I hold in my hand a Petition that I received just before my arrival in this House which I, was requested to lay before it. On perusing it I find that it is worded in a manner perfectly respectful, and I therefore told the individual who delivered it into my care, that I felt it my duty, as a member of parliament, to present it. It is the Petition of major-general sir John Douglas, on behalf of himself and Charlotte lady Douglas, his wife. I remarked that the form of the signature was not perfectly regular; but I added, that I did conceive, notwithstanding this informality, the House would receive it as the Petition of sir John Douglas, though not as the joint Petition of himself and his wife.—I, therefore, move for leave to bring up this Petition.

The question having been put, Mr. Whitbread brought up the Petition, which was read by the Clerk, setting forth:

"That the petitioners are advised the depositions which they made, upon their oaths, before the lords commissioners appointed by his Majesty for investigating the conduct of her royal highness the Princess of Wales, on or about the 1st day of June 1806, were not made in such a judicial proceeding, of before such a tribunal, as will legally support a prosecution of the petitioners for perjury upon such depositions, if false; and that the petitioners, feeling the fullest confidence in the truth of their said depositions, and in the justice of their cause, are ready and desirous, and hereby offer, to re-swear to the truth thereof, before any tribunal competent to administer an oath, which will subject the petitioners to the penalties of perjury, if proved to be false; and the petioners, therefore, most humbly pray, that the House will be pleased to adopt such proceedings as in their wisdom may be thought proper for the purpose of reswearing the petitioners to their said depositions, before such a tribunal as will legally subject them to a prosecution for perjury, if such depositions should be proved to be false, it being the petitioners' anxious desire not to shelter themselves under any want-of legal forms."

Mr. Whitbread then moved, that the Petition be laid upon the table; which was ordered accordingly.

rose and addressed the House as follows:

Sir; when I took the liberty of proposing on the other night to the noble lord, his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or to any other member of the House who might be able to give information on the subject, certain questions, to which neither from the noble secretary nor from any other member did I receive an answer, I stated to the House, what I now repeat in perfect sincerity of heart (and before I sit down I trust I shall be able to prove from internal evidence), that I then hoped and believed the discussion which had taken place on Friday in the week preceding the last, had terminated those unpleasant circumstances which for many weeks had agitated the public mind. I observed in my place, towards the conclusion of that debate, that from what had fallen from the noble lord, from what had fallen from his Majesty's Attorney General, and from the concurrent sentiment of every member who had spoken, it appeared that her royal highness the Princess of Wales might be deemed, from that moment, to have received a glorious verdict of acquittal from the whole House, and in the face of the country, from all the infamous charges alledged against her. At no time am I confident in my recollection of particular words employed by members in debate, but from the peculiar nature of the elocution of the noble lord, from some happy ambiguity of expression, I own that I am much less able to affix on any determinate positive sentiment to him (if indeed any was intended) than to any other person, who is accustomed to express himself in language more precise and definite in its application. I was then under the delusion of supposing the noble lord did assert, that by the second Cabinet of 1807, her Royal Highness was fully acquitted from every imputation of criminality. Others, I believe, were not less involved in this unfortunate delusion. I conceived that all imputation of criminality was removed. But I am informed, that the noble lord added a word I did not hear, and that he professes to have said, her Royal Highness-was acquitted of 'legal' criminality only. This word has certainly escaped my recollection and I hope that it has not been added from the inventive memory of any other person.

When I put the question on the last night, the noble lord declared his opinion that the House had passed no verdict, either of guilt or innocence, because he maintained (and I admit correctly), that this was not a tribunal competent to decide upon the question. A verdict of acquittal from the House then, I allow, it was not; but it was a verdict of acquittal from the noble lord. It was a verdict of acquittal from every member who spoke—a verdict of acquittal, as declared by the Cabinet Minute, which I took the liberty, not improperly, to read. I was pot, as imputed to me, the first person to introduce it to the public; but whether I was or was not, it appears to me still (as was stated, by a cabinet minister, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, Mr. Canning), to. be a verdict of acquittal from all criminality, as strong as can be conveyed by words.

