That recourfe was had to law, almoft killed me \niC with forrow ; but it was not my doing. My appearance \n" and evidence in Court, Heaven knows, were forely \nu againft my will. I was required to fpeak out on my \n<e oath, and I confcientioufly anfwered the queftions put \n\xe2\x82\xacc to me, God is the judge of my truth. What I de- \n<( clared that Mr. D. had told me, I never heard that he \n* e could or would deny; nor could I ever have fuppofed \n" that he meant or wifhed to deny it. And furely there \n\n* This is the paiTage from which the Bifhop of Lincoln infers \nan acknowledgment of criminality in Mrs. Meade : his Lordlhip \nhaving flopped critically at that part of the fentence which might \nadmit of a contraction that is contradicted by the whole letter* \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n195 \n\n\n\n<c there is not one of our family and connexions that \n(( mull not have acknowledged to have heard the fame in \niC fubftance, if the lawyers (contrary to Mr. Meade\'s \nce wiflies and mine) had not called on me only to be the \n<e witnefs of it. If on one fide there was pecuniary lofs, \n" there was no gain on the other; an immenfe bill of \n(C colls having required all that was received to difcharge \nt( it. Money, I can truly fay, was no objecl: of Mr. \nis Meade; for, as he inftructed his Counfel to fay, 6 he \nwould rather his opponents would candidly acknow\xe2\x80\x94 \n6 ledge their errors, than that he mould obtain a verdi\xc2\xa3t \nc for ten thoufand pounds!\' \n\niS Let me then, again, before it is too late, implore you, \nee for God\'s fake, and by the memory of my beloved \n" Father; let me, in the name of three grandchildren, \nee implore reconcilement with you, as far as you can grant \n" it. If cruel circumftances deny me your fociety, let me \n<e receive under your own hand an alfurance of your \n(i bleflmg, your forgivenefs, and love. If any one mould \n" be inflexible in this unmerited prejudice againll me, \n" none can furely objecl: to your feeking the bleffed re- \n6e ward of the merciful, by dying in peace and love with \n*< your fuppliant child, C. M." \n\nThe reader has already been informed of the circum- \nftances under which Mrs. Meade married. Her mother\'s \nmind had been poifoned and irritated, and her houfe fliut \nagainft her daughter, whofe bell friends advifed her to \nmarry Mr. Meade ; and he received her as his wife, when \n(he was no longer a member of Mrs. Barnllon\'s family. \nEvery part of Mrs. Meade\'s conduct was guided by the \nadvice and under the direction of her ever-valued friend \nMr. Goddard; who was of opinion, that to write to alk \n\nO 2 \n\n\n\n196 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nher mother\'s confent, would be nothing lefs than to infult \nher, becaufe Mrs. Meade muft know that her mother \ncould not give it. But he advifed her to do, what {he never \nceafed to practife, that is, to intreat with humility and \nduty her mother\'s forgivenels for the unintended offence \nflie had given her, by not afking her confent, or commu- \nnicating her intentions to her when me did marry; \npleading the neceffity to which me was reduced, but at \nthe fame time endeavouring to avoid any expreffion that \nmight give Mr. D. a pretence for oppoflng her. \n\nTo the above letter Mrs. Barnfton gave no anfwer; \nbut Mrs. M. Barnfton wrote to Mrs. Meade a long letter \nin her mother\'s name, but certainly not in her mother\'s \nlanguage; whole fentences being word for word the fame \nas are found in a letter from Mr. D. to Mrs. Meade. \nIn this letter the old arguments and charges were re- \npeated, as if they had never been explained or anfwered 3 \nand a command was given (according to the ufual prac- \ntice) that no anfwer mould be returned to the letter; \nthe laft words of it being as follows : " To prevent a re- \nft petition of ufelefs writing on your part, my mother has \nS( charged me to open every letter directed to her, and to \n\xe2\x82\xace Ihew her no letter that comes from yourfelf. Whilft I \n<e write in order to fecure my mother\'s future tranquillity^ \n(e I muft, in order to fecure my own, beg you will not \n<c write to me on this fubje&. Mart Barnston." \n\nLong and unkind as the above letter was, yet Mrs. \nMeade received in a day or two another from Mr. D. \nhimfelf, ftill more offenflve and infulting; with grea$ \nprofeffions of pity and tendernefs; hoping that Heaven \nwould fee her conduct in not fo bad a light; trusting that \nthe curse of ill-gotten riches would not be entailed on her \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n397 \n\n\n\nchildren; leaving her to God and her own confcience, \nSec. &c. Mrs. Meade took no notice of this letter 5 but \n{he wrote to her mother as follows. \n\nMrs. Meade to Mrs. Barnston. \n" WHEN I folicited reconcilement with you, I did \n<e hope that no one\'s interference might be neceffary. \nee But I chiefly hoped that you would not have thought it \n<c neceffary to lay my letters before Mr. D. ; for I forefaw \n" the fatal, confequences of it. And a letter T have \n** juft received from him proves but too well thac my \nce fears were not groundlefs; and that there is to be no \n<c reconcilement, until we meet where allmiflakes will be \n" cleared up, and peace and love be reftored. \n\n" What had Mr. D. to do, when I only fought to throw \nee myfelf at the feet of my mother ? He has taken upon \n<e him to anfwer my letter to you with fuch a fpirit, that \nee I fee all my profpecls with you in this life are at an end. \nrt In the objections againft me, I could foon fatisfy an \nee unprejudiced mind ; but where every thing is miftated \ni( or perverted on my fubje6t, and where a rooted preju- \n\xe2\x82\xac< dice has taken place, it is vain to try to convince. \n(c I retire, therefore, but not in obftinacy or refentment ; \n" for if ever it fhall pleafe God to turn your heart to me, \ntc I will fly to you, wherever I may be, if it be only for \nc( one moment of your life. All I want on earth is your \n<e love and bleffing; I have, thank Heaven, every thing \n" elfe. Providence has bleffed me with three infants; I \ni( enjoy the confidence and affe&ion of an honeft man ; \ntc and I am favoured with the comforts of a reafonable \n\xc2\xa3i competency. I will make no other remark on the ex- \n(f preffions in my filter\'s letter about Mir, M. when (he \n\n\n\n19S \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n<( talks of scurrility and falsehood, than that I \nce grieve at her blindnefs and prejudice, and am thankful \n" that {he does not know him. C. Meade. 5 \' \n\nAbout a year after, Mrs, Meade having accom- \npanied Mr. M. in ill health to Bath, was advifed, before \n{he left it, to offer to her mother an opportunity of feeing \nher children; and her fervants having taken them .to the \nparade near her houfe, left a note for Mrs. Barnfton, to \nfay they were at play there, and. if {he wifhed to fee them, \nthey mould wait on her. A fervant of Mrs. Barnflon\'s \nimmediately came out, and took up one of the children, \nMrs. M. Barnfton took up another, and a third was able \nto walk up flairs; when their grandmother received them \nwith the utmoft tendernefs, and {hewed all that fenfibility \nwhich was natural on feeing for the firft time three chil- \ndren fo nearly connected with her. \n\nThe pleafure and the congratulations of Mrs. Meade\'s \nfriends on this occaflon were foon damped; for in three \ndays a letter came from Mrs. M. Barnfton to Mrs. \nMeade, as follows : \n\n" MY mother begs T will remind you of her refolution \nee of not writing to you again. But {he thinks it neceffary \n* e to fay thefe few words, to prevent your children being \n<c refufed admittance at her houfe. She faw them, be- \nee caufe you defired it,* as they could have nothing to do \n* f with the conduct of their parents. But as feeing your \n* c children can only ferve to bring to mind the reafons \n\n* This is not a candid reprefentation. Mrs. Barnfton faw her \ngrand-children, not becaufe it was Mrs. Meade\'s, but her oivn defire. \nIt was left to her, whether me would wifh to fee them or not. But \nthis paffage, at all events, contradids fully an afTertion of Mr. D.\'s, \nthat " the children were forced into their grandmother\'s houfe." ^ \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n199 \n\n\n\ni( flic cannot fee their mother, {he begs that their vifit may \n" never be repeated, as it muft be the caufe of more pain \nte than pleafure." \n\nThis letter and conduct appeared very unaccountable ; \nbut the myttery was foon cleared up. Mr. D. was abfent \nfrom Bath when Mrs. Barnfton faw her grand-children; \nand immediately after his return the letter was written \nforbidding them forever from going to her houfe again. \nWhat other violent stepshe took in Mrs. Meade\'s family, \nare beft known to himfelf, and are not altogether unknown \nto her. She therefore wrote a letter to her mother, from \nwhich the following- are a few extracts. \n\nD \n\n" I have received my fitter\'s letter, defiring that I \nec fhould never again fend my children to your houfe. I \nee will take care they {hall never intrude upon you. The \n<f unkind expreffions which my fitter\'s letters always con- \n\'f tain, affect me with forrow, but not with refentment; \ntc nor {hall they ever draw from me a word of anger. I \nec can eafily forgive, becaufe I have injured no one, and \n" deferve not her reproaches ; and I pray that the injuttice \nC( done tome may never be charged to any one." \n\n< 6 Permit me, dear Madam, to implore you, for \n\n(< my fake and for your own, to confider. Every friend \n" to you and to Chriftianity would rejoice that you would \n" reltore to your heart a daughter that was loft to you. \n<( But if I mutt be cleared before you forgive me, let me \n6e know my faults, and if I do not fatisfy difpattionate \nec minds, I give up all hopes of happinefs. If frem ob^ \nEjections rife one after another, and year after year, and \n(C no one on my part is at hand to point out the errors, it \n<c is endlefs to trouble you with explanations; it is in- \n* ( effectual for myfelf, and defeats the very end of charity/\' \n\n\n\n200 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nThe year following, Mr. Meade having removed into \nSomerfetfhire, Mrs. Meade thought proper to write to \nher mother again ; which (he was the more induced to, as \nflie underftood that Mr. D. and hisfamily were in London. \n\nEXTRACTS. \nMrs. Meade to Mrs. Barnston. \n\n(\xc2\xa3 Nov. 1797. \n\ncc PERSUADED that you will not quit this world in \n" your prefent averfion from me, I venture once more to \n" acquaint you that I have changed my refidence, and am \n(i fixed probably for life; and if it (hall pleafe God to turn \n(i your heart to me before it is too late, T fhall be ready \n" every minute while I live to throw myfelf at your feet.\'* \n\nee It is a truth not to be concealed, that every \n\net Chriftian heart grieves at the wounds given to religion \n6C by fuch an example of perfevering unforgivenefs. If \nC\xc2\xa3 I am to have no mercy, do not refufe me common jus- \n66 tice. Tell me calmly all you blame in me, and if I do \n" not fatisfy you, then give way to feverity. I will fatisfy \n\xe2\x82\xac\xe2\x82\xac you, if you will judge me yourfelf, and by yourfelf. \ni e Your own heart is the beft counfellor. But if letters \n(C are handed to an adverfe party, full of prejudice and \n(( anger againft me, how is the blefled work of peace ever \niC to be obtained? If Mr. D. is to anfwer my letters to \n<( you, as he did by my laft, what hope is there for us? \n(( His own letter proves that he cannot give an unpreju- \nec diced opinion about me, when he fays, that e to admit \n< truth in me, is to put a knife to his own throat;\' for \n(( where fuch intereft affects any man, it is impoffible he \n" can be a fafe advifer; and fo I remember he himfelf \niS faid on another occafion. The charges of perjury { \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n201 \n\n\n\nfi mould be afhamed to repel, did not you lend your name \n" to them. Mr. Coham could have fatisfied you of what \n(t I faid of him ; and Mr. Hooker, who heard it alfo from \n" Mr. D. himfelf. I am charged too with perjury, in \n" defcribing the ftate of my own mind. Has the Searcher \n(< of hearts given any man the power of knowing mine \n6i better than I do myfelf ? And mall that perfon\'s word \n(e fuperfede my oath with my mother? Why naffer an \nce adverfary to comment on parts of letters written at pe- \n" culiar times, and under different ft ages of the buiinefs, \n<e and to urge them as proofs ? Why not enquire the ftate \n<{ of my mind of the Mifs Sawbridges, Mrs. Gunning \n(C and others, to whom I always frankly opened it at the \ni( moment?" \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x80\x94 " Afk yourfelf, Madam, did you hear no infinu- \n* ( ations to the fame effect as I did, againft Mr. M. and did \n<c they make no impreffion on you? Afk the fame quef- \n* c tion of every connexion of ours, without exception? \n<6 Mr. D. hopes c the curfe of ill-gotten riches will not be \n( entailed on my children.\' God, I truft, will blefs, \n<e not curfe them. He will never curfe them for crimes \n(e unjuftly imputed to me. But I neither coveted nor \nt( have any riches of Mr. D.\'s. I have loft through him \n<c the charities and kindnefs of my family, and he enjoys \n<c them. But as to riches, I have more than I deferve, \n(e and am thankful. Content renders my competence \n" abundance. Let me have my mother\'s bleffing and love; \nc< it is my due, and is all I feek. Let others take the \n(e riches of my family." \n\nic It is with pain I notice the letter Mr. D. wrote \n\n* c to me laft year. I hope he wrote it under delufion or \nO paffioiij and may God forgive him, as I do. Hft \n\n\n\n202 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nec hopes I erred through miftake, yet he would have me \n" ptmiflied as wilfully wicked. He prays God to forgive \n" me in heaven, but will countenance no forgivenefs on \n(C earth. In the midft of the blackeft charges^ he fays it \n" is I that Dander him. And although he affects that \nce his object is to give me private and friendly hints, he \nce forgets that he printed a book againft me full of the \n" blackeft catalogue of crimes. I am in truth only con- \nec fcious of defending myfeif from afperfions^ of which \n" his letter is a sufficient example. \n\n, . " But I will clofe my letter as I began, with im- \n\n\xe2\x82\xacC ploring reconcilement; the joy of w r hich will more \n" than compenfate for what T have fuffered. Do not, \n\xe2\x82\xacC dear Madam, reject the prayers and love of me and my \ncf children. I do not feek to feparate you from any one \n" \xe2\x80\x94 only reftore to me your affection and confidence $ \ncc and bury all in oblivion, by giving me that meafure of \ntc your bleflingj which I pray God to reftore ten-fold \n" to you." \n\nArchdeacon Cob am having read the foregoing letter^ \nwrote one alfo to Mrs. Barn^on, urging her to reconcile- \nment by every argument of religion and juftice; and par- \nticularly affured her, that " Mr. D.\'s charge againft Mrs. \n\xe2\x82\xaci Meade\'s veracity was unfounded, refpecting her having \n" invented the ftor\'y of Mr.. D. telling Mrs. Meade that \nS( Mr. Coham and Dr. Blayney had declared themfelves \n" unfavourably to Mr. Meade\'s caufe;\'* for that fhe had \ncommunicated it to him a year before a trial was thoughl \nof, with trembling and aftonifhment. " Tf I have any \ni( credit with you, (faid Archdeacon Coham) this will, I \ntc truft 3 draw the veil from your mind which prejudice \n*< may have induced j and contribute to the reconciliation \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n203 \n\n\n\nw which in charity I wifh, and which is the fole intention \n" of this letter." \n\nMrs. M. Bamfton anfwered Mrs. Meade\'s letter for her \nmother : " that on no terms, but of an effectual reconci- \nec liation taking place in her family, mould me see her; \n" that done, moft gladly me would receive her to her \nu affections; that it relied only on her to effect this." \n\nTo Mr. Coham me alfo wrote, " that he could not \n<e but fuppofe that it was her ardent wifh to have recon- \nce cilement take place; that it would be a very great \n" happinefs to her, and to all her family; without her \n(e daughter would firft xeftore that harmony, it would be \n* c to no purpofe her feeing her while she keeps up any \n<e enmity to her family ;* the interview will only agitate \nec her, and no good done by it. This is only in her \n" power to effect; which, when done, me may be affured \n(c of my receiving her with affection. If you, fir, can \nec by any means be inftrumental to bring about a recon- \n* c ciliation, you will very much oblige, &c. \n\n" M. Barnston." \nMr. Coham, full of fanguine hopes, determined to go \nto Bath, unfavourable as the feafon was for a very old \nand infirm man; and convinced that Mrs. Meade had no \nenmities, but on the contrary good-will towards all her \nrelations, he begged her to accompany him in his car- \nriage ; perfuading himfelf, that when he had feen Mrs, \nBarnfton, and laid plain facts before her, all difficulties \nmuff be foon removed, and that me would immediately \nfee her daughter. Having gone to Bath, Mr. Coham \nwrote to Mrs. B. 66 that he was come to wait on her in \n\n* The reader ivi/l obferve honv Mrs. Barnfton was deluded by a \nperfuaflon that Mrs. Meade was the perfon who kept up enmity. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa304 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nce corifequenee of her letter, and would attend her as foon \n6C as (he would give him leave, begging (he would fix an \n\xc2\xa3\xc2\xa3 early hour, as he was obliged to leave Bath that day/\' \nTo which the following anfwer was returned: (i Mrs. B.\'s \n(e refpeclful compliments to Mr. Archdeacon Coham 5 \nse fhe cannot poffibly fee him to-day. " \n\nMr. Coham was much hurt and furprized at this treat- \nment from a lady with whom he had been in habits of \nintimacy, and for whofe family\'s fake he had eome to \nBath; and uncertain what to do, he again wrote, u that \n44 he was much difconcerted by the laconic anfwer he \na had received : begged to know whether fhe meant to \n\n" DO \n\n6( fee him at all, or whether he was to be trifled with; \n" but if me would wim to fee him to-morrow, he would \n\xc2\xa3\xc2\xa3 wait till the next day." \n\nTo this a verbal anfwer was returned, u that Mrs. \nu Barnfton would give no other anfwer than what fhe had \n6S already given. 55 \n\nAftonimed and mocked at all this, Mr. Coham and \nMrs. Meade prepared to leave Bath; but they had the \nmyftery cleared up before they fat off. Mr. Daubeny had \njuft returned from London, and was fitting with Mrs, \nBarnfton when Mr. Coham\'s note was received by her! \n\nThefe incivilities were followed rapidly by others. A \nvery long letter was written to the venerable Archdeacon \nCoham, in the name of Mrs. Barnfton, not a line of \nwhich was written by her ; arguing with and infulting \nhim, and even charging him, one of the moft benevolent \nof men, with being inftrumental in thelaw-fuit, &c. The \nftile and language of the letter manifeftly difcovering the \nauthor in every line. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n20$ \n\n\n\nAnother very long letter was alfo fent in Mrs. Barn {ton\'s \nname to Mrs. Meade; in which whole fentences are \nfounds the fame as in Mr. D.\'s letters, charging her with \niliocking criminality; and, regardlefs of proofs and argu- \nment, merely repeating words, as Mr. D. had done in \nhis letter to Mrs. Meade the year before; and referring \nher to that letter, requiring confeffions of perjury, &e. \n\nMrs. Meade, in reply, wrote the letter already quoted \nin page 109, in which me declared that {he would give \nany considerations for reconcilement with her, but thofe \nof confcience and truth; and if her mother continued \ninflexible in her mocking conditions, " God forbid that \n\xc2\xab (lie mould accept them/\' [The reader is requeiled to \nlook back to that letter, page lop/) \n\nMr. Coham alfo wrote to her, and obferved, \xe2\x82\xac( thai \n" when me expreffed the obligations me mould feel, if he \n<c could be inftrumental in bringing about reconcilement, \n*\' he thought converfation was the only one which had \nu not been tried, and that he had fuch overtures to make \n4C as he thought could not be refufed; that the conditions \n" on which me propoied to receive her daughter were \n* c fuch as ought to induce her to abandon her for ever! \n" that thefe being inadmiffible, he entered his proteft \n" agai nil them; that when me told him, c he heard only \n4 one fide;\' that was her cafe, not his. And when me \n" laid that me read her Bible too much to want in- \n44 ftruclion about forgivenefs, me ufed a commentator \n" very different from his. As to reliitution, of which \n" (he talked, that her daughter owed her none; me never \n" injured her. " My mind," faid Archdeacon Coham, \n" hath this advantage over yours, that it hath no in- \n*\' tereft, no worldly motive to influence it. I mall nei- \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa30$ \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 c ther get or lofe, whether you forgive, or die and make \nu no fign. In the firft I fee happinefs, in the laft horror. \n."\xe2\x96\xa0With this election I leave you, and bid you my lad \n" and eternal farewell, though always wifhing to be your \n" friend, Arthur Coham." \n\n\n\n( B. ) \n\nAccount of Mr, Daubeny\'s Application for the \nre -judging of his Ca use . \n\nJN the year 1798, Mr. Daubeny applied to certain \nArchbishops* and Bifhops, defining that they would \nrevife and rejudge his caufe. But it is probable that none \nof them paid attention to his application; for Dr.Blayney, \nin a letter to Mr. Meade, Dec. 1798, mentions, " that \niC one of their Lordfhips told him that he had put by the \n* c letter without an anfwer; and he could not think that \n" any other bifhop would take upon him the re judging \n" a matter which had been determined in a court of law." \n\nIt feems, however, by the following letter, that Mr. \nDaubeny interefted fome gentlemen in Bath to counte- \nnance him, who were ftrangers to Mr. Meade; and he- \nwrote to Dr. Falconer, and applied to others for the fame, \npurpofe, which they declined. Dr. Falconer explained \nhis reafons for the opinion he had formed; which were, \nthat the facts being eftablimed by the verdict of a jury, \nand no application made for a new trial, that the point \n\n\n\n* See the extraft of Dr. Blayney\'s letter, Appendix Letter B. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n207 \n\n\n\ncould be no farther contefted on any pretence whatever. \nMr. Daubeny wrote alio on the fame fubjecl. to Dr. Blay- \n\xc2\xbbey| and his letter and the anfwer mall be given at large. \n\nMr. Daubeny to Dr. Blayney. \n\n" Crefcent, Bath, May 19th, 1798. \n* c Reverend Sir, \n\nlc SOME late circum fiances have induced me to give \n" you an opportunity of reconfidering a fubjecl: upon \n\nwhich you have thought yourfelf qualified to form 3 \ntc decided judgment. \n\n" Three gentlemen of the firft character and refpecta- \nu bility, one of whom is perfonally acquainted with Mr. \n" Meade, vifited at his houfe, and upon hearing his \na story, was of course a warm advocate in his favour,* \n" have lately come forward to me, for the purpofe of \n" examining documents in my poffeffion relative to the \n\xc2\xab conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Meade. They have exa- \nw mined them with that fcrupulous attention due to a \n\n* This is a direcl mijlatemcnt\\ the Gentleman alluded to is Ad- \nmiral Stanhope, and fo far is it from being true, that " he was \n*\' prejudiced in Mr. Meade\'s favour, from hearing his ftory that \nMr. Meade had never, on any one occajion, even mentioned to hira \nMr.Daubeny\'s name, or the fubjecl: in queftion. On the contrary, \nAdmiral Stanhope was made fully mafter of Mr. Daubeny\'s ftory \nby Mr, Daubeny himfelf and was decidedly in favour of his caufe. \nThe Admiral then had the good fenfe and juftice to write to Mr. \nMeade on the fubjecl:, wifhing to fee him, as he had Mr. Daubeny; \nand having heard both fides, he formed that opinion of the caufe, \nwhich it is prelum ed every unprejudiced pcrfon will. do. Mr. \nMeade refers to Admiral Stanhope himfelf. \n\n\n\nAppendix. \n\n\n\n" caufe in which the characters of the parties are deeply \n" concerned. Each of thefe Gentlemen, Sir, has left my \n<c houfe overwhelmed with the weight of that evidence \nct which has been fairly fubmitted to them; and con- \n" vinced, beyond the poffibility of doubt, that the caufe \n" which it relates is of the blackeft kind. The motive \n" which prevented me from having a new trial, viz. ten- \nlt dernefs for a filter, who muft in fuch a cafe have been \n\xc2\xab** publickly expofed, has alfo operated with me fo far as \n" to make me quietly bear the burthen me has thought \n" proper to lay on my moulders, rather than get rid of it \n" at fo dear an expence to my feelings. The fame feel- \n" ings I ftill poffefs, and wifli the itory could have been \n" fliut up for ever. \n\n" But, Sir, as it is probable that fuch will not now be \n" the cafe, I feel a defire to give you that private con- \n" viclion which may, through your means, tend to {hut \n" up the mouths of Mr. and Mrs. Meade; and thereby \n" prevent a more publick exposition of their infamous \n" conduct. To induce you, Sir, to this, I propofe that \n" not a word mould be faid upon the fubjecl: of our for- \n" mer correfpondence, but that the matter mould be taken. \n<c up de novo. Inclined as I am to give you full credit \nct for the beft intentions, I mould be forry that any ideas \n" that took place in your mind upon a former occafion, \n*\' mould indifpofe you for meeting me on an amicable \n" footing. The fubjecl: I have to bring before you is not \n<c a fubjecl: for altercation, but for cool and difpaffionate \n" inveftigation. I require nothing to betaken upon truft, \n" nothing to be given up but to conviction. The preju- \n" dice you feel for your friend I wim you to preferve as \n* c long as your own character will permit you fo to do. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n209 \n\n\n\n<c The credit of a court, and the circumftance of no \nu attempt having been made to undo it, are moreover \n" confiderations which I defire may give way only to the \n" conviction of your own judgment. In fhort, Sir, the \nc< only object in view is to put you in actuation to judge; \ntc being fatisfied in my own mind, that if you can be per- \n" fuaded to come into that fituation, you will judge as an \n" honeft man. With this idea before me I propofe to \n" meet you with one gentleman only accompanying me, \ne< who fhall be mutually agreeable, at fome future day \n<c that may be convenient to us both. This letter will, \n" I truft, find you, Sir, in the fame difpofition of mind \n" in which it leaves me; fhould it not, (a circumftance \n" which, as a Chriftian, I (hall fmcerely lament) I have \nc< only to leave upon your thoughts this confideration: \nc< How far you will ftand acquitted to your own con- \n" fcience in perilling in the caufe of error, when that of \n" truth is thus propofed to be amicably laid before you; \n<c thereby fuffering yourfelf to be inftrumental in the pro- \n" pagation of a ftory, which is calculated more or lefs to \n41 prevent a brother clergyman from doing that good in \n" his profeffion which otherwife might be done. \n\n* c I am, Sir, with refpect, \n\n" Your moft obedient fervant, \n\n" Charles Daubeny." \n\n\n\np \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nDR. BLAYNEY\'S ANSWER. \n\n\xc2\xab Rev. Sir, \n\nct I fome time ago received a letter from you, contain- \nct ing an invitation to go over ground again which had \n" been trod before without much comfort or fatisfaction. \nct I therefore felt altogether difinclined to the bufinefs^ \n44 and had refolved to pafs it over in perfect filence. But \n" having lately had occauon to recognize in you a pro- \n44 feffion of principles well worthy of a Chriftian divine, \ni( it ftruck me, that by uniformly acting upon fuch prin- \n44 ciples, you might attain the avowed object of your \n44 propofal more effectually than by the inveftigation you \n" call for. I {hall therefore, in the true fpirit of charity, \n" venture to lay apian before you, which, with your con- \n" currence, will doubtlefs fucceed. You have it in your \n44 pow r er to heal a family breach, which unhappily fubfifls, \n" and has for fome time fubfifted, chiefly on your account. \n44 How meritorious would it be in you to ftep forward in \n" order to promote an univerfal reconciliation ! Admit- \n44 ing faults to have taken place on both fides, (and feldom \n44 is it otherwife) I need not remind you, Sir, how ge- \n\xc2\xa3e nerous, how truly Chriftian it is, to give up refent- \n\n44 ment, and to return good for evil. But in your cafe \n\n45 particularly, I am much miftaken if it will not be found \n4< the befVpolicy in refpect of carrying the point you have \nl - in view, that of clearing your character from afperfions \n" which you think may obftruct the good you might \n64 otherwife do in the line of your profeffion. For by this \n" means you not oijly flop the mouths of thofe who, as \n" you think, are interefled in mifreprefenting you; but \n44 the world itfelf, when it fees you again living on terms \nu of amity with them, will be led to conclude, that what \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n211 \n\n\n\nP has palTed has been more owing to mifaoprehenfion than \n" to any malevolence of intention. Whereas, by ftill \n<c going on in this ftile of proving and defending, you \n""but perpetuate reproach ; lince it cannot be fuppofed \nu that thofe whom you accafe, will be wanting in their \n<c endeavour to repel and retort the charge. \n\n<4 If thefe and fuch like confiderations have any weight \n*< with you, I am free to offer myfelf once more, but I hope \n" melioribus auspiciis, in the character of a mediator, to \n" bring about peace. It is true, I have not yet confulted \nu with my friends, who are totally ignorant of my defign \n* c of writing to you, although they know I have re- \n" ceived a letter from you. But I can fafely take upon me \n" to anfwer, from a thorough knowledge of their temper \n" and difpofition, that they will be ready to meet you \n<c even more than half-way in the road to reconciliation. \n" If you, then, on your part, can afford me any encou- \n" ragement, I doubt not but all might ioon be well : and I \n" mould heartily rejoice in becoming the bleffed inftru- \n" ment of pacification. But if you determine rather to \n" perfevere in the line of enmity, (which as aMinifter of \n" the Gofpel of Peace, God forbid you mould !) my talk \n" is at an end at once ; for mo ft affuredly I will not be \nc< perfuaded to take a part any more, unlels where truth \n" and juftice may require my teftimony, in your uncha- \n" ritable bickerings. \n\n" I am, Reverend Sir, \n\n" With due refpecl:, \n\n" Your moft obedient humble fervant, \n\n* June 25th^ 1798. B. Bjlaynet/ j \n\np 2 \n\n\n\n212 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nIn a few weeks Mr. Daubeny replied to this, as \nfollows i \n\n*\' Reverend Sir, \n" I received your favour fome time nnce, and fhoukl \n" have returned an earlier anfwer to it, had I not been \nte from time to time thinking of calling upon you for the \ncc purpofe of having half an hour\'s converfation with you \n" on the fiibject of it. This, I confefs, is what I could \n" much have wlfhed, becaufe I flattered myfelf that the \n" ftate of the cafe might have been better underftood by \n\xc2\xab a little converfation than by much writing. The \n" thought that fuch a vifit might be unpleafing to you \n64 has at length determined me not to attempt it; al* \n" though, Sir, I {hould be happy to refume the idea upon \n4 \' c the leaft encouragement on your part. The object of \n" my laft letter was to incite to a private amicable inves- \n" ligation of Mr. Meade\'s fubject. I do not wifh to \n" meet any one, a brother Clergyman in particular, upon \n" any other plan. The public affront I have received \n44 in Bath from one of Mr. Meade\'s friends, in confe- \n" o A uence of his flory, has rendered fome vindication of \n" my character neceflary ; and I am confident you would \n" think me unworthy of the ftation I hold in the Church, \n4 C did I reft fatisfied till that object had in fome way been \n" accomplimed. I am forry, Sir, that an idea mould \n" prevail in your mind refpecting my perfeverance e in \n4 the line of enmity.