A final reply to the numerous slanders, circulated by Nathaniel Chapman, M.D., professor of the institutes and practice of medicine in the University of Pennsylvania / by Granville Sharp Pattison.
- Pattison, Granville Sharp, 1791-1851.
- Date:
- 1821
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: A final reply to the numerous slanders, circulated by Nathaniel Chapman, M.D., professor of the institutes and practice of medicine in the University of Pennsylvania / by Granville Sharp Pattison. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)
29/40
![most gentlemanly lad.' Now if Mr. Burn, my agent, is intended by this Mr. B. us it is wished to be believed, it is very remarkable that he should be called a gentlemanly lad,- a Scoticism which conveys the idea of a youth not yet entered the age of manhood. Mr. Burn, my agent, is a most respectable gen- tleman, betwixt 30 and 40 years of age, and could not therefore be designated as a gentlemanly lad. But let this stand as it will, whoever was intended by the gentlemanly /ml, who took the lodgings and brought books to them, must have been known to the landlady; and if she could have proved, as she certainly could have done, who the person was who took the lodgings and brought books to them, her evidence would no doubt have been called for in court, provided it would have gone to establish the fact, that this was my friend. It will be observed, that Mr. Burn and Mrs. Ure's landlady in Edinburgh, are both entered in the list of witnesses affixed to the summons served on the defender, and as the pursuer had the power to subpoena both of these persons to furnish evidence, it is certain that he would not have neglected to have done so, had he not been persuaded, that they sta ing the truth, their e idence would have gone against the action for the divorce. That my friend and agent was anxious to come forward as a witm ss, is proved by his letter, refer- red to in this reply, and we have from this the most satisfactory proof, that what he had to say must ha e been exculpatory. Another evidence, that there was an intention bj this letter to enforce the belief, that Mrs. Vvc was living under my protection in Edinburgh, is the re- quest that she makes Mrs. Park, to enclose her letters to Mr. B. She, howe- ver, very inad ertently pro' es, that those letters which were real!;/ intended 1o be written to her, would require her real address, for she in another sen- tence of her letter says, Address to me at Mr. James Brown's, Wright, JYo. 2, Atthur-atreet. This very particular address would certainly not have been re- quired, had the letters been addressed under cover to a person who was seeing her daily. But it is unnecessary to go on reasoning on this subject. Dr. Lire himself furnishes us with evidence, that his wife at Falkirk at lea?a, was main- tained and supported under false names by himself. Ar;xES Blaiii, (see p. 25.) depones, That Mrs. Ure came to deponent's house in Falkirk, on the 12th of August, 1818, accompanied by Dr. Ure, the pursuer; and that ffE then took lodgings for her under the name of Mrs. CAMPBELL. This fact, therefore, contradicts most positively the assertion which Dr. Ure makes in his petition— that his wife, having made a confession of her guilt was dismissed his society, and supported at Falkirk by me ; and as there is not one tittle of proof adduc- ed, that 1 supported her in Edinburgh, it is but reasonable to infer that she was there likev ise, supported by her husband. Mrs. Ure thus addresses Mrs. Park in the letter we arc now considering:— 1 know not how I am to write to my husband. That this could not be the genuine sentiment of Mrs. Ure will be proved, when it is recollected that it was her husband who himself took her to Falkirk j and more positively, when the infamous letter of Dr. Ure to his wife, of date the 12th of October, 1818, is read, which proves beyond all question, that the understanding- betwixt Dr. Ure and his w ife, after their separation was perfect ; and that they still continued to correspond on the most familiar terms I feel that 1 should be fatiguing my reader, were I to dwell longer on the absurdities and insonsistencies which the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution presents. I feel persuaded that no man who Jias the capacity to reason or think, will be able to go over it without coming-to the conclusion, that in no single particular can it be supposed to criminate me. It will be allowed, that all that species of evidence which invariably is adduc- ed in support of a criminal connexion, is in this case wanting. The servants proved nothing; and although we have had sufficient evidence that Mrs. Ure kept carefully every sera]) of paper which could tend in the slightest degree to criminate me, and delivered them to her husband, nota single Billet-doux, nor letter of mine have been introduced into the proof. Is it not customary when a man seduces a woman, for him to commit himself in this way by writing loiters, making appointments,? &c. &c. Yet in this proof, although Mrs. Ure did all in her power to support her husband, not one single scrap of | a r, with my hand writing upon it is introduced. Is it to be believed, that had I 4](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21146184_0029.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
