The trial of Laurence Earl Ferrers, for the murder of John Johnson, before the Right Honourable the House of Peers. In Westminster-hall, in full Parliament, on Wednesday the 16th, Thursday the 17th, and Friday the 18th of April, 1760: on the last of which days, judgment for murder was given against him ... / [Laurence Shirley, 4th Earl Ferrers].

  • Shirley, Laurence, 4th Earl Ferrers, 1720-1760.
Date:
1760
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The trial of Laurence Earl Ferrers, for the murder of John Johnson, before the Right Honourable the House of Peers. In Westminster-hall, in full Parliament, on Wednesday the 16th, Thursday the 17th, and Friday the 18th of April, 1760: on the last of which days, judgment for murder was given against him ... / [Laurence Shirley, 4th Earl Ferrers]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    77/228 (page 71)
    be done then ? the next thing is to make the houfe quiet ; he goes to the fervants, and orders them to go to bed immediately, and not to difhirb the Lady or children in the nurfery; they all obeyed his orders and went to bed; fomc time after Mr. Stephens waits; he then goes to the door. You will obferve nine of the witneflls tell you when the Duke came to Lady Grofvenor's room; the Duke muft have been lbmc time in the room; Stephens liftens at the door; he hears two people in convention; he goes then to his brother; a confiderable interval therefore paflcs before his return with his brother; then he carries his brother up flairs into the room, where he was to lay ; then a long converfation palled between him and his brother; then Stephens is confirmed in his idea; then after a great deal of paufe and doubt, fearing left they (hould do a ram act, they came down again; the iervants had notice, and then they broke open the door; that fcene pall as the witneffes have given you an account of; the pcft-chaife, you find, was ordered for the Duke at two o'clock in the morning, which was very remarkable. Was there not time for converfation to have patted, from the time of Stephens's firft coming to the door, and then going to fetch his brother, and then confulting? Was there not a poffibility during all that time, for the dilhonour of the hufband being completed ? Time is left fufficient for all the gratification of their wifhes as they could defire. And though Mr. Dunning fays there is no experience that fhews much converfation partes upon that fubject, yet all experience, I believe, will fhew there mull be fome converfation pafs in the interval of an hour and an half. Gentle- men, Mr. Dunning obferves that nothing could have paffed, becaufe Giddings obfer* ved from the window of the Duke's bed-chamber Stephens boring the holes in the door of Lady Grofvenor's bed-chamber, and he apprized the Duke of that circumftance, which conveyed to Giddings's idea they were watched, which he communicated to his Royal Highnefs. In that cafe, I do in my confeience fuppofe Mr. Giddings might have come to the knowledge of that circumdance, that the door was bored, by other means than by feeing Mr. Stephens doing it. Giddings told me upon his own evidence, he had made a progrefs in all the houles he was in before; and at St. Albans, to be fure, he muft meet with that circumftance of the holes in the door, and of the drefs Stephens was in that night. I will put it upon a fair balance, whether Giddings's ftory be falfe or true. If falfe, then the Duke unapprized, rafh, and precipitated, went into the Lady's bed-chamber without any ground of lulpicion that he would be watched : but if true, the evidence is ftronger than if no fuch circumftance had ever occurred. What is fo ftrong a proof of it as this ? If watched, it was dangerous for him to go in j he mould have avoided it undoubtedly, as it would naturally be the effect of diicovery. If Giddings had made the difcovery, his Royal Highnefs would have watched for a fafer opportunity. But, fays Mr. Dunning, the Duke's paffions were the paffions of a young man, ram and inconfiderate; he had come there to fee her, and he would fee her, even at the rifque of that being known: then if his paffions were fo unreftrained, that he would rifque all to fee Lady Grofvenor, do you think it would make him ftop fhort when he had rifqmtrd all for the poffeffion of her, and it would not have earned him on to the gratification of their utmoft wiffies ? Thus far Mr. Giddings's evidence is for the intereft of the caufe, if all is confidered. I will take his evidence as true, and upon that circumftance I will build a confirmation of the inference; for how was it poffible for any man to go away from the object he had run all that hazard to obtain ? If they knew there was a poflibility of being watched, yet they r.lqued ceing locked up together in her bed-chamber at an undue hour of the night 1 hey nlqued a detec tion,°and do you think they would not rifque the whole for the gratiucat.on of their wifhes r It is'to be believed, becaufe he did that which a cautious man would no: have done. Permit me to fay, it is not in human nature for him to run all that n.que and no? to °o farther; and that young men, or young princes have not paOlons u.rercnt from other people. Can you believe that young people of thefe warm paflions wo Id ftoXrt of their object upon a confutation of prudence? when it had been in Cech.a n p evemi v he d nger of being interrupted and difcovered ? Mr Dunning lays h e £ S be all innocent; permit me to lay that innocent liberty, whman ford- ing x°o that argument might take with a married woman, is the fuhed affigna^ns, with her feigning them under ^JP^LCKS her at the houfe of a perfon gone outot town, continuing with her Q-^*fg* and he may take the liberty of writing to her in warm terms ;