\' I can allure you, I feel no enmity \n*\' on the occaiion; and though deeply injured, I perfectly \niC agree with you upon the fubjecl of giving up refent- \n" ment, and returning good for evil. I hope I lhall \n4s never think otherwife. I am moreover difpofed to give \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n213 \n\n\n\n" full credit to Mr. Meade\'s friends, as honeft and honour- \n" able men 5 afking them only to concede to me one point, \nc f viz. that they are fallible men. Upon this ground \n" alone I wifh to proceed upon the prefent fubject. \n\nc * Thefe considerations will, I truft, Sir, have their \nil weight with you. All I afk is, what I think you would \n" expect mould be granted to you under fimilar circum- \ncc fiances. Let this golden rule of Chriftianity be the \n" ftandard for your conduct on this occafion, and I am \n<c certain it will in the end be productive of mutual fatis- \n" faction. You offer yourfelf, Sir, in the character of a \n" Mediator. I mould be happy to meet you on thatground, \n" when the fubject is in a ftate for it; but upon theprin- \n" ciple that we mud be juft before we are charitable^ \n" when a character has been publickly injured, juftifi- \n" cation of that character. ought to precede every other \n" consideration. Where nothing is required for this pur- \n<{ pofe but a private inveftigation of the conduct of the \ncc refpective parties, I fee not how it can be effected upon \n" eafier terms. If Mr. Meade\'s caufe was a good one in \n" the court, it muft be a good one out of it. It mult \n" doubtlefs, therefore, have occurred to you, that the event \n" of the inveftigation propofed muft be either the confirm- \n" ation of my difgrace, or the more fettled conviction of \n" your judgment. The difadvantage (if any) in this cafe \n" muft be to me \xe2\x80\x94 the advantage to yourfelf. You will \n" not, I flatter myfelf, on this or any occafion, find me \n" acting unworthy the character of a Minifter of the \n* Gofpel of Peace. Indeed, I will venture to fay, that \nw provided you will fo far do me the juftice as to make \n" yourfelf fully acquainted with all the circumftances of \nw the cafe in queftion, there is nothing which you will \n\n\n\n214 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\ntc fecl yourfelf called upon by charity to do, which I fhall \n"be backward in doing; becaufe I am confident you \n" will do every thing a man of character and a clergyman \n* c ought to do upon the occafion. \n\n" I am, Sir, with all due refpect, \n\n" Your moft obedient humble fervant, \n\n" Charles Daubeny." \n\nDoctor Blayney returned the following anfwer. \n\n" Reverend Sir, \n\n" WITH a view to pacification, I have twice \ncc made you an offer of my fervices, which twice have \n<c been at kafl virtually rejected. I muft therefore take \ncc leave to adhere to my declared refolution of declining \n" any further interference. Nor can I fee ground for \n" entering afrefn, after fo long a time, into a matter \n" which has been already fo completely inveftigated, firft \n" in a court of juftice, and afterwards in adeliberate appeal \n" of both parties to the publick ; in confequence of which \n" I have fully and finally made up my mind, and have \n" not a doubt left. \n\n" I am, with due refpeel:, \n\n" Reverend Sir, \nw Your moft obecfient humble fervant, \n\n" B, Blayney." \n\nHere it may be permitted to enquire, what right had \nMr. Daubeny to expedt that Mr Meade\'s clofeft friend \nfhould admit or accede to a new enquiry into his conduct, \nas if his caule were doubtful ? \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n215 \n\n\n\nDr. Blayney had carried on a tirefome and vexatious \ncorrefpondence with Mr. Daubeny during ten months, \nfor the exprefs purpofe of obtaining an amicable invefti- \ngation of the difference between Mr. Meade and him. \nHe did it to prevent, if pofiible, the necefllty of having \nrecourfe to a court of juftice. And by his flatement, \nwhich he permitted Mr. Meade to print, it appears that \nhe did not give up his efforts for fuch private enquiry, \nuntil after repeated infults from Mr. Daubeny, and much \ndiflatis faction with his conduct.* It was not till then \nthat Mr. Meade, with the Doctor\'s concurrence, and that \nof every difpaffionate perfon, had his caufe brought into \nthe Court of King\'s-Bench, where it was decided in a \npublic and regular manner. \n\nIn the laft of Mr. Daubeny\'s preceding letters, a few \npaffages require a particular notice. There is no founda- \ntion for the affertion, that " he received an affront in Bath \n\'* in confequence of Mr. Meade\'s {lory." The perfon \nalluded to is Mrs. Falconer. f It feems that fhe chofe to \ngo to St. James\'s Church on a Sunday when Mr. Daubeny \nwent to preach at the one which fhe ufually attended. \nAt that time Mr. Meade was a very new acquaintance \nof hers, and had never opened his lips to her on Mr. \nDaubeny\'s fubjecl:. She judged as others did, from no- \ntorious facts. \n\n* See Dr. Blayney\'s account of the negociation in Mr. Meade\'s \npamphlet, 1754 ; a few copies of which Mr. Meade has remaining. \n\nt Mrs. Falconer is fince dead; but both Dr. Falconer and his \nfon, the Rev. Mr. Falconer, will bear teftimony to the truth of what \nis here related. And when Mr. Daubeny pleads this affront as ren- \ndering a vindication of his character neceffary ; he forgets his cqn* \ntJucl for many years preceding this circumftance. \n\n\n\n216 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nMr. Daubeny aflerts it as a principle that we muft be \njust before we are charitable. Where is this principle \nfound? " To be juft before we are generous" is an old \nprecept in pecuniary matters \\ but where does the Gos- \npel lay it down as a principle, that a party in a contention \nfhall be judge how far his own idea of juftice {hall be fa- \ntisfied, even to admit of charity ? Who would venture \nto pray God that his justice mould precede mercy? And \nyet we all pray that He would deal by us as we do by others. \n\nMr Daubeny\'s aftiimption, that tf if Mr. Meade\'s \n<c caufe was good in court, it muft be fo out of court/* \nis very true, but his inference is falfe; the merits remain \nthe fame. But the point mould be thus ftated: ce In a \n" private meeting, without Judge, Jury, Witnesses, Oath, \n* c or Restraint; when bold and falfe aflertions may be \n" made at will, without means of fiftingor examining on \n" oath, has innocence an equal chance with guilt? And \n<c mould fuch a mockery of a trial be reforted to, after a \n" cause had been decided in a court of juftice?" Is not \nthe defign obvious? \n\nIn like manner Mr. Daubeny fpeaks of <c all the dis- \n" advantage being his." This is another deception. \nWhat difadvantage ? He might gain, but could not lose. \nIf by any means or chance he could induce people to think \nof him more favourably, he would be fo far a gainer; \nwhereas an unfavourable opinion would but leave him \nwhere he is. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX, \n\n\n\n217 \n\n\n\n( c. ) \n\nNarrative of Mrs. Meade\'s Visit to her Mother. \n\nSeptember, 1803. \n\nMRS. Meade had been more than eleven years married \nwithout being able to fee her mother. She had \nwritten frequently to her, but her letters were always an- \nfwered, with infults and feverity, by perfons interefted or \ninfluenced ao-ainft her : and the mediation of friends was \nequally fruitlefs, they being never in any one inftance \npermitted to fpeak to Mrs. Barnftonon the fubjec~t. Mrs. \nMeade therefore determined at length to go to her mother\'s \nhoufe. It had been always recommended to her; and \nalthough her opponent appeared to be now too ftrong, \nand her mother too weak, to admit of very fanguine hopes \nof fuccefs, yet it was itill recommended, as the only ftep \n{he had left untried. But before the account of her vifit \nbe related, it is neceffary to ftate that the caufe of it at this \nparticular time was that Mr. Stevens, an old and much- \nelteemed friend of Mr. Daubeny, as well as of Mrs. \nMeade\'s family, being in Bath, and being treated by Mr. \nDaubeny with coldnefs and difrefpect in the ftreet, re- \nceived from him the next morning the following letter : \n\nRev. Chas, Daubeny to Wm. Stevens, Efq. \n" Sir, \n\n" IT may not be more agreeable to your feelings than \na it is to mine, that I mould pafs by an old and truly- \n" refpected friend unnoticed. But you have placed your- \nie felf and me in that fituation, that fo it muft be, unMs \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n" you choofe it fhould be otherwife. After a long and \n<c intimate acquaintance with my chara&er, you have \n" committed yourfelf againft it, without permitting your- \n" felf to doubt, or to make enquiry. I can make all due \n" allowance, becaufe I know the art that has been prac- \n" tifed upon you. It is ftill however in your power to \n" tread back your fteps, if you think proper. If not, I \n" muft leave you, though unwillingly, to travel on to your \nu grave, accompanied with the refleaion of having, in \n" confequence of wilfully (hutting your eyes againft the \n" light, perfifted in fupporting the caufe of falfehood and \n" infamy againft that of truth and honour. \n\n<c Dr. Randolph, I underftand, confiders that his friend \nst Mr. Meade can gain no advantage from farther invefti- \n" gation, becaufe he has the opinion of the world already. \n" Both Dr. Randolph and myfelf ought to look beyond \n6C this world. To meet Dr. Randolph, however, on worldly \ncc ground, I propofe a worldly advantage to his friend, if he \ntc can prove himfelf entitled to it. I will put down 5001.* \n" on the table, on this condition, that if Mr. Meade can \n" prove himfelf to be the injured man, and that as fuch \n" he was entitled to his verdia in the judgment of honour. \ni\xe2\x82\xac able and unprejudiced parties, the 5001. {hall be his \n\n* What man, found guilty by a jury, would not put down 500!. \nor 5000I. according to his fortune or his wounded pride, for the \nchance of fuch a trial as Mr. Daubeny propofes ; where himfelf and \nhis party would have to give their teftimony on their words, with- \nout power in the judges to examine, to adminifter an oath, to en- \nforce the attendance of witneffes, or to reftrain the parties in any \ndegree? At fuch a trial, and before fuch judges, is it not reafon- \nable to fuppofe that Mr. Daubeny would do, as he did by others \nwho thought him wrong; that is, turn his back on them, or infult \nthem, and fay jhey knew nothing of the matter I \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n219 \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xacC own. But if cn the contrary I prove his caufe to be \n" fuch as every man of character ought :o reprobate, and \n({ the evidence produced by him in court to be groffly and \n" wilfully perjured, in fuch cafe Mr. Meade mall refund \n" the verdict he has unjuftly obtained, for the benefit of the \n" Ba\'h Hofpital. Such is my propofal. I challenge Mr. \n" Meade\'s friends to accept it. An affair of this nature \nCi admits of no poffible compromife. My character is \ntL of that importance, in my own eyes at leaft, that I can \n" never fubmit to its being made the fcapegoat for that of \n(( Mr, or Mrs. Meade. Either I am the man Mr. Meade \n" reprefents me, or I am not. Upon no other confider- \n" ation than that of a&ing up to the character for which \ni6 I have been always difpofed to give you credit, that of \n" an honeft and zealous friend, by proving whether I \n" am fo or not, can I ever receive the hand of Mr. \n" Stevens. I am, Sir, with refpeel, &c. \n\n"Jan. 20, 1S03. CHARLES DAUBENY," \n\nTo which Mr. Stevens replied, \n\n(< I HAVE received your letter in explanation of ha- \nie ving palTed by an old friend without vouchfafing to \nC( tak\xc2\xbbg any notice of him. Your behaviour I thought \n" feemed to require fome apology, and I am pleafed to \n<c find you are of the fame opinion. I with it may lead \n* ( to good, and by putting an end to the forrows, be the \n(i beginning of joy to a long divided and diftra&ed family. \n" But I muft confefs I have my doubts. The queftion \n" with me now is, whether the letter itfelf does not ftand \ni( in need of apology, which perhaps you will not be fo \ni( ready to make. For pray, my dear Sir^ how came you \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xact to know fo decidedly what is not the fac"t, that i com- \n6C mitted myfelf againft your character, without permit- \n* c ting myfelf even to doubt or to make inquiry?* You \nfit fay likewife you know the art that has been practifed on \n5C me. But you are in this no lefs egregioufly miftaken \n* c than in the other affertion. Whatever you may think \n* c you know, take my word for it, no art, as you call it, has \n* c been practifed on me. Prefuming on my being a poor \n\xe2\x82\xacC weak creature, which God knows I am, you haftily \n* c conclude that I am eafily impofed on. But I truft, c I \n* & \xc2\xa3 may, without treading back the fleps I have gone, tra- \n* c \' vel on to my grave unaccompanied by the reflection \n*\' i of having in confequenee of wilfully {hutting my eyes \nfie c againll the light, perfifted in fupporting, as you choofe \n* \xc2\xa3 c to reprefent it, the caufe of falfehood and infamy \n\xe2\x82\xacC c againft that of truth and honour/ As to your pro- \n&c pofal for a re-hearing of the caufe, I have only to \n" fay I am fully perfuaded that Mr. Meade (to whom \nic what you have written mail be communicated) will \n\xe2\x82\xacs mod cheerfully accede to any proportion you can make, \ncc that is honourable, and likely to produce good-will \nec and harmony. And as to your character, which is of \n&e importance, as you rightly obferve, in your own eyes, \n\n* Thofe who are unacquainted with Mr. Daubeny*s confidence \nIn making affertions, will be furprifed to hear, after this charge \nagainft. Mr. Stevens, that fo far from " judging without inquiry,\'* \nfee was amongft the iirft of Mr. Daubeny\'s friends, who at his requeft \nattended him for many hours in Bath, to read his voluminous charges, \nenforced by his own comments, explanations, and affertions. He \nwas prefent at the trial, and had one of Mr. Daubeny\'s books fent \nto him as a particular friend, and all this at a time when he was \nalmoft a Itranger to Mr. Meade, and his former friendfhips and \nprejudices inclined him ftronglyto Mr. Daubeny: "Amicus Plato? \n*\' red magis arnica Veritas " was, however, more ftrong with him, \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. 221 \n\nw and let me add, in the eyes of others alio, I have long \nw thought that nothing would contribute fo much to fe- \n" cure you the efteem of all good men, and I mould hope \n\n* the approbation of your own confcience, as the praclice \na of a little more Chriftian charity, and forgiving as you \n" expecl: to be forgiven. Whether you will receive my \n" hand or not, muft be left to yourfelf; but I {hall not be \nic backward to give It 5 and that you may fee the things \n\n* which belong to your peace, and to the peace of thofe \n" with whom you are more particularly bound to be at \n* c peace, is the flncere prayer of \n\n"January 21, 1803. W. S." \n\nMr. Stevens, after fome days, wrote again to Mr, Dau- \nbeny as follows : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n" Rev. Sir, \n\n" Not hearing from you mice my reply to your letter \n\xc2\xa3C of January 20, I take it for granted you do not see the \n(\xe2\x82\xac propriety of what I there intimated, that fome apology \nee might be neceffary on your part for what had been ad- \n" vanced in your letter. However that may be, I am \n\xc2\xa3C not without hopes that the correfpondence which has \n(c been renewed between two old friends on a difagreeable \n\xe2\x82\xac( fubje6t may yet terminate happily. I have acquainted \nC( Mr. Meade, whom I have feen, with what has palled, \n(i and I found him, as I expected, well inclined to lifteu \n(( to any propofal that is calculated to anfwer fome good \n(i purpofe. But, my old friend, (if I may fo fpeak) of \n" what ufe can it be to ftir up ftrife again ? Is it not much \n" better to let go contention? Suppofe you are the in- \n<e jured perfon, where is the benefit of proving it, unlefs \n"to mew how ready you are to forgive injuries?" 4-nd \n\n\n\n222 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n(e may not that be done more earl ly at once, without taking \ncc fo much trouble? It is mentioned in the life of Sir \nce Eardly Wilmot, that a gentleman of high rank came to \n" him one day, under the impreffion of great wrath and \n" indignation at a real injury he had received from a perfon \n\xe2\x82\xac< high in the political world, and which he was medi- \n66 tating how to refent in the mod effectual manner. \n\xe2\x82\xaci After relating the particulars to Sir Eardly, he afked if \n(C he did not think it would be manly to refent it. c Yes,\' \n<c faid Sir Eardly, \' certainly it will be manly to refent it; \n" * but it would be godlike to forgive it.\' This, the gen- \n" tleman declared, had fuch an inftantaneous effect upon \niC him, that he came away quite a different man, and in \n" a totally different temper from that in which he went. \nC( Now if you have received an injury, why cannot you \n6C go and do likewife? Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Meade \n<\xe2\x82\xac are the injured perfons, (and furely there is no harm in \xe2\x80\x9e \n" the fnppofition) I am confident they have not a wifh to \n" recall to remembrance any of the provocations you may \ncc have given, or any of the hard fpeeches you may have \n" uttered again ft them. They are no ft rangers to the \n" doctrine of the forgivenefs of injuries; neither are they \n" ftrangers to the practice of it. You challenge Mr. \n" Meade\'s friends to accept your propofal ; let me chal- \nc< lenge you to accept mine. If you do accept it, I think \n" I may venture to promife you will feel the comfort of \n" it. It is comprifed in two words, and I am perfuaded \n" will be readily embraced by all the parties concerned. \n" It is no more than forget and forgive. Confider h\'oVy \n" good and joyful it is for brethren to dwell together in \na unity. Let there be a general act: of oblivion for what \n" is paft. Let all animofities ceafe on all fides; and let \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xac *>the family be again what it once was, the family of \n" love. Oh! that I mio;ht be made the inftrument of \n- s aflembling yon all together, children and grand-child- \n" ren, to receive, the bleffing of the venerable old lady, \n" your excellent mother-in-law, whole heart would re- \n<c joice at the event; and to fee you all embrace one ano- \nie ther with the kifs of charity. It would be a pleafant \nie fight, and I mould efteem it one of the happier! days \n" of my life to accomplifh fo good a work. Bear in mind \n" what I have faid; fufTer the word of exhortation from a \n" zealous friend, and let me have the fatisfaclion of re- \n" fleeting that it may give me fome title to the beatitude \nsc in the Gofpel, \' Blefled are the peace-makers.\' \n\n" Adieu. Your\'s, fincerely. \n\n<c Feb. 7, 1803. Wm. Stevens." \n\nThe Rev. Charles Daubeny\'s reply to the above was \nas follows : \n\n"To William Stevens, efq. \n" Sir, \n\n" I am certainly bound to thank you for your earn eft \n" endeavours to mediate between Mr. Meade and myfelf, \nu with the charitable object in view of bringing together \n"a divided family; and mould think myfelf bound to \n<c thank you ftill more, could you devife any plan for that \nct purpofe, which in the opinion of my friends (conside- \n" ratis consider andis ) ought by me to be embraced. On \n" this fubjeit I cannot fpeak more ftrongly than I fpake \n" fome time flnce to a friend, who feemed difpofed to \n" appear in the fame charitable character with yourfelf, \n" by telling him, c that though Mr. Meade had bafely \n\n\n\n224 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\ntc c picked my pocket of one 500!. I would willingly give \n" c another fuch fum to any one who could find a way to \nu c bring the family together without the facrifice of \n" c character.\'* \n\ncc But, Sir, your letter feems to me to proceed on one \n<c great fallacy, againft which the integrity of your cha- \nct ra&er has not been fufficiently on its guard, In con- \ncc tradiclion to that unequivocal language contained in my \n" former letter, which properly belongs to that decided \n\xe2\x82\xacc line of conducl which juftice to myfelf has obliged me \n<e to adopt on this occafion, you fay, \' if you have re- \n4t c ceived an injury why cannot you forgive ?\' and, \nu \' fuppofe Mr. and Mrs. Meade are the injured pcrfons, \n* \xc2\xa3 \'&c.\' This would be very proper language to be ufed in a \n\xe2\x82\xacC cafe where injury may be fuppofed to have been mutu- \ncc ally received, and where the interpoling parties, after a \nc * general knowledge of particulars, might not be able to \n" agree from what fide conceffion fhould come. In fuch \nC\xc2\xa3 cafe mutual forgivenefs and general oblivion would point \n" themfelves out as the neceffary and proper expedients, \n" and that party would be deficient in Chriftian charity \n<c who hefitated to adopt them. But if Mr. Stevens had \n" fet out in this bufinefs in confiftency with the character \n" he afiumes, he would have known that fuch expedients \n" did not apply to the cafe in hand; and this language \n" upon it confequentiy, admitting Chriftian charity in its \n\n* Mr. Daubeny has two favourite expreffions for hintfelf and for \nothers \xe2\x80\x94 " His chcircifter" and " the world" No man is more \njealous of his character. His fears for it enter into every letter./ \nIt is an argument to juftify all he does, and to condemn all that \nothers do. But if any one elfe feel for his own character, then \nMr. Daubeny exclaims, that that perfon regards the world only* \nWhile he himfelf looks further I \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n225 \n\n\n\nfc utmofl extent, would have been very different from whai \n({ it now is. To the tenour, therefore, of Mr. Stevens\'s \nce letter, I am reluctantly conftrained to anfwer thus: \xe2\x80\x94 If \n<s I am called on to forvive Mr. Meade, injury on my \n<f part mull have been received from him. Taking the \nec fubjeel on this ground, and placing the Gofpel before \n<c us, a proper acknowledgment of the injury conflitutes \n(e theneceflTary prelude to forgivenefs. Should, after fuch \nCi acknowledgment has been made, forgivenefs he with- \nc * held, the party injured certainly does not forgive as he \n" hopes to be forgiven.* But Mr. Meade has placed him- \n" felf on the ground of the injured party, and has been \n" engaged for ten years at the expence of my character \n" in flrengthening himfelf in the public opinion. f Should \n<( that ground therefore be found ground, I, as the inju- \n" ring party, have nothing to forgive. But, Sir, I feel \n(( myfelf {landing on the unfhaken ground of innocence. \ns * Againft that innocence Mr. and Mrs. Meade have wil- \n(( fully and groflly finned. It was in my power to have \nput them both to fhame in the fame court, J from the \n\n* This language is furely immodeft at leaft, in that perfoa \nagainft whom a court of juftice had decided ! and it is plainly a per* \nverfion of Mr. Stevens\'s argument. \n\nf Mr. Daubeny might fufpecl that if Mr. Meade has the public \nopinion with him, he muft have better fupport than his own efforts. \nMr. Daubeny had the advantage of friendfhips that are ufually \nformed at fchool and college | he has the influence derived from \ngreat property, and the fupport of families and relations interefted \nin his character; while Mr. Meade\'s natural interells were in another \ncountry. If Mr. Daubeny is in this cafe rejected, and Mr. Meade \npnr.e&edby the public opinion, the former may affign a more pro- \npable caufe for it than he has done, \n\n% Is it not paft comprehenfion, that Mr. Daubeny, aware of the \nkt.uauon in which he ftood, moulds fuffer the difgrace of his owa \n\nQ \n\n\n\n226" APPENDIX. \n\n<c ignorance of which they derived their projected advan* \n" tage. I forgave my injurers fo far as to feek no redrefs \nsc againit them ; becaufe the confequence of the remedy \n66 that mull have been reforted to for the pnrpofe, made \n** a ftronger impreflion on my feelings, than I trufted the \n" temporary advantage gained againft me would be able \n" to make on the minds of thole to whom the uniform \n< ( confiftency of my character was known. If I have \n(( been deceived in this refpect, it has not been for want \n* of character on my part, but for want of judgment in \n" others to appreciate it. Having thus pradtifed, fo far \nse as they relate to this fubject, the hardeft Chriftian doc- \nce trines, of paffive obedience and n.on-refiftance in bear- \nC( ing patiently what it has been the will of God to lay \nte on me; you will not judge me indifpofed to proceed \ntff even further, fhould Gofpel authority be produced, call- \n66 ins: on me to do fo. \n\nto \n\n" To myfelf howeVer I appear to have acted fully up to \nu the Gofpel ltandard on this occafion.* I have forgiven, \n" fo far as forgivenefs can be practifed on my part. To \n\ncharacter, in order to fave that of another, whom at the fame time \nhe reprefented as unworthy of regard? Is this conliftent with the \nexperience of mankind; or is it reconcileable with facts? For if \nactions be taken as evidence of the mind, all Mr, Daubeny\'s are in \ndirect contradiction to his pretentions. Indeed it mull appear an \nincredible thing, (as obferved by Lord Ellenborough on a late trial) \n"that a man mould ia\xc2\xa3 give up his own reputation out of tendernefs. \nfor another\'sf\'and immediately afterwards endeavour to dellroy that \nperibn\'s reputation, and expect that the world would receive his, \nword as the proof! \n\n* Does not Mr. Daubeny mifunderftand " the Gofpel ftandard l n \n\xe2\x96\xa0 Is he the fearcher of hearts? Is confelTion to be made to him, and \nforgivenefs to be granted by him ? Is he to be the judge in Ms o<wn \n\'caufe; or c.n earthly contentions be ever made up, if his doctrine \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n22? \n\n\n\nft receive Mr. Meade with his verdict in his pocket, and \nhis ftory in his mouth, would be to fubferibe to the \n"juftiee of the one, and to acknowledge the truth of the \nother. This I conceive would not be Chr-iftian charity, \nu fo much as Christian follj/. It would be for injured \n4< innocence to chain herfelf to the car of triumphant \n4 * guilt, for the purpofe of contributing to the more com- \n(( plete celebration of ill-acquired fame. \n\n* c Adieu, your\'s fincerely, \n\nf* Feb. 23, 1803. CHARLES DAUBENY." \n\nWilliam Stevens, Efq; to the Rev, Charles \nDaubeny, \n\n(C Reverend Sir, \n\nff I HAVE received your long letter, to which it is not \ncc my intention to write a long anfwer. I perceive that \n<( what I faid in my two former letters has been to no \n66 purpofe ; and I have no reafon to expect better fuccefs \ni( from any thing more I can fay. I {hall only juft obferve \n" that when you afTert you were reftrained by delicacy to \n** Mr. and Mrs. Meade from expofing their characters and \n(< vindicating your own at the trial, people will.be apt to \n\xe2\x82\xace exclaim, w Credat Judaua dpdla!" for certainly, \n" befides the improbability of a man facrifieing his own \n* ( character out of compliment to his adverfary, the truth \n* f of the affertion is ill-confirmed by your fubfequent con^ \n* ( duel, which has been induftrioufly to fpeak all manner \n\nbe admitted ? The reader will judge for himfelf, whofe fectiment \nand expreffion are rnoft confjftent with *< the Gofpel ftandard \nMr. Stevens\'s, of " Chriltian charity j" or Mr. Daubeny\'s, q\xc2\xa3 \nu Christian folly. \n\na 2 \n\n\n\n228 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n< f of evil againfl them, to reprefent them as groffly guilty \n* c of wilful perjury, and their caufe as the caufe of infamy \n(c and falfehood. Seeing thefe things are fo, how comes \ni( it to pais that you can accufe them, without condemn- \n\xe2\x82\xac( ing yourfelf? or by what enchantment can you perfuade \niS yourfelf you are the only injured perfon, when you have \n6S done infinitely more to traduce their characters, than I \n* c ever heard of their doing to traduce yours ? Were I \nee difpofed to recriminate, I might adopt your language to \n6e me, and complain, * that you wilfully perfift in limiting \n\xe2\x82\xacC c your eyes againfl the light/ But I forbear. Liberavi \nie animam meam. If you can with truth fay the fame^ \n" I give you joy, and take my leave. \n\n"Feb. 26, 1803. Your\'s, Wm. Stevens." \n\nThis correfponcjence being conlidered by Mrs. Meade\'s \nfriends as particularly interefting, it was advifed that hep \nmother fhould fee it, and {he accordingly fent it to he^ \nwith a letter to the following purpofe. \n\n\n\nMrs. Meade to Mrs. Barnston. \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 After earneftly calling her attention to Mr. Stevens\'s \nletters, and reminding her how he flood efteemed and \nregarded in the family, me added, " Tf you will permit \n\xe2\x82\xac< me to go to you, I will do it with a heart full of grati- \n^ tude and love ; I will throw myfelf at your feet to im- \n<\xe2\x96\xa0< plore your bleffing on myfelf and on my children; and \nf * when I folemnly declare that I feel no other fentiment \nu than of good-will towards all my relations, I am ready \n* c to teftify it by every act of kindnefs in my power. To \nu my fiilers I open my heart in love; and to Mr, Dauben^ \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n259 \n\n\n\n<c I offer the hand of a filler in friendfhip, and beg that \n" we forget for ever the paft, and forgive as we hope to be \n" forgiven. If his character fuffers, I am truly forry for \n" it. If the remembrance of a law-fuit is painful to him, \n* c I can with truth declare, that it was entered upon with \n" bitter reluctance, and has been a matter of equal concern \n\xc2\xab f ever lince. If he thinks, as I hear, that we ftrive to \nCi injure his character, it is a cruel mifreprefentation ; for \nec if our acquaintances were permitted to meet each other, \n<( they would foon make it appear that Mr. Meade and I \nf( never fpeak on the fubje\xc2\xa3t, unlefs fome neceffary or \n<c friendly object is in view. Let us then, my deareft \n<( Madam, aifemble round you, and with a kifs of love \n" and charity bury the paft in everlafting oblivion. Do 5 \n" for God\'s fake, ufe your influence with Mr. Daubeny. \n<( 1 implore you by the memory of my dear father, and \nc< of poor Mr* Sikes, who but a fortnight before he died \n<e wrote to me, that if he could fee us friends again, it \n\xe2\x82\xaci would be the happieft day of his life. Conflder well the \n\xe2\x82\xacC melancholy example of your numerous grand-children \n\'* being bred up in hereditary averfion, without even \nec knowing each other. One word, it feems, is brought \nCf forward as a bar to charity, and a juftification of our \n<e everlafting feparation; the word^ restitution* On this \n* f occafion, when I am foliciting peace and reconcilement, \nt will avoid every expreffion of blame or of justification* \ncc But I will quote the fentiments of a divine, who wrote \ncf on this very point a hundred years ago: c If any one \n(( i offend, the evil is with him, and he has moll caufe to \n" 4 be troubled. Little injuries mould not move us; if \n.*? c great, there is more magnanimity in forgiving, for it \n" * is the glory of a. man to pafs over a tranfgrefiion, We \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa330 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nc muft forgive one another, as God for Christ\'s \nf* c lake forgives us. But who is to go to he reconciled, \n** c the offender or the offended? BOTH, that reconcile- \n" 6 ment may be fure. If restitution be firft required, \nc( c if prefent fatisfa&ion be demanded, we mould rather \nu e chide our unbelieving hearts that cannot wait till that \n\nc day, when it will be better for the offended, and worfe \niC \xc2\xa3 for the offender, if it be not done before. \xe2\x80\x94Vengeance \n" 6 is mine, I will repav, faith the Lord. Our part is \n* s \xc2\xa3 both to forgive, and to pray God to forgive; to ex- \n" c hort our enemy meekly, to tell him of his fault, and \n* e 6 then to win him to friendfhip by kindnefs.\' \n\n" I am, Sec. Catherine Meade.**" \n\nTo this letter no anfwer* being for fome days returned, \nMrs. Meade refolved to go to her mother\'s houfe, and \nftrengthened herfelf to bear the agitation it muff give to \nher fpirits, by the reflection that it was the only effort fhe \nwas confeious of having omitted. She took the oppor- \ntunity of Mr. Daubeny\'s abfence from Bath, and hearing \nat her mother\'s door that fhe, with Mrs. Mary Barnfton, \nwas in her apartment above, Mrs. Meade walked up, and \ntapping at the door, Mrs. M. Barnfton opened it, and \npulhed her away inftantly, faying, c< you fhali not come in." \ntf I infift on feeing my mother.\' ec You mall not, you \nC\xe2\x82\xac will kill her." 6 I come to relieve, not to diftrefs her; to \n6 let her fee a once-loved daughter imploring her blefling/ \nff< You cannot and you muft not fee her now ; fhe is ill, and \n\nhas juft taken medicine; you will hurt her greatly; do \n\n* An anfwer was in the poft at the time Mrs. Meade went to \nher mother\'s \xe2\x80\x94 in the old ftile of rejection ; it was written by Mrs. M, \nBarnfton, but manifeftly not her competition. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX* \n\n\n\n231 \n\n\n\n(C pray come clown, and talk with me below ; you shall \n" fee her another time." Mrs. Meade then walked down \nwith her filter to the drawing-room ; " if you will give it \n" up now, you shall fee her I aflure you/\' faid her fifter. \nf When ?\' "I will write to you this night, and fix the \n(S time/\' 6 But will it be in Mr. Daubeny\'s prefence?\' \n" It muit, my mother will nototherwife fee you." c Then \nf I will see her now/ 6i Nay then you (hall fee her \nCi alone/\' 6 Promife me that, and I will give it up now/ \n" I do promife,\xe2\x80\x94 at leaft that I will do all I can for it." \nMrs. Meade returned immediately to her own houfe in \nthe country; and the fame evening Mrs. M. Barnfton \nfent for Mr. Daubeny from North-Bradley, who came in \nconsequence to Bath, and early the next morning Mrs. \nM. Barnfton wrote to Mrs. Meade. \n\nMrs. Mary Barnston to Mrs* Meade, \n(C Dear Sifter, \n\xe2\x82\xacC My mother has appointed to-morrow or Saturday,, \n\xe2\x82\xac< at one o\'clock, to receive you, \'for the purpofe of con- \n< c vincing you, that me has perfectly forgiven your \nu pall conduct, fo far as fhe as a mother has been con- \n<c cerned in it; which fhe has told you over and over \n\xe2\x82\xac< again many years ago. But if you do not come accor- \ni( ding to this appointment, my mother infifts upon it \n(i that fhe may not be broken in upon in that unfeeling \n" manner in which you would have done it yefterday, \n" had it not been prevented* In cafe therefore you do \n" not come according to this appointment, my mother \n<f fays fhe will not be feen. Pleafe to fend an anfwer by \n" the bearer, I am your\'s, in great hafte, \n\n"Mary Barnston." \n\n\n\n232 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nMrs. Meade\'s Anfwer. \n\xc2\xab Dear Sifter, \nc* I WILL wait on my mother to-morrow at the ap- \n\xe2\x82\xac( pointed hour. The ftile of your letter {hews me but \ni( too clearly the ftate of your mind. However I will do \n" my part. Your affectionate lifter, \n\n"Sept. 1 5 1803. Catherine Meade." \n\nOn the 8th of September, Mrs. Meade, accompanied \nby her youngeft child whom her grandmother had never \nfeen, went into Bath, and on her arrival at her mother\'s \nhoufe, was (hewn by a fervant into a room, where, inftead \nof her mother, fhe found Mr. Daubeny alone. Little \nprepared for fuch a meeting, but afiuming a fuitable \ndegree of fpirit, to the cold intimation of Mr. Daubeny, \n" You are to fee you mother, Madam, alone," fhe replied, \ns Am I? T am glad of it.