So impressed, notwithstanding the family divisions and differences—notwithstanding the unhappy transactions that have occurred—notwithstanding all that has been then brought before the public, to the great grief of every thinking man in the land, I did hope; nay, I may venture to say, I am certain, that by judicious advice to both parties—by conciliation and submission from the one, and by affection and indulgence from the other (not going beyond the line which even feeling might justify), a happy period might have been put to these unpleasant and painful circumstances. I trusted that the wound was not at its crisis—that kindness would hare healed both it and the public feeling, so long and so cruelly lacerated. But the conduct of the noble lord, on a recent occasion, has made me almost despair: and since I have understood from him, that when I submitted my motion to the House, he would attempt some reply to my interrogatio shall now demand an answer. I ask him, then, Whether it be true, that those persons whom the noble lord (if my recollection does not again fail me) stigmatized in express terms as perjured and. degraded witnesses, have been again examined? I have been informed, and from the mouth of sir John Douglas himself, that from the 13th of February, down to the period when the debate took place, in which the noble lord termed him and his lady perjured and degraded witnesses, examinations have taken place of lady Douglas, in the presence of her husband, as a credible and honourable witness. That the fact is so I cannot doubt; for sir John Douglas produced to me a letter from Mr. Conant the magistrate, stating that the presence of lady Douglas was required, and that if she could not conveniently attend, he would wait on her. Sir John Douglas added, that the examination was conducted by Mr. Litchfield, the solicitor to the Treasury, in the presence of Mr. Conant and what other persons I know not. So that down to the very hour when the noble lord declared him and his wife to be perjured and degraded witnesses, sir John Douglas was under the infatuation of supposing that the ministers not only gave full credit to their testimony, but that they examined him and his wife with the view of obtaining further information against that royal personage to whom their evidence, characterized as it was by the noble lord, so materially applied. When I asked sir John Douglas, as it was natural I should, what could be the meaning of this proceeding, he related to me what had passed between the noble lord and himself, which., as every thing now is laid before the public, I observe in a newspaper now in my hand. He said that ha had waited upon the noble lord, represented to him the hardship of his case, and told him that he had been so examined: if I forget not, the noble lord denied all knowledge of the examination, and sir John Douglas replied, "If your lordship knows it not, the Lord Chancellor does." Gracious Heaven! And is it come to this? Are persons united, Sir, in office for the well government of the state under circumstances of such peril and difficulty, separately carrying on secret investigations? Is one of the King's ministers alone thus darkly searching and hunting for the discovery of evidence that will destroy the innocent? Is this the mode in which affairs of state of such moment are conducted? Does not the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Does the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain lend himself to those sinister and obscure proceedings? Is it true or is it not? I demand, and the country demands, an answer. It is for the noble lord to say whether it be true or false. Sir John Douglas said that he would have redress. He would publish it to the world. He knew more, and his lady knew more than she had disclosed: the people of Eng- land should be acquainted with every particular, since he was determined, when he was so grievously wronged, to see himself righted. I told him I was sure that any member would feel it his duty to present any petition to the House, framed in decorous language; but when I knew that these circumstances had taken place; when I learnt front such authority that an under hand investigation was proceeding: that the searchers into secrets for the destruction of the peace and happiness of families were not asleep; that this 'delicate investigation' (as it has been falsely called, for it is, indeed, an indecent and nauseating exposure,) was still continued under the eye of the Lord Chancellor, I saw that a crisis must arrive, and that some step must be taken to do justice upon the guilty. However anxious a man might have been, after the proceedings on a former night, to advise a dignified approach by her Royal Highness to the Regent, tinder the consciousness of acquitted innocence, in the hope that she would be met by the Prince with feelings of affection and kindness, yet after the disclosure of such proceedings, it was impossible that such advice should be given.

But, Sir, I have heard more. I have heard that even since the 15th of the present month, examinations have been going on: that emissaries have been dispatched to pry into every paltry circumstance of the life and demeanour of the Princess of Wales since her arrival in this country. That the Solicitor of the Treasury, and other agents, have been set to work to ferret out evidence in every dirty corner of the metropolis; to inquire of every human being that might by possibility have seen or heard, or might not have seen or heard, but will swear to circumstances he never saw, and depose to facts he never knew. Did the noble lord know of this? Did the Lord Chancellor know of it? If not, who are the secret advisers of the Prince Regent? These blind inquiries too, are not only secret from the public, but secret even from the noble lord: did the Chancellor undertake to provide a case? to hunt for evidence to support the charges? is it allowed for one only to be art and part in this offence, against justice, decency, and morality? Since then, the noble lord is excluded, let me ask, are there no secret" advisers—no persons unseen and unknown Are there no individuals, not re- cognized by the constitution, and concealed from the cabinet ministers, who are conducting these proceedings? If there are, and the noble lord has discovered them, is it not his duty to inform the House and the Prince Regent of the fact—has the noble lord any option or alternative but to determine no longer to serve a master who is secretly served by other and irresponsible advisers?

Leaving these considerations, however, at present, I beg to call the attention of the House to the matter I am now about to mention. Under all these circumstances, after the lapse of a week from the period of that discussion wherein I Understood it to be admitted, on all hands, that the Princess of Wales was completely acquitted of all criminality whatever, in two Newspapers, simultaneously, appear the depositions of sir John and lady-Douglas, whose testimony the noble lord had so blasted by his declaration. In the Morning Post and Morning Herald of Saturday last were published the depositions of lady Douglas, and after what the noble lord said, that the high crime of publication of an act of state was upon my head; that I was to bear the heavy responsibility, can hardly conceive it possible for any man to presume to justify such unwarrantable conