The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-16 00:00:00

STATEMENT OF LADY PORTMAN,

" A few days after I had entered upon my attendance
at the Palace in February, I was informed of the exist-
ence of suspicions that Lady Flora Hastings must have
been privately married. This information, which was not
given me by or from the Baroness de Lehzen, drew my at-
tention more particularly to Lady Flora Hastings's ap-
pearance, and I then formed the opinion that it was neces-
s, ry, for the honour of the Court, and for the character of
Lady Flora Hastings, that all doubt 'should be removed
upon the subject.
" A few days afterwards Lady Flora Hastings' medical
attendant communicated to me, as the Lady in Waiting,
his suspicions that Lady Flora Hastings was privately mare
vied, and asked my opinion upon the subject, which I gave
only as connected with my observation of her appearance.
Sir James Clark subsequently informed me that Lady
Flora Hastings had denied to him her marriage, and that
he had requested her to select another medical adviser to
consult with upon her state of health.
" It then became my duty to communicate to her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent, that until those doubts
were removed, Lady Flora Hastings should not appear in
her Majesty's presence. Subsequenly, at the request of
theLa medicaldy Flora
mHase itiii:gs, I was present at the consultation of
who communicated to me in medical
terms their opinion, explaining the appearance by which I,
as well as oili‘ rs, had been misled. I communicated to
her Majesty the result of the consultation, and I soon
afterwards had an interview with Lady Flora Hastings ;
and having discharged the duty then imposed upon me, I
expressed my own feelings towards her, and explained
the course which I had felt it to ba my duty to take, and
I left her with the impression on my mied that she did
not think my conduct attributable to any other mo-
tive. I remained in the Palace some days longer
than I should otherwise have done, in case any informa-
tion should have been required of me, as the Lady in
Waiting during this painful investigation ; and on the
evening before I left London, having understood from Sir
James Clrak that ho had sugges ed to Lord Hastings an
interview with me, I wrote to Sir James Clark, saying
that if Lord Hastings wished to see me, I would delay my
departure for a few hours the next day ; but that if Lord
[listings did not wish to see me I should be glad to know
it at au early hour in the morning, that I might not be de-
tained. I received a note from Sir James Clark the fol-
lowing morning, saying, I have just received Lord
Hasting's reply, which is, that under present circumstances
he does not wish to see your Ladyship.'
" I then felt myself at liberty to return to Bryanston.
" E. PORTMAN.

" Bryanston, March 17, 1839."
After this I found it necessary to take the opinion of
counsel as to the best mode of getting at the truth by a
legal process ; but, finding that all my efforts for redress
were ineffectual, I wrote the following letter :
[ Letters to Lord Melbourne, and the correspondence be-
tween the Marchioness of Hastings arid Lord Melbourne,
which was published last April, and which we shall not
repeat, then ensued.]
In this et ite of things it was determined to let the matter
rest whilst my sister remained at Court, which it was judged
necessary she should continue to do for some time longer,
to protect her from calumny..
Some time afterwArds my sister's illness again mani-
fested itself to an alarming degree. Even the public
manifestation of sympathy with which she was repeatedly
greeted produced so bad an effect upon her that it was
judged right to keep her as quiet as possible. I need not
add more than that she became rapidly worse, and all me-
dical aid proved unavailing against an illness of long stand-
ing, and much increased by the anxiety of mind her wrongs
produced, and which at last hurried her to an untimely

