(Vol. iv., p. 434., &c.)
I have asked many questions, and turned over many volumes and files of
newspapers, to get at the real facts of the cases of mitigation stated in
"N. & Q." Having winnowed the chaff as thoroughly as I could, I send the
very few grains I have found. Those only who have searched annual
registers, magazines, and journals for the foundation of stories defective
in names and dates, will appreciate my difficulties.
I have not found any printed account of the "Jeannie Deans" case, "N. &
Q.," Vol. iv., p. 434.; Vol. v., p. 444.; Vol. vi., p. 153. I have inquired
of the older members of the Northern Circuit, and they never heard of it.
Still a young man may have been convicted of forgery "about thirty-five
years ago:" his sister may have presented a well-signed petition to the
judges, and the sentence may have been commuted without the tradition
surviving on the circuit. All however agree, that no man who ever sat on
the bench deserved the imputation of "obduracy" less than Baron Graham. I
should not have noticed the anecdote but for its _mythic_ accompaniments,
which I disposed of in "N. & Q.," Vol. v., p. 444.
In Vol. vi., p. 496., W. W. cites from Wade's _British History_:
"July 22, 1814. Admiral William B----y found guilty of forging letters
to defraud the revenue. He was sentenced to death, which was commuted
to banishment."
The case is reported in _The Sun_, July 25, 1814; and the subsequent facts
are in _The Times_, July 30, and August 16 and 20. It was tried before Mr.
Justice Dampier at the Winchester Summer Assizes. There were five bills
against the prisoner for forgery, and one for a fraud. That on which he was
convicted, was for defrauding the post-master of Gosport of 3l. 8s. 6d. He
took to the post-office a packet of 114 letters, which he said were "ship
letters," from the "Mary and Jane." He received the postage, and signed the
receipt "W. Johnstone." The letters were fictitious. The case was fully
proved, and he received sentence of death. He was respited for a fortnight,
and afterwards during the pleasure of the Prince Regent. He was struck off
the list of retired {574} rear-admirals. It was proved at the trial, that,
in 1809, he commanded "The Plantagenet;" but, _from the unsettled state of
his mind_, the command had been given up to the first lieutenant, and that
he was shortly after superseded. This, and the good character he received,
were probably held to excuse the pardon.
I now come to the great case of George III. and Mr. Fawcett. I much regret
that WHUNSIDE has not replied in your pages to my question (Vol. vii., p.
163.), as I could then have commented upon the facts, and his means of
knowing them, with more freedom. I have a private communication from him,
which is ample and candid. He objects to bring his name before the public,
and I have no right to press that point. He is not _quite_ certain as to
the convict's name, but can procure it for me. He would rather that it
should not be published, as it might give pain to a respectable family.
Appreciating the objection, and having no use for it except to publish, I
have declined to ask it of him.
The case occurred in 1802 or 1803, when WHUNSIDE was a pupil of Mr.
Fawcett. He says:
"Occasionally Mr. Fawcett used to allow certain portions of a weekly
newspaper to be read to the boys on a Saturday evening. This case was
read to us, I think from the _Leeds Mercury_; and though Mr. Fawcett's
name was not mentioned, we were all aware who the minister was."
Thus we have no _direct_ evidence of the amount of Mr. Fawcett's
communications with George III. How much of the story as it is now told was
read to the boys, we do not know; but that it came to them first through a
weekly paper, is rather against than for it.
We all know the tendency of good stories to pick up additions as they go. I
have read that the first edition of the _Life of Loyola_ was without
miracles. This anecdote seems to have reached its full growth in 1823, in
Pearson's _Life of W. Hey, Esq._, and probably in the two lives of George
III., published after his death, and mentioned by WHUNSIDE. Pearson, as
cited in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p. 276., says, that by some means the _Essay
on Anger_ had been recommended to the notice of George III., who would have
made the author a bishop had he not been a dissenter; that he signified his
wish to serve Mr. Fawcett, &c. That on the conviction of H----, Mr. Fawcett
wrote to the king; and a letter soon arrived, conveying the welcome
intelligence, "You may rest assured that his life is safe," &c.
It is not stated that this was "private and confidential:" if it was, Mr.
Fawcett had no right to mention it; if it was not, he had no reason for
concealing what was so much to his honour, and so extraordinary as the
king's personal interference in a matter invariably left to the Secretary
of State for the Home Department. If, however, Mr. Fawcett was silent from
modesty, his biographers had no inducement to be so; yet, let us see how
they state the case. The _Account of the Life, Writings, and Ministry of
the late Rev. John Fawcett_: London, 1818, cited in "N. & Q.," Vol. vi., p.
229., says:
"He was induced, _in conjunction with others_, to solicit the exercise
of royal clemency in mitigating the severity of that punishment which
the law denounces: and it gladdened the sympathetic feelings of his
heart to know that these petitions were not unavailing; but the modesty
of his character made him regret the publicity which had been given to
this subject."
The fifth edition of the _Essay on Anger, printed for the Book Society for
Promoting Religious Knowledge_, London, no date, has a memoir of the
author. The "incident" is said not to have been circulated _in any
publication by the family_; but "it was one of the secrets which obtain a
wider circulation from the reserve with which one relator invariably
retails it to another." That is exactly my view. Secrecy contributes to
diffusion, but not to accuracy. At the risk of being thought tedious, I
must copy the rest of this statement:
"Soon after the publication of this treatise, _the author took an
opportunity of presenting a copy_ to our late much revered sovereign;
whose ear was always accessible to merit, however obscure the
individual in whom it was found. Contrary to the fate of most
publications laid at the feet of royalty, it was diligently perused and
admired; and a communication of this approbation was afterwards made
known to the author. It happened some time afterwards, a relative of
one of his friends was convicted of a capital crime, for which he was
left for execution. Application was instantly made for an extension of
royal favour in his behalf; and, among others, one was made by Mr.
Fawcett: and his majesty, _no doubt recollecting the pleasure he had
derived from the perusal of his_ Essay on Anger, _and believing that he
would not recommend an improper person to royal favour_, was most
graciously pleased to answer the prayer of the petition; but _as to
precisely how far the name of Mr. Fawcett might have contributed to
this successful application must await the great disclosures of a
future judgment._"
The reader will sift this jumble of inferences and facts, and perhaps will
not go so far as to have "no doubt."
WHUNSIDE tells me, that about 1807 he employed a bookbinder from Halifax;
who, on hearing that he had been a pupil of Mr. Fawcett, said he had seen
two copies of the _Essay on Anger_, most beautifully bound, to be sent to
the king.
The conclusion to which I come is, that Mr. Fawcett sent a copy of the
_Essay on Anger_ to the king; that the receipt of it was acknowledged,
possibly in some way more complimentary than the ordinary circular; that a
young man was convicted of forgery; that Mr. Fawcett and others petitioned
for his pardon, and that he was {575} pardoned. All the rest I hold to be
mere rumours, not countenanced by Mr. Fawcett or his family, and not
_asserted_ by his biographers.