10 s. VIIL JULY 6, 1907.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
Review in ' Crotchet Castle,' have con-
tributed to it, is, however, improbable ;
and it is also unlikely that the man who
laughed at Southey for writing the reviews
of his own poems would show such a want
of modesty and good taste as favourably to
criticize the very evidence he had himself
just given before a private committee of
the House of Commons. Since the whole
article is written in anything but Peacock's
style, and the references to him made in it
so decidedly speak against the possibility
of his being the author, it would be at least
interesting to find out upon what grounds
Dr. Garnefet attributed it to him.
A. B. YOUNG.
A NEW LIGHT ON THE DOUGLAS
CAUSE.
IN a previous note (10 S. iv. 85) I showed that the statement in Horace Walpole's account of the great Douglas Cause which puzzled Sir Denis Le Marchant has been corroborated by John Taylor, and that the witness said to have been " convicted of perjury in another cause in France " must have been the redoubtable Dr. Michel Menager. Since I became aware of this accusation I have tried to discover whether it was justified, for, as his evidence decided the verdict in the famous Scotch law suit, the fair fame of the French physician is of considerable importance. Moreover, Andrew Stuart has demonstrated in the ' Letters to Lord Mansfield ' that the testimony of Menager is entitled to little credit ; and that he should have been proved guilty of bearing false evidence against his neighbour at a subsequent period would appear an appro- priate destiny for the man. Owing to the kindness of Mr. van Noorden, who has hunted up the facts with his usual acuteness in the Bibliotheque Nationale and the Archives Nationales of Paris, I have ob- tained some of the particulars that I required. Michel Menager was concerned in the celebrated affair of Jean Francois Charles de Molette, Comte de Morangies (March, 1772-Sept., 1773), and was committed to the Conciergerie for perjury in September, 1772 (Archives Nationales, Z2 3050, piece 24 bis). It appears probable that this is the incident alluded to by Horace Walpole and John Taylor, but the assertion of the latter that the French physician was " sent to the galleys " is not warranted by the facts. Indeed, after an imprisonment of some months, Menager appears to have been
lonourably acquitted by a decree dated
June 25, 1773 (Archives Nationales, AD III.
13, piece No. 40). Thus, accepting the
decision of the French court, we must deem
lim not guilty of the charges brought against
lim. Other circumstances, however, should
carefully weighed before a final verdict is
pronounced. The judicature of the old
egime was utterly corrupt, and it is necessary to investigate all the charges brought against the Comte de Morangies before we can form a conclusion with regard to the innocence of him or his associates. He was accused of extorting money under false pretences from a widow and her son, and popular opinion seems to have been wholly on the
ide of the prosecution ; but he was an aristocrat, and powerful influence appears to have been exerted to secure his acquittal ('Memoires secrets de Bachaumont,' vi.. 137-40, 142-6, 149-54, 180-81, 214, 254, 346, 365, 370, 371 ; vii. 21-2, 27, 32-3, 55, 66).
Possibly, as the case forms one of the causes celebres of France, it may be familiar to students of the period, and modern criticism may have dealt with it already. No doubt there are numerous reports in contemporary French newspapers. I shall be obliged to any reader of ' N. & Q.' who will give me information on the subject. Menager, of course, played a subservient part, being merely called as a witness on behalf of Morangies ; but a full review of the whole case will no doubt throw some light upon his conduct. Voltaire wrote several vigorous pamphlets on behalf of the accused nobleman (v. Brit. Mus. Cat.), who, according to Bachaumont, showed little gratitude to his champion ( ' Memoires secrets,' vii. 347). HOBACE BLEACKLEY. Fox Oak, Hersham.
" TWOPENNY TUBE." (See 9 S. vii. 29, 116, 218, 375.) As it was in reply to my query at the first reference that the date and place of the earliest use of this familiar nickname for the Central London Railway were settled, it is of interest to put upon record that, just seven years to the month from such employment, it has been rendered obsolete, as far as its adjectival half is concerned, by the decision of the company's directors in June, 1907, to have differentiated fares, threepence in certain cases being chargeable where the uniform twopence had served hitherto. But the essential word remains, and will become permanent, " tube railways " being now the accepted Parliamentary and public phrase