\' " I will let her know you are \n" here," faid he ; and retiring for a few minutes, he re- \nturned, and again faid coldly, (e you may walk up flairs \nee now, Madam." But on Mrs. Meade\'s taking her \nchild by the hand to conduct her to her mother, Mr. \nDaubeny delivered the child to a fervant to be kept down \nftairs, while he accompanied Mrs. Meade himfelf to her \nmother\'s apartment. \n\nThe fpirits of Mrs. Meade being much agitated, it was \nwith difficulty fhe could fupport herfelf till (he reached \nthe chair of her mother. She fell on her knees before \nher, and her mother, putting her arms on her neck, prefled \nher, and cried, " Oh ! my child, my dear long-loft child. \n"Oh!"andfell back in agonies. Mrs. Meade overcomearad \n\n\n\n533 \n\n\n\nfinking, was led out of the room, and found herfelf in an \nadjoining apartment with Mr. Daubeny and a ftran\'ge \nlady, who flic thought might be one of Mr. Daubeny\'s \ndaughters, not having feen them from their childhood. \nOn her recovery and return to her mother\'s room, her lifter \nMrs. Daubeny immediately faid to her mother, (c Now, \niC Madam, fay what you have to fay, and let her be gone. 55 \n\n* I have nothing to fay/ me replied feebly; and on \nMrs. Meade\'s looking earnedy at her, and obferving \n\n* how much fhe was changed in twelve years ;\' (being \ndeaf, very weak, and almoft blind ;) " Changed ! how \n<c changed ?" faid Mrs Daubeny, " there is no change. 53 \n\nThefe circumdances, chilling as they were, and dis- \ncouraging, did not alter Mrs. Meade\'s determined mind; \nbut fhe exprefled the mod earned entreaties, 6 that all the \n\' pad ihould be forgot, and family peace redored/ (( It \n* c depends on yourfelf, Madam," faid Mr. Daubeny. "As \nsc long as Mr. Meade has his verdict in his pocket, and \n<c you your dory in your mouth, there can be no farther \nfc reconcilement;" with other ofFenfive expreffions, which \ninduced Mrs. Meade to reply, " that fhe came there for \nCf peace, not to be infill tedy nor prepared to argue." Mr. \nDaubeny held in his hands a pamphlet, and began a loner \nfixing of charges and complaints, from parts he feemed to \nhave noted; and Mrs. Meade, who had previoufly deter- \nmined to confine herfelf to foliciting reconcilement with \nher mother, and had no expectation of an opponent, was \nequally unwilling and unprepared to difpute with him; \nbut hearing him ufe arguments to prevent reconcilement, \nwhich {he knew to be unjuft, die could not help pointing \nout their fallacy, and flattered herfelf (agitated though die \nwas) that die had done it fuccefsfully in a great degree} \n\n\n\n234 APPENDIX. \n\nalthough the two ftrange ladies, whom Mrs. Meade ima- \ngined might be her nieces, always nodded affent to him, \nor expreffed it by iC certainly, certainly " Mr. \nDauberiy, however, continued fhifting his ground; and \nwith volubility of plaulible expreffions contriving to \nkeep the leading points out of fight, he ftill urged \nagainft Mrs. Meade all his old arguments, which had been \noften anfwered. He charged Mr. Meade with calumni- \nating him, and me peremptorily denied it. 6 He pre- \njudiced Admiral Stanhope againft me,\' faid Mr. \nDaubeny. 94 No : the Admiral declared, on his honour, \nec that he never heard your name from Mr. Meade until \n<c you and your friends had put him in full poffeffion of \nec your ftory; and then he wrote to Mr. Meade." c But \n\n* you must admit that he poifoned Dr. Falconer againft \n\n* me/ " Mr. Meade had never feen one of Dr. Falco- \n" ner\'s family, when they had made up their minds on \n" the fubjecV\' faid flie. < Who poifoned theBifhop of \n6 Durham\'s mind?\' " Not Mr. Meade," faid ftie, \n<c nor any of his friends. His Lordfhip fays, that it was \nQe you who infifted on his reading your papers \\ which \ncf when he had done, he thought proper to read thofe \n" on the other fide, and then decided. But," faid Mrs. \nMeade, \xe2\x82\xace it is unfortunate that th,e zeal of friends is \n" fo intemperate: there is the mtfchief. Two ladies, \n\xe2\x82\xac< friends of yours, having dined lately with fome neigh- \n<c bours of ours in the country, among whom Mr. \n<c Meade was fpoken of with regard, thought proper to \na attack his character and mine with fuch invectives, that \n" their friend with whom they dined, unwilling to hear \n** it, put a ftop to the fubjecl: altogether." c Who were \n\n* the ladies V faid Mr. Daubeny. & I don\'t know them," \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n235 \n\n\n\nfaid Mrs. Meade; u they are my mother\'s next-door \n" neighbours, the Mils Mafons." Some furprize being \nteftified by the whole party, one of the Grangers looked \nup and faid, c< we mult take (hat on ourfelves, Madam." \nA fpeech which it may be well imagined ailonimed \nMrs. Meade. \n\nDuring the whole interview, Mrs. Barnflon, and her \neldeft daughter Mrs. Mary Barnfton, took no part. Mrs. \nDaubeny frequently faid that it was time her mother \nmould have her dinner, and that (lie would be exhauiled 5 \nand whenever Mrs. Meade attempted to fpeak to her mother, \nme flopped her, faying, i( that the muft not be agitated;" \nand when Mrs. JVleade defired to bring up her child, both \nMr. and Mrs. Daubeny prevented it for the fame reafon, \nMr. Daubeny, through the whole fcene, appears to have \na&ed with much addrefs, endeavouring to entangle or to \nfeduce Mrs. Meade into fome acknowledgment favourable \nto himfelf, by holding out to her the affection of all her \nmother\'s houfe as an incitement. At one time he was mild \nand calm, at another peremptory. But the point he moll \nlaboured at was to perfuade Mrs. Meade to admit that what \n{he depofed relative to Dr. Blayney and Mr. Coham was \nfalfe. 6C Do you want me to proclaim myfelf," faid Mrs. \nMeade, " a perjured wretch, and to falfify all thofe who \n" bore teftimony to my truth ?" 6 1 never faid/ he replied, \n* what you fwore; and how could you pretend to remember \nf it?\' " I could never forget it," faid me. u Tohear, as you \nse told me, that Mr. Meade\'s two clofeft friends gave him. \n" up, was the mod alarming account I could hear. I made \n<c a minute of it, as I had been ufed to do for many years, \nsc in my journal. I wrote inftantly to Mr. Coham, al- \nce though I had never taken that liberty before, to intreat \n\n\n\n236 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 f him to fatisfy my honour and my happinefs, by fully \n*\' explaining to me the grounds on which he gave up \n** the caufe of his friend ; and Mr. Coham bore tefti- \n" mony to this, in his laft illnefs, in a letter to my mother. \ntfc I wrote an account alfo of the circumftance to Mrs. \n* e Gunning, and my letter ftill exifts. I mentioned it \n(i alio in my letters and otherwife to my relations, and \nsc I related it confcientioufly when examined on my \n\xe2\x82\xacC oath." And me added, " that fne never made any \n4C charge againft Mr. Daubeny, nor afcribed to him mo- \nft tives or inventions; having merely fpoken to fa&s, \n" as me heard them from him, and which on her oath \n(e {he was bound to relate \xe2\x80\x94 that as he had told her he \ncc heard them from others, fo {he ftated. That (he did not \ncc imagine he would have denied it: and Ihe repeated \n" again and again, that having appeared in court a moft \n" reluclant witnefs, fhe confined herfelf to facets, and im- \n" puted no motives to him, much lefs malicious ones/* \nMr. Daubeny then faid twice, 4 Mrs. Meade, mark me $ \n\n* I acquit you of wilful perjury, or malice of intention.* \ncc Do you," faid me; " then let us make hands, (which \nec he did ;) there can be no ground now for enmity, or \ncc family feparation." * Oh! that depends ftill on you $ \n6 you muft unsay what you have faid.* Mrs. Meade \nurged in vain the impoffibility of it. Mr. Daubeny per- \nfevered; and the two ladies, having unfortunately taken up \nhis opinion, always agreed with him. \n\nMr. Daubeny, during the converfation, had aflertedy \nc that the late Bifliop Mofs, after a full inveftigation of the \n4 cafe, with all neceffary documents, had declared Mrs. \n\n* Meade to be a perjured woman.\' But this gave her no \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n237 \n\n\n\ngreat perfonal concern, as {he knew that hisLordfhip had \nfolly and fufficiently denied the fact. \n\nBut another affertion of Mr, Daubeny\'s, which was \nafterwards proved to be equally unfounded, filled her in- \ndeed with aftonifhment; namely, c that Dr. Blayney had \n\n* changed his fentiments refpeeting their caufe.\' And \non Mrs. Meade exprefiing furprife, and faying, " the \n" account was new to her j" he replied, c that the Doctor \n\n* had written to him to that effect very {hortly before \nf his death.\'* \n\nThe party feeming impatient to clofe the fcene, and \nnothing farther remaining to be done, Mrs. Meade at \nlength got up, and willing to leave nothing untried that \nmight work upon fitters, fhe went to Mrs. Mary Barnfton, \noffered her hand, and kifled her. She did the fame to her \nlifter Mrs. Daubeny ; and then went to her mother, who \nagain threw her arms about her in great agitation, praying \nGod to blefs her. Mr. Daubeny and the Mifs Mafons \nwalked down with her, and during the few minutes fhe \nremained in the room, where me had left her child, thev \n\n* Dr. Blayney\'s widow, on hearing the ftory, wrote the following \nnote to Mr. Meade : " It has been inftnuated, as I am told, that \nP there was fome change in the fentiments of Dr. Blayney, a ftiori \n" time before his death, relative to the unfortunate difference be- \nw tween Mr. Meade and Mr. Daubeny; and that he expreffed as \n" much in a letter which he is faid to have written on the occafion ; \n" I own I feel myfelf hurt at this uncandid attempt to impute opi- \n" nions to him now, which, if it had pleafed God to fpare his life, \n" he would havereje&ed with indignation. He never varied in his \n** opinion relative to Mr. Meade\'s caufe and conduct ; both had his \n\xc2\xab warmeft fppport and .approbation, as long as he was capable of \n*\' thinking and acting. Every fentiment of his heart was open to \n" me ; and it is but juftice to his memory to declare-, that if it. is \nu pretended that he altered his opinion on the above occation, fuel] \nP fuggeftioa I believe to be utterly without foundation." \n\n\n\n33S- \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nihewed her all humane attentions. Mrs. Meade, pleafcd \non the whole with the advance {he had made towards her \nmother, went to tell her aunt Ravenhill of it, who was \nrejoiced equally with herfelf; as were her other relations \n\'and friends. But their hopes were of fhort duration. The \nnest day brought a letter by exprefs from Mrs. Mary \nBarnfton, as follows : \n\n" Dear Sifter, \n" My mother has defired me to fay, that you muft now \ntc be content with her perfonal forgivenefs, which is all \n" as a Chriftian me has to give. She fays, juftice muft be \n<& done to her character, and to my brother\'s,! before you \n" can be received in the family; nor can it anfvver any \ntc purpofe, but that of unneceftarily difturbing her peace. \n" She defires, moreover,* that your children may not be \n* c fent; as that can anfwer no purpofe, while their mother \nfi\xe2\x82\xac is not received. T write this to prevent the difagreeable \ni6 circumftance of your being refufed admittance; my \nc * mother having ordered it to be fo. Happy fhould we \nt c all be, if the family could be brought together; but you \n* have been told on wdiat terms alone that can be done. \n\n* c I anx, your affectionate lifter, \n\n\xc2\xab M. Barnstgn." \n\n+ This pafTage and the whole of the letter refute the falfe and \nfliocking aiTertion, " that Mrs. Meade had made a confeilicn of her \nown guilt, and juftified Mr. Daubeny." It is plain that me had not \ncomplied with their terms, which were, that me mould confefs. \nAnd the Bifhop of Lincoln has fupplied another proof that me made \nno fuch confeffions : for his Lordmip relates, " that when Mr* \n\xc2\xab Daubeny told Mrs. Meade, in prefence of her mother, that he \n\ncould have recovered the verdict, and proved her perjured fhe \nreplied, " And \'why did you not?" Exprefiing, furely, by thefe \nwords, indignation rather than confeflion ! \n\n* Mr\xc2\xab Daubeny\'s favourite expreffion \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nThe bearer of the foregoing letter intimated that he \nwas to make hafte back; as a gentleman, who was going \nthat night towards Trowbridge, only waited in Bath for \nthe anfvver. But Mrs. Meade knowing that gentleman to \nbe Mr. Daubeny, faid, <e there was no anfvver then." \nThe next day, however, {he wrote as follows : \xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\xc2\xab Dear Sifter, \n\nce I received your letter with great concern, not lefs on \n"your account than my own. When you forbid me and \ncc my children to go to my mother\'s houfe, if we would \n" avoid the pain of being refufed admittance, can I be- \n<( lieve that my deareft mother ever uttered fo unfeeling a \n"command? I know the tendernefs of her nature too \nu well to think me could do it of herfelf, and her recep- \ncc tion of me the day before you wrote, is a fufficient \nCf contradiction of fuch cruelty. When me threw her \n(e arms about me, and called me * her dear long- lost \n" * child,\' was this tendernefs accompanied w ith re- \n\xe2\x82\xacC proaches or feveritv? When {he was called upon by my \nce (ifter Daubeny to fay what (he had to fay, and to let \n(e me begone, s {he had nothing to fay but praying God \nce 6 to blefs me;\' and when I took my leave, her embraces \ncc were of the warmeft affection. You once faid, (to \n"justify your behaviour to me) 6 that it was your duty \n<e c to follow your mother\'s example.\' Why did you not \nS( do it then ? The acknowledgment of Mr. Daubeny \n" deprived you even of a pretence for unkindnefs to me; \n<( for he exprefsly acquitted me of 6 malice or intentional \n\xc2\xab 1 wrong.\' Where then is there any criminality? Is \n* c not the intention alone all that the fevereft judge can \n* condemn ? But innocence gains nothing for me. After \n\n\n\n240 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xac% rmmberlefs felicitations, I once intwelve years made an \n" effort to fee my mother; and I gave it up at that time, \n\nas you well know, only becaufe you pledged your word \n\xe2\x82\xac( to me that I mould fee her alone in a day or two; at \n" leaft that you would do all in your power to effect it. \n^ You bed know how you performed your promife. But \n&e admitting it not to have been in your power, was it \nu candid and fifterly, was it doing as you would be done \n" by, not only to difappoint my anxious whiles, hut to \n^ let me go without previous notice into the llrange fcene \n\nthat was prepared for me ? In the firft room I entered \n* c I found only Mr, Daubeny, who flilj kept up the de- \n\nJufton, by telling me k that I was to fee my mother \n" c alone.\' What this meant, I cannot tell. It is true* \n<( that when I entered the room where my mother was 5 \n\xe2\x82\xaci I thought of nothing but the errand on which I came. \n*\' This errand was for peace and reconcilement. Why \n<e then was I checked, the moment I attempted to fpeak to \n" her? Why was fhe not fuflered to receive a grand- \n* e child, whom fhe had never feen? When I looked for \ni( tendernefs in my lifters, why, alas! did 1 find in them \n<c fevere opponents, with impatience and averfion } If \n" witneffes were wanting to this meeting, why were not \nfS the relatiqns of our family, our peace-making friends, \n\ncalled in ? But for Grangers to be introduced at fuch a \n< ff time, and on fuch an occafion, is a circumftance that \n* c I believe never before happened. For what purpofe \n4S they came, they beft can tell-; perfons, who in the com- \n* c pany of our neighbours had already taken upon them \n* c to inveigh with feverity and decifion againft t^s, whom \n^ they had^ never feen. Thefe ladies had taken their \n^ places in my mother\'s room^ feeming to be there \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n241 \n\n\n\n"judges, appealed to by Mr. Daubeny on every occafion, \n\n" and always implicitly according with him, and afktng \n\n" queftions as his advocates. In the agitation of my \n\net fpirits their prefence gave me little concern; I only \n\n<c thought the introduction of ftrangers did not hold out \n\n<( a promifing afpect for effecting family reconcilement. \n\n"Yet notwithstanding all thefe discouragements, I had \n\n<c the comfort of being received to the bofom of my deareft \n\n" mother, with expreffions that are engraved on my heart> \n\n<c and without one word of feverity or prohibition. When \n\n<c a command then comes the next day under your hand, \n\n" with notice that I and my children are to be turned \n\n<c awSf^from my mother\'s door, if we ever appear there \n\n" again, I proteit againft fuch a command, as not hers; \n\n" as unjuft to me, inconfiflent with her conduct, and \n\n" mocking to nature. You too> to convey it to me ! You, \n\n" who reproached me but the other day with feandalizing \n\n" my mother for faying that fhe ever turned me from her \n\n" doors. No! when my mother fees and hears me, and \n\n" then thinks proper to lay on me any commands, I will \n\n<c dutifully obey her. At the fame time, when I reflect \n\nC( on her age and infirmities, which naturally render \n\nC( her dependent on thofe that furround her, who* are \n\n(i conftantly urging every argument againft me, and not \n\nM one word for me ; then I confider it a mercy of Provi- \n\n(C dence, that fhe had kindnefs and refolution to fay what \n\n<c me did. It is a balm to my heart, which will give me \n\n(C comfort while I live. As to the terms on which alone \n\n6i lam offered reconcilement, they are held out to delude, \n\nee becaufe you muft know them to be impracticable. My \n\n<c oath, the folemn oath of an innocent woman, is as valid \n\n66 as that of the raoft facred character. You have my \n\nii \n\n\n\n242 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xac( letter of last Chriftmas two years, after just receiving \n6\xe2\x82\xac the facrament, confirming it. You faw Mr. Coham\'s \nsc letter to my mother, written almoftwith his dying hand, \n" confirming my oath. You know too that every con- \n\xe2\x82\xacC current circumftance eftablifhes the certainty of my \n(C evidence ; and if it were neceflary, I could now call on \n\xe2\x82\xac( two other witnefTes. Yet you invite me to confefs that \n" I perjured myfelf. And why ? Becaufe Mr. Daubeny \nsc denies what I related ; and his word or memory is proof \n" enough / Is this common juftice ? He himfelf had the \nu candour to admit that he might at times have fpoken \n\xe2\x82\xacC with heat, and with too much earneftnefs, although he \n\xe2\x82\xacC denies it in this inftance. Why Ihould he expect that \niC I muft be thought wantonly and wickedly perjured, \n<c rather than that his memory mould be queftioned ? He \n" might have heard this (lory as he did others, and re- \nCf lated it to me as certain ; but finding it falfe, the whole \n(c may have paffed from his memory. Of this, however, \n\xe2\x82\xace I pretend not to judge. I related facts; T never afcribed \nff : motives or intentions to him, as he is too apt to do to me. \n\ncc If you mall be difpofed to addrefs me in terms of \nsc peace and good-will, I mall be happy to forget what is \n(c paft, and to be what a fitter ought to be; but if you \np rather choofe the ftile of anger, I muft beg you to fpare \n6C yourfelf and me the trouble of farther letters of that \nec kind ; for it is in vain to demand of me what you know, \nsc as well as I do, to be impoffible to be performed. If \n" you perfift alfo in your plan of rejecting me from our \ns( mother\'s houfe, of continuing difunion in all our fa-* \n* c mily, and of mewing to the various branches of our \n(C connections, the example of unchriftian averfion ; I do \n\xe2\x82\xacC fincerely pray a that at that tribunal where you and all of \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nS43 \n\n\n\n" us muft foon appear the meafure of God\'s dealing to \n" you may be different from your\'s to me; and that He \nCi may {hew you that acceptance, which you refufed to \n" your injured fifter, C. Meade," \n\nIn a few days Mrs. Meade received from her lifter a \nletter, which differed little from her former, except in \nbeing fomewhat more uncivil and unkind. \n\n\n\nMrs. M. Barnston to Mrs. Meade. \n\n\n\n" Dear Sifter, Bath, Sept, 26, 1803. \n\nee Although your letter is written in a ftile as might lead \n* e you to expect no anfwer to it, I ftill owe it to truth and \n(( juftice to proteft againft the grofs mifreprefentation en- \n<c tertained in it, refpe&ing what palled at the interview \n* x with our mother. \n\ncc I (hall not enter into the particulars, becaufe they \n" are to be eftablifhed by the teftimony of thofe who \ncc were prefent, having been immediately committed to \n\xe2\x82\xacc paper by three different perfons on your departure, and \n<c therefore will at all times fpeak for themfelves. And \ncc the contents of your letter only ferve to prove how ne- \ny ceffary the attendance of proper witneffes was on the \nu occafion. I mail only add, that my mother\'s orders \n<c refpe&ing your not being admitted again, till you have \nt\xe2\x82\xac done juftice to injured characters, have been moft ab- \nst folutely given to all her fervants. And I (hall confider \n* it my duty to prevent to the utmoft the peace of my \n" mother from being unneceflarily difturbed. As a fiftef^ \n\nR 2 \n\n\n\n244 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n" I cannot help deeply lamenting your continuance in \nC\xc2\xa3 wilful falfhoods. I am, &c. \n\n" M. Barnston."* \n\nMrs. Meade thought proper to anfwer this letter, and \nthus ended the correfpondence. \n\nMrs. Meade to Mrs. M. Barnston. \n\n" Dear Sifter, \nu After my last requeft I did hope that you would have \ni( fpared yourfelf and me the pain of writing again in the \n\xe2\x82\xac( fame ftile ; nor can I indeed fee why you have done it \n(e now. The morning after my deareft mother received \n6C me with tendernefs, and gave me her bleffing, you \ni\xe2\x82\xac wrote to forbid me and mv children from her houfe ; \n" and nowyou only repeat the fame prohibition with fome- \nic what more afperity. I do not pretend to be unaffected \nC\xc2\xa3 by fuch wounds from thofe who were once the deareft, \nf c as they are ft.il! amongft the neareft, of my connections; \n6C but I can with truth fay, that I feel more concern for \n\xe2\x82\xac( thofe who utter fuch infill ts, than I do for myfelf; and \n\xe2\x82\xac( I am fure that in charity you ought not; and as my \n(e filler, you have no right to ufe the unwarrantable lan-\' \nsc g ua g e V\xc2\xb0 u nave done, which is as far from truth as it is \nee from juftice. I hope, however, that no provocation \n" mall ever draw from me any expreffion unbecoming a \nf< Chriflian. The time will come when you will certainly \n<c wifh that you had acted more as a peace-maker, which \ne< was the character that naturally belonged to you on this \n\xe2\x82\xace occafion, than fuffered yourfelf to be made ufe of as a \n\n* To any one accuftomed to the writings of Mrs. M. Barnfton, \nand of Mr. Daubeny, it will be plain enough who coropofed this \n\nIkon letter. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n245 \n\n\n\ntc party in a quarrel, without reafon or provocation. I \n" told you in my laft letter, what I muftnow repeat, that \n" if you wifli to addrefs me as a filler ought to do, I (hall \nee be always happy to meet you more than half way, and \n" be ready to forget all that is paft; but if you perfift in \ncc the fame ftile, I requeft and infift upon it, that you \n"fpare me and yourfelf the pain of fuch unnatural cor- \n" refpondence. My time is too much engaged in attend- \n(( ing to a pretty large family, and my health too impor- \nH tant to my children, whofe education is committed to \n" me, to fuflfer my peace of mind to be thus broken in \n(S upon. As to the menage you give me as from my \n" dear mother, I reject it, as I told you before, as not \n(e hers; nor {hall I ever admit or accept any menage as \n<f hers, but fuch as {he delivers to me herfelf, and that \n" when me is free from undue influence. Whatever \nV commands fhe may pleafe to give me under fuch cir- \n(e cumftances, I will moll dutifully obey; but I nroteft \nif againft all others. \n\n" You mould have received this anfwer fooner, had I \n6( been at home; but after the late fcenes which I had to \n(( go through, T found it convenient both for my health \n<c and fpirits to vifit diftant friends, and your letters fol- \n" lowed me. Under all the treatment I have received, \n<4 I ftill fubfcribe myfelf your affectionate but much- \na : injured lifter, C. Meade.\' 1 \n\nMr. and Mrs. Meade, now fenfible that no hope re- \nmained of effe&ing reconcilement, gave up all thoughts \nof farther efforts, little fufpecting that this last ftrange \nfcene would be ever quoted by their opponents But they \nfoon learned with aftonifhment that Mr. Daubeny and- \nhis party were unufually active to turn even this interview \n\n\n\n\' APPENDIX* \n\n\n\nto Mrs Meade\'s diferedit. A flaterrient of it was pre* \npared; and not only fent to the family, but publicly cir- \nculated with great induftry; and in this ftatement every \njftep tal^en by Mrs. Meade was condemned, and Mr. \nDaubeny\'s conduct vindicated; while ftories, in fome \ninftances ridiculous, and which in fa\xc2\xa3r. confute themfelves, \nwere alTerted with all the confidence of truth. At one \ntime it was faid, (i that the jury which tried the caufe was \nec bribed." Again, < ( that Mrs. Meade confefTed before \ntc her mother and the Mifs Mafons, that (be had actually \n" perjured herfelf at the trial;\'* i( that Dr. Blayney had \ntc written juft before his death to Mr. Daubeny, retracting \n* his friendfhip for Mr. Meade;" iZ that Mrs. Barnfton, \n\xc2\xa3e by the words long^lost child, meant lost, profli- \ngate, and a^a^dqned ;" " that Mrs. Meade, by \n*f a&ing whether Mr. Daubeny wanted her to proclaim \n* c herself a perjured wretch, meant that she really was \n& so s but that {he was unwilling to hear it proclaimed to \n<e the world." But let thofe who would judge of this \ntranfaclion take a general connected view of its circum^ \nftances, without regard to prejudiced details of either party. \nBefore Mrs. Meade waited on her mother, flie ftated disr \ntinctly the object fhe fought, and the means (he propofec( \nfor attaining it ; her letter has been given in a preceding \npage ; and it is hoped that there is not a fentiment in it \nimbecqming a Daughter, a Sifter, and a Chriftian. She \ntook with her her youngeft child, that once at leaft in her \nlife (he might be prefented to her grandmother ! but it \nwas not permitted. Mrs. Meade expected to fee her \nmother alone ; but fhe found her furrounded by hofiile \nparties and partizans. She wrote, and (he declared, " that \n* s fhe went only to implore blefling and peace j\'* but no \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n247 \n\n\n\nlancma^e was heard but of altercation. She was never \nonce permitted to addrefs her mother ; nor was a {ingle \nfriend or relation of the family apprifed of the meeting ; \nor (he herfelf prepared to meet a party, which appeared \naflembled to wound her. The pretences ufed to colour \nall this injuftice are manifeft. The ftory of Bifhop Mofs \nis directly contradicted byhimfelf. That of Dr.Blayney \nexcited the indignation of thofe companions who lived \nwith him till his death, his wife and fifter, who both ex- , \nprefled their indignation at fuch ungenerous miftatements. \nTo vindicate a fpecial jury of London merchants from an \nimputation of bribery, would be to degrade them. The \naffertion <e that Mrs. Meade confeffed guilt," is fufti- \nciently refuted by her accufers themfelves, Thefe and \nmany fimilar obfervations will probably not efcape the \nreader, and will help him to form his judgment of the \nparties; nor will he overlook the open acknowledgment \nof the dependence of Mrs. Bamfton on Mr. Daubeny, by \nMrs. M. Barnfton\'s writing to Mrs, Meade, " that all \n" future correfpondence and communication between her \n" and her mother muft be directed to him,* and pafs \n" through him\'\' \n\nAs for the Mifs Mafons^ their opinion of Mr. and Mrs, \nMeade, to whom they are absolute strangers, can be \nconlidered only as Mr. Daubeny\'s; and nothing could be \nmore convenient for him than the zeal of fuch friends, \nImprefled, as it fhould feem, with a religious perfuaiion \n\n* " What you have further to fay on this fubject muft be ad- \n" dreffed to Mr. Daubeny, who will communicate it to the family j \n" my mother being turned of eighty-five years, and wifhing to be \n\n" r e from trouble," Extract of a letter from Mrs. Mary Barn\xc2\xab \n\nftonto Mrs. Meade, dated September 6tb, 1804, juft before Mrs. \nMeade\'s interview with her mother. \n\n\n\nS48 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nof his integrity, and fufferings, they fet no bounds to their \nactivity in fupport of his caufe, and by fuch means an \nunhappy private family difpute is become a general fub- \njecl; of converfation, diftra&ing and dividing even friends \nand connexions. It is a Angular fact, that thofe ladies \nwere Grangers to Mr. Daubeny until nine years after his \ncaufe with Mr. Meade was decided; that is, till within \nthefe three or four years. Yet thefe new friends are the \nperfons whom he has chofen as the depofitaries of his \nfamily papers. To thefe is committed a trunk full of \ndocuments, of letters, of notes, and of fcraps, written by \nbrothers and fillers in confidence and affection, without \nthought or diftruft, before a poffibility of difunion was \neven fufpe&ed ; but which Mr. Daubeny, with cold fore- \nfight and prudence, fet by, and preferved tor future ufe. \nAll thefe papers are arranged, noted, explained, and com- \nmented upon, fo as to anfwer Mr. Daub ny\'s purpofe, \nand give to them a fenfe which fuits his wi{hes. Thefe \ncomments and explanations impofe on a few readers, \nwhofe meaning and intention may be good, but who, in \nfupporting or juftifying fuch inflexible conduct, are de- \nluded into a forgetfulnefs of the weighty matters of the \nlaw, for the end of the commandment is charity. And \nwhen fuch unchriftian difunion is feen under fuch cir- \ncumfiances between a parent and a child, and between \nother near connexions, what a triumph is given to infidels! \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n( D. ) \n\nTT is with much concern that Mr. Meade fees the name \nof the Bifhop of Durham introduced into this difpute ; \nbut thofe who applied to his Lord (hip muft anfwer for it to \nhim. The firft intimation Mr. Meade had of his Lord- \n(hip\'s interference was in the fpring of 1793, when \nDr. Blayney conveyed to him the following memoran- \ndum* from the Bifhop, who had received fome of Mr. \nMeade\'s papers from the Doctor, after having firft read \nthofe of Mr. Daubeny. \n\n(c The Bifhop of Durham wifhed not to have been called \n(e upon by either party, to give an opinion relative to the \n<c unhappy difpute between Mr. C. Daubeny and Mr. \nCi Meade. The importunity of the former extorted from \n*\xe2\x80\xa2 the Bifhop a reluctant confent to read his juftification \n(C of himfelf ; and his conduct, on the grounds of his own \nee ftatement, appeared to admit of vindication. The \n(C Bifhop having thus perufed the evidence on one fide, \n<e thought it but common juftice to enquire what might \nce be alleged on the other. He has accordingly examined \n(\xc2\xa3 all the papers relative to the tranfaction in Dr. Blay- \n" nev\'s poffeflion, with the impartiality requifite in a \nce queflion which involves in it the characters of refpect- \n" able men. The feries of letters between Dr. Blayney \nce and Mr. Daubeny, which thofe papers furnifh, im- \nfi preffes a conviction on the Bifhop of Durham\'s mind, \n\n\n\n* The original is in Mr. Meade\'s pofTeilton. \n\n\n\n550 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX,, \n\n\n\n46 that the failure of the propo^d accommodation, pre- \n*< vious to the trial, was not owing to Mr. Meade or Dr. \n" Blayney. He is falisned of Mr. Meade\'s innocence ^ \n*f and of the ftricl honour and integrity of Dr. Blayney \nec and Mr. Cobam." \n\nMr. Meade is ftiil ignorant of the charges which were \nbrought againft him before the Bifhop of Durham; he \nprefumes they were ferious, by their u involving cha~ \n* fi vacter" and by the Bifhop declaring his conviction of \ncc Mr, Meade\'s innocence." But although his Lordfhip \nexpreiTed no reflection on Mr. Daubeny, and declared his \nopinion to be formed after a due and impartial enquiry j \nyet Mr. Daubeny appears to have felt fo much refentment \nthat a perfon mould be pronounced innocent, whom, he \nhad aceufed, that, as the Bifhop informed Dr. Blayney, \nMr. Daubeny would not fpeakto him afterwards. But \nin December 1798, that is, upwards of five years after ~ \nwards, Dr. Blayney wrote to Mr. Meade as follows :* 66 I \n" was at Mongewell about ten days ago, when the Bi- \ncf mop of Durham told me, that he had been furprifed \ntf with a letter from Mr. C. Daubeny, modeftly defiring, \n\xe2\x82\xacC that he, withjhe Archbifhop of York, and the Bifhop \nee of London, would commifnon fome clergymen to exa^ \n* c mine into the affair between him and you. The Bifhop \n* c faid that he had put by the letter without an anfwer; \n" and he could not think that any other Bifhop would be \ncc ready to take upon him the re-judging a matter which \n<c had already been determined upon in a court of law. \n" The Bifhop alfo expreffed much furprife and indigna?