" TAVISTOCK." grave.l
think it proper to state some further facts which have
In a letter from the Marquis of Hastings to the Marquis
of Tavistock, dated Donington, March 11, 1839, he said—. been verbally communicated to me (and for which Iso far
vouch), that occurred on the occasion of the barbarous and
" I will hold no personal communication with any whose indelicate investigation to which my sister was exposed,
acmes are now mixed up with this business. The ques- although written documents to substantiate the whole of
tions
them are not in my possession.
I wish answered are simply these :
" By whom was Lady Tavistock requested to name this
business to Lord Melbourne? Some questions having been put to my sister and an-
swered, it was suggested that the inquiry ought not to
ta;" BY whom was Lady T. informed of the opinion enter- proceed further, and that they might now feel quite satis-
-,,,ned with respect to my sister's state of heath?" fied. Sir James Claik objocted, and stated that the Ladies
The m • s sr%
H . arquis or I avlbtock, in reply to the Marquis of of the Court would not be satisfied without the strictest
!; 'tstings, repeated that he was unable to answer theexamination, and that, if Lady Flora knew her own inno-
.°os, " and I do not think (he added) I should be justified
pc,,,,ntcees,csrhuetienoyu.ld have no reason to oppose the most coin-
In requiring Lady Tavistock to do so. If you do not con.
alder this ' frank' I am It has also been stated to me, and corroborated to the
fullest extent by a deposition sworn before a Magistrate of
sorry for it. I have a sincere
regard for you, and should be very sorry to forfeit your
good „,s•
niitiatiol, (Ina whileuthsew
Ayrshire by my si•i i ' maid,
holewhdopraas,,opurr.'soefntsaitr tch,(h.
by
.the painful and humiliating Pun"; but I do not bee that I could with honour .
act otherwise."
it'llyou,
March 15 however, Lord Tavistoek added " I nr,:y Clarkectirkedur
IPst,o.rt man, was
i7_ 30u, that my own impression, and I am pretty sure It it-:,.1
as.
that
jokfuoLdanT, the conduct of Sir JAMES Clark, as
scene was Charles
unnecessarily abrupt,
,it_vc?rrect one, is, that she was made acquainted with the ' 1
unfeeling,lpanis annludchindthealitc'
WHOLLY unfit for gene ,a 1 perusal.
prevailing suspicions as matter of duty by some Lady or h'rids deposition I withhold, as
tithe, of the Court who happened t.:, lie in waiting at the " " 0
ip:, and that she had no conarersati,in on the subject with I -üb:Pin the f llowing documents in further elucidation
1) oness Lehz,"o before she found it necessary to speak to ot the subject :
or
EXTRACTS Flti.l4 LETTERS OF THE LATE LADY FLORA
L'd Mlbourne."
sTATeEIVIENT OF THE MARCHIONESS OF HASTINGS TO MEAIBERS OF HER FAMILY.
r
" When I TAVISTOCK TO THE DOWAGER MARCHIONESS OF lIASTINGS.
ja_ went to Buckingham Palace, at the end of " Buckingham Palace, March 1, 1839 "arY, to attend u ".She (the Duchess of Kent) shrunk with horror ' '
iria, of
an , -Pon the
Lila unpleasant na, Queen, I found strong suspi-
ure ex, ti• , i .-. •, ~,, .••e• t to - - ' Y Flora Hamm ' ''
' ' ' I‘.
. '''.
r.
' ' . ' '
necessary f ,- g,i suit", ut l;,! ,'ti). It 4i,), t''''' 1 ''. . from
- ill' 7,1,..ft of Tor ~Jbmitt;,)!- to the test. detnanded, hut I
i ,
.„ 1,, 1,4: ~f ..--.'t i -inily, :.m.l !,,i inn
of ,do or tne honour of h h . • OWL, ‘O, I kit it :Igli, tot.. ~itiS ,ter to ahoy, me to meet the
the household, that these o• Majesty and to enaractta• ,
suspicions should not be per- charge in the manner most convincingly and instantly to
ftw55w.......-- .

refute it. I wag strong in innocence, and I felt my courage
equal to my endurance."

TO THE DOWAGER LADY HASTINGS.
" Buckingham Palace, W,dnesday, March 13, 1839.
" Lady Portman apologised to roe. She came to
me the Sunday evening, while I was eating my bit of
dinner, and told me, with tears in her eyes, that as all
had ended so happily for all parties l' she was anxious to
say that, as perhaps no one had been so inveterate against
me in speaking to the Queen. She thought it right to do
so, that I might not believe the Queen had a personal
bias against me. She meant to say, ' lam very sorry,
but I should (such is my feelings towards the Queen) have
said the same of any one respecting whom I (entertained?)
the same suspicions.' I said, ' Oh, Lady Portman, what
surprises me is, that you could entertain those suspicions.
You do not know me much, but you knew enough of my
people to have known they were impossible.' I was too
ill to discuss the manner in which they had been acted
upon ; so, after giving me a message of regret from the
Queen, who said if I would like to see her she would see
me that evening or next morning (the first I declined, not
being equal to it ; and next day it was equally out of the
question, as I was suffering from nervous headache, and
scarcely able to speak), and a request that, in waiting or
out of waiting, I would reside as her guest at the palace
as long as I liked, ' to show how fully we are satisfied,'
she left me. I gave her my hand in token of forgiveness ;
but when she asked to come to me afterwards I declined.
It is one thing to forgive and another to forget. Thank
God I can do the first, but my memory is stubborn."

" He ( Sir James Clark) :began that day to speak to
me with some degree of feeling ; but, irritated by my de-
nial, became violent and coarse, and even attempted to
browbeat me."

" Buckingham Palace, April 6,1839.
" It is remarkable that from that second day (after Lady
Flora's arrival from Scotland), the 11th of January, to the
23d of February, the idea, however or by whomsoever sug-
gested
mind, that she never opened her lips to me."