342 T o L A D Y BRISTOL 18 D E C E M B E R 1791
To LADY BRISTOL,1 Sunday 18 December 1791
Printed for the first time from a photostat of the MS in the Hervey Collection,
Bury St E d m u n d s and West Suffolk Record Office, Bury St E d m u n d s , Suffolk,
kindly furnished by M r Patrick F. Doran. T h e M S descended in the Hervey
family, Marquesses of Bristol, at Ickworth, Suffolk, until it was deposited, with
other family papers, in the Bury St E d m u n d s and W e s t Suffolk Record Office by
the 4th Marquess of Bristol.
Berkeley Square, Dec. 18, 1791.
I AM not only extremely honoured, Madam, but delighted by the
receipt of the letter2 with which your Ladyship has been pleased
to favour m e . Nothing could be moreflatteringto D r Norford3 and
m e than a confirmation of his excellent character and abilities by the
testimony of so very respectable authority as your Ladyship's, whose
virtues give you the truest dignity, and being so universally known
and allowed, are sufficient to quash the falsehoods4 invented against
D r Norford, partly I believe from malice to m e , of w h o m they pre-
tend to think h i m an agent, though utterly u n k n o w n to m e even by
sight to this hour, and also by n a m e till the 14th of last m o n t h s and
partly, because the skill, duty, and indefatigable attention and ten-
derness of the Doctor to m y unhappy nephew m a d e him resist the
wicked, dangerous, and unprecedented as well as unauthorized vio-
lence of carrying poor Lord Orford against his will to Houghton 6 in
1. Elizabeth Davers (ca 1732-1800), m . Brandon, Suffolk, H W was not informed
(1752) Hon. Frederick Augustus Hervey, of his disorder until Lord Cadogan sent
4th E. of Bristol, 1779. H W wrote M a n n t
word; i was possibly Lord Cadogan w h o
9 M a y 1779 that he was 'not at all ac- mentioned Dr Norford as one of the
quainted with' Lady Bristol ( M A N N viii. attending doctors. H W immediately sent
475); but in June 1794 she came to visit Dr T h o m a s Monro to inquire into Lord
S H ('Book of Visitors,' B E R R Y ii. 246). Orford's condition; Dr Monro returned
2. Missing. to London on Friday, 18 Nov. (OSSORY i ii.
3. See ante 30 Nov. 1791, n. 7. 129-30).
4. Apparently spread by Lord Orford's 6. Lord Orford was moved from
servants on the basis of disagreement Brandon to Houghton allegedly because
among the doctors attending Orford be- is
'upon his f r t apprehensions of a relapse
fore his death. Lord Townshend wrote he desired he might not be put into a
H W ante 30 Nov. 1791: ' t was clear to
i shut up house' (ante 30 Nov. 1791). But
m e that Dr Norford had differed with Dr Willis's opinion was that 'Lord
Dr Willis, the latter as well as M r Edgar Orford's disorder was not insanity, but
of Swaffham having thought that too only a delirium arising from a fever
m u c h calomel had been given his Lord- occasioned by his grief on the loss of Mrs
ship, which had reduced him very much.' Turk,' w h o died on Sunday, 13 Nov.
5. W h e n Lord Orford became i l at l (ibid.). See also post 3 April 1792.