The New York herald., 1850-12-27

".
! never secreted the alleged Consuelo letter, or |
kepti nor did the said Edwin Forrest ever
discover that II contained any ayowh Of any illicit
or criminal intercourse. / verify believe that at
the time the said Edwin Forrest first came into
posses of said Consueo letter, he was seeking
for grounds upon which to frame some excuse for
repudiating me; although | can scarcely believe
that he had as yet conceived the design Of i'm
putting unchaste conduct.
+" Consuelo,'' the heroine of a modern French no.
vel, is therein represented as woman charae-
terized by the highest degree OF amlaby, ch astity
and purity, that the mind could conceive, or Ian.
guage portray The word signifies " Consolation"
when rendered into English. No reason could
exist for the adoption of that address in said letter,
except some fancied resemblance between the
character of the person addressed and the heroine.
The deposition of Mr.. Parke Goodwin, obtained
by Mr. Forrest, and presented by him to the Penn
sylyania Legislature, states that about January,
lSi9, he lent Mr.. Forrest this very novel. | am
quite confident that Mr.. Forrest so borrowed il in
order to satisfy himself as to the character of
the imaginary heroine, Consuelo, and thence to
determine The PIaeeany @ s iTTqadg Tha upon
disappointed his wishes, and for the time he aban-
doned that attempt believe the fact to be- that ne
first saw the ConBuelo letter after the 18th OF Ja-
nuary; believe that he borrowed the novel, Con-
sueo, and wrote to Mr.. Jamson about the same
time /; believe he saved himself the trouble of
reading the novel, by casually inquring OF Mr.
Parke Goodwin, dufing their trip to Font Hill, men,
toned in my former affidavit, to the character
| of Consuelo. believe that, from Mr.. Godwin's
accoun, of the heroine, he concluded that the let
| ter would not answer any more seriously injurious
purpose, and thereupon gave way to the temptation
TO make il the subject of painful evening" for me-
His object in borrowing Consuslo could only have
been 10 revive his memory, and assure himself OF
| the character; he had owned and read the book,
| or heard it read, long before A few words with
Mr. Goodwin, who is a highly intellectual person,
would have answered this purpose perfectly. After
| being thus assured on the subject, | presume Mr..
| Forrest cared little about Mr.. Jamisons answer,
| and therefore did not await it.
| There are circumstances connected with Mr..
Forests present story, concusiveIy establishing
that the Consuelo letter had nothing to do with our
separ alton, and that he sentenced me TO that sepa-
ration 18th OF January 1919, without the slight
est suspicion on his part OF any mpurity or impro-
| priety IN my demeauor as wife. In word, he
expressly admits that he pronounced that sentence
because ! uttered TO him offensive speech, and
| for other cause whatever.
| He declares expressly that his confidence in my
| purity was perfect until he found the letter. he
admits that the immediate cause aud provocatlon
| TO his sentence against me, was my contradeung
him on another subject In relation TO the letter
which he pretends he had found, he states that on
that evening, he questioned the handwriting, and
hoped the manuscript was merely an extract from
| a licentious French novel He determined, there
FORE 10 take no measures on the subject. until he
had fully informed himself upon these points Again
| he says;-" This deponent having, after some
days inquiry, ascertained that the said letter was
| in the handwriting of Mr. Jamson, and that no
| part of it was extracted from Consuelo, was
| was guilty of impurity.
| Mr. Forrest could not now deny that the 18Th of
January, Tor perh9ps more properly, the 18th, as 1t
was after midnight) ives the date of my sentence;
nor could he safely assert that he had then referred
| TO the Consuelo letter. The only thing he could
do for the purpose of misleading those whe might
not closely scruinize his story was to assert, that
he had found the letter al that time. The neces-
| sity Of the case then compelled him TO explain why
he did not speak of it, and his explanation is that
the letter of itself was, in his judgment, no ade
4 aaE shAr
/ was necessary, and that 9 hopiag" there was an
innocent explanation, he " determined TO take no
| measures upon the subject until he could make
the requisite inquiries; and yet be is forced to adj
| init that while this determination existed, and this
| hope animated him, he sentenced me TO the sepa-
ration now existing, and avowedly at the time for
different cause. This, surely, is enough 70 estab-
lish the fact which have asserted, that Mr.. For
rest banished me from his side for no cause con-
neced with ii:lpuriy on my part, or the belief
suspicion of it by him. HIS own words condemn
him.
The maner in which Mr. Forrest has involved
himself in this admission, well in certain in-
consistencies in this part Of his affidavit, will
plain. Ills proofs for the Pennsy vania Legislature
| of Mrs Underwood and Robert Garvin-showed
| my return nom party on the evening OF Thurs
| day, January 18th, and that dispute was over
heard between us after mi might Mrs. Under.
wood testified that, on the next Saturday morning,
| that is, January the 10th, missed the Consueio
| letter-expressed terror and surprlse-showed a
III.
intention was, TO connect my search for the letter
on Saturday morning with the dispute Of Thursday
night so as TO show that that dispute arose out OF
| my purity being then questioned.
The statements contained in Mr.. Forests atfi-
| davit, about my going to drawer, starting
| back, utteIing an exclamation, being asked a
| question by Mrs. Bedford, (now Mrs. Under
| WOODY making a reply thereto, expressing glad
burning any letters, are, and each and every OF
them Is wholly untrue, IN every respect. Nothing
| OF the kind ever occurred.
When Mr.. Forrest was making up his present
| story, he seems TO have had these proofs before
him. lie often refers to them, and he has i'm.
| proved upon this story OF Mrs. Underwood, con-
cerning my acts on Saturday morning. 80 as to
make il account for conduct his part, which
otherwise would appear very inconsistent.
He had to make inquiries to ascertain the band
writing, and TO read novel in two volumes. This,
of course, took some time. He says il took some
| days. Yet, by Saturday evening, he made his ac-
cusatons although, in respect to the hand writing,
he had wnlten for information Ito Mr.. Jamison, at
New Orleans, only the same morning.
The only mode to make IL consistent, is to show
some unexpected incident occurring on Saturday,
| TO induce change OF purpose; and accordingly,
Mrs. Underwoods observations concerning my
manner and conduct on Saturday morning, are
| here introduced. Yet, Mr.. Forrest, Mrs. Under
wood, and Mr.. Lawson, the procurer Of her testi-
mony, all unite in saying, that none OF her tales
| reached Mr. Forests ears, for more tn an one
whole year after this time, that is to say until Feb
| mary, 1850.
Il win be seen from this, that in his present state.
ment, Mr.. Forrest has greatly perverted the facts,
| and yet, done himself no service Whether he
| found the letter on the eighteenth Of January or
not the result is the same; he did not act upon il
on that day, yet on that day he decreed the sepa-
| ration.
Ii is not true, that carefully, or in any way, at
Cincinnati, or anywhere else, preserved about my
| person bundle OF letters; nor do l believe that
Mr.. Forrest ever thought he had observed any such
act. ! never entreated or requested Mr. Forests
silence in relation 10 any act or conduct Of mine,
nor did he ever agree to be silent, TO shield me
from shame, or suffer in silence. deny all his al
| legations in these respects. IL never was agreed
between Mr. Forrest and myself, to occupy as
before, the apartment 10 avoid the suspicious
any consequence, nor was anything ever said or
understood between Mr. Forrest and myself on
| that subject The intended separation Of MIR. For
rest and my self, was known TO the servants from
the first; one Of them having overheard the dispute