Fox's denial of the marriage--Once more at Brighton--Again in 1788--The Prince at a fatal prize-fight--His birthday--Dress at Brighton--The Prince leases his house at Brighton--Unfilial conduct of the Prince--Probability of a Regency. But how about Fox's denial of the Prince's marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert? was that to pass unnoticed? Certainly not, and there was a slight disturbance in Florizel's matrimonial establishment, which may as well be told in Lord Stourton's suave diction. 'The first signal interruption to this ill-fated engagement arose from the pecuniary difficulties of his Royal Highness, when, on the question of the payment of his debts, Mr. Fox thought himself justified by some verbal, or written permission of the Prince, to declare to the House of Commons that no religious ceremony had united the parties. This public degradation of Mrs. Fitzherbert so compromised her character and her religion, and irritated her feelings, that she determined to break off all connection with the Prince, and she was only induced to receive him again into her confidence, by repeated assurances that Mr. Fox had never been authorised to make the declaration; and the friends of Mrs. Fitzherbert assured her, that, in this discrepancy as to the assertion of Mr. Fox and the Prince, she was bound to accept the word of her husband. She informed me that the public supported her, by their conduct, on this occasion; for, at no period of her life, were their visits so numerous to her house, as on the day which followed Mr. Fox's memorable speech; and, to use her own expression, the knocker of her door was never still during the whole day. 'I told her that I understood there was a scrap of paper from the Prince to Mr. Fox; that Sir John Throckmorton, a friend of his, had assured me of the fact of the Prince wishing much to obtain possession of it; but, though written on a dirty scrap of paper, it was much too valuable to be parted with. She said that she rather doubted the fact. I think that the difference between the assertions of the Prince and Mr. Fox may be accounted for under a supposition (which I have also heard) either that there was some ambiguity in the expressions used, or that Mr. Fox might have referred to what had passed, antecedently, at Devonshire House, without being privy to their subsequent more formal engagements.