-* \nic nation at Mr. Daubeny\'s applying to him at all 3 after \n* \xc2\xa3 what had passed between them" \n\n* The original is in Mr. Meade\'s pofleffion* \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n23 i \n\n\n\nMr. Meade bad never feen the Bifhop of Durham; \nbut his Lordfhip having liberally fubfcribed to a fmall \nwork, which Mr. Meade had tranflated into Englifh, \nand publifhed for a French emigrant, he waited on his \nLordfhip to prefent a copy to him, and took the oppor- \ntunity of thanking him for the trouble he had in his affairs; \nwhen his Lordfhip, with much liberality, difclaimed all \nright to thanks, faying, (i that he had only done by Mr, \n\xc2\xa5 Meade an acl: of common juftice." But after a farther \nlapfeof years, Dr. Blayney, the mutual and beloved friend \nof the Bifhop and of Mr. Meade, being dead, and Mr. \nDaubeny having become diftinguifhed as a writer, his \nLordfhip was again applied to, in 1805, by Mr. Daubeny, \nand induced to lend an ear to his ftory. And Mr. Meade \nhas to lament his Lordfhip\'s being furprifed into a mo- \nmentary forgetfulnefs of his former maxim of the juflice \nand duty of hearing both fides. But Mr. Daubeny not \nonly appears to have had powerful advocates with his \nLordmip; but irrefiftible ftories were related againft Mrs. \nMeade, among which was a bold afTertion," that she had \n" made voluntary confessions of her own criminality \nand another, " that Br, Blayney had declared in Mr % \n" Daubeny* s favour a short time before his death-" \nthe confequence of which was, that the Bifhop of Durham \nwas fully reconciled to Mr. Daubeny. But his Lordfliip \nat length diftrufling, as it fhould feem, his information, \nfent to Mrs. Blayney to acquaint her with the communi- \ncations which Mr. Daubeny himfelf had made to him of \nthe above fafbs, and requeued {he would fatisfy him as to \nthe truth of them. In reply to which Mrs. Blayney con- \nveyed to his Lordfhip Mrs. Meade\'s refutation of the pre- \ntended confeffions; and on her own part {he aflured him, \n\n\n\n252 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n" that the ftory related of her latehufband was abfolufefy \nu iratnie." And as it is now pretended that Mr. Daubeny \nonly meant to convey the idea, that if the Do&or had \nlived, he would probably have changed his opinions, \nMrs, -Blayney and Mrs. M. Blayney can teftify that Mr. \nMeade was the laft friend on earth to whom he paid \navifit; and the phyfician* who attended him in his laft \nilinefs, will bear teftimony, that the fubje6r. of Mr. Dau- \ni>eny\'s conduct to Mr. and Mrs. Meade was mu:h talked \nof then in the family, and with the fame fentiments as \never. \n\nThe gentleman whom the Bifhop of Durham com- \nmiffioned to wait on Mrs. Blayney in his Lordfhip\'s name^ \nwas a refpe&able clergyman, who naturally was happy to \ncommunicate to Mr. Meade, Qi that the Bifhop of Dur- \ncc h&m, having made enquiry refpecling the afiertions he \ntfC had heard from Mr. C. Daubeny>f exprefTed himfelf \ncc fatisfied that there was no foundation for them.". And \nMrs. Blayney alfo affured Mr. Meade, "that fcheBifhop\'s \ne\xc2\xa3 mind was perfectly convinced that the ftories were \n" without foundation." \n\nThe hiftory of " the pretended confeffions" has been ex- \nplained in this Appendix. But that refpecting " Dr. Blay- \nct ney\'s change of opinion is in all its parts deferving of the \nreader\'s particular attention ; it being a revival of a for- \nmer method praclifed by Mr. Daubeny to injure Mr. \nMeade, the circumftanees of which it is neceflary to bring \nto the reader\'s mind. In the year 1792, Mrs. Meade, \nthen Mifs Barnfton, being examined in Court as a wit- \nnefs, flated, that Mr. Daubeny fent for her to his houfc, \n\n* Dr. Falconer, \nf The letters are in Mr. Meade\'s pofleflion. \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\nJLPI\'KNDIX. 253 \n\nand after laying open to her all the circumstances f of \n<c Mr, Meade\'s (imputed) guilt," allured her, " that his \n4e caufc was given up by his clofelt friends Dr. Blayneyami \n" Mr, Coham, to whom an account of it had been Tent," \nBut this laft ftory being proved to be an invention, and \nLord Kenvon having particularly noticed it, as marking \nMr. Daubeny\'s intentions, and as a fa 61 in which there \ncould be no mistake, the latter has for many years directed \nhis efforts to get rid of Mrs. Meade\'s evidence, or to in- \nduce her to give it up. But when mocking charges of \nperjury are fo boldly made againil a religious woman it \nis providential that fhe can ftill confirm her oath by \xc2\xa3a\xc2\xa3b\xe2\x80\x9e \nAt the time when Mr. Daubeny told her that Mr. Meade \nwas abandoned by his friends, he was in Ireland, .and \nunconfcious of this attack on him. And although the \nftory was foon dropt, Dr. Blayney and Air. Coham dis- \nproving it by their open fupport of their abfent friend, \nyet for a time it made a deeper impreffion on Mrs. Meade\'s \nmind than any thing (he had heard before. After noting \nit in her journal, {he wrote directly to Mrs. Gunning, \ninforming her with concern of the circumftance ; and \nMrs. Gunning wrote* in confequence to Mr. Meade. \nIn other letters Mifs Barnfton mentioned it again to Mrs. \nGunning; and fhe alfo wrote to Archdeacon Coham, \nwhich fhe had never before done, entreating him for her \nhonour and happinefs fake, ec to explain diltinelly why \n4e he had given up his friend." Of this the Archdeacon \nbore teftimony a fhort time before his death, in a letter to \nMrs.. Barnfton, written, as he told her, Ci to draw the \n\xc2\xa3 veil from her mind before it was too late;" declaring to \n\n\n\n* Thefe letters are all in Mr. Meade\'s poffeflioo. \n\n\n\n254 \n\n\n\njfcPPENBTX. \n\n\n\nher that Mrs. Meade\'s application to him was made, \n" with trembling and aftoniftiment, a year before a trial \nf* was thought of." Mrs. Meade mentioned the circum- \nftance at the time to her relations at Haddon ; and {he \nwent immediately to her Aunt Ravenhill to enquire whe- \nther ee {he alfo had heard it from Mr. Daubeny. ,, Will \nany one believe that a woman in her fenfes would have \ndone this, if Ihe had heard nothing on the fubject ? In \nfa\xc2\xa3t there was not one motive that could induce her to \ninvent, if any one could fuppofe her capable of fuch wick- \nednefs I But Mr. Daubeny did not confine his inform \nmation on this fubjecl: to Mifs Barnfton ; for his friend, \nthe Rev. Mr. Hooker, told her the fame ftory, as he heard \nit from Mr, Daubeny, and urged it to her as a weighty \nargument againft Mr. Meade. Mifs Barnfton folemnly \ndeclared the fact upon her oath, when called on for her \nevidence as a witnefs! And will any one of a ferious \nmind liften to the {hocking charge of perjury, imputed \nto her by that perfon, who was chiefly affected by the \ninvoluntary teftimony {he bore ? Dr. Blayney and Mr. \nCoham denied with indignation Mr. Daubeny\'s aflfertion, \nas it refpected them ; and the Judge and the Court faw \nin it manifefl proofs of Mr. Daubeny s intentions; who \ntherefore adopts the bold refource of endeavouring to fave \nhimfelf, by pronouncing the whole to be perjury ; and \nthe proof is, his own word! It is prefumed that it is \nunneceflary to make any reply to this proof, or to the \nargument founded on it ! \n\nThe above ftory about Dr. Blayney and Archdeacon \nCoham was related to Mifs Barnfton by Mr. Daubeny \nin June 1791. And it is a lingular fact, that in Septem- \nber 1803, he related a iimilar ftory, equally unfounded, \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX, 2o3 \n\nof one of the fame perfons, and for a fimilar purpofe, as \nthat juft ftated. At the interview Mrs, Meade had witli \nher mother in September 1 803, Mr. Daubeny, preffing \nhis arguments againft her with much earneftnels, not only \nmade the affertion already mentioned refpecling Bimop \nMofs, which his Lordfhip has fo pofitively denied; but he \nventured alio to ftate, 6: that he had liimfelf received a letter \n**\' from Dr. Biayney, acknowledging a change in his fen- \n4C tiraents favourable towards him; and the contrary to- \n4C wards Mr. and Mrs. Meade." And on Mrs. Meade\'s \nexpreffing furprife, and declaring it " to be new to her,\' 9 \nhe added, (( that it was very fhortly before his death.\'\'" \nMrs. Meade naturally related the eircumftance to Mr. \nMeade, and to different friends; as, to Mrs. Lyte\'s family, \nto the Clergyman of her parifti, to Mrs. Biayney, and \nMrs. M. Biayney, and others. But the ftory was, like \nmany fuch, difregarded by Mr. Meade, until Mr. Champ- \nneys, in about a fortnight, mentioned it to him again with \nmuch concern, as he had juft heard it from the two Mife \nMafons, who were prefent when Mr. Daubeny told it to \nMrs. Meade, in prefence of her mother. Mr. Meade \nthen oonudering it ajuftice to himfelf, and to the memory \nof his beloved and honoured friend, to take fome notice \nof it, declared that if fuch a letter could be produced, he \nwould give up his verdict, and every thing elfe. But if \nthe letter were not produced, (and Mr. Meade averred \nthat fuch could not be produced) he ventured to pronounce \nthe whole ftory a fabrication. \n\nMr. Champneys, feeling a generous intereft in the affair, \ntook opportunities of enquiring and converting with the \nMifs Ma ons\' on tbefubject ; and purfued it, until at length \nthe whole ftory which they at firft had related with \n\n\n\n255 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\ntriumph and confidence, was giren up altogether as a \nMISTAKE ! Whose mistake it was, is not mentioned. \nBut the reader will obferve that the twoVixh Mafons\' having \nborne teftimony to the ftory, one was a confirmation to \nthe other; as they both, and Mrs. Meade mutually, but \nvery unintentionally, confirmed alfo the certainty of each \nother\'s account; each having feparately communicated \nthe fact to their refpective friends.. If any proof were \nwanting on this fubjecl:, the Bifhop of Durham fupplies \nit, for his Lordfhip* acknowledges, " that he also did \n" underftand Mr. Daubeny himfelf to have told him the \ncc fame ftory; that he did in consequence make enquiries of \nct Mrs. Blayney into the truth of it ; and that he received \ncc an anfwer from her, as has been already ftated by Mr. \nce Meade;" that is,, denying it with indignation. \n\nIt is true that Mr. Daubeny has perfuaded the Bifhop \nof Durham, that his Lordship also mistook him. But the \nfa&s as related here arefufficient for Mr. Meade\'s purpofe* \nand the reader is left to form his own judgment! \n\n\n\n* In a letter to Mr. Meade, July 1805. \n\n\n\nAFPENDI*. \n\n\n\n257 \n\n\n\n( E. ) \n\nON the Sth of March, 1804, Mr. Meade received the \nfollowing letter in Mr. Daubeny\'s writing, with \nno name to it : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nee Mr. Meade is defired to break to Mrs. Meade \n(e the circumftance of our good mother\'s death. She was \nce fuddenly feized at dinner, and went off", after fome few \n" hours\' painful itruggle, about eleven o\'clock the fame \n* c night. The family are all as well as may be expected. \n\n<f Thurfday morning. \xe2\x80\x94 Queen\'s-Parade." \n\nIn a few days the following notice came without a \nname to Mrs. Meade, in Mr. Daubeny\'s writing alfo : \n\n6i Mrs M. Barnfton having delivered a fealed packet, \ncc addrefled to, the Rev. Charles Daubeny and Weftgarth \n<s Snaith, efq; purporting to be the will of the late Mrs. \ne( Barnfton ; they therefore take this earlier! opportunity \n(e of informing Mrs. Meade, that it is their intention to \n" open the faid packet to-morrow morning, between \nfe twelve and one o\'clock, at No. 8, in the Crefcent,* \nc< mould Mrs. Meade wi(h to attend on the occalion: or, \n" mould Mrs. Meade prefer it, when the will has been \n" proved in the Commons, they will fend her anattefted \n" copy. \n\n" Crefcent, Monday morning, March 12, 1804." \n\n* Mr. Daubeny\'s houfe. \ns \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nMrs. Meade fortunately declined to accept the offer, as \nufelefs and diftreffing to her ; although (lie did not at that \ntime know, and could not fufpecl:, the wounds fne muft \nhave received, if {he had accepted the invitation. \n\nIn two or three days Mrs. Meade received the follow- \ning letter from Mr. Daubeny; \n\n" MadaxM, \n\nic WE are juft returned from paying our laft office to \n\' ei your good mother^ and concluding it may be fatisfactory \nsi to receive intelligence on the fubjecl: of her will, I tak\xe2\x82\xac \n\nthis earliell opportunity of fending it. \n\n" Your mother has directed the relidue of her property \ncc to be divided into four equal portions, one portion of \ne( which to be paid to each of her three eldeft daughters; \nse and that out of the fourth remaining portion, the fum \n\nof 8001. with accumulating intereft upon it from the \n" 6th day of June 1792, when the unhappy trial took* \ni\xe2\x82\xac place, up to the day of her death, mould be firft paid to \na the Rev. Charles Daubeny ; and the remaining fum \n\xe2\x82\xacc veiled in trull for the benefit of your children. But it \ncc not being in my mind, to receive back more than the \ngc faid fum of 8001. ; and as I mould be forry that your \nec children had not a beneficial intereft in the will of their \ni( grandmother, I have delired my brother executor to \nse add the fum given to me in the will, under the lhape of \nic intereft, to what may remain of the fourth divilion of your \n" mother\'s property, to be veiled in trull for your children, \n" according to the plan laid down in the will. And I \nee have only to lament, that any event mould have \nt\xe2\x82\xac rendered this diltinctiou in your mother\'s will in her \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX; \n\n\n\n259 \n\n\n\n"judgment neceflary. Your mother\'s property* amounts \n" to fomewhere about 75001. The legacies to 8601. \n\n" With best wishes for your happiness, \n\nu I remain your faithful servant, \n\nee Charles Daubeny. \n\n^ Wednefday morning, Queen\'s- Parade, March 1804." \n\nAs this letter did not appear to call for an anfwer, Mrs. \nMeade was glad to be lilent. It did not become her to \nrejecl for her children what was not offered to her\'choice; \nand to accept from Mr. Daubeny, as a favour, a fmall \npart of her own {hare of her mother\'s fortune, might be \nconftrued into an acknowledgment of the juftice of her \nbeing deprived of it, which Mr. Daubeny\'s letter infinu- \nated; and the event juftified her fentiments, for in sl \nfhort time me received a letter from Mr. Daubeny 5 in \nwhich was the following intimation : \n\n" I fent a letter to you the other day at Chatley, the \n6i purpofe of which was to inform you, that my offer in \n\n* That the difpofition of this property may be fairly underftood, \nit Hands thus:\xe2\x80\x94 To Mrs. M. Barnfton 1660I. To Mrs. Sikes 1660I, \nTo Mr. and Mrs. Daubeny 2990L To Mrs. Meade, nothing; \n1270I. of her mare being given immediately to Mr. Daubeny, in the \ntwo fums of 800I. and in the amount of accumulating intereft upon \n800I. for near twelve years, and the remainder of Mrs. Meade\'s \nfhare, being fomewhat lefs than iool. for each child, being placed \nin truft for her four children ; of which truft Mr. Daubeny and a friend \nof his are the truftees for nearly fixteen years ; even this trifle re- \nturning to Mrs. Meade\'s fillers, if the children die under age, Mrs. \nMeade being indeed allowed a life intereft in the income of it, if fh\xc2\xa7 \nfliould furvive all her children ; the youngeft of whom was not live \nyears old when the will ^vas made. \n\nS 2 \n\n\n\n260 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nee favour of your children not having been accepted by \n<c you, was confidered as rejected; and that in confequence \na directions had been given to carry your mother\'s wilL \nc< into regular execution. \n\n" With best wishes for your happiness, \n\ncc Madam, your humble fervant, \n\n" Charles Daubeny." \n\n\n\nTo this letter Mrs. Meade replied as follows : \n" Sir, \n\n<e I HAVE to acknowledge your two letters, It wa3 \n\xe2\x82\xacC in the belief that my mother\'s will was proved, that I \n(C defired a copy of it, which you propofed to fend me; \niC and the transfer of my father\'s {lock was of no other \n\xe2\x82\xace importance, than as I might accept it while I remain \n" in London. To the other parts of your letter, I ima- \n" gined I had nothing to reply. Your letter in March, \nie informing me of my mother\'s will, mentioned that you \n<f mould keep the portion of her fortune, which the will \n(C gave to you from me; but that you mould not take \n" intereft on it for twelve years back, which the will alfo \n* e gave to you; that this laft mould remain in the fame \n" truft for my children which the will had made; and \n" that you had inftru&ed Mr. Snaith accordingly. But \n4e as neither my opinion, advice, or confent was alked_, \njT\' nor my acceptance or approbation delired, as my mo- \n\nther\'s will had made a little truft for my children, of \n6\xe2\x82\xac which I neither knew the nature, nor names of the \n* e truftees, I did not imagine I had any thing to fay ; it \nce refted with yourfelf to do as you pleafed. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n26l \n\n\n\n" Your letter of laft week informed me of the change \ne( in your intentions, and that you will, keep all that my \n\'* mother\'s will gives to you, intereft as well as principal. \nte Your letter of yefterday repeats the fame. I have only \n" to replv on this determination, as I muft have done on \n" the former, that it refis in your own bread to do as you \n96 pleafe. I am, Sir, &c. \n\n(S Catherine Meade." \n\nIn the mean time Mrs. Meade wrote to her two fitters, \nMrs. M. Barnfton and Mrs. Sikes, earneftly deliring a \nreturn of friendfhip and reconcilement, not knowing what \neffect the death of a mother might have in difpofing their \nhearts towards it. \n\n\n\nMrs. Meade to Mrs. Mary Barnston. \n\ncc Dear Sifter, March, 1804. \n\nec AFTER the lofs of our beloved mother, which muft \n*\' have been particularly felt by you, I mould be glad to \nic know that you are tolerably well. Let me have the \n(C fatisfaclion of hearing it, and it will be a great pleafure \n(< to me ; great indeed, if you will join with me in for- \n(e getting all that is paft, and uniting with me in love \n" and friendfhip. Nothing that is fifterly and friendly \n" mall be wanting on my part, for I can never feel but as \n(e a filler and a friend towards you. My mother fatisfied \nce a pecuniary difficulty ; I bow to it with duty and re- \nu fped, for myfelf and my children. I loved and ho- \n(i noured her when living, and I venerate her memory. \n\n\n\n262 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n" I hear you talk of paying a vifit to Hackney, but \ncc have not heard when. If you wifh to fee me in Bath, \nxc or if you will come out to Chatley to fee me and my \ntc children, it will be an unfpeakable pleafure to me, for \n" I mall always be, with fincere regards, \n\nCi Your affectionate fitter, \n\n66 Catherine Meade/* \n\nMrs. M. Barnston to Mrs. Meade. \n\n" Dear Sifter, March, 1 804. \n\ne( I AM obliged to you for your enquiries after my \n(e health, which though far from well, is as I expected i\\ \nee to be, after fuch an event. "With refpect to forge t- \n66 ting all that is paft, I have to fay, that though I am \nu not infenfible of the manner in which I have been \n" treated, yet if what paffed merely concerned myfelf, as \ncc a lifter I feel a fufficient degree of affection to pafs it all \n\nover, for the fake of that family concord, which has \n<c always been to me moft deftrable. But as a daughter \ncc of an excellent and beloved mother, I owe a duty to \nc 5, her memory, which I mall ever think myfelf bound to \ncc difcharge. I have to lament therefore, which I fincerely \n? tf do, that I cannot keep up connection with a fifter, who \ntc has been the caufe of that mother\'s character being \n\xe2\x82\xacc groflly mifreprefented, and the peace of an harmonious \nu family being broken. Under thefe circumftances, you \n\ncannot wonder that I can neither wifh to vifit, or be \n" vifited by you. And I muft requeft that our corres- \n" pondence may ceafe^ as a continuance of it 5 I am foxtf \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. 263 \n\nf* to fay, can anfwer no purpofe, but that of unneceflarily \n" diftreffing me. \n\n" Believe me, with the fincereft wifhes for your health \n" and happinefs, \n\nu Your affectionate lifter, \n\n(i Mary Barnston," \n\n\n\nAlthough Mrs. Meade well knew, from the ftile of this \nletter, who was the eompofer of it, yet as her fifter adopt- \ned the fentiments of it, ihe thought proper to give the \nfollowing reply. \n\nMrs. Meade\'s Anfwer to her fifter Mrs. \nMary Barnston. \n\n\xc2\xab Dear Sifter, \n\nsi IN my laft letter I addreffed you as a fifter to whom \nee I had always been tenderly attached, and with whom \nce I never had any kind of perfonal difference, t wrote \nce to you, at a time when my health and fpirits were low \n6e enough ; but yet I could not forget what you muft \n(e peculiarly feel on the lofs of our beloved and only \n" parent. What an anfwer have I received ! and what \n66 would I not give to learn that it was the effect of hidden \nce anger or miftake, and that you wifhed to retract it ! You \n<c fhould ftill find me, what an injured and innocent per- \nei fon always is, ready to forget and to forgive* But at \ncc pre lent the refpect I owe to my condition in life calls \n" on me to fay, that I never mail obtrude myfelf on 4 \n( f fifter who has treated me fo unwarrantably, \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n<c If you were poor, or if it mould pleafe God to re- \nec dace you, you mould find in me a friend and a fitter, \n(% with affections difpofed to comfort yOu as far as I could. \nCi But you are in a ilate to confer, not to receive favours; \nff and I thank God, I want none. I never fhall court \ncc your wealth ; and my children fhall be taught to be \n<\xc2\xa3 contented with what the affection of my poor fathe r \n<c fecured for them. If inftead of the few hundred pounds \nC\xe2\x82\xac which my mother\'s will leaves in truft for my children, \n66 {he had, like my father, made me equal to my lifters, it \nce would not have added to the love I fhall ever preferve \niC for her memory. Nor if fhe had paffed us by alto- \n" gether, would it have altered one fentiment of my \n(C affection for her. During twelve years {he never faw a \n" friend of mine. She faw me only once; and then as \niC at a public meeting. If {he withheld from my children \nfe what by nature they might have expected, it was to \n( * make them pay money, w r hich she thought was their \n55 debt, although in fact neither they, nor any belonging \n(i to u^, had any of it. \n\n(( Shocked as I am at your letter, I mould not give \n<c myfelf the pain to anfwer it, but that I (hall ever hold \n\xe2\x82\xac< up my hands and my voice againft fuch unjuft accu- \n\xe2\x82\xace fations as you make. 6 The duty you owe to our \nff c mother\'s memory will for ever bind you to keep zip \n" e no connection with a sister who grossly misrepre- \nC( e sented her character.\' Oh! fhame, fhame, fifter! \n1* retract that fentence before it is too late; retract it for \n6( your own fake, I charge you. I use her ill! I mould \n" fcorn to anfwer fo barbarous a charge, but to a deluded \nec lifter. Not one of you did or could love her more than \n<e I did; and her delufion never altered my affection. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n** And do you make he" blefTed memory the foundation \n<c of continuing difunion? Poor dear foul ! she could \n<( utter only bleffings on me and mine. It is but a few \n** months fince you faw me embraced by her, and receiv- \n<e ing thofe blcffings without one fentiment of anger ! \n6( Perhaps you don\'t know, what I can prove, that she \n(e afterwards repeatedly thanked God that she had \n" seen vie. Tell me now in another letter, e * that I \ncc e was always bad from my childhood /\' for fuch has \nee been aflerted in your name. Tell me, c that from my \nce e youth I always used you like a dog !\' Can you \nC( as a Chriftian hear fuch falfhoods publifhed in your \ncc name? If you delire to know by whom all this is faid, \nce I will tell you. What a change is this, flnce you were \ncc as a mother f to me ! But let me receive thefe wounds \ntc as trials; and as I bear them, fo I trust they will be \n%e recorded for me. \n\n" I will not dwell on all the falfhoods which are cir- \niC culated ; as that f I confefYed guilt before my mother;\' \n(e e that {he was unhappy* at feeing me;\' 6 that it was you \n(e e who invited the ftrangers into her apartment, when \n(e 6 (he received me;\' 6 that Dr. Blayney renounced his \ntx ( friendmip with us juft before his death;\' and many \nle others. I am w^ell aware that you are every day more \nfe and more weaned from me and mine by long feparation. \n\nt Mrs. M. Barnfton is twenty years older than Mrs. Meade. \n\n* So far is this affertion from truth, that one of Mrs. Barnfton\'s \nneareft relations in Bath wrote to Mrs. Meade a few days after this \ninterview, to give her the " comfort of knowing that her poor \n" mother appeared more tranquil and happy fince me had feen \n" her than for a long time before." The original is in Mr* \nMeade\'s poffeffion. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa366 APPENDIX. \n\nf 6 Yet if your eyes fhould be ever opened to the injuftice \n< ( of your conduct to me, and you fhall be difpofed to \n46 addrefs me as a sister, you mail always find me ready \n" to receive you as fuch. But if you refolve to perfift in \nf( injurious language, I requeft and I infill upon it that you \n* \xe2\x82\xac will not continue to wound and infult me with fuch. \n\nce With iincere wifhes for your bappinefs, but in a \n" fentiment very different from that of your letter, I \n#<{ remain always your affectionate filler, \n\n" Catherinh Meade." \n\nMrs. Meade wrote to her fifter Mrs. Sikes in the fame \nifcile of affection as to Mrs. M. Barnfton, and her an- \nfwer expreffed much attachment; and it could not well \nfee otherwife, for they never had a made of difagreement. \nBut ten days elapfing before thatanfwer was given, Mrs, \nMeade was not unprepared for the refult. Mrs. Sike& \ntc declined to keep up any intercourfe with her fifter, left: \niC it might feem to reflect on their mother, who had not \n" done it." This determination of Mrs. Sikes was truly \npainful to Mrs. Meade; becaufe fhe had always been, \naffectionately attached to her, and to all her children; and \nihe ever felt the fincereft efteem and fifterly love for \nMr. Sikes. \n\nIn a few days Mr. Daubeny wrote to Mrs. Meade the \nfollowing letter : \n\n" Madam, \n\n" I received your laft letter from London, but deferred \n* c anfwering it till my return to Bath, becaufe it did not \nrequire an immediate anfwer. At the fame tirjie I \n\n\n\nAPPEND fX. \n\n\n\n267 \n\n\n\n(< think that fome anfwer fhould be returned to it; be- \n(e caufe it belongs to my character to give a reafon for \n" the change of my intention on the fubjecl: of your \n" mother\'s will. That intention was certainly commu- \n" nicated to Mr. Snaith then in Bath : he waited only \n<c my official directions to carry it into effect:. When I \n< c communicated that intention to you, I confidered that \n" you had made fuch acknowledgment on the fubject as \nsc might conftitute a ground-work for farther conciliation \n<e in the family, by admitting at the interview which took \nce place between yourfelf, your mother, two fitters, two \n(< other ladies, and myfelf, about fix months before your \n(e mother\'s death, e that you had gained a verdict for \n\nc Mr. Meade by your notoriously false evidence; 9 \n66 concluding, however, e that though obliged to admit \n(f e this to be fact, ftill you would never allow yourfelf to \nu e be a perjured woman, becaufe you had no malicious \nee c intention againft me.\' The prominent parts of your \n" evidence in court were on this occaflon detailed before \nu you, and fuch you muft remember was your conclufion \n< e on the whole of it. To which my anfwer was, that \niC the diflinction between wilful falfe fwearing and per- \n< e jury was too nice a one for me to find out; all that I had \nif to do was, with the effecl: of your evidence; and this, \nc * the duty I owed to myfelf and family, called on me to \n\xe2\x82\xacC counteract, at leaft as far as circumftances would permit, \n" To the particulars of this interview you need not be \n* ( told, that the two ladies prefent are ready to bear their \n" mod decided teftimony. This interview having taken \n<c place, I felt particular fatisfaction on the fubject of \n\nyour mother\'s will, becaufe it furnifhed me with an \nff opportunity of returning good for evil., and of convin^ \n\n\n\n5\'6S APPENDIX. \n\n" cing you in the moft linking way what iny difpofition \n" towards you was. The conclufion drawn from the letter \n66 written to you on this occaflon, I nattered myfelf would \n66 have been, that after the conceffions made on your part, \n* 4 I was dcfiroLis that the unhappy chapter, which you \nmuft know to be a moil difgraceful one from the be- \n\xe2\x82\xace ginning, fhouU be (hut up, and no further expofitioit \nw of your charac* \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2. r take place. With this idea in my \n* 6 mind, your feftifrref* to my letter difappointed me. I \nm ili 11 however entertained a hope that fecond confidera- \ntion would place the fubject before you in its proper \nlight, and on that ground fufpended my decifion. Bu* \nwhen in a fnbfequent letter to your filter, your object \n" appeared to be to efface, as far as your contradiction \n" could avail, every true veftige of the family interview, \nby grofsly mifreprefenting your mother\'s reception ; by \ni\xe2\x82\xac denying that you had confeffed any guilt before her ; \nie Iv: virtually confirming fuch denial, by calling yourfelf \ncc an injured innOcent perfon, and your mother a deluded \n* c one ; and by indirectly claiming as the natural right of \nfftf your children what your mother thought proper to with- \nce hold from them, for the fatisfaction of what me con- \n\xe2\x82\xac{ fidered to be a debt of juftice to the children of another \ncc daughter, who had been deprived of a portion of their \ni( natural right by your taking their father on unjuft \n\xe2\x82\xacfc ground into a court ; it became necefTary for me to con- \n\n\n\n* Mr. Daubeny here again trips. How can he pretend, " that \nc< Mrs. Meade\'s letter difappointed his expectations when he \nwell knew that fix months before, when fhe heard that fhe was \ncharged with thefe pretended confeffions, the rejected and difclaimed \nthem with contempt? See, in the account of the interview, Mrs. \nMeade\'s letter to Mrs. M. Barnfton, Appendix, letter C. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. 269 \n\n**\' fider how far the carrying my original plan into effect \nff was, under fuch circumftances, expedient or proper; \n" and the refnit of my confultation with my friends at \nii Bath has been an united and molt decided opinion, that \n" confidering the principle by which the will was evidently \n" dictated, the refpedt due both to the memory of your \n(( mother, and to my own character, demanded, as things \nC( now flood, that the will mould be carried into regular \n\n\' fc> \n\n<c execution ; becaufe, to perfift in carrying my original \n6( plan into effecl, after my offer had not only been un- \n64 accepted, but had produced fuch a bold unqualified de- \n" claration on your part, would have the appearance of \niC at leaft tacitly admitting the truth of fuch declaration^ \n<c and thereby pronouncing an indirect judgment a gain ft \n" your excellent mother for having made a will, which, \ntc on the ground of fuch admiffion, ought not to have been \n46 made. \n\n" This letter I am aware can give you no fatisfaclion. \n\xe2\x82\xaci I truly lament that you have placed me in fuch a fitu- \nation, that to my mind has rendered the writing of it \n4C neceflary. But I more deeply lament the circumftanee \ntc of your ftill perfifting to walk on that falfe ground on \n%c which, alas! you have been fo long walking; becaufe \ntc you are thereby treafuring up for yourfelf a more fevere \n" repentance again ft the day when repentance mail come; \n(e for truth muft ultimately triumph. \n\n" With the moft earned wi flies for your welfare, and \ncc a defire, as far as character will permit, to contribute to \nit, I conclude in the words of your good mother, addreffed \nto you at the dofe of the late interview, 6 I forgive \nyou, with all my heart; and may Gop forgive you, \n\n\n\na \n\n\n\n1 \n\n\n\n270 APPENDIX. \n\n\xc2\xab* 6 and open your eyes to fee your error, that you may \n" 6 return into the way of peace/* \n\n" Such is the prayer of your faithful \nee Friend and Brother, \nf May 28, 1804. Charles Daubeny." \n\nMr*. Meade\'s Aniwer. \n\n" Sir, June, 1804. \n\nce IT was but a few days ago that I faw your letter to \n6C me of the 28th of May; Mr. Meade not having thought \nc( proper, in the ill ftate of my health, to give me the \nie trouble of reading it fooner. \n\n" I do not know whether you expected an anfwer; nor \n" mould I be inclined to give any, but that you may \nee perhaps interpret my filence as afTent to your afTertions. \n" The confeffions you impute to me I utterly difclaim. \n" Indeed, the abfurdity of thofe afTertions, and proofs \n" fupplied by yourfelf, are of themfelves enough to coti- \n(C tradict you. But I truft I want no proof. I trull that \nu ray character, my word, and my oath, are equal to all \n" the evidence you can produce. If you had ten times \n66 the number of witnefTes of whom you boafl:, I mould \n<e contemn them all. e I confess voluntarily to suck \n" \' persons, at the moment they were wounding me in \n(C c the cruellest manner that my husband obtained a \n" s verdict by my own notorious perjury I ! !\' Oh ! Mr. \n\n* Mrs. Meade folemnly delares, and (he trufts it is unneceffary \nfor her to add that fhe can and is ready to declare in the moffc \nfacred manner, that her poor mother made, no fuch fpeech, nor ut- \ntered a fyllable like it; nor indeed did fhe appear capable of it* \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. 571 \n\nDaubenv, for your character and p\'rofeffion\'s fake, draw \nCf a veil over the whole of that interview. What bufinefs \nt( had you there? I explained to my lifter, and I wrote - \n" to my mother, (to whom you probably never mewed \n5* what [ wrote) that I only fought to throw mvfelfat her \n<\xc2\xa3 feet, and to obtain her bletnng. What right had yon \n(i to obtrude yourfelf between her and me? I went alone, \nfe expecting to find my mother alone. I was unprotected \nC\xc2\xa3 and unfufpecting. Was it decent or charitable to have \n" a party to furprize and oppofe me at the only meeting \nee with, her I was fufTered to have in twelve years? And \ni\xc2\xa3 when my child went with me to obtain, once in her \n" life at leaft, her grandmother\'s blefiing, why was fhe \n* c not permitted to fee her; but kept below flairs by \n\xe2\x80\xa2\' tf your orders ; while perfons, abfolute ftrangers to^me, \n& were placed in my mother\'s room? perfons, whofe \nminds you had previoufly inflamed againft me, and had \n** worked up their prejudices to a degree of enthufiafm. \nce If you chofe to have witnelfes, had our family no dis- \n" paflionate friends or connexions? Were no relations or \n(< peace-makers to be found? Certainly, if I had known \n" your fcheme, I mould not have trufted my character \nce into fo tremendous a iituation! As to the part of my \n\xe2\x82\xace mother\'s will which gives my mare of her fortune chiefly \n<( to you, and on which you dwell fo much, there is no \n(c reafon why you mould addrefs me about it. It refts \nwith yourfelf to do as you pleafe; I have nothing to fay \nor do. If you meant the few hundreds you fpeak of as \nthe price of my admitting your juftice and my own \ninfamy, you little know me, if you can believe that \nmillions would bribe me to fay w^hat I did not think \ntrue 5 and if not, \\t is not likely that a trifling portion \n\n\n\n21* \n\n\n\n>PPENDIX. \n\n\n\n& of my own fortune reftored to my children could fe- \nc< duce me to it. The fpeech you afcribe to my beloved \nec mother, is like the confeffion you impute to me; you \n" know that me uttered not a word of it. But if {he had \n\nmade fuch a one, it would only prove that flie fpoke \n(e what (lie was told; as her letters (as well as thofe of \n\nother people) were evidently written from copies. \n66 Your endeavours to torture my expreffions into difre- \n(i fpeet for her are equally unjuft. A word of difrefpect \ncc towards her, never efcaped my lips or pen. I loved \n<c and honoured her when living, and I venerate her me- \n\xe2\x82\xact mory ; and I ever prayed God that the goodnefs of \n(( her heart, and the fituation in which the was placed, \n6C might be fully confidered in her great account. For \n" feparated as (he was from me and mine, no wonder \ncc there was mifunderftanding. But it is time to clofe \n(C this unavailing correipondence : for if twelve years\' \n6e efforts for peace have been always fo thwarted and per- \ncc verted by you, as only to irritate the wound which \nfC mould have been healed, what good end can now be \n<e expected ? When I heard you affert before my mother^ \n6e e that you had received a letter fcom Dr. Blayney fa- \ntc c vouringyourcaufe;\' and your friends the Mifs Mafons* \ncc related the fame afterwards to Mr. Champneys, and \nec when preffed into enquiry, gave it up as a mistake; \n<( what good is obtained for the caufe of truth and inno- \n\' e cence by fuch acknowledgment ? My mother was gone \ncc to a better world ; and the injury, as far as it concerned \n(( her, was irreparable. When you aifert in your letter \n<c Q that you confidered that my CGiifessions were to lead \n" ( to farther conciliation-,\' have you forgot that the \nu very day after tfiefe pretended coiifefnons you yourself \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n273 \n\n\n\nff fent to me by exprefs a letter from my fifter, e ordering \ne< \xc2\xa3 me never to go again to my mother\'s houfe, nor to \n<e c fuflfer my children to go there; for the fervants had \n\xe2\x82\xac( e directions to refufe them admittance ?\' And when is \n(C it that you firft exprefs ( your expectations of concilia- \n" c tion Following my confeffions it is after an interval \n(i of fix months, and in a letter which confirms fepara- \n(i tion for ever. \n\nCi Let us at lead live in peace, if we cannot live in \n" friendmip; it is the only civility that is afked of you \nu by your much-injured fifter 3 \n\n" Catherine Meade." \n\n\n\nce P. S. I requeft and infill upon it that you will not \n" trouble me with letters, which are only channels to \n<c convey infill ts, and to repeat charges which you know \n6C to be unfounded. If you have bufinefs to write on 3 \n\xc2\xab it (hall be attended to; but nothing elfe. C, M. M \n\n\n\n274 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n( F. ) \n\n\n\n-Copy of the Bis Jwp of Lincoln\'s Paper, \nsent to Mr, Meade. \n\n\n\nQOON after I went to Bath, towards the end of laft \n^ February, I called upon a lady with whom I had \nlong been acquainted; and the difpute between Mr. Dau- \nbeny and Mr. Meade happening to be mentioned, {he \nafked me whether I mould like to read the pamphlets which \nhad been printed upon the fubje&j as me thought me could \nprocure them for me. I faid that I had no objection^ \nand in a day or two {he fent me the printed trial, and \nMr. Daubeny\'s pamphlet. Knowing that feveral of my \nfriends had adopted different opinions relative to the \nconduct of Mr. Daubeny and Mr. Meade in this affair; \nand that one in particular, whom I greatly refpected, had \nchanged his fentiments on the fubject, T felt a defire to \ninveftigate the matter fully ; and I was confident I mould \ndo it with impartiality, as my mind was entirely free from \nany bias. I did not know either of the parties perfonally ; \nbut I had been informed, that both Mr. Daubeny and \nMr. Meade were willing to mew their original documents \nto any perfon who was difpofed to examine them : and I \nconfidered the fubject to be important, as it involved the \n\xe2\x80\xa2character of a clergyman who had diftinguifhed himfelf \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n275 \n\n\n\nas a theological writer. It was mentioned to Mr. Dau- \nbeny that I declared myfelf ready to examine into the \nfubject, if it were his wiln that I mould do fo: and he \ncalled upon me to exprefs his readinefs to fhew me his \npapers for that purpofe. Mr. Daubeny afked me whether \nI had read the printed pamphlets; and upon my anfwering \nthat I had read the trial and his pamphlet, he faid it was \nproper that I mould read Mr. Meade\'s pamphlet before I \nlooked at his (Mr. Daubeny\'s) papers. After reading \nMr. Meade\'s pamphlet, which Mr. Daubeny fent me, I \ncalled upon Mr. Daubeny; and in three mornings I read \nover the letters and original documents which he had to \nproduce. Some of the principal ones 1 carried home \nwith me, read them a fecond time, and made extracts \nfrom them, with fuch obfervations as occurred to me. One \ndocument, containing an account of the interview be- \ntween Mrs. Meade and her mother Mrs. Barnfton, in \nSeptember 1803, had no other fignature but that of \nMr. Daubeny, which I did not think fufficient in fuch a \ncafe. I afked Mr. Daubeny whether the Mifs Mafons\', \nwho were faid to be prefent at the interview, would bear \nteftimony to the correclnefs of Mr. Daubeny\'s account of \nit. He anfwered that the younger Mifs Mafon was in \nLondon, but that the elder was in Bath ; and that if I \nchofe to call upon her, I might hear what me had to fay \nvipon the fubjecl:. I waited upon Mifs Mafon, and me \nfhewed me a copy of Mr. Daubeny\'s account of the in- \nterview, which he had given her foon after it took place. \nI afked her whether fhe and her lifter confidered that ac- \ncount as correct ; {he anfwered, cc perfectly correcV\' \nShe then mewed me an account of the fame interview, \ndrawn up and figned by her fitter immediately after the; \n\n\n\n276 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\ninterview, and before ihe faw Mr. Daubeny\'s account of \nit; which agreed with Mr. Daubeny\'s account as nearly as \nnarratives of the fame converfation by different perfons \ncan be expected to agree, differing in no one material \npointy each containing fome things omitted by the other, \nbut remembered by all the perfons prefent when men- \ntioned to them. Thus far I had confined myfelf to ori- \nginal documents, and had taken nothing upon the autho- \nrity of Mr. Daubeny only ; but the night before I left \nBath, Mr. Daubeny fent me two papers of considerable \nlength drawn up by himfelf, the one containing a detailed \naccount of what had paffed between Mr. Meade and \nhimfelf, and his family, from the time of the death of the \nfirft- Mrs. Meade till after the trial, addreffed to Dr. Blay- \nney, but never fent to him; and the other a reply to Mr. \nMeade\'s pamphlet, which was never publifhed ; with per- \nmiffion to carry them to Lymington. The evening \nbefore I left Bath 3 I wrote a letter to Dr. Randolph, of \nwhich the following is a copy : \n\n\xc2\xab Rev. Sir, \n\n<e I came to Bath about three weeks flnce a perfeCl \niS ftranger to Mr. Daubeny, but I was induced to avail \n<e myfelf of an opportunity which prefented itfelf of exa- \ntc mining the letters and other documents in his poffeflion, \n4e relative to the difpute between him and Mr. Meade. \n* 6 1 think it due to Mr. Meade that he mould be informed \nsc that I am equally ready to examine any original papers \nsc which he may have upon this fubjecl. And as I un- \n* c derftand that you\' are a friend of Mr. Meade\'s, I take \n(f the liberty of requeuing you to communicate this infor- \nss niation to him. I mould have been very glad to have \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n277 \n\n\n\nce hadfome convcrfation with you upon this bulinefs, but \n<c I difl not finifti Mr. Daubeny\'s papers till yefterday, \n(C and to-morrow I am under the neceffity of leaving \n(\xc2\xa3 Bath. I mall pafs the next fortnight at Lymington, \n" and from thence I mall go to London, where I expect \n" to remain till the end of April. \n\n" I am, Sec. \n\n\xc2\xab G. Lincoln." \n\n" Crefcent, Bath, \n" Sunday Evening, March 17, 1805." \' \n\nIn confequence of this letter, Mr. Meade fent me his \npapers to Lymington, and they arrived before I had read \nMr. Daubeny\'s two papers mentioned above. I read all \nMr. Meade\'s papers firft, and then I read Mr. Daubeny\'s \ntwo papers, which concluded the whole bufinefs. \n\n1 flatter myfelf that no inveftigation could have been \ncarried on with greater impartiality, or in a manner lefs \nlikely to produce prejudice or hafly opinion on either fide. \nI proceed to ftate the refult. \n\nA great deal of extraneous matter has been introduced \ninto this bufinefs; but inflating my opinion, I fhall con- \nfine myfelf principally to the evidence given by Mifs Ca- \ntherine Barnfton, now Mrs. Meade, upon the trial which \ntook place June 6th, 1792. Upon that occafion Mifs C. \nBarnfton fwore in court, that her mother had given her full \nand free confent to her marrying Mr. Meade; but that in \nconfequence of what Mr. Daubeny flated to her, (Mifs C. \nBarnfton) in a converfation on the 28th of June, 1791, \nrefpecting the will of the former Mrs. Meade, Mr. Dau- \nbeny\'s fifter, flie had hitherto been prevented from marry- \n\n\n\n273 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\ning Mr. Meade; that fuppofmg Mr. Meade\'s character \nhad not been attacked refpecling the will, fhe mould un- \ndoubtedly have married him ; that the converfation fhe \nhad with her brother-in-law Mr. Daubeny tended to \nconfirm her fufpicions; and that after what Mr. Daubeny \nfaid refpecling the will, the matter had never been cleared \nup fatisfaclorily in her own mind. This account of Mifs \nC. Barnfton\'s evidence is taken from the printed trial, \nand it agrees in fubftance with the minutes made by Mr. \nDaubeny\'s counfel upon their briefs, at the time Mifs \nBarnfton gave her evidence in court. In confequence of \nthis evidence, the jury gave a verdicl againft Mr. Dau- \nbeny, with 5001. damages; and found that the marriage \nwas loft in confequence of the words fpoken by him on \nthe 2Sth of June, 1791, and that Mifs C. Barnfton had \nnot made up her mind till they were fpoken. \n\nI mail endeavour to prove, fir ft, that Mrs. Barnfton \nnever did give her full and free confent to her daughter\'s \nmarrying Mr. Meade; and, fecondly, that even allowing \nMifs C. Barnfton\'s account of the converfation, which fhe \nfays palled between herfelf and Mr. Daubeny on the 28th of \nJune, 1791, to be accurate, that converfation did not pre- \nvent the marriage. In proof of ihefe proportions, I mall \nquote extracts from original letters and other authentic \ndocuments which I myfelf faw. \n\nMrs. Barnfton, in a paper ftgned by herfelf, and dated \nJune 10th, 1792, a few days after the trial, made the fol- \nlowing declaration: \xe2\x80\x94 ec Whereas my daughter Catherine \n" has thought proper to fwear in a public court that fhe \n(C refufed to marry Mr. Meade in confequence of prejudice \n\xe2\x82\xacC taken againft him from a converfation with her brother, \nthe Rev, Charles Daubeny, my fon-in-law, in the \n\n\n\n1 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n270 \n\n\n\nW month of June laft, 1791 ; and that previous to the faid \n\xc2\xa3( converfation, fhe had obtained rny full and free confent \n(< to the connexion; and took fome pains to convince the \n" court that I was ready and defirous of receiving Mr. \ncc Meade into my family, and that the only objection to \n(e the match taking place arofe from the improper inter- \nf\xe2\x82\xac ferenceof my fon-in-law; in confequence of which the \n" court determined, that the fum of 5001. together with \n* f cofts, mould be paid to the fame Thomas Meade, by \n(i way of compenfation for the delay of his intended mar- \n" riage: \xe2\x80\x94 I Mary Barn fton, mother of the above Catherine, \n(( do therefore hereby raoft folemnly declare, that had I \n\xe2\x82\xaci appeared in court, I mull, in juftice to my fon-in-law, \n(\xc2\xa3 as well as tomyfelf, have given the following tefiimony \nCi in direcl: contradiction to that of my daughter above- \n(i mentioned. In the firft place, 1 folemnly declare that \n" I never did fee Mr. Meade in that light as to wifh to \n(( receive him in the character of a fon-in-law; and that I \n" had at different times expreffed my difapprobation of \n" fuch a thing before my daughter\'s return to England, \n" when the fubjecl: happened occafionally to be intro- \n" duced in converfation ; having always had a great ob- \ntc jection to an Irifh connexion, and no partiality to Mr. \nP Meade. On my daughter\'s return to England, when \n<e the matter was firft mentioned to me in her prefence, \nC{ I immediately expreffed my flrcngeft difapprobation of \n" it, before any thing had been mentioned relative to the \n" manner in which the bufinefs had been carried on, tell- \n" ing my daughter, that if I had thought it poffible for \n" her to like an Irifhman, and fuch a man as Mr. Meade, \n" I mould certainly have written her a letter to have \n" guarded her againft him. That the day after I told \n\n\n\n280 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n" Mrs. Gunning that I could not by any means confertt \nf.f to Mr. Meade\'s coming to the houf\'e; and that in a \n"\xe2\x96\xa0few days after I told Mr. Meade himfelf, that I nei- \n" ther did, or everfhould, approve of the bufinefs. That \n" my daughter did at different times prefs me on the \nec fubjecl:; but that I never did at any time, either directly \n" or indirectly, give my full and free confent to the bufi- \niC nefs; fo far from it, that I told her over and over again \nee that file mint do as me pleafed, but that I never could \n<e give my confent; that on her at length afking me whe- \n<c ther, if me married Mr. Meade, I would receive him \n<c as a fon-in-law, my anfwer was, Certainly, my dear ; \nu if you marry him, I mult receive him : but this T con- \n66 fidered as a matter of necefftty, not of choice, my \n" daughter in this cafe giving me no option; and this my \n" daughter could not be ignorant of, having had the matter \n(e fully explained to her. That my daughter in confequence \n\xe2\x82\xace gave up Mr. Meade in July 1790, and the matter was \n* 6 declared to be at an end ; that fhe afterwards gave him \n" up a fecond time, in a more formal and decided man- \n\xe2\x82\xace ner, in the month of January 1791.? on her return from \n" Haddon, telling me that fhe had given him up for my \n< e happinefs. And that after fuch decided conduct, and fo \n\xe2\x82\xacc many repeated declarations on the part of my daughter, \n\xe2\x82\xacC refpecting having entirely given up Mr. Meade, I \n\xe2\x82\xac( could not conceive it poffible that ilie meant to carry \n" on the affair, till Mr. Henry Sawbridge came commif- \n" floned from my daughter, in the month of January laft, \ncc to inform me that me was determined at all events to \n(c marry Mr. Meade. T do moreover folemnly declare, \n<6 thai my objections to Mr. Meade had nothing to do \nee with hit> late wife\'s will, upon which I never heard my \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n281 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x96\xa0%,-!\xe2\x80\xa2 i IS! \n\n\n\nu Ton -in- law give any deciflve judgment, and upon which \ni( I never formed any opinion, as my daughter has been \ntC frequently told ; but that they were derived from Mr, \nu Meade\'s conducl abroad, and to rnyfelf fince his return, \n\xc2\xa5 Mr. Meade having folemnly promifed me, on the word \nof a gentleman and a ChrifHan, with his hand on his \n* c breait. that he never would carry the affair on, if it did \nic not meet with my full approbation; and after being told \nff by me that it neither did, nor ever would, meet with it, \n\xe2\x82\xac< at Ihe fame time when I had left the room, having per- \n<s fuaded my daughter to continue a correfpondence with \n5? him. I do moreover declare, in juflice to the character \n\xc2\xa3f of my fon-in-law, which I confider as having been \n6C bafely afperfed on this occanon, that fo far from making \n<e ufe of any influence to prejudice my judgment refne\xc2\xa3fc- \n<c ing Mr. Meade, he defired me in the beginning of this \nf.\\ affair to pay no attention to the difpute between him \n<c and Mr. Meade, but as a mother to judge what was \n<c beff for my daughter\'s happinefs. Such mult have been \n<c the evidence which I mould have given -upon oath, had \ns( I appeared in court ; being fully convinced in my own \n<c mind, that the verdict which has been obtained againlt \n<f my fon-in-law is founded upon the grofieft mifrepre- \niC fentation of facts; and that my fon-in-law has been \nf* moft grofsly deceived, and mofl bafely treated, both by \niC Mr. Meade and my daughter in this bufinefs. \n\n"i (Signed) \xc2\xab Mary Barns ton, fen." \n\n\xc2\xab June 10th, 1792/\' \n\n\n\n282 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nThe following is the copy of a letter written by Mrs. \nBarnfton, to her brother Henry Sawbridge, efq$ June \nIlth, 1792. \n\n" Dear Brother, \n\n" MY family is now brought to fuch a fituation that I \n* c cannot pafs it by unnoticed. My daughter\'s conduct \n\xe2\x82\xac: fhocks me, and, I muft think, furpriles you. I hear \ncc me has fvvorn in court, Ihe had my full and free con- \ncc fent ;; that had it not been for her brother, I fhould have \niC received Mr. Meade molt gladly. I told my daughter, \n6i in my laft letter to her about three weeks ago, if God \n6C would enable me, I would have gone into court to have \n<c appeared againft her, and had I been there, I mould \nu have declared this to have been the greateft falfehood. \n" She never did at any time receive my confent\xe2\x80\x94 my \nf c objections have increafed, the more I became acquaint- \n** ed with his conducl. I now think my daughter and \n<c Mr. Meade have acted a deceitful and bafe part; for \n<e when a lifter goes into a court to fwear downright falfe- \n" hoods for the fake of injuring a brother, who 1 am con- \n<( vinced loved his lifter but too well, to me nothing can \n" be more {hocking. Sorry am I to think the fupport \n" which Kitty has received from fome branches of your \n\nfamily, has helped to lead her on to the prefent dreadful \n<c extremity: of this I am the more convinced, when I \nf c hear your fon Henry fhook hands with her in the court \n" when Ihe had finifhed her evidence, when he muft have \nte known fhe had fworn falfely, as he cannot but remem- \n" ber his errand to me from my daughter in January laft. \n" That my daughter fhould, in fpite of all entreaties, facri- \n" fice the comfort of her family, and her own character, \nu in the manner fhe has done, is fo fhocking to me, that \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n283 \n\n\n\ni% my only comfort now depends on driving the fubject \n*f from my mind. Thank God, I have fome children \n** left, whofe duty and affection will make me fome amends \n** for the daughter I have loft. May you, dear brother, \nVc never feel what I have felt, is the fincere prayer of your \n** affectionate and diflrelfed filler, \n\nu M. Barnston." \n\nMrs. Barnfton holds the fame lang;iia<re in a letter to \nMr. Goddard, of which the following is a copy, dated the \nfame day, June 11th, 1792. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab Sir, \n\ni( I DID not expect that a friend of Mr. Barnfton^ \n<c and as I thought of myfelf, would have fupported a \ni6 daughter of mine in oppolltion to her mother, and en- \ncr couraged her to diftrefs her family by expofing herlelf \nee in a public court. 7\'his is a fubject, which diftreffed as \nfC I am, I can fay but little; but injuftice to myfelf, and \nCi particularly to my fon-in-law, who I mail ever think \n\xe2\x82\xacC has been mo ft bafely treated, I muft fay fomethmg. \n\xe2\x82\xace My daughter took upon herfelf to fwear fhe had recei- \n\xe2\x82\xacC ved my full and free confent, and took pains to convince \n" the court that I had no objections to her connection \n* with Mr. Meade : had I been in court, I mould fo- \n" lemnly have declared this to have been the greateft falfe- \n(i hood. She never did at any time receive my confent $ \n** and my objections have more increafed, the more I \n" became acquainted with Mr. Meade\'s conduct. I now \nu think both Mr. Meade and my daughter have acted a \n* c deceitful, difhonourable, and bafe part, I told my \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n* 6 daughter, in my laft letter three weeks ago, if God \n* c would enable me, I would have gone into court to \n" have appeared againft my daughter ; for when a lifter \ntfc goes into a court to fwear downright falfehoods for the \n66 fake of injuring the character and fortune of a brother, \n<c the cafe mud be bad indeed ; to me nothing can be \nmore mocking. You, Sir, having heard only my \n" daughter\'s ftory, and not choofing to hear any other, \n" limit be left to your own judgment. My mind is \n" fixed. T approve of my fon-in-law\'s conduct, as much \n" as I di (approve of my daughter\'s. My daughter\'s and \n(c Mr. Meade\'s mifreprefentation will never hurt him : \n" As to myfelf, thank God, I have other children, whofe \n" duty and affection I can depend upon. Should Mrs. \n" Goddard ever become a widow, I have only to hope \n" me will never be treated as I have been. \n\n" I am, Sir, your obedient, humble fervant, \n\nfC Mary Barnston. \n\n\n\n" I beg you will fend me no anfwer, as I wim to rid \n\n(C the fubject from my mind." \n\nThe above two letters to Mr. Sawbridge and Mr. God- \ndard were written, immediately after the trial, by Mrs. \nBarnfton from Bath, before Mr. Daubeny returned from \nLondon. \n\nMrs. Barnfton, in a letter, dated December 29, 1797, \nto Mr. Coham, a friend of Mr. Meade\'s, who endeavoured \nto effect a reconciliation, writes thus, as quoted by Mr. \nMeade, page 41, No. I, of his papers \n\n\n\n\'appendix* \n\n\n\n285 \n\n\n\n<x Every thing {liort of the facrince of character will be \n* f readily given up on our parts. My daughter rmift on \n\xe2\x82\xac( her\'s openly and plainly undo what fhehas clone. She \n" has fworn in court that {he had my full and free con- \n" fent to her marriage : this I moft pofltively deny." \n\nThat Mifs Barnfton declined marrying Mr. Meade \nbecaufe of her mother\'s objections, and confequently that \nme did not receive her mother\'s full and free confent, \nappears from the following letters of Mifs Barnfton herfeif. \n\nIn a letter to her fifter Daubeny, dated Auguft 1791 9 \n(he writes thus: \xe2\x80\x94 <e If you think I meant to fay I gave \n<e him up from conviction of his unworthinels, you was \nee indeed deceived, T could not fay what I did not think, \nx( I told my mother not long ago,\' that I gave up the \nec matter for her happinefs ; and me faid me knew I did ; \n" and I never will let it be faid that I gave him up on \ne( account of his character," \n\nSept, 4th, 1791. Mifs Barnfton writes thus to her \nmother : (S I do not mean to recede from the promife I \nce made you, becaufe I truft, if I know my own heart, \n(e that it was founded on the principles of duty and affection \nce in preferring your happinefs to my own. It remains \n<c therefore in its full force upon me \xe2\x80\x94 I will never urge \n66 my happinefs\' in contradiction to your\'s." \n\nIn a letter written ahout the fame time to Mr. Daubeny, \nMifs Barnfton fays, ec I have done nothing, nor ever in- \n(C tended^ but to facrifice my happinefs to her\'s," (her \nmother\'s;) cc and when I deceive her, may the hypocrite\'s \n< c portion be my lot." \n\nThe following extracts from letters of Mr. Meade, and \nfrom his pamphlet and papers, prove that he confidered \nbis marriage with Mifs Barnfton as prevented by Mrs, \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa35d APPENDIX. \n\nBarnfton\'s refufal of her confent; and confequently, Mrs. \nBarnfton did not give her full and free confentl , ^ \n\nMr. Meade, in a letter to Mr. John Daubeny, writes thus \nin April 1791 : " Mifs Barnfton fays, that though ihe will" \n<c at all times give up her own happinefs to her mother\'s, \ncc and has lately been brought to the hard trial, yek.no- \nei thing fhall prevent her doing me juftice." \n\nIn another letter, written fome months after to the fame \nperfon, Mr. Meade fays, in fpeaking of Mifs Barnfton, \nce She is too ftrongly impreffed with parental and filial \nce duty and affection to facrifice them ; and I hope I \n* c have too much principle to deftre that fhe fhould make \n<c her mother unhappy on my account.\'* \n\nMr. Meade, in page 63 of his pamphlet, fays, 6( The \nec matter was left open for Mrs. Barnfton\'s decifion, and \n" was even dropped upon her refufing her confent. What \n\xe2\x82\xacC more could have been required ?" \n\nIn Mr, Meade\'s papers, No. I, and I think page 27/ \nis the following paragraph : u On Mr. Meade\'s return \nie from the Continent, about a year before this letter is \ncc dated, (that is about the middle of the year 1790) the \n(( lady of Dr. Gunning, by Mifs Barnfton\'s permiffion, \n(i and Mr. Meade\'s defire, waited on Mrs. Barnfton to \nt: make propofals of marriage. But Mr. Daubeny had \n" been before hand with her; Mrs. Barnfton faid her \n(e daughter was her own miftrefs, {he was old enough to \nec judge and act for herfelf, but that fhe could not give \n\xe2\x82\xace her approbation to \' this propofal, as fhe found there \n*< was a difpute between Mr. Meade and Mr. Daubeny, \n* c and it was not in her power to approve of a connexion \nt( that muft bring divifions into her family." In this \npaflage Mr. Meade confefTes that Mrs. Barnfton refufed \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n287 \n\n\n\nher confent, but he infinuates that it was in confequence \nof her being prejudiced againft him by Mr. Daubeny : \nupon this point Mr. Daubeny makes the following de- \nclaration : \xe2\x80\x94 " Soon after our return from the Continent \n(( in 1190, and fome days before Mr. Meade came to \ncc Bath, I particularly defired Mifs C. Barnfton to tell her \n(C own ftory to her mother, as being that degree of con- \nM fidence which her mother had a right to expect from \nt( her; and I exprefily told her that I was unwilling her \nce mother mould hear any thing upon the fubjecl from \n" any other quarter. With this view I took the elder \n" lifter with us into the country, and Mifs C. Barnfton \n" was left alone with her mother feveral days. Mifs C. \n" Barnfton however did not mention the fubjecl to her \n" mother. Soon after our return, Mr. Meade arrived at \n<c Bath; he came to breakfaft one morning at Mrs. Barn- \n(C fton\'s, and upon taking his leave, Mrs. Barnfton afked \n<c him to come and dine. After he was gone, and when \n\xe2\x82\xacC all the family were at the table, I obferved to Mrs. \n" Barnfton thatfomething had paffed between Mr. Meade \n" and Mifs C. Barnfton abroad, but that the matter was \nCtf at an end. No particulars were mentioned to prejudice \n" Mrs. Barnfton, but {he immediately fpoke to her daugh- \n<e ter on the fubjecl:, in the manner exprefied in her de- \n(C claration. This was the firft time that any thing was \ncc faid by me, or to my knowledge and belief, by any per- \nu fon, to Mrs. Barnfton on the fubjecl of Mr. Meade; and \n<( Mrs. Barnfton appeared to receive the idea relative to \n4C any thing having palled between her daughter and Mr. \n*f Meade as perfectly new to her mind. Mrs. Gunning \nu came the next morning, but I had faid not a word \n" more to the mother on the fubject." \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa388 APPENDIX. \n\n- Mrs, M. Barnfton attefts the truth of this declaration, \nas far as concerns her going into the country with Mr. \nand Mrs. Daubeny, leaving her fitter alone with her mo- \nther, and the conversation which palled after their return. \n\nIn page 16 of the fame paper, Mr. Meade, ihfpeaking \nof Mils Barnflon\'s delire to fee him at her mother\'s houfe \nbefore he went to Ireland, in Auguft 1790, after he had \nbeen rejected, fays, C( Mr. Daubeny ufed every poffibfe \n* c means to prevent Mr. Meade\'s being received, butMifs \ncs Barnfton, for the firft time, oppofed him with fuccefs V \ncc lhe told her mother that having given up her intentions \ncc of marrying, me had done full as much as me could \nce aik of her ; and if Mr. Meade was refufed admittance \ncs into her houfe after that, fhe was refolved that {he would \n6i go to him, and prepared to do fo.f An interview did \ntake place between Mr. Meade and Mifs C. Barnfton at \nMrs. \'Barnflon\'s houfe, as mentioned in Mrs. Barnflon\'s \ndeclaration. Mr. Daubeny denies that he made any ob- \njections to Mr. Meade being received ; and the reft of the \nfamily recollect that nothing of this kind was urged by \nMr. Daubeny. The only objection made was by Mrs, \nBarnfton herfelf, who wifhed to prevent the interview, left \nit mould agitate her daughter too much. Mifs Barnfton \nwas really prepared to go to Mr. Meade at the inn; and \nto prevent that impropriety, Mrs. Barnfton confented that \nMr. Meade fhould come to her houfe. \n\nIt only remains upon this head, that I add a paflage \nfrom a letter of Mrs, Meade to her mother, dated in 1 796, \ntaken from page 3, No. II. of Mr. Meade\'s papers : cc If \n" I acknowledged that you once confented to my marrying \n* ( Mr. Meade, and defired me to perfuade Mr. Daubeny] \nes do I really for this deferve to be publicly charged with \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n289 \n\n\n\nc * the dreadful crime of perjury ? That you forget it, I \nec am perfuaded. Why will you not have equal indul- \nf\xc2\xa3 gence for me?" It is highly improbable that fuch \nconfent, if ever given, Ihould have been forgotten by Mrs. \nBarnfton; it would naturally have been communicated \nto the relations and friends of the parties ; but no evi- \ndence was produced on the trial, nor is any brought \nforward in Mr. Meade\'s pamphlet or papers, to prove that \nfuch confent was ever given, or even fuppofed or under- \nwood to be given. Had fuch evidence exifted, Mr. Meade \nwould not have failed to produce it, as it would have been \nvery material to his caufe. Betides, if Mrs. Barn fton did \ngive her full and free confent, why did not the marriage \ntake place ? The former Mrs. Meade had been dead at \nleaft two years, when the confent is faid to have been \ngiven ; Mil\'s Barnfton was then more than thirty years \nold ; her father was dead, and me was in polTeffion of an \nindependent and conliderable fortune ; and it is not even \npretended that in the year 1790, there was any other \nimpediment. \n\nUpon this ground, and from the above accumulated \nteftimony ftill remaining in the hand-writing of Mrs. \nBarnfton, Mrs. Meade, and Mr. Meade, I cannot but \nconclude that Mrs. Barnfton never did give her full and \nfree confent that her daughter mould marry Mr. Meade. \n\nI now come to the other part of Mifs Barnfton\' s evi- \ndence, in which fhefwore that certain words were fpoken \nto her by Mr. Daubeny, on the 28th of June, 1791^ and \nthat thofe words caufed her to determine not to marry \nMr. Meade. This converfation is faid to have paffed be- \ntween Mr. Daubeny and Mifs Barnfton only, no third \nperfon being prefent ; and confequently it is impoffible \n\nu \n\n\n\n290 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nto bring any direct proof that thefe words were not fpoken; \nbut it may be proved that the words, if fpoken, did not \nproduce the effect which Mifs Barnftan fwore they did \nproduce, namely, the prevention of her marriage with \nMr. Meade. \n\nThe firft proof of this is contained in the teftimonies \nwhich have been already brought forward, for it has been \nfliewn, that Mifs Barnfton declined marrying Mr. Meade \nin Auguft, 1790, and again in January 1791, becaufeher \nmother refufed her confent; and confequently this con- \nverfation, which is faid to have paflfed in June 1791, did \nSlot prevent the marriage. \n\nThe following extract from a letter of Mifs Barnfton to \nher lifter Mrs. Daubeny, dated Auguft 1 791 j? proves that \nthe fufpicions about the will were fubfequent to Mifs \nBarnfton\'s refufal of Mr. Meade, and confequently could \nanot produce it : C( I wifhed, you may be fure, to acquaint \nC\xe2\x82\xac him of the fufpicions fo injurious to his character, \n** and to have them cleared, as they were ruining him in \n\xe2\x82\xacC every body\'s eyes, without his having an opportunity \nt: of defending himfelf. When I heard that he had been \n\xe2\x82\xac\xc2\xa3 told of them, I was mod anxious to acquaint him they \n<tf did not come from my brother, and I determined to do \n* fo, and to make him fend me his account of things. I \n<e got Henry Sawbridge to receive fome letters for me on \n" this fubjecl:; becaufe I thought that as the matter was \nu clofed between my mother and I, flie would not like to \n& : e fee letters coming from Mr. Meade/\' \n\nThat the converfation faid to have palfed on the 28th \nof June, 1791, did not injure Mr. Meade in Mifs Barn- \nilon\'s opinion, and confequently did not prevent the \nmarriage, is evident from the following palfage of a letter \n\n\n\nAPPEND UC. 2&1 \n\nfrom Mifs Barnfton to her fifter Mrs. Daubeny, dated \nOctober 25th, 1 791 : " I finely what every one elfe it feems \nf* finds alfo, that the fun at noon -day is not clearer than \n" his innocence, his honour, and his integrity; and the \nff raore it is enquired into, the more it will appear \xe2\x80\x94 fp \n(c you. will excufe me in thinking him ftil), what I ecer \n" did think him, every thing I wifh and defire in a \n\xc2\xab hufband." \n\nHow could Mifs Barnfton fwear that the fufpicions \nexcited by Mr. Daubeny, concerning Mr. Meade\'s cha- \nracter, prevented her marrying him, when four months \nafter the fuppofed converfation, (he fays, that me ever did \nthink Mr. Meade every thing {he wifhed in a hufband ? \nIs it poffible for thefe two declarations to be reconciled ? \nOr how could {he fwear, that after what had been faid by \nMr. Daubeny refpe&ing the will, the matter had never \nbeen cleared up fatisfaclorily to her mind, and therefore \nMr. Meade was given up by her; when me actually fent \nher coufin, Mr. H. Sawbridge, to Bath, in January 1792,, \nto inform her mother, that {he was determined at all \nevents to marry Mr. Meade? This was noticed in Mrs, \nBarnfton\'s declaration fubfequent to the trial ; and it is \nalfo mentioned, with other important circumftances, in \nthe following paper figned by Mrs. Barnfton and her eldeft \ndaughter Mrs. Mary Barnflon, and attefted by two wit- \nnejfes, and fent to London from Bath, with the hope of \nits being ufeful to Mr. Daubeny upon the trial, but it did \nnot arrive in time to be produced : \n\n<( MRS. Barnfton affirms that Mr. Meade was confidered \n" as abfolutely given up by Mifs Barnfton on her return \nu from Haddon, long before thefe fuppofed converfations. \n\nu 2 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nie between her and Mr. Daubeny took place ; MifsBamfton \nf ( having pofitively affured her mother and friends to this \n\xc2\xab c effect; as a confirmation of which, fheburnt Mr. Meade\'s \n\nletter, in anfwer to the one me had written to him con- \ncc taining her decided refufal ; her mother faying to her upon \ni\xc2\xa3 the occafion, after (he had read to her Mr. Meade\'s letter, \n** f Now, my dear, the bufinefs is quite at an end, I would \nfC c advife you to put that letter behind the fire ;\' to which \nu MifsBamfton replied, 6 If you think fo, Madam, with \niC 6 all my heart fhe immediately put the letter into the \n\xe2\x82\xacC fire. The whole family drew one uniform conclufion \nu from it, namely, that the affair in queftion was com- \n* c pletely at an end. Mrs. Barnfton had no idea to the \n\ncontrary, till Mr. H. Sawbridge came in the month of \n" January laft to inform her from her daughter that fhe \nfe was determined at all events to marry Mr. Meade. \n\xe2\x82\xacC Mrs. Barnfton moreover fays, that her objections to \n" Mr. Meade had nothing to do with the will bufinefs ; \nce and that Mr. Meade was entirely, as (lie judged from \n6( her daughter\'s declaration, given up before the will \n\xc2\xa3c bufinefs was ever brought upon the carpet; and that \n\xe2\x82\xacC therefore MifsBamfton never was fuppofed to, nor could \n* ff me poflibly, have given up Mr. Meade on account of \n* e his character on the fcore of the will bufinefs, as me \n\xe2\x82\xacC pretends to fay; but that after {he had decidedly given \nC6 hint up on another account, fhe made the ftory of the \n* f will bufinefs an excufe for entering into a frem corref- \n\xe2\x82\xacC pondence with him, and taking him up again; and \na now lays the whole objection to Mr. Meade on that \n\xe2\x82\xacC fcore, which had nothing to do with the original \n<\xe2\x82\xac idea upon which Mr. Meade was given up. No- \na thing therefore that has been faid upon that fubject has \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n293 \n\n\n\n<i weighed, Mrs. Barnfton fays, in her mind ; her opinion \nce of Mr. Meade being fully formed from his conduct \n(i abroad, and to her fmce his return to England. She \n6( likewife fays that her opinion has been formed upon \ne( her own deliberate judgment, Mr. Daubeny having, in \nee a converfation with her in the beginning of this affair, \n" expreflly defired me would judge for herfelf, and to con- \n66 fult the beft for her daughter\'s happinefs, and not to \n" pay any attention to the difference between him and \n" Mr. Meade. And that me never heard, in the many \nCi confidential converfations that have paffed in the family \n(i upon this unfortunate fubjeel, any expreffion drop from \n6S Mr. Daubeny, that tended to imprefs her with the idea \n(e of Mr. Meade having been guilty of perjury, forgery, \n" or felony. \n\nce Mrs. Mary Barnfton confldered Mr. Meade as \n(e abfolutely given up, long before the converfations \ni( alluded to took place; fhe confirms what Mrs. \n** Barnfton has faid refpe&ing the Rev. H. Sawbridge\'s \ncc vifit, for the purpofe of declaring Mifs Barnfton\'s \n"mind to her mother: fhe alfo fays, that in the \nu many confidential converfations that have paffed on \n" this fubjeel:, fhe never heard any expreflion from her \n" brother that tended to imprefs her with the leaft idea of \n" Mr. Meade\'s having been guilty of perjury, forgery, or \n"\'felony. Each of the above evidences declares more- \n" over, that they never heard one fyllable drop from Mr. \n*\' Daubeny, nor any hint given by him at any time, \n" which led to a fufpicion of the credibility of the wit- \n" neffes to Mrs. Meade\'s will; nor did they ever hear him \n" fay or intimate that Mrs. Meade\'s maid had been tarn- \n" pered with, nor do they believe, from the manner in \n\n\n\n1 \n\n\n\nS94 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nc which Mr. Daubeny has talked upon the fubject, that \nf any fuch idea was ever entertained by him. \n\n(Signed) "Mary Barnston, the mother. \n" Mary Barnston, jun. \n( Witnefs, Thomas Sikes, Clerk^ \n"John Pound." \n\n\n\nUpon the fame paper was the following declaration \nfrom Mrs. Ravenhill, fitter to Mrs. Barnfton: \n\n" MRS. Ravenhill affirms that the chief purport of the \n<e converfation that took place at her houfe, (in thefum- \n\nmer of 1791) turned upon Mr. Daubeny\'s preffingMifs \n" Barnfton to determine with herfelf what fhe meant to \n" do with refpe\xc2\xa3tto Mr. Meade, both for her own fake as \n" well as her friends ; but upon this head no fatisfa&ory \nt( anfwer could be obtained from her. Mrs. Ravenhill \nu has not the leaft recollection of any thing being faid \n" upon the fubject of the will bufinefs at the time; and \n" is very certain, that at no time fhe ever heard Mr. \n" Daubeny fay, or even intimate, that Mr. Meade was \n" guilty of perjury, forgery, or felony, though fhe has \n" had frequent converfations with him upon the fubje&j \ni( but that what chiefly paffed between them at different \n\xe2\x82\xact times related to Mr. Meade\'s behaviour abroad and to \n" Mrs. Barnfton, and the inconfiftent conduct of Mifs \n" C. Barnfton. \n\n(Signed) " E. Ravenhill." \n\nThe above declarations of. Mrs. Barnfton, Mrs. Mary \nBarnfton, and Mrs. Ravenhill, were drawn up at Bath, \nwhile Mr, Daubeny was in town. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n295 \n\n\n\nMrs. Barnfton fome weeks before the trial wrote to \nMifs Barnfton thus : " I am furprifed you mould bring \n\nforward the will bufinefs to me again; you know that \n" I never entered into it, or formed an opinion upon it, \nse nor ever objected to him on that account. My opi- \n" nion of Mr. Meade was formed upon his conduct to \n(C me, to your brother, and yourfelf ; this you have been \n" told over and over a^ain, but choofe to take no notice \nc * of it, though you know you had given Mr. Meade up \n(i long before the will was ever talked of." \n\nIt is mentioned in Mr. Meade\'s pamphlet, that Mrs. \nBarnfton, at the time of the trial, was nearly eighty years \nold: fhe was in truth at that time in her feventy-fecond \nyear, and in full pofTeffion of her faculties \\ fhe continued \nto poffefs her faculties many years after, and indeed in \nthe year 1797, Mr. Coham, as a friend of Mr. and Mrs.. \nMeade, propofed to wait upon Mrs. Barnfton to endea- \nvour to efTecl a reconciliation. Mrs. Meade herfelf made \nilmilar applications to near the time of Mrs. Barnfton\'s \ndeath in 1804. In anfwer to one of thefe applications, \nMrs. Mary Barnfton wrote thus, in 1 796, to Mrs. Meade; \nfpeaking of her mother, fhe fays, " She knows fhe never \n" gave her full and free confent. The utmoft fhe ever \n" faid upon the fubjecl: was no more than this, that if \n" you chofe to marry Mr. Meade, fhe certainly muft re-- \n" ceive him as her fon-in-law; that you were your own \n" miftrefs, and was to do as you pleafed, but that fhe \n" never approved of the bufinefs. This was underftood \n" by you at the time, as from circumftances can be pro. \n" vedj and upon this ground Mr. Meade was given up. \n" Our mother knows fhe is neither governed by influence \n" or prejudice on this occafion, but by her own judgment \n\n\n\n296 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nte formed upon plain undeniable fa&s. She knows, and \nH you know, that fo far from making you an outcast, fhe \niC was calling upon you repeatedly through me to return \nte to her houfe, and you refufed fo to do, till all the mis- \nee chief which your mother was endeavouring to prevent \n<e was completed by your going into court againft the \niC direct purport of the ftrongeft letter fhe could write to \n(C you on the occafion. What then, my mother fays, \nec can be done ? Can you expect that fhe will acknow- \nCi ledge herfelf guilty to fupport your {lory ? and that fhe \nec will allow herfelf to be a moft unjuftand cruel mother, \n(( becaufe her daughter has chofe to reprefent her in that \n" light } You talk of appealing to difpaffionate perfons, \n" and that all to whom you appeal fully acquit you; as \n< f according to your {lory you are the innocent party, it \nee is to be expected they mould do fo. But your mother \n<c fays, flie has no occafion to appeal but to her own un- \n< e derftanding for the judgment of facts which are within \nu her own knowledge. Tell your flory a thoufand times \n" over in your own way, facts will ftill remain the fame; \n6C and your mother fays, while (lie has her fenfes, me will \n\nnever allow that to be true which {he knows to be \n(c falfe. You fwore that your marriage was loft in con- \n<e fequence of words fuppofed to be fpoken by Mr. Dau- \n\xc2\xab beny : my mother knows this cannot be true, becaufe \n<e fix months after thefe words were faid to have been \n* e fpoken, Mr. H. Sawbridge came hither from you to \n\xc2\xa3e fay you was determined to marry Mr, Meade ; and Mr, \n\nW. Sawbridge applied to Mr. Sikes at the fame time, \n* c to afk him to a\xc2\xa3t as a truftee on the occafion. My \n\nmother fays, {he fees this confirmed by your own, \n\nhand\xc2\xabwriting, in a letter written fome months after the \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa3y7 \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xact words are faid to have been fpoken, in which you fay, \ntc that you would not have it faid that you had given \nup Mr. Meade on account of his character and that \n\'4 he was every thing you wifhed or defired in a hufband. \n<e With thefe and many other facts before her eyes, my \n<c mother is fatisfied that the whole court bufinefs was \n" founded upon falfehood : and {he defires me to fay* \n" that when you reprefent yourfelf to be treated as an \n(i outcaft, that if you are an outcaft, you have made your- \n" felf fo : and when you talk of unintended offences, flic \n<6 cannot fee how fuch a term can be made ufe of by a \n*\xe2\x96\xa0 daughter, who at the fame time {he Was thus ex pr effing \nce herfelf in a letter, c that if {he deceived her mother, {lie \nfx e wiflied the hypocrite\'s portion might be her lot,\' was \n< ( then actually deceiving her, by carrying on an affair \n(e which that mother was given to underftand by her was \n* e given up ; and afterwards perfifted in going into a court \n" againft the exprefs purport of that mother\'s letter." \n\n\n\nThe following is a copy of Mrs. Barnfton\'s letter, \nalluded to in the preceding ; it is dated May 21 ft, 1795. \n\n<c KlTT Y, \n\ne( MY -comfort, if I may judge from your late \n<( letters, feems to be quite out of your thoughts. I {hall \n< c therefore fay nothing more upon the fubject. You muft \n<f act as you pleafe. You have faid under your own hand, \n<c that if you deceived your mother, may the hypocrite\'s \n"portion be your lot; and the promife you made me \n<f remained in full force upon you: how your prefent \n< c conduct agrees with fuch words, I leave to your own \n\xe2\x82\xaci confcience. May that confcience never rife up ia \n\n\n\nA-P t\'ENDIX. \n\n\n\nw judgment againft you ! But as a mother, it is my duty \nct to tell you plainly, that thebadnefs of your conduct in \nic revealing the confidence of your brother ftrikes me in \niC a moll mocking light ; and fuch proceeding can never \n" draw after it a mother\'s blefling. I mull tell you alfo, \n* c that if Mr. Meade begins with law, your brother wilt \n* c go on with it, and other perfons in the family be brought \n* c forward; in which cafe your mother, if God enables \n" her, muft appear to give evidence againft her daughter; \n46 ilie will not fit quiet, and fee her fon\'s character facri- \n* \xc2\xa3 ficed to Mr. Meade. I f you value your own character, \n\xe2\x82\xacC you will confider thefe things ; if not, I muft reft fatis- \n* 4 fied in having difcharged the duty of \n\nu Your affectionate, \n\n\xc2\xa3C Though much-diftrefled mother, \n\n"M. Barnston." \n\n\n\nThe following is a copy of Mifs Barnfton\'s anfwer, and \nwas the laft letter me wrote to her mother before the trial : \n\n" My deareft Madam, \n\nfC WAS I confcious of deferving the reproaches of the \ncc moft cruel letter I ever yet received from your hands, \ntc my confcience would indeed rife up in judgment againft \n\xe2\x82\xac\xc2\xa3 me; but feeling the truth in my heart, that it has been \n\xe2\x82\xacf adhering to the promife I made you that has brought \n* c me into all this difficulty, I cannot but feel your cenfure \ncc with the moft extreme grief, but not with humiliation. \nu I have never yet revoked the promife I made you, ex- \nw cept with the view of preventing the prefent dreadful \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n399 \n\n\n\n** extremity. But as you think even this unjuftifiable ii* \nfe me, I can do nothing elfe to prevent a man from redrefs- \n(< ing himfelf, when he thinks he has been highly injured. \n(e As to revealing the confidence of my brother, it may \nce ftrike you, my dear Madam, in a (hocking light. It \n" is not the lealt of my injuries that every action of mine \\ \n" is fo mifreprefented to you, that I plainly perceive I \n(( have now, what I once thought I had not in the world, \n** an enemy; who has robbed me of one of God\'s choiceft \ntc bleffings, the opinion and confidence of a much-loved \n" and juftly-valued parent, robbed me by cruel infinu- \nc< ations and continual mifreprefentation. If I had afked \n(c Mr. Daubeny, when he told me what his brothers faid \n{e of Mr, Meade, whether I mould tell it again, he would \n66 have faid, Yes, with all his heart; for neither he, any \n<e more than myfelf, knew that any ill confequence could \ne( arife from it. Befides, he did not tell it to me as any \n(C fecret ; for he faid, his brothers were writing to Mr. \n" Meade himfelf, and that they had laid it all before Dr. \n(C Blayney and Mr. Coham, for they were determined to \n(( have it cleared up. When you wifh me to confider \n" my own character, do remember, my deareft Madam, \n(( that nothing can injure it fo much as the reproach of \n(( fuch a mother as yourfelf. Happy am I to feel that I \n<( can vindicate myfelf from every reproach of your\'s to \n(i an impartial perfon; but raoft unhappy am I to expe- \n" rience that, from cruel perverlion and obftruclion, I \n" am prevented from vindicating myfelf to you. I would \n# do every thing that is poflible to prevent this terrible \nC( trial. But, alas ! your letter plainly difcovers to me \n" that you have put every thing out of my power. I can \n" only fay, therefore, that if Mr. Meade will go to law, \n\n\n\n300 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n* c and Mr. Daubeny will go on with it, your poor daugfr- \n* ( ter mull abide by the confequences; what they may \n96 be, fhe cannot forefee: but let her fufferings here be \n** what they may, {he trufts that innocent intentions, and \n* ( adherence to truth, will find her at laft a peaceful man- \nsf fion, and unite her again to her dear mother, who now \n\nfeems to think her unworthy her bleflmg, and there- \ni6 fore muft conclude her caft off by her heavenly Parent. \n\nThat God Almighty will turn your heart towards \n* \xc2\xa3 me, (hail be the conftant prayer of your moft affect- \n\nionate daughter, C. Barnston," \n\nThe account given in the above letter of the conver- \nsion in June 1791;, mined Mr. Daubeny, who, con- \nfcious that what did really pafs would in no degree cri- \nminate him, did not expect that Mils Barnfton would \nfvvear what fhe actually did fwear in court. \n\nThe following extract from Mrs. Barnfton\'s letter to \nMr. Coham, in 1737, part of which letter has been- al- \nready quoted, {hews what fhe thought of her daughter\'s \nevidence five years after the trial: u My daughter fwore \nc * in court that the circumflance refpecting the ftate of \n" the cafe having been lent to Dr. Blayney and Mr. \n* 6 Coham was communicated to her by her brother; and \ntc that he charged Mr. Meade with having forged the \n"will. Both thefe matters are moft folemnly denied; \n<c and no one in the family could imagine what the cir- \ngc cumftances mentioned in the charge refpecting Dr. \n" Blayney and Mr. Coham meant, till it was brought \n" forward in the court. Mr. Meade brought his action \n* \xe2\x82\xac to recover damages for the lofs of his marriage. My \nH daughter fwore fuch was the cafe. I have evidence \n\n\n\n<( under my daughter\'s own hand-writing, as well as from \n* c other circuni {lances, which authorifeme to fay, that what \nCf my daughter fworeupon this fubject\\va v s moft certainly \nie not true, and that {he muft know at the time. In fhort, \n4e the greateft and moft important part of my daughter\'s \nfC evidence in court, if I may judge from her own hand- \n\xc2\xab writing, and many notorious eircunsftances, cannot ke \n(C true. The effect of the trial therefore muft be undone, \nand the characters that have been afperfed upon this \noccafion muft be done juftice to. Upon thefe eondi- \ncs tions alone can my daughter ever be received in my \nu family ; and nothing me can fay will ever alter my \n" opinion upon this fubj eel, becaufe that opinion has been \nec formed from facls, in which it is not poffible for me \n6< to be deceived." \n\nThe following letter from Mifs Barnfton to Mr. Dau- \nbeny feems a prefurnplive proof that no converfation of \nthe nature, defcribed by Mifs Barnfton in her evidence \ndid pafs between her and Mr. Daubeny in June 1791; \nor if it did pafs, this letter is a pofitive proof that it did \nriot produce the erTecl: (lie fwore it did produce. It is \ndated September 1791, three months after the converfa- \ntion is faid to have palled. \n\nc< My dear Brother, \n\nf* I beg to inform you that! came from Aldenham on \n\xe2\x82\xac\xe2\x82\xac Saturday, exprefsly with the intention of declaring to \n" you what I now give you under my hand-writing, \n" that I was totally ignorant of Mr. Meade\'s viflt or in- \n4C tention to fee me, which it feems he was determined to \n6i do, if poflible^ if not, to write to me. The next thing \n\nI beg to declare to you is,, that no frefh\' promifes or \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX, \n\n\n\n" engagements were the confequence of this meeting, \n" neither being afked by him, or offered by me. You \n<c will perhaps as little believe this, as you did my word \n" the laft time we had a meeting at our houfe; but this \n<c t cannot help; it is fufficient for my own mind when I \n66 declare to you what is true, and know it to be fo. Alas I \n(( it is but too true, that a very different converfation took \n" place between us when Hooker was out of hearing* \n" Mr. Meade told me that I have been the caufe of de- \nii flroying his character. The will bufinefs, he faid, was \niC nothing; a little time would fet that to rights, becaufe \n" facts could not be denied. Nor mould he ever have \n" heard fo much on that head, had not the weight of \n{e your character crufhed him, by expelling him firft from \n\xe2\x82\xacC your family and ours in a manner he knew to be un-\xc2\xbb \n(( merited. He called upon me often, he faid, by every \n(e open confeffion, to clear him in your eyes, and he fays \n" I have done nothing but deceive him all along. I have \n" been the means ef difuniting the very people who of all \n(( others I was earneftly anxious to unite. And he fays, \ncc he knows it to be as much impoffible for you to believe \n<c him guilty refpe&ing his wife, if you had not firft \n61 taken an unhappy turn againft him with regard to me, \n" In {hort he told me, whatever future intentions I might \n" have towards him, he was afraid his friends would turn \n" their backs on him, if I did not give them up ; for tho* \n" they were ready to lend their utmoft fupport about the \n" will affair, they thought I had ufed him fo ill, they \n" were indignant at feeing him ftill attached to me : and \n" though he will never marry any other woman, yet will \n" he never make any farther addreffes to me, nor even \n" enter into my family, unMs I will give him opportunity \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n30.3 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab* of clearing himfelf from that load of infamy and dif- \ns< honour which I have heaped upon him. He vvimed \n<c me to do this while he was in town; he could have \n(< waited on Mr. Sikes and you, but it muft be to you \n< e alone that he would fpeak about me. Both Hooker \n<c and I told him he had better execute the main buimefs \n" firft. In fhort, in his diffracted ftale of mjnd, he let \n" out every thing to Hooker, concluding that he knew all \n<c from me. As for myfelf, I am as wretched as need to \n<e be, or as I well can be, for one who feels confeious of no \n" ill intention. I am lofing the friendfhip of a brother \nic and fitter, who are dear to me as my life. I am forfeit- \n\ning the efteem of a man, who has, as I have well tried, \n<e long fince placed his whole happinefs upon me; I have \n(C deftroyed his character, and ruined his peace of mind. \nu I am accufed of deceiving my only parent, though I \nli have done nothing, nor ever intended, but to facrifiee \n\xe2\x82\xace my happinefs to hers. I am degraded among my lifters \n\nand brothers, nay, even in the eyes of my nephews and \n(( nieces, infomuch that I cannot help confeffing my vifit \n~* c here is attended with inexpreflible mortification. Home \nse is the molt tranquil place, becaufe my deareft mother \nte believes me honeft; and when I deceive her, may the \n<f hypocrite\'s portion be my lot. If becaufe I have not \nu chofen to declare to you all my intentions with the fame \n4C confidence I ufed to do, you are to fufpect me of everv \nu evil intention, and to make other people take it for \n(e granted ; how can you anfwer it to yourfelf, my dear \n(( brother, to make me fo wretched ? If confidence unre- \n< \xc2\xa3 ferved, confeffion, forrow, and love, can bring you back \n* f to my afflicted heart, come to me, and reftore me from \n<i a ftate of mifery to happinefs; but alk it not at the ex\xc2\xab \n\n\n\nJ04 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n6i pence of facrificlng juftice, gratitude^ and everlaftiilg \naffection to a man who I know to be worthy of youi 5 \n" better opinion : for, as Mr. Meade fays, though Charles \n* f may have had ever fueh objections to me, yet I know \n\xc2\xab he does not think me guilty of forgery, perjury, or fraud ; \n\xc2\xab c all that I, defire is that he wifties to find me innocent, \ncc and I will take care to prove myfelf fo. God forbid \n" you mould not wifh to fee him clear himfelf from all \n66 fuch charges, my dear brother; all that I entreat you is \n<c not to condemn him or prejudge him." \n\nThe following extract from a letter of Mrs. Daubeny \nto Mifs Bamfton, in Auguft 1791 ? not only proves that \nthe fufpicions about the will did not caufe Mifs Bamfton \nto reject Mr. Meade; but it alfo {hews that Mr. Daubeny \nhad formed no decided opinion upon the fubjecl:. " The \nc( will bufinefs, though occafionally mentioned, was never \n" confidered as the ground upon which he (Mr. Meade) \n" was given up ; nor would it have been reafonable it \niC mould, becaufe it had never been proved; for whatever \n\xe2\x82\xace appearances may be, your brother will never prejudge \n<c any man. With refpecl to the will bufinefs, though \n(e we mall always confider it as totally unconnected with \n<e the prefent fubjecl;, your brother can have no objection \ncc to give you every fatisfaction in his power. He con- \n" {iders himfelf in this cafe as a ftander-bye; all that he \n<c knows upon this bufinefs comes from his brothers; and \n" he is at any time ready to give the matter the moft im- \nce partial inveftigation. If you choofe to pitch upon any \n<e impartial perfon, who {hall hear all you have to fay for \n<c him on one fide, and all that your brother has to pro- \n<ff duce againft him on the other; Mr. Daubeny will moll \n" gladly meet you upon thofe terms. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX* \n\n\n\ntn September 1803, Mrs* Meade, at her own parti* \ncular requeft, had by appointment an interview with her \nmother for the firft time ft nee the trial and her marriage, \nMr. and Mrs. Daubeny, Mrs. Mary Barnfton, and two \nMifs Mafons\' being prefent. What pafled at this inter- \nview is very material; and the following account of it is \ntaken from Mr. Daubeny\'s paper, and attefted by Mrs. \nMary Barnfton and the Mifs Mafons*. Mrs. Barnfton \ncalled Mrs. Meade cc her loft child ; faid (lie forgave her, \n(c and hoped God would forgive her, and open her eyes \n" to fee her error, that {fie might return to peace." It \nwas the intention of Mr. Daubeny and the family to \nconfine this interview to the purpofe for which it was. \nrequefted, namely, Mrs. Meade\'s receiving her mother\'s \nforgivenefs, and not to mention the fubjecl of the trial ; \nbut after Mrs. Barnfton had expreffed her forgivenefs in \nthe words above-mentioned, Mrs. Meade fat down by \nMr. Daubeny, and turning round to him faicl, C\xc2\xa3 Well, \n" brother, now my mother has received me, why fnould \n" I not be received by the reft of the family ? ;> Mr. \nDaubeny replied, ec that there was no want of charity, of \n(( affection, of feeling towards her; that he moft heartily \n<e forgave all the injury he had received from her; but that \n" juftice muft be done to the injured characters, before \n9t {he could be received into the family : that as the re- \n** prefentative of her father he was bound to fee Mrs. \n** Barnfton\'s character cleared from the grofs afperfions \nn caft upon it in Mr. Meade\'s pamphlet; and that he \n" owed it both to the Church and his family to have his \nic own character cleared from the charge which her per- \n" jury in court had fixed upon it in the world." This \ncharge Mrs. Meade attempted to repel. Mr. Daubeny \n\n\n\n806 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nthen told her, that u his cafe and documents had been \na laid before two coimfel, vvhofe joint and decided detc\'r- \ncc mi nation was, that mould he move for a new trial, the \n" confequence would be, that he would mod certainly \n. e( recover the verdict, and Mrs. Meade as certainly go out \n66 of court a perjured woman.\'\' Mrs. Meade immedi- \nately afked, c Why did you not then?\' Mr. Daubeny \nreplied, 6\xe2\x82\xac becaufe he had more feeling for the family than \n" me had." Mr. Daubeny then told Mrs. Meade that \nall the papers and documents of every kind had been \nkid\' before the. Bimop of Bath and Wells, previous fo \nhis entering upon the charge of Chrift- Church ; and \nafter the Bimop\'s full and deliberate examination of \n\xe2\x96\xa0them for a week, his judgment was, (i that ihe was moil \nu certainly a perjured woman, if ever there was one; and \n(\xc2\xa3 that her mother could not, in juitice to herfelf and fa- \n(S mily, receive her, till me. had acknowledged her conduct, \n\'\' and made all amends in her power." Mr. Daubeny \nthen proceeded to prove to her in what manner {he had \nperjured herfelf. Mrs. Meade acknowledged, that in June \n1791 ftie had totally given up Mr. Meade, and of courfe \nfhe could not deny that it was impoffible that any expref- \nfion uied by him at that time mould be the caufe of her \n.not marrying Mr. Meade, or that he (Mr. Daubeny) could \nfay any thing with that intent: in this relpect therefore \nihe could not deny that fhe had fworn falfly. Mr. Dau- \nbeny next reminded her of her having fworn in court \nthat me had her mother\'s full and free con fen t to marry; \nto this flie could fay nothing, her mother being at her \nelbow. Mrs. Meade acknowledged that me had fome \nrecollection of having confefled to Mr. Daubeny,, at Mr. \nSikes\'s at Hackney, in September I7$l, that it was her \n\n\n\nAppendix* \n\n\n\n307 \n\n\n\nintention to marry Mr. Meade at her mother\'s death. \nMr. Daubeny again reminded her of her having fworn in \ncourt 3 in the\' Jane following, that (lie had her mother\'s \nfull and free confent to marry Mr. Meade, and that the \nexpreffions faid to be ufed by him (Mr, Daubeny) pre- \nvented the marriage. Was not this, Mr. Daubeny faid,, \nto fwear falfly ? To this fhe made no anfwer. Mr. Dau- \nbeny then reminded her of Mr. H. Sawbridge being fent \nin January 1792, by her to Bath, to announce her inten- \ntion to her mother, of marrying Mr. Meade at all events | \nand of her having fworn in court, that words fpoken in \nJune 1791, were the caufe of her not marrying Mr. Meade; \nand that in confequence of this falfe evidence a verdi\xc2\xa3t \nwas obtained. Upon this Mrs. Meade faid, that Mr. \nMeade did not go into court for lofs of marriage, but for \ndefamation ; " for," faid fhe, ce when I was afked that \n(c indelicate queftion, whether I meant to marry Mr. \n" Meade, I did not fay I did not." Thus for the pur- \npofe of gaining Mr. Meade a verdict for defamation, Mrs. \nMeade acknowledged that fhe fwore to an effect which \nwas not produced ; that is, fhe fwore that the marriage \nwas lo^ at the very time fhe intended to marry ; and me \nactually did marry Mr. Meade about ten days after, the \ncarriage being ordered, and other preparations made at the \ntime of the trial. The ftate of the cafe, according to Mrs. \nMeade\'s own reprefentation, is therefore this : words fpo- \nken in a confidential converfation with her brother-in- \nlaw, at a time when all idea of her marrying Mr. Meade \nwas underftood to be at an end, fhe revealed to Mr. Meade, \nand afterwards, in order to give a criminal confequence \nto thefe words, fhe fwore they produced an efFeci on, \nher mind which they never had produced ; and by this \n\nX 2 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nbreach of confidence, and by this falfe evidence, {he pro- \ncured Mr. Meade a verdict againft her brother-in-law. \nLaftly, Mr.Daubeny in the moft folemn manner declared \nthat he never had uttered the words attributed to him ; \nand Mrs. Meade confeffed that her evidence was falfe, but \nwould not acknowledge that me was a perjured woman, \nbecaufe me had no malicious intention ao-ainft Mr. Dau- \n\no \n\nbeny: thus me confiders falfe fwearing and perjury as \ndifferent things. \n\nMr. Daubeny fent an account of this interview to the \ndifferent branches of the Barnfton family in London, and \nthe following anfvver mews their opinion not only of the \ninterview, but alfo of Mr. Daube^y\'s conduct in general \nin this affair. \n\niC My dear Sir, London, Sep. 14, 1803. \n\nsc IT is now only two days fince T had the pleafure of \n" writing to you. On the prefent occafion therefore I \n\' ff am rather to be confidered as the fubflitute of Mr. \n\xe2\x82\xacC Snaith; though I think in a matter of fo much interefl \n6e to you and your friends, if I could not have ufed his \n<c pen as the vehicle of my own feelings in fome degree, \n(i I mould have been tempted to have troubled you again \ncc on my account. As it is, however, I have been re- \nec quefted in a manner which every way falls in with my \n* c own wifhes, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter. \n\xe2\x82\xacc It arrived juft as Mr. Snaith was preparing to take wing \n" for a few days flight to Cheltenham, or he would not \nec have left the tafkof anfwering it to another. My aunt\'s \n(( letter having carried Mrs. Sikes to Mannon-houfe-ftreet, \n" to meet your difpatch, (for which me was not a little \n" anxious) juft about the time I called there, the whole \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n309 \n\n\n\nc< family had an opportunity of joining in one general \n" expreflion of their feeling on the occanon; with fome \n(6 indignation at the manner in which it was brought \ntc about, they all congratulate you on the refult of the \ni( interview. With you they greatly defired that Mrs. \ni( Barnfton might personally forgive her offending daugh- \ni{ ter, before fhe was taken from her for ever; but they \nf* trembled for the immediate effecl: of fuch a meeting \n" upon the good old lady. They cannot therefore dif- \n6( femble their fatisfaction that it is all well over, nor \nu that it has in its conduct and clofe fo greatly ftrength- \niC ened the caiife of truth and juftice. Your friewds here \nff have long been too intimately acquainted with all the \n** circumftances of this cruel fchifm to require on their \ncc own account any frefh documents on the fubjecl:; at \nCK the fame time they rejoice at the acceffion of evidence, \n* ( fo important to the conviction of others, as is furnimed \n" by the confeffions, politive and negative, of one whom \n" they lament to think mould have been made the inftru- \n" ment of gratifying the word difpofitions of another; \n66 and feeling, as they do, the extent of your forbearance, \n" they think it due from them to affure you, that they \n<c will not omit any proper opportunity of employing thefe \n" powerful documents to do you that juftice in private, \nC( which family confiderations withhold you from feeking \n" in a more public way ; and which they can never enough \n(( regret, that there appears from the iffue of this interview \n" there is no hope of ever being done to you in a manner \n6C which might heal the breaches of a divided family. \n" vlr. Snaith defired me to fay, that he would endeavour \n" to take Bath in his return from Cheltenham ; and that \niS he might have the pleafure of meeting you there, would \n\n\n\n310 f \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nce probably give you two or three days notice of his in- \n^ tention. We mail be much obliged by a good account \nu of Aunt Bcmfion, for whom the letter to Mrs. Sikes \nli has made us rather anxious. With kind love, &x. &c\xc2\xab. \nu believe me, \n\n\xc2\xa3c Dear fir, your\'s truly, \n\n(< Joshua Watson." \n\nMrs. Meade gave a very different account of this inter- \nview in a letter to her fifter Mrs. M. Barnfton, to which \nthe following anfvver was fent ; \n\n" Dear Siller, \n\n4C ALTHOUGH your letter is written in a ftile as \n(e might lead you to expect no anfwer to it, I ftill owe it \nec to truth and juftice to proteit againft the grofs mifre- \n(( presentation entertained in it, refpecling what palled \ni( at the interview with your mother. I mall not enter \n* ( into the particulars, becaufe they are to be eftablifhed \ni( by the teftimony of thofe who were prefent, having been \n(i immediately committed to paper by three different per- \n" fons on your departure, and therefore will at all times \n(( fpeak for themfelves; and the contents of your letter \n* f only feem to prove how neceffary the attendance of \n" proper witneffes was upon the occafion. As a fifter, \n" I cannot help deeply lamenting your continuance in \n\xc2\xab wilful falfhoods." \n\nThe above confeffion, and the teftimonies which have \nbeen produced from original letters and other authentic \ndocuments, feem to place it beyond a poflibility of doubt \nthat Mrs. Barnfton never did give her full and free con- \nfent to the marriage of her daughter with Mr. Meade | \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nand ibat the words fpokeri by Mr. Daubeny on the 28th \nof June 1791> fuppofing them to have been fpoken, did \nnot produce the effect which Mifs Barnfton fwore they \ndid produce. There is alfo as ftrong reafon as the nature \nof the cafe admits, for thinking that Mr. Daubeny did not \nutter the words imputed to him by Mifs Barnfton. They \nare not quoted or mentioned in any of Mifs Barnfton* s \nletters to Mr. Daubeny, or her other relations, fubfequent \nto June 1791 ; and in thefe letters there are fome expref- \nlions fcarcely compatible with this fuppofed converfation. \nNo other witnefs was called to prove that Mr. Daubeny \never held any fuch language ; and evidence has been pro- \nduced to fhew that he held a different language in the \nfamily. Nor is Mifs Barnfton\'s affertion upon this fubject \nfupported by any circumftantial or collateral teftimony; \nand it is, I believe, a rule in evidence, founded in reafon \nand acknowledged in our courts, that where a witnefs is \nconvieled of fwearing falfely in one inftance, his or her \nteftimony deferves no credit, or at leaft is not admitted \nas proof upon any other point. It is highly improbable \nthat Mr. Daubeny mould fay any thing to Mifs Barnfton \nfor the purpofe of preventing her marriage with Mr. \nMeade, when he knew that Mr. Meade had been twice \nrefufed by her, and at a time when it was generally un- \nderstood in the family that the affair was entirely at an end. \n\nThe following is Mr. Daubeny\'s account of the conver- \nfation which palled between himfelf and Mifs Barnfton in \nJune 1791 ; he ftates that it was occasioned by the diffe- \nrent language which it was found Mr. Meade held to the \nelde i Mr. Daubeny before he left England, and to Mr, \nCharles Daubeny, on his arrival at Spa, upon the fubjec~t \nef his late wife\'s will : Mifs Barnfton having been prefent \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX* \n\n\n\nwhen the conversation pafled at Spa, Mr. C. Daubeny \nwas defirousof confirming his account of what Mr. Meade \nthen faid by her teftimony, and with this view he read to \nMifs Barnfton his minutes of the converfation, which were \nto this effecl: " Mr. Meade enlarged much on the cm- \nec elty of my brothers\' reception of him ; that they charged \ns< his wife with having made an unjuft will, and that he \n** had a hand in it. He faid, moreover, that Mary made \nk\xc2\xa3 fuch a will, becaufe me was confident that he (Mr. \n<c Meade) would make the fame difpofal of her property \n6e as me herfelf would wifh. With that idea me left it \n\xe2\x82\xac( as me did;, in his hands, that it might be (a lien) a kind \nw of bond or means of keeping up his connexion in the \n" family ; as fhe hoped he would always be considered \n" as a brother in her family; that he had made his will \nm and erafed my brother John\'s name as executor, (on \n* 6 account of what he (Mr. Meade) reprefented to be his \ne( unkind treatment of him) and had put mine inj and \n" that my brothers would have no reafon to be difTatisfied, \nor fomething to the fame purpofe. He faid, moreover, \n" that Mrs. Meade had done fomething very handfome \n" by his brother, though he did not fay what," Mifs \nBarnfton declared the above, to the belt of her recollection, \nto be the fubilance of what Mr. Meade had faid at Spa. \nMr. Daubeny then afked her accidentally, without any pre- \nvious intention, whether fhe knew any thing about his lifter\'s \nmaking her will, or had feen the fignature of it ; and hap- \npening to have the fac fimile of it in his pocket-book, \n(which Mr. J. Daubeny had fent not only to Mr. Daubeny, \nbut alfo to Mr. Meade, with a view to a private explana- \ntion) he f hewed it to her, and afked her what fhe thought \nof it 5 her anfwer was, "God knows," Not a word \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n313 \n\n\n\nmore paffed on either fide on the fubject of the will. Mifs \nC. Barnllon was at this time fitting down with me at the \ntable. She now got up, and walked up and down the \nroom. I propofed her accompanying us to Tunbridge, \nto which fhe feemed indifferent. She feemed to ha\\^e \nfomething on her mind. After a turn or two, (he faid, \n* c Brother, I was in hopes you could at leaft have been fo \n" far reconciled to Mr, Meade as to have kept up ap- \nu pearances with him." To which my anfwer was, c Kit, \nf you know my chara6ter too well, not to know, that I \n\n* can never keep up appearances, where there is no reality. \n\n* After what has pafifed abroad, I never can fee Mr. Meade \n\' in the light of an honeft man/ Mr. Daubeny is ready \nto fwear that this was the fubftance of the converfation, \nand the whole of what pafTed relative to his filler\'s will \nupon that occafion ; and that neither then, or at any \nother time, he ufed the expreffions attributed to him by \nMifs Barnfton in her evidence upon the trial. \n\nI cannot but remark that Mr. Meade\'s papers are drawn \nup with the molt confummate addrefs, and in a manner \npeculiarly calculated to impofeupon the reader: afTertions \nare rarely fupported by any authentic documents, dates \nare feldom. mentioned, and occurrences which happened \nat different times are placed together; the main queflion \nis kept very much out of fight ; collateral and irrelevant \ncircumftances are dwelt upon with minutenefs and ear- \nneftnefs 5 much declamation is ufed, and the feelings are \nfrequently appealed to, where the judgment only ought to \nbe exercifed. It is therefore not matter of furprife that \nfome of thofe who have read Mr. Meade\'s papers only^ \ntmve formed an opinion favourable to his caufe, \n\n\n\n314 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nI think it right to\' quote two or three pafTages which \nappear to me to mark a want of that correclnefs of prin- \nciple which can alone produce uniform right conduct It \nis. acknowledged that Mr. Meade and Mifs Barnfton car- \nried on a clandeftine correfpondence upon the fubjecl: of \nmarriage, in divert violation of a moil folem-n. promife \n>nade by both of them to Mr. Daubeny. Mr. Meade \nendeavours to juftify this, in the following manner in No. \nI. page 9, of his papers, " Although upon bis (Mr.Dau- \nce beny\'s) obferving her (Mifs Barnfton\'s) inclinations to \n?c Mr. Meade, he had obtained a promife that me would \ntc yield them to his; yet when {he found that fuch a com- \n&c pliment to friendfhip might give a wound to her own \ntt happinefs, fhe might, by telling Mr. Daubeny fo, have \n" deprived him of thofe pretences and advantages which \n" in the fequel he fo fuccefsfully urged againft her. But \n" invincible reafons prevented this. For me was per- \n" fuaded, from his general violence in the affair, (and his. \niC conduct ever fin ce jufti tied that perfuafion) that unhap- \n**. pinefs would be the confequence of her explaining her- \n* c felf abroad; and fhe flattered herfelf it might be avoid- \n4X ed if (lie waited till ihe returned home. If prudence or \nu neceffity forced her toreferve, it was not, as Mr, Daiu \n* c beny fuggefts, from hypocrify. She was unreferved \n" enough in declaring her fentiments to her mother \ni6 and all her friends ; and fhe often and fmcerely lamented \n\xc2\xa5 the neceffity of being referved with Mr. JDaubeny \n4( abroad; but ilie owed him no duties, nor was any \ni e breach of hofpitality committed, for the party were all \n** equal, men and women, brothers and fillers, united to \n" travel at a joint expence." Thus Mr. Meade calls a \nviolation of promife, referve ; and he and Mifs Barnfton \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n315 \n\n\n\nfatisfied themfelves that it was allowable, becaufe Mifs \nBamfton was not dependant upon Mr. Daubeny, and be- \ncaufe they were all travelling at a joint expence. Hence \nit appears that they began with praclifing deceit, which \nwas certainly not neceffary, for Mifs Barnfton, as foon as \nthe mutual attachment had taken place, had only to tell \nMr. Daubeny of it, and to write to her mother for her \nconfent ; and Mr. Daubeny would probably have defired \nMr. Meade to leave the party till Mrs. Barnfton\'s willies \nwere known, as he had reafon to think that the connec- \ntion would not be agreeable to her. Indeed Mr. and \nMrs. Daubeny both repeatedly urged Mils Barnfton to \nwrite to her mother upon the fubject; but me refufed, upon \nthe ground that there was no attachment between her and \nMr. Meade 3 and (he expremy faid, " Why mould I make \n(e my mother uneafy about nothing?" In fpeaking upon \nthe fame fubjecl, Mr. Meade fays, page 34, ec If Mifs \n(e Barnfton or Mr. Meade repented or wifhed to recal \ncc fueh expreffions, what injury did they do, or propofe to \nfc any one living?" Here violation of promife is called \nrecalling expreffions, though in fa<Sl not a fyllable was \nfaid to Mr. Daubeny, to whom the promife was made : \nnor did Mifs Barnfton write to her mother, although the \naffair was carried on all the time the party continued \nabroad ; and furely this could proceed from no other caufe \nbut a belief that the connexion would not be agreeable \nto her mother. This deceit, and this fophiftical mode of \njuftifying it, feem to have led to a difregard for truth in \nMrs. Meade, which is acknowledged in a letter written in \nanfwer to one {he had received from her mother, accufing \nher of having given evidence in court in direct contra- \ndiction to her hand-writing and repeated language in her \n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nfamily: the letter is dated July 1800, and the paffage is \nas follows : u That my oath differed from fome particular \n" letters and expreffions of mine muft of neceffity \n(C have been the cafe, becaufe upon my oath rigid truth \nfC was to be my guide, and I could not prefume upon \n(C referves or concealments, however benevolent the in- \n* tf teution." \n\nHow then does the matter ftand according to Mrs. \nMeade\'s own confeffion ? Soon after her return from the \nContinent, {he coiifefled that {he pra6tifed deceit, in car- \nrying on a clandeftine correfpondence contrary to her \npromife: in 1800, (lie denies having given falfe evidence \nin court, by acknowledging that {he had not made truth \nIier guide in her letters and expreffions; and in 1803,-upon \nbeing preflfed by Mr. Daubeny, fhe confefTed before four \nother perfons* all living and ready to atteft it, two of whom \nare her lifters, that me had been guilty of falfe-fwearing \nat the trial. The progrefs feems io have been a natural \none, from deceit to untruth, from untruth to falfe-fwear- \ning. Upon the laft occafion me diftinguimed between \nfalfe-fwearing and perjury ; but morality and religion know \nno fuch diftincStion. And indeed throughout this bufi- \njiefs I think I obferve both in Mr. and Mrs. Meade, and \nefpecially in the latter, a great propenfity to felf-deception. \nLet them now reflect and examine themfelves. Let them \ntake a calm and difpaffionate review of their whole con- \nduct, as far as concerns the bufinefs in queftion, from the \ntime of their meeting at Spa, to the prefent moment. \nLet them not rely on the deciflon of a fallible human tri- \nbuna\', but remember that they muft hereafter appear \nbefore the tribunal of an infallible Judge, Let them aik \nthemfelves, whether they have invariably adhered to the \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nffidifpenfable laws of honour, juftice, and truth, And in \nparticular, let Mrs. Meade, after confidering her evidence \nin court, afk herfelf the following queftions, Did my \nmother ever give me her full and free confent to marry \nMr. Meade? Was my marriage with him really pre- \nvented by Mr. Daubeny\'s converfation with me on the \n2Sth of June? Did Mr. Daubeny really ufe the expreflions \nI attributed to him ? Thefe are plain queftions, and let \nthe anfwers to them be plain and fimple, without evanon \nor cafuiftry. With the documents I have had before me, \nI conceive it impoffible that Mrs. Meade can confeien- \ntiouOy anfwer thefe queftions in the affirmative; but at \nthe fame time, I am fully aware that it requires great \nfirmnefs of mind to make an explicit confeffion in a cafe \nlike this : that firmnefs can be derived from this conn- \nderation only, that however humiliating confeflion may \nbe thought in this world, it will certainty be profitable in \nthe next. Let Mr. and Mrs. Meade confiderthat they have \ndone their utmoft to deprive Mr. Daubeny of his cha- \nracter, they ought therefore to do their utmoft to reftore \nit in the public opinion. Mr. Daubeny forgives them \nupon Chriftian principles; but while they perfift in afTert- \ning falfe evidence to be true, to the injury of his character, \nneither morality nor religion requires that he or his im- \nmediate connexions mould live with them upon terms of \nfriendfhip; this would be a fort of acknowledgement of \nthe truth of their ftalemcnt. Mr. and Mrs. Meade prefs \nfor oblivion and reconciliation; it is obviouuy the inte- \nreft of the offending party to do fo. But this cafe is not \nlike a common quarrel or diiagreement in families where \nboth parties may be to blame, yet both equally free from \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX,, \n\n\n\nevery thing which can be called criminal. Here one of \nthe parties muft be guilty, and juftice mould firft be done \nto the innocent, and reparation made the foundation of \nreconciliation. \n\nI think it due to Mr. Daubeny to add, that after amort \nattentive inveftigation of the feveral charges brought \nagainft him by Mr. and Mrs. Meade, I am perfectly \nfattsted that he has in every refpecl acled with the ftri&eft \npropriety, and as a man of honour; and I think that the \nmotives which induced him to fubmit to the verdic% \nalthough he was allured by his counfel that it might be fet \n.alide by a new trial, deferve particular approbation, \n\nG. LINCOLN* \n\nDeanery-House, St. Paui/s, \nMai; 13th, 1805 r \n\n\n\n{ G. ) \n\nCorrespondence between the Bishop of Lincoln \na nd Mr, Meade. \n\nTYTS Lordfliip has already quoted his firft letter, when \n- he applied to the Rev. Dr. Randolph for Mr; \nMeade\'s papers. Dr. Randolph, in confequence of that \napplication, wifned Mr. Meade to convey to his Lord- \nfhip fuch papers as he thought might fattsfy his mind ; \nand Mr. Meade accordingly lent fuch as he conceived \nmuft anfwer the purpofe \' s accompanying them with the \nfollowing letter: \n\n\n\n\xc2\xa3\xc2\xa3 To the Bishop of Lincoln. \n\nec Chatleigh, March 25, 1805. \n\nf f DR. Randolph has communicated to Mr. Meade \nse the Bifhop of Lincoln\'s letter, and requefted him to \n\xc2\xa3( fend to his Lordfliip his papers relative to his un- \n" happy difpute with Mr. Daubeny. Mr. Meade will \n6\xc2\xa3 with pleafure comply with the Bifhop\'s wiflies; for, as \nf< he never obtrudes his papers on any one, fo he never \ncc refufes them when there is a liberal and candid motive \n6\xc2\xa3/ of enquiry. \n\n" As for himfelf and his family, he has no intereft; he \n*\' has nothing to gain by any decilions in his favour. \n\n\n\n320 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xacC And fupported by the judgment of his country, by the \n<c teftimony of his own conscience, and by the etteem of \n<c thofe who know him and his caufe, he has nothing to \ni& fear from enquiry, and nothing to wifh for but peace. \n\n" Mr. Meade laments the reftlefsnefs and activity with \nee which Mr. Daubeny obtrudes a private quarrel of twelve \n" years Handing on fuch utter Grangers to all the parties \n" as the Bifliop of Lincoln appears to be; but he feels \niC little folicitude from any imprefiion which ex parte \nt( ilatements may have made on his Lordfhip\'s mind. \n" If fuch has been the cafe, he perfuades himfelf that it \n(e will be of fhort duration. \n\n" Mr. Meade will only add, that if there be any point \nu on which his Lordfhip deli res farther explanation, he \nec will be happy to give it;- confident that any reflections \n6C which the Bifhop may have heard on the characters of \n(c Mr. and Mrs. Meade, will appear to be the fabrications \n6( of an inveterate enemy; and that his Lordlhip will \n6i have to declare, as the* Bifhop of Durham has done \nee on two points which Mr. Daubeny has lately aflerted \n* e to him on this fubjecl:, that they were inventions of his \n* e own without any foundation in truth. \n\n\xc2\xab T. M." \n\n* The reader will have feen (Appendix, letter D.) that Mr, \nMeade had the befl authority for this affertion. Mr. Meade may \neven add to what is there faid, that that very refpe&able gentleman \nwhom his Lordfhip employed as his friend on this occafion, aflured \nMr. Meade, " That the Bifhop of Durham had not only difcovered \n" the ftcries he had heard from Mr. Daubeny to be abfolutely \n" without foundation, but that his Lordfhip would certainly declare \n" it wherever his name might have been ufed ; and that it would be\' \nV injuftice to his Lordfhip\'s character to fuppofe that he would not \n" do fb." The lady to whom the Bifliop of Durham applied, gave \nMr. Meade aflurances equally ftrong of his Lorclihip\'s conviction. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX \n\n\n\n321 \n\n\n\nIn about feven weeks the Bifhop fent to Mr. Meade a \nmanufcript book, and with it a letter. \n\n" Sir, Deanery, St. Paul\'s, May 13, 1305. \n\n<c I am forry that rfry engagements in town have not \nC( allowed me to fend you the enclofed papers fooner. I \nfe was not without hope, when I entered into an examina- \nce tion of a fubjecl: upon which opinions were fo much \nt\xe2\x82\xac divided, that it might be poflible to form a judgment \nf{ which would vindicate the characters of both the parties \ncc from all material blame. Believe me, fir, I moft fin- \n\ncerely lament that I have been difappointed in this \nfe hope. But mould the plain ftatement of facts, upon \nrc which I can form but one opinion, lead you and Mrs. \n<e Meade to fee the fubjecl: in a different point of view \n<c from that in which you feem hitherto to have con* \n\xe2\x82\xact fidered it, and produce a reconciliation which would \n* c be honourable to both parties, I fhall feel truly happy \nie in having contributed in any degree to fo defirable an \nu event. \n\n*\' I am, fir, your obedient fervant, \n\n<f G. Lincoln/\' \n\n<c P.S. I ought perhaps to have obferved, that none of \nt( the evidence contained in the enclofed papers was pro- \n<( duced in court upon the trial." \n\n\n\nOn nattily running over his Lordfiiip\'s manufcript, \nMr. Meade had not fuch compofure of fpirits as he would \nwifh to poffefs in repelling an attack that required mature \nthinking, and the advice of friends. His firlt letter to \n\ny \n\n\n\n3.22 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX, \n\n\n\nthe Biihop was of little importance, and the reader fHall \nnot be troubled with it. He obferved in it, \xc2\xa3i that he: \n" could fay little more than that he had received the paper., \niC and that there was error in all the reafoning." \n\nIn a few weeks he wrote the ^following letter* to his \nLordOiip, to propofe a perfonal meeting. \n\n" My Lord, June 19th, 1805. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 ce IN my letter to your Lordfhip, after I had hardly \ni \' \xc2\xa3 run over the manufcript you fent me, I mentioned that \nCi I fhould probably ftate to you fome fa\xc2\xa3ts which I \nc: thought might change the fentiments you exprefTed in \n^ that manufcript. I am now in town, and fhall be \ni( ready to wait on you for the purpofe, if you choofe it. \n***When your wilh.es to fee papers of mine were conveyed \nSi to me, it did not occur to my mind that you had any \n(< intentions but of endeavouring to efTec~t peace in a di- \n\xc2\xa36 vided family, and my chief object was to con vey to you \n* e a detail of what had been done for that purpofe, toge- \nee therwith a view of the influence which feemed to have \nec prevented it. In my papers themfelves I protefted \n(C againft .re-trying, without jury, witnefTes, oath, or \n* e reilraint, a caufe which had been decided already ; and \nV as you appeared to with to have the papers during the \n(C few days you were at Lymington, I fent them without \n<tC delay, in confidence that they were going to a Bifhopy \n\n* Mr. Meade\'s letters being very long, and often repetitions of \nwhat has appeared in the preceding pamphlet, to fpare the reader \nhe has given only extracts, which he has done faithfully, to the \nbeft of his judgment. Mr. Meade\'s original letters are in the \nBifhop\'s hands; the drafts for them in Mr. Meade\'s, where thofe \nconcerned may fee them* The Bifhop\'s letters are giyen Verbatim^ \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX* \n\n\n\n323 \n\n\n\nff and to an arbitrator* of peace, who might have farther \n" communication with me. But finding that you have \n" taken up an opinion very different from my expectations, \nce and I believe on very miftaken ground, I am advifed \n" by my friends to point out to you thofe miflakes into \n" which we conceive you have fallen; and which in every \n(C eflential matter are obvious. You will be fomewhat \n<( furprized to fee that even the direct afTertion refpecting \n" the late Bifhop of Bath and Wells, is directly contra- \n" dieted by his fon Dr. Mofs, in his letter to me in Ja- \niC nuary 1799. You will be convinced that the account \n(C Mrs. Tomline gave to a lady at Bath, of Mrs. Meade\'s \n(c wedding-day being fixed previous to the trial, is utterly \n" unfounded. You will find alfo that a fimilar ftory which \n\n* Mr. Meade at this time heard that the Bifhop endeavoured to \nvindicate his conduct, as under the character of " an Arbitrator,\'* \nalthough it was clear to common fenfe that Mr. Meade had never \nconftituted him as fuch ; nor did his Lordfhip exprefs fuch art \nidea previous to his getting Mr. Meade\'s papers; nor did Mr. \nMeade ever apply to him at all. Mr. Meade ufed the above expref- \nfion, to meet the Bifhop on his own ground. But what moft furprifed \nhim was, that at this time he received letters from Mr. Daubeny \nwhich carried with them an appearance of the Bifhop (although \nunder the aflumed character of an arbitrator) having privately com- \nmunicated to Mr. Daubeny fome of Mr. Meade\'s papers, or their \ncontents, on points which did not enter into his Lordfhip\'s judgment, \nand which he had not even touched upon; for Mr. Daubeny de- \nmanded of Mr. Meade in thofe letters " the charges which the latter \n" had laid before the Bifhop of Lincoln refpecting the wills of Mr. \n*\' and Mrs. Barnfton, and threatening in cafe of refufal to apply to \n" the Bifhop for them." To which Mr. Meade replied, " that the \n" Bifhop of Lincoln did not communicate to him any of thofe \n" papers which Mr. Daubeny had requefted his Lordfhip to read \xc2\xbb \n" and he prefumed that the Bifhop, as an honeft man, did not cbm- \n" municate to Mr. Daubeny thofe papers which his Lordfhip had \n" requefted from Mr. Meade." \n\nY 2 \n\n\n\n324 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nf* {he related to the fame lady at Bath, c of a carnage \n<c * being befpoke before the trial/ is equally without \nct foundation. \n\nC( I beg to fay, that I mean nothing difrefpe&ful to \nci your Lord fhip; but you will give me leave to obfervc \ni( an error into which you have yourfelf fallen, when \n" quoting from a paper of mine, you defcribe me as \n66 c juftifying the violation of promifes, becaufe Mr. Dau- \n\xc2\xa3( 6 beny and I travelled at a joint expence/ I fyave now \nu the paper before me from which you quote, and I ven- \ntc ture to fay that you mult be as ready to correct yous \nCi error, as I am to mark it. \n\nu I have the honour to be, &c. \n\n" Thefe are only a few of the errors in your paper." \n\n\n\nTo this the Bifhop of Lincoln replied as follows: \n<c Sir, Buckden Palace, June 24, 1805. \n\n\xe2\x82\xaci YOUR letter, dated June 19th, and directed to the \n<c Deanery, St. Paul\'s, in which you defire to fee me, has \n\nbeen forwarded to me at this place. If I had been in \nu town, I mould have been ready to hear from yourfelf \nfe any thing which you might have wifhed to ftate tome; \nG< but as I do not expect to be there for feveral months,* \n\n* The Bifhop appears to have loft the opportunity of correcting \nhis miftakes, by falling into that error which milled others ; as \nMrs. Barnfton, Mrs. M. Barnfton, &c. who, after hearing volumes \nof calumny againft Mrs. Meade, were feduced into a perfuafion that \nthey ought never to fee her. The reafon for which was plain \nenough; " truth would have come out, and fallacy would have \nst been expofed." Even their letters ufually contained a command, \n\nthat no anfwer mould he given." But how came the Bilhop of \nLincoln to run into fuch a trap I . When he ftepped forward, uncalled \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n325 \n\n\n\nw I mult beg leave to trouble you in writing with a few \n" obfervations upon the contents of your laft letter, and \nie alfo of that which I received from you, dated May 18. \n" It certainly would have been a fource of great fatisfac- \n<e tion to me if I could have been the means of reftoring \nu peace in a divided family; and with that view I took \n6 * the liberty of ftating without refer ve where the blame \nt( appeared to me to lie, and of calling upon the offending \nu . party, in the molt folemn manner I could, to make that \n6i fort of acknowledgment which I thought molt likely to \n46 lead to this very deniable objecl. Be allured, fir, that \ntc what I faid upon this point proceeded from no unkind \n" motive towards you and Mrs. Meade, but from a real \n<6 regard to your moft fubflantial and lafting interefts. If I \n<f had not looked beyond this world; if I had not thought \n<e that the facred laws of religion and morality had been \niC violated; I mould moft certainly not have ufed the \ni( ftrong expreflions which I did. \n\n<\xc2\xa3 I have read both your letters with all the attention in \n66 my power, and I muft take the liberty of faying that \nu they do not contain a fingle circumftance tending to \niC invalidate the conclusions, which I have drawn. In \n(e drawing thefe conclufions, I have not relied upon the \n" alfertion of Mr. Daubejiy, or of any other perfon y I \n" have in every inftance quoted my authorities, and you \n" have not even attempted to mew that my inferences are \n\nfor, to reverfe a judgment of law, and to overthrow characters, was \nit not his duty to fee and hear both fides ? Was he not bound by \nevery law which mould govern men, at leaft to reftrain the impa- \ntience and publication of his attack, until he could fee that party \nwho had allured him that in every page of his paper there were \nimpofmons and error? But a fnare feems to have been laid, and \nhis Lordfnip ran into it ! \n\n\n\n326 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nte unjuft. Granting every thing which you mention to \n&<r be correct and accurate, my authorities and concluflons \n\xe2\x82\xacC will remain unaffected. The evidence which I have \n<c produced was not before the court at the trial; if it had, \niC I am perfuaded that the fentence would have been dif- \n" te ferent. If the Bifhop of Bath and Wells did not pfo- \n" nounce Mrs. Meade perjured, he gave an unequivocal \n<c proof of his being fatisfied with refpecl to Mr. Dau- \nce beny, by licenfing him to the Free-Church at Bath, \nu after a full inveftigation of the cafe between you and \ntf Mr. Daubeny ; and I have Dr. Mofs\'s authority to fay, \n(e that his father did exprefs the moft complete fatisfac- \n<e tion with refpect to Mr, Daubeny\'s character. The late \n(C Archbifhop of Canterbury, who was confulted as being \nu a fubfcriber to the Free-Church, gave his full confent \n< c ~and approbation to Mr. Daubeny\'s appointment to the \n<c Free- Church. The prefent Bifhop of Salifbury, in \nee whofe diocefe Mr. Daubeny has a living, has lately \nee given a ftrong proof of his good opinion of him.* The \nce Bifhop of Durham, in two letters which I have received \nee from him fince I left town, fays, e With the cha- \n* 6 \xe2\x82\xac ra&er of Mr. Charles Daubeny I am well acquainted 5 \n\n* Mr. Meade leaves it to the common fenfe of every reader to \neftimate this mode of reafoning. If he had thought proper to reft \non fuch arguments, he too might have quoted authorities ; perhaps \nhe might have ventured to name every perfon, without exception, \nwho has heard his ftatement. He is not without the authority of \nvenerable bifhops to oppofe to his Lordmip; the late Bifhop of Ox- \nford wrote to him that the cafe was fo clear, that he thought Mr. \nMeade gave himfelf unnecefTary trouble to write on it at all. Mr. \nMeade has the original ; and he relates the circumftance only be- \ncaufe he would meet the Bifhop of Lincoln on every ground, evea \nwhen his Lordmip adopts authorities in the place of reason and proof, \n\n\n\nAPFKNDrX. 3E7 r \n\nc * * and have always underftood, from thofe who know\' \n" c him belt, that his character is~not onlyabove* the reach \n**\xe2\x80\xa2 e of cenfure, but even of fufpicion. 5 ( Of Mr. Daubeny\'s \n" e merits I have already written in a language, with which \ne( c the warmeft of his friends niuft be fatisfied. That I \n" * miitook what fell from him in converfation refpecting \n" c Dr. Blayney\'s letter, I readily admit; and that in \nu 6 confequence I made ufe of terms to his difadvantage.\' \n" c As foon as I difcovered my miflake, I endeavoured, \n<{ e and continue endeavouring, to feize every opportunity \n(i ( of doing him ample juftice. You have my free leave \ne< ( to give every degree of publicity to this declaration \nce e which you may judge expedient/ \n\n" Mr. Daubeny\'s conduct upon the continent might\' \n" have been exactly what you ftate it to have been, and \n" yet it would not juftify a breach of promife in you and \nft Mrs. Meade; much lefs would it affect the queftions, \n"whether Mrs. BarnrTon gave her confenttoher daughter\'s \ni( marriage, or whether the words faid to have been fpoken \n4f by Mr. Daubeny prevented the marriage. I by no \n<c means controvert any thing you fay refpecting Mrs. \nu Meade\'s conduct fubfequent to the trial, or the degree\' \n" of eftimation in which her character is held by her ac- \n" quaintance, or in the neighbourhood in which {he lives.\' \ntff Whether the wedding-day was or was not fixed before \n(( the trial, or whether the carriage was or was not or-\' \n* 6 dered; it is certain that Mrs. Meade, in January 1792, \ni( announced to her mother her intention of marrying, " \n{C and that fhe actually did marry ten days* after the trial a \n\n\n\n* She neither did announce her intention of marrying, as ftated \nhy the Bifhop, nor did me actually marry ten days after the trial. \n\n\n\n328 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n" Mrs. Tomline defires me to refer you to Mifs Maclainc \nu for a more correal ftatement of what Ihe faid to her in \n(e private conversation as the friend of her After, who \ne( alone was prefent. Mrs. Tomline recollects having \n\xe2\x82\xac< faid to Mifs Maclaine, c me underftood the marriage of \n<( c Mrs. Meade was determined upon before the trial, \n" 6 (not that the day was fixed 5) and that even the car- \nu c riage had been previoufly ordered:\' but me is equally \n<c confident that fhe added at the fame time that e thefe \n6e e circumftances then refted upon Mr. Daubeny\'s au- \nu c thority ; that it was the Biihop\'s intention to apply \n" 6 to Mr. Meade for his papers ; that his opinion would \nu c be founded wholly upon indifputable evidence; and \n(< c that till both fides of the queftion had been examined, \nu s it was impoffible to form a decided opinion with re- \nu 6 fpect to alTertions.\'f Mrs. Tomline defires me to fay \ni( further, that from that time to the prefent hour me has \ni( never mentioned any of the circumftances, or given \ncc any opinion upon the fubjecl:, except to her lifter; con- \n\xe2\x82\xaci fidering it as improper in her, to fay any thing upon \n(e the fubjec~t, till I had fent my opinion to you and Mr. \ns< Daubeny, and fhe has never fince been in company \nH where it has been mentioned. We both however beg \n" to be underftood as thinking ourfelves at liberty to ex- \n" prefs our conviction, whenever we fee proper occafion, \nie that Mr. Daubeny\'s character is fully vindicated from \n<e every charge brought againft him in confequence of \n" this unhappy aft air; but in doing this, we mail ftudi- \n\nf Admitting this ftatement to be correct, it would then appear \nthat thefe unfounded ftories were firft to be circulated by the Biihop\'s \nfamily, to poifon the minds of Mr. Meade\'s friends, and afterwards \nthe JBi/hop was. to enquire into their truth as an arbitrator! ! ! \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. 329 \n\n** oufly avoid, as far as may be, all difcuflion of Mrs* \n** Meade\'s conduct. \n\n" I am, Sir, your obedient fervant, \n\n" G. LINCOLN/\' \n\nMr. Meade in reply wrote two letters, from which the \nfollowing are extracts. \n\nMr. Meade to the Bifhop of Lincoln. \n\n" My Lord, June 29, 1805. \n\n<c AS your letter proves nothing in reply to mine, I \n6< beg to tell you fo, that you may not mifconftrue my \nu filence. And your Lordfhip having voluntarily entered \n" on this bufinefs, I will not trouble you with apologies \n" for another letter, though it may be a long one. Your \nSi perfuafion that you have fully vindicated Mr. Daubeny, \n<e is a fubjecl: on which it is needlels to exprefs my opi- \n" nion, becaufe it is of little concern to me. The afier- \n(t tion is no doubt a lingular one from a private perfon, \n*f who fought out and liftened to one party, and did not \n" fee the other ; although Mrs. Tomline affured a lady in \n<( Bath of your impartiality, and that you were deter- \n" mined not to liften to parties or to partifans. It is the \n" attack on my wife that alone concerns me; it is, as \n(< your Lordfhip exprelfes it, <e your endeavours\'* to \nce prove, that fhe is a perfon of loft character, that may be \n<c worth my notice. It is the application to her of fuch \n" expreffions, as, c convicted of falfe-fwearing, and \n" \' being thereby loft to all credit,\' that may induce my \n\xe2\x82\xac< attention, or that of her friends and relatives. And \nu truly they may well wonder at your paper, when the \n\n\n\nground of one of your objections had fuch an effect on\' \n* c an Archbilhop\'s mind, c that if-he had no other proof \nu s of her integrity, that alone would have convinced him \n\xc2\xae \xc2\xa3 * of it V And another eminent divine who alfo carefully \n<c examined the fame iubje&, has expreffed himfelf in a \n4C letter to his friend in terms of the warm eft efteeni and \n\nadmiration of what your -Lordmip condemns . \n\nec My laft letter having only profeffed to lead yon to- \n* e fufpend your opinions, I ftated my readinefs to give \n^ yon reafons for if ; and therefore I went into no proofs. \nu How can you fay then that I difproved nothing? But \n**\xe2\x80\xa2 is it nothing to point out direct untruths and mifrepre- \n* c fentations t I proved that one confident unqualified \nu . affertion was abfolutely unfounded, ft is reeked in \n" your paper, that 6 Bifhop Mois pronounced Mrs, Meade \n\xc2\xa3C . c perjured, if ever a woman was fo/ I proved that his \n* c liordfliip * never pronounced her perjured, nor ever \n" c faid, or wrote, or encouraged the writing or faying, \ntf\xc2\xa3 ( - any thing whatever, that reflected on her character.* \n\n64 Do not evade this point by telling me the bifhop \n* c had . a good opinion of Mr. Daubeny. That is nothing \n* r to the purpofe. I am only fure that the Bifhop pofi- \n^ lively denied what Mr. Daubeny pofitively afferted \n\nrefpecting Mrs. Meade, and what you have recited from? \ni( Mr. Daubeny. \xe2\x80\xa2 . . * \n\ni{ Is it nothing to difprove ftories, related from Mrs. \nf< Tomline as facls, and recited alfo in your paper j fto-* \nf\xc2\xab ries utterly without foundation, invented to impofe on \n(i the incautious ; difproved by Mr. Goddard\'s corres- \n\xc2\xab c pondence with Mrs, Meade\'s uncle, and even by a \n\xc2\xab eoachmaker in Long- Acre 1 You are even miftaken \n\xc2\xab in Rating the time of. Mrs, M^ade J Amarriage 3 although \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n331 \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xacc fo extreme to mark what you call an inaccuracy in \n" others. Is it nothing to {hew how your Lordfhip has \n<( mifreprefented me, and argued from that mifreprefeu- \n<f tation to injure my character? I have nothing to do \n<( with the opinions you quote in favour of Mr. Daubeny\'s \nec character; and I fcorn to quote teftimonies in favour of \n<c my wife, of whom there is but one opinion among the \ni( good and wife who know her. If JVIr. Daubeny has \n(( calumniated her, his writing well or his knowing muck \n" will be but a poor palliation for him. I neither afk or \niC care whether all thofe from whom you proclaim .his \n(( character, ever faw the man when they praifed the theo*. \n" logian. I never trouble myfelf with his character, I \n" act only in defence of my own. But as you dwell on \ns i the Bifhop of Durham, truth enables me to fay, that \n<s after he had attentively perufed all Mr.Daubenyhad to lay \n\nbefore him, ten years ago, and had as attentively heard \nce my cafe, his Lordfhip gave an opinion now before me-, \n<c which fo difpleafed Mr. Daubeny, that the Bifhop often \n<c faid, he would not for many years fpeak to his Lord* \n6C {hip. And as to the {lory respecting Dr. Blayney\'s \nCi opinion, the letters now on my table from Mrs. Blay- \nfi ney, and from that refpectable clergyman whom the \n(( Bifhop- of Durham employed to enquire into the truth \n<c of that ftory, both prove it an impontion, and that his \n(C Lordfhip having made enquiry, expreffed himfelf \n" fatisfied there was no foundation for the ftory. In \n<% your letter you fay, \' that you quoted authorities, and \ne: f that I have not fhewn your inferences to be unjuit.* \n\nHow could I ? You have never feen me, nor any om \ni e on my part, nor did I know what your object was, \nff yntil I faw your manufcript of forty-one pages. Con- \n\n\n\n9&\xc2\xa3 APPEND I Xo \n\n* c verfing during three weeks with Mr* Daubeny, with \n* c none but his party, your Lordfhip never wifhed to fee \n" a friend of mine; nor in truth did I even know that \n* e you were in Bath,, when you were judging me, with my \nsc enemy at your elbow as a coimfellor. \n\n6C It is impoffible to go into many proofs in a letter; \n* f but I would afk your Lordfhip a few quelUons, which* \n* f may induce you to wifh you had been a little more \n\xe2\x82\xacC cautious. Did yon ever enquire who conveyed to Mrs,., \n* c Bamflon the report of her daughter\'s evidence? or \n** whether {he fairly knew what it really was; or in whofe \n66 ftyle of writing the letters were, which are produced \ncc as her\'s; or what thofe perfons thought of them to whom \nf< they were addreffed ? Did you know that before the \n** trial it was threatened that {he mould oppofe her daugh- \n* c ter*s evidence; and that k was afferted after the trial, \n*\' that {he would have oppofed it, if me had known it > \n&c Did you ever hear that my attorney (by his miftake \n** indeed) fubpeenaed Mrs. Barnfton, and that hearing of \niS her agitation I difpenfed with her and her filler on. \n* c account of their age and diftrefs ? Did you enquire \n* tf what was really the verdict ? for Lord Kenyon\'s ques- \n* c tion, and the jury\'s reply, would have rendered much \n<e of your reafoning nugatory. And as I had a plot to \n\xe2\x82\xacC deceive Mr. Daubeny, and to obtain Mifs Barnfton, \n* ff did you know that I never thought of going to the \n\xe2\x82\xacc party until after fix months folicitation from Mr a \nu Daubeny ? \n\n6i And now I will haften to the chief objects of my \n\xe2\x82\xacf letter without attending to your general opinions, it not \n" being important to me, whether in thefe you are right \n* f or wrong. The points at iflue between your Lordfhip \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n3S3 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab and me are direct falfehoods which have been aflerted \n" refpecting me, and are recited in your paper. \n\n" The ftories which a lady in Bath underftood from \nMrs. Tomline, being difavowed by the latter, I infift \n" upon it that they be given up as unfounded by your \ni( Lordfhip, they having obtained a place in your long \n** paper. I declare them to be abfolutely falfe, I refer \n** you to proofs, and I pledge my honour to what I fay, \n4 * There is not a fhadow of foundation for the calumny* \n" I mint now addrefs myfelf immediately to your \nC\xc2\xa3 Lordfhip on your own account, and I call upon you \n<{ as a Bifhop, and as a man of confcience, to do jufiice, \n" You applied for a paper of mine, and you have rnif- \n" quoted and mifreprefented it, and on that mifreprefen- \nu tation you have attacked and argued againft the moral \n** character of my wife and myfelf. I hereby call on you \n<c to acknowledge your error, to retract that attack, and \n<4 all the arguments built upon it. It is nothing to \n<( the purpofe what your peculiar opinion may be of the \ncc binding force of promifes, though obtained by decep- \nf< tion ; I have only to do with a fact concerning myfelf. \n* c I aver, and I have proved, that you have directly mis- \ni\xc2\xa3 reprefented me, and that on that foundation you have \n<: argued to the injury of my good name, \n\nM The paper I fent you is now before me; it was even \ne< noted by fome one while your Lordfhip had it, noted \n" in ill-fpelt Italian, and falfely correcting me in the age \n\xe2\x82\xac( of my wife. I truft your Lordfhip wiLl be as ready \n(e to acknowledge the errors into which you have fallen, as \n" you were, to point out the duty of it to others. And \nc < affuring you that in fupporting my good name, and \nu what is equally dear to me, the good name of my wife, \n\n\n\n334 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nI have never meant, and I hope you will not perceive \nany thing perfonally difrefpe&ful to you. \n\nu I remain, &c. &c. \n\n" T. Meade. m \n\nNo reply was given to this. \n\nMr. Meade to the Bifhop of Lincoln* \n\nMy Lord, July 14th. \n\n\n\nec \n\n\n\n& _ I cannot help again calling on you to a\xc2\xa3t up \n\n\xe2\x82\xace to the principles you have laid down. When T repro- \n\xc2\xa3\xc2\xa3 bated the charges againft my wife, and wrote to you \n\nthat I was ready to meet and convince you of their \n\xe2\x82\xac( falfehood, you fay that I proved nothing. When I \n* e adopt your mode of reafoning, and fix on fome points, \ncs and completely prove them to be falfe, in order to give \n(i you an opportunity of exercifing your own pofition, \ncc e that a perfon once detected in falfehood is not to be \n6C 6 afterwards credited when I prove that what you \n\xe2\x82\xac< recited on the authority of Mr. Daubeny is falfe, as to \n66 Bifhop Mofs\'s pronouncing Mrs. Meade perjured, you \n(C quit the untenable ground of Mr. Daubeny\'s veracity, \n" and tell me, that the Bifhop had a good opinion of \n(C him, and licenfed him to the Free-Church. When I \ncc refer you to Admiral Stanhope for a falfehood afferted \nce in his name refpe&ing me, your Lordfhip takes no \nC( notice of it. When I declare the ftories related by \nec Mrs. To ml in e to be utterly without foundation, you \ncc reply, e that fhe told them on Mr. Daubeny\'s autho- \n" ( rity, and that fhe faid you intended afterwards to \n* c 6 enquire.* \n\n<e When the whole life and character of Mrs. Meade \ni\xe2\x82\xac are mentioned to you as being of themlelyes fufficient \n\n\n\nproof ttgaitsft the guilt imputed to hfcVJ you pronounce\' \nKf her character to be nothing to the purpofe; yet witlr \n** an air of confidence you produce" as proof for Mr; \nH Daubeny, that fome Biniops thought highly of hinvas \nfc a theologian. And when I prove that your Lordlhip\' \nse mifreprefented me, you fay it is nothing to the other \n(C points. \n\n" Is this the honourable amends you- make for -the \n<c {lain you -have endeavoured to fix on Mrs. Meade\'s \n<c character ? , Is not this protecting a favourite theoio- \n<e gian at theexpence of juftice, candour, and innocence? \nc< As to your declining to diicufs Mrs. Meade\'s character \n*\' in future, I would hail it as a figri of your beginning \n<\xc2\xa3 to fufpec\\ that your difcuffions and your exertions have \n<c been halty and unjuft. And as you called on Mrs, \n\xc2\xa5 Meade for that ftrength of mind that enables us to con- \n& fefs the truth, though to our temporal difgrace, let me \n** intreat you to receive your own excellent advice from \n* s the pen of a layman. \n\n" Confefs the iiory abc4.1t Biihop Mofs to be falfe, and \n4 6 give up the reafoning you have built\' on it. Do the \n"\xe2\x96\xa0.fame by the ftories related by Mrs. Tomline ; and ae- \niC knowledge that the arguments you brought again!!: my \n<e character, on the foundation of a paper which you had \niC yourfelf mifreprefented, were unfairly applied. \n\xe2\x80\xa2 iC When you have done this, I will give you farther \niC proofs on proofs, that you have been deluded in other \n" points by mifreprefentations, and by that bias which \ni\\ feems to have blinded your eyes and {hut up your ears. \n\n" Afk yourfelf, my Lord, whether you have acted \nfcs \' with impartiality and juftice, whether you have done a? \nii vqu would be done by. Place yourfelf in my jhuation,- \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX, \n\n\n\n** and then confider the outrage offered to the honour and \n** good name of my wife, and you will yourfelf juftify the \n" part I have a&ed. \n\n\xe2\x82\xac< Elevated though you are, we are both equally to be \n^judged by God and by man. \n\n<c I have your own authority for the difficulty of con* \nK feffing errors ; to you it muft be doubly difficult after \n* \xe2\x82\xac the hafty fteps you have taken ; but it will be doubly \n" honourable to you ; and I require it of you once more^ \n<( as a man, as a Chriftian, and as a bilhop. \n\nu I remain, &c. Sec. \n\n\xc2\xab T. Meade/\' \n\nNo anfwer being given to thefe letters, and Mr. Meade \nhaving drawn up a reply to his Lordfhip, wrote once \nmore to him. \n\nMr. Meade to the Bimop of Lincoln. \n\n" Chatley-Lodge, Sept. 17, 1805\xc2\xab : \n\nc: My Lord, \n\n" I HAVE juft finimed a reply to your Lordfhip\'s \n** paper of forty -one pages; in doing which, various occu- \n(( pations have much interrupted me. \n\n<c I believe I have left no part untouched. \n\n" Under an affront to my wife, fo public and unpro- \n(e voked, under fuch expreffions and mocking charges as \n<e are contained in your paper, fomething muft be done* \n" What that may be, muft depend on advice, But before \n\n\n\nt \n\n\n\n.APPENDIX. 337 \n\nu t proceed farther, T would once more fay to your Lord- \n" fhip, that if reflection has opened your eyes, and you \n<f are difpofed to acknowledge the grofs impontions prac- \nce tifed on you ; I am ftill ready to accept your acknow- \n<e ledgments. Confcious of my own motives, I feel no \n" humiliation in thus condefcending to write, again to a \n" perfon who, after having circulated unheard-of charges \n<( againft my wife, declined to anfwer two letters written \ni( by me, pointing out fome of your errors, and propofing \n<( to convince you of the reft. \n\n" I am not one of thofe men who like to fpeak evil of \n" dignities. Educated a member of the eftabliihed church, \nfc and I truft a fincere one, I am not indifferent to the \n** wounds which our religion often receives from the con- \n<( duct of its members. \n\n" There are few cafes more marked than this in \n" which we are concerned. \n\nee It will not be confidered as an indifferent matter \n<( that unfounded ftories and palpable mifreprefentations \n" are circulated againft a lady, in order previoufly to de\xc2\xab \n" grade her, whofe character it is intended to deftroy. \n\n(e Your Lordfhip is pleafed to fay, in your letter dated \nr * in July, c that you mould difcufs Mrs. Meade\'s conduct \n* f c as little as may be.\' I reject and I deprecate your \n<c coneeffion. I fear only private ftories, and private \n* e communications. Let her conduct be but fairly dis- \nc: cuffed, and both her innocence and her enemies\' difgrace \n" muft be manifefted. But if your Lordfhip really mean \nn to reftrain your difcuffions, what do your relations mean \n" by circulating at this time the charges againft Mrs. \n(i Meade under your name ? \n\nz \n\n\n\n338 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\ntc Can yourLordfhip, even after what you have heard,** \niC Hill perfift in charging perjury ? Will you ftill de- \n" fend the expreffions you have applied to Mrs. Meade, \n\n* ^he reader has already feen the weaknefs of the pretences \nto wound Mrs. Meade. The Bifhop refls much of his argu- \nment on the reprefentation which he makes of her mind, as pre- \nvioufly determined to comply with her mother, and therefore \nthat nothing elfe could have affected her. No doubt, if the fimple \nquefKon had been, whether (he would give up her happinefs to her \nmother, her reply would have been, yes ! bee; u r e no daughter \n-could feel for a parent more affection and duty. But her mother \nhad given her confent to her acting for herfelf, and never made any \nperfonal objections to her choice. Mifs Barnfton\'s refinance was in \nfact to the influence over her mother of an interested perfon, whofe \nefforts to defeat her happinefs (he considered herfelf as confeienti- \noufly juftified in oppofing. " Mr. Daubeny heard you tell me," \nfays ilie, in a letter to her mother in October 1 790, " that you wiflied \n64 me to confult my own happinefs, and that I was of an age to \n" judge for myfelf." She then defcribes him as labouring to render \nMr. Meade odious in her mother\'s eyes ; and adds, " attached to \nf 6 Mr. Meade on thebeft principles, can I facrifice my happinefs U \n*\' Mr. Daubenfs anger?" She then appeals to her mother, faying, \n*-\' that JJje hopes Jhe JImll always be able to fubferibe herfelf her moft \n\ndutiful, becaufe no power can make her otherwife than her moft \n*\' affectionate, daughter." And (he concludes with adding, that thofe \ndelations to whom in fact me owed the next duties to parents, were \nanxious that {he mould make this declaration of her mind and in- \ntentions to her mother ; and fhe was indeed then preparing to go \nwith them to Bath, to affert her independence. Did not Mifs Barn- \nfton then exprefs to her mother her intentions to act for herfelf \nas plainly as fhe could do, confiftently with her former habits and \nfentiments ? But after Mifs Barnfton\'s mind was alarmed by the \nparticulars of Mr. Daubeny\'s charges againft Mr. Meade on the \nSubject of a will, fhe then indeed gave up all idea of refiftance, and \nof acting for herfelf. " Defire Mr. Meade not to think of me, but \nu to defend his character," fays me, in a letter to Mrs. Gunrfrag, \nShe no longer urged her rights and determinations; for the charges \nabout the will were necefiarily firft to be cleared up. And as to \nMr. Daubeny, what j unification can his fupporters put in for him? \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n33# \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab of f convicted of falfe fwearing;\' 6 of incorrea princi- \n< pies;\' <of deceit;\' c leading to lying;\' and \xc2\xab this to \ni( < falfe fwearing.\' \n\n" I truft, my Lord, when t merely relate thefe few \n\xc2\xab words, and reftrain my pen from any remarks, you \n\xc2\xab will yourfelf not be backward to give me credit for my \n" forbearance. I will even hope that you will prevent \n" the farther expofureof this affair, and that you will ac- \ne f knowledge the grofs impositions praclifed on you. 1 \n~ i\xc2\xa3 promife to accept thefe acknowledgments^ and to bury \n" the whole in oblivion. But to fave trouble to your \n" Lordihip and to myfelf, I muft declare to you that t \ntc will accept nothing fhort of the raoft ample and unre- \nf ferved acknowledgments. \n\n" I remain, &c. T. M. ?> \n\nXi P.S. Since writing the above, I have received letters \n*f informing me that your paper has not only been circu- \n(( lated in Bath and London, but is at this time in cir- \n<c culation in Salisbury alfo. How far this is confident \niC with your letter to me in July, I leave to your Lordihip \n<( to explain. That this unhappy affair is once more made \net public, I am truly forry : but thofe who have obtruded \n(i it on the public muft abide by the confequence." \n\nIf his laft attack on Mr. Meade\'s character was obnoxious in a legal \npoint of view, was his firft attack lefs fo in amoral view? Will any \none juftify his violence from the beginning, to prevent the union of \ntwo independent perfons, who fought a fuitable connection with each \nother, on principles of virtue and religion ? The pretence that Mrs. \nBarnfton made ferious objections is manifeftly founded on quib- \nbling ; as is the affertion that the flander could not have affected. \nMrs. Meade\'s mind and conduct. \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n. The Bifbop replied as follows : \n\n" Sir, Rily- Grove, Sept. 23/1805. \n\n" I Yeflerday received your letter, dated September ig, \n\xe2\x82\xacS in which you fay that \xc2\xab I declined to anfwer two letters \n6i i written by you.\' I fear the-efore that you have not \n(( received the letter which I wrote to you from Oldfield- \n\xe2\x82\xacC hall in Chethire, at the end of July, in anfwer to your \n(i letter of the 14th of that month. As I prefume that I \n<e mall fee your reply to my paper, I mall at prefent only \n* ff ,fay that I know nothing of the circulation of my paper, \n6i I never gave a copy of it to any one except your- \n\xe2\x82\xaci f el f and Mr. Daubeny, the two perfons who voluntarily \n\xe2\x82\xace entruffod me with their documents, for the exprefs pur- \n" pofe of my forming an opinion upon the points in \n\xe2\x82\xac( queftionj and it fo happens that 1 have not heard the \ne - fubjecl mentioned mice I wrote to you from Buckden \n< : in June. I fee no reafon for acknowledging that \n\xc2\xab f grofs impositions have been praclifed upon me;\' but \nce I repeat what I faid in my laft letter, that I mall be \n" always ready to give up any point in which you fhall \nce prove that I have been miitaken. I underltand that \nCi you yourfelf have {hewn your copy of my paper to \n<( feveral perfons at Bath. \n\n" I am, Sir, your obedient fervant, \n\nee G. Lincoln." \n\nMr. Meade anfwered ; \n" My Lord, \n\n" I Received your Lordihip\'s letter of the 23d inftant, \n" but 1 have received no reply to either of my two letters \nu of the 29th of June or 14th of July, The anfwer which \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n341 \n\n\n\n* l you fay you wrote from Chefhire was probably of no \ngreat import, or you would have repeated its contents. \n<s You muft pardon my peremptorily denying that * I \nce \' voluntarily fent my papers to you for the exprefs pur- \n< e 6 pofe of your opinion/ If 1 had done fo, it would \n(c only have rendered it more ungenerous to publim Mrs. \nC( Meade as convicted of falfe fwearing, without your \n\'^having once feen her, or any one on her part, or even \n<c letting her know one tingle ground on which you judged \nec her, until you publimed her condemnation. But I muft \n" deny your affertion. A total ftranger to your Lordmip, \n** I had not heard that you were within a hundred miles \nu of Bath, when I received your application for my papers \n\xc2\xab through Dr. Randolph and Mifs Machine. My part \nm was only not to refufe your application. But does not \n" your own manufcript admit, that you volunteered from \nfe the intereft you felt on account of Mr. Daubeny as a \n(e diftinguifhed theologian? \n\n(( I muft alfo politively deny that I applied for or deflred \n\xe2\x82\xac{ your opinion. On the contrary, your Lordftiip read \n<( in one of my firft papers, that I wanted no man\'s \n(e opinion; that I rejected the pretended and affe&ed \nei demands of a new trial ; that my caufe being decided \nC( at law, I never would liften to private trials, without \n(i judge, jury, witnefs, oath, or reftraint; without means, \ne( or without end.\' But that I mould not refufe a liberal \n" enquirer the. fatisfa&ion of feeing the grounds of the \nfC verdiel. \n\n" My Lord, I prefume, that even this laft letter of \n" your\'s requires an ample apology. Your Lordhhip pro- \n4( feffes not to have circulated your paper. * 2ui facit \n" * per alium, facit per se.\' I only know that it is \n\n\n\nS4\xc2\xa3 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xc2\xab circulating in Bath, London, Salifbury, and elfe\\vhere# \nec It is circulated by your family, obtruded by them eveii \nce on Grangers, who are defired as a favour to read it. \n\ntc Your information that I alfo circulate it, makes me \nte fmile. Men do not ufually fpread fuch papers againft \ncc themfelves. If, before you had publicly pronounced \n* c on Mrs. Meade, you had expreffed, as you now do, a \nff pFefumption that you mould fee my reply, it would \nAi have been well on many accounts. But after the publi- \n\xe2\x99\xa6 e cation of your paper, after your various exertions and \n* c letters to different perfons, what can I expecl: from your \n* c feeing any papers of mine? Have you taken any notice \n* c of the letters and arguments I have already fubmitted \n\xe2\x82\xacC to you ? Have you honourably retracted the unjuf\xc2\xa3 \ncc expreffions you applied to Mrs. Meade? Have you \n\xe2\x82\xacc given up as unfounded the ftories related by Mrs. \n^Tomline? Have you acknowledged the words afcribed \n\xe2\x82\xac\xe2\x82\xac to Bifhop Mofs to be alfo unfounded ? Have you ac- \n\nknowledged or apologized for your own mifreprefenta- \n* c tions of me ? Yet you prefume that you fhall fee my \nec reply. No, my Lord; your mind feems made up. \n* c The poifon of invective has been widely fpread ; and \n* c the antidote by which I propofe to correct it, will, 1 \n\ntruft, be effectual. \n\nff I am, &c f T. M." \n\nThe Bifhop in reply wrote the two following letters : \n\n" Sir, Buckden Palace, Oct. 22, 1805. \n\nI Have been fo much occupied by bufinefs fince my \nft return to Buckden, that it has not been in my power \nfooner to notice your letter of September 28th. I now \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n343 \n\n\n\nCi endofe a copy of the letter which I wrote to you from \n6c Chefhire at the end of July. \n\n(e As you had a full power to withhold your papers, \n,c and as you communicated them to me immediately, \n" and without any objection, I mull eonnder you as \n55 c voluntarily fending them to me.\' \n\n{e If my paper has been circulated in the manner you \n4< mention, it is certainly without my knowledge; and I \n\ndo not hold myfelf refponnble for the acls of another \nfi perfon which were not authorized by me, \n\n* ( I am, Sir, your obedient fervant, \n\n\xc2\xabG. Lincoln/\' \n\n\n\nCopy of a letter written by the Bifhop of Lincoln to \nMr. Meade, from Cheihire, at the end of July 1805, and \nwhich Mr. Meade did not receive. \n\n" Sir, \n\nse THE ftile of your letter dated the 29th of last month \nec was fuch that I did not think it necefTary to fend mj \nlc anfwer to it. Your letter dated July 14th has followed \n<( me into Chefhire, and I now take the earlieft op- \nfe portunity in my power of acknowledging it, I defire \n6i to repeat, that I have not admitted any alfertion upon \n* c Mr. Daubeny\'s authority alone as the ground of \n* \xc2\xa3 my opinion. What Bifhop Mofs faid of Mrs. Mead\xc2\xa9 \n<c I have only recited as part of the converfation which \n<c paffed between Mrs. Meade and Mr, Daubeny. I \n" cannot allow, that you have proved that Bihhop Mofs did \nee not ufe the expreflion afcribed to him. I did not notice \n4< what you fald concerning Admiral Stanhope, becaufe \n\n\n\n344 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x82\xacC my opinion concerning Mrs. Meade\'s evidence upon \nt( the trial could not poffibly be affected by any thing \n(C which he could fay. I cannot allow, that, in the cafe \n" of Mrs. Meade, general character is to weigh againft \nfC pofltive evidence: and the opinions of the bifhops I \n" have mentioned refpecting Mr. Daubeny are not con- \n*\' fined to his character as e a theologian.\' All my \nee papers upon this fubject are at Buckden; but I am \nCi pretty confident that I have no where faid that c Mrs, \ne( ( Barnfton was too old and infirm to give evidence againft \ncc c her daughter.\' I have always confidered Mrs. Barn- \n" (ion\'s abfence from the trial as proceeding from a very \nfC different caufe. The accounts of the interview to which \n" you allude appeared to me perfectly confiftent with each \n<c other; and I muft confider them as agreeing in every \n<c eflential point, till it mall be proved that there is fome \n*\' contradiction between them. Throughout my paper \ncs I have adduced the authorities upon which my opinion \n" and conclufions reft, and fee no reafon to retract or alter \n6C any thing which I have faid. I {hall be ready to give \n<c up any point in which you mail prove that I have been \n\xe2\x82\xac\xe2\x82\xac miftaken; but I can admit nothing on either fide upon \n" the unfupported affertion of the party himfelf. The \n(c other parts of your letter do not appear to me to require \nec any anfwer. \n\ncs I am, &c. \n\n" G. Lincoln." \n\nAs Mr. Meade\'s anfwer only repeats what has appeared \nin the pamphlet, it is needlefs to trouble the reader with \nit. He remonftrated with his Lordfhip on his profefling \nto give up any points proved to be wrong 3 and yet hold- \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX, 345 \n\ning to thofe which are proved to be fo. He reminded \nhis Lordfhip of the confidence placed in him by a ftranger, \nand of the return made for fuch candour, by fetting that \ngranger\'s character afloat in the world by the circulation \nof a long paper of invectives. And he concluded with \nfaying, Aecuftomed to efteem your writings, and always \n<( refpecting your high ftation, I would, not willingly, ancT \n"I hope I have not in any degree acted inconfiftently \n96 with thefe fentiments. If I fpeak or act with fenfi- \n(< bility, your Lordfhip mult afk yourfelf what or how you \nu would feel, if any man living had uttered againft your \nP Lordfhip\'s wife one half of what you have circulated \n(i againft mine. \n\n(i But whatever I may do to protect the honour and \nu credit of her family, or however I may conflder myfelf \ncc perfonally injured, not a fentiment of revenge, if I \n\nknow myfelf, affects the mind of, &c. &c. \n\n" T. MEADE/\' \n\n\n\nMr. Meade clofed his correfpondence with the Bifhop \nby the following letter: \n\n\xc2\xab Chatley-Lodge, March 12, 18QG. \n\n" My Lord, \n\n<c I Have directed my bookfeller to convey to you my \nec reply to the manufcript you were pleafed to fend to me. \n(e Your Lordfhip thought proper to apologize, expreffing \n6C forrow that you were unable to fend that unexpected \n<e and extraordinary paper to me fooner. It is not . to \n(e follow an example thus fet for me, nor is it with any \nu farcaflic fentiment, that I alfo apologize for not conveying \n\nA A \n\n\n\n346 \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \n\n\n\nf< to you an earlier reply. But it required calm thinking \n6( to decide in what manner I fhould notice an injurv \ni( which, in every point of view, is probably without \n" example; and I wifhed alfo to fubdue thofe fentiments \nce of irritation which a man muft be fuppofed to feel, on \n" feeing a black catalogue of crimes unworthily charged \n" on his wife by a -Granger. Above all I was delirous to \n\xe2\x82\xacC learn what was the object or plan of my wife\'s enemies, \n%( and to what extent the affront was to be carried, that \nee my defence might, proceed accordingly. And finding \nce that the induflry in difperfing this poifon is almoft be- \nC\xc2\xa3 yond belief, and little confiftent with that moderation \n(( which a confcioufnefs of a good caufe would naturally \n\ninfpire, I have refolved to adopt a mode of putting down \nCf this calumny, which I hope will be effectual. \n\nec Your Lordfhip thought proper to write a letter, re- \nec fleeting on me, to my adverfary; who, from his known \ncf connection with thofe who manage or are concerned \ncc in a periodical work for the review of literary publica- \n\xe2\x82\xacC tions, muft be prefumed to have taken advantage of his \n\nfituation to introduce into it your Lordfhip\'s panegyric \nw on himfelf, and infult on me ; unconnected as your \nce letter was with the fubject in that Review, and incon- \n" fiftent as the publifhing of private manufcript letters is \nec with the fcheme of fuch works. Whether this was \n" manly and honourable, others will judge. How far it \n" accorded with your Lordfhip\'s intentions you beft can \ns < Jell, who about that time affured me that you gave no \n" authority to anyone for publifhing your opinions, even \n66 when your own connexions were mod active in circu- \n" lating your papers. What is a plain perfon to under- \n\xc2\xab ftand by all this ? \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. \' 347 \n\ntfC I have however the fatisfaction of knowing that I \n<( have not returned evil for evil, although the intempe- \n* f ranee of fome of my deluded enemies gave me full op- \n6e portunity of effectually wounding them. \n\nce But in whatever manner my defence may hurt them, \n" they muft charge it on themfelves. They began the \nic attack, and I defend myfelf. They circulate, I do the \n\nfame. If they ftir farther, fo will I, in the mod public \n\'* way. \n\n" Your Lordmip has thought proper to pronounce \n**. that one of the parties must be guilty. If it muft be \n\xe2\x82\xacC foj the world will judge who that is. \n\nI have the honour to be your Lordfhip\'s \nw Moft obedient fervant, \n\n" Thomas Meade/\' \n\n\xe2\x82\xac< P.S. I this moment hear from an EfTex gentleman \n16 that your Lordfhip\'s paper is circulating in that county." \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x96\xa0 - 1 \n\n\n\nIt \n\n\n\nRichard Ciuttwell, Printer^ St. James\'s-Street, Bath* \n\n\n\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process. \nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \nTreatment Date: March 2006 \n\nPreservationTechnologies \n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township, PA 16066 \n(724) 779-2111 \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF \n\n\n\nCONGRESS \n\n\n\n\n017 520 1 \n\n\n\n51 8 \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\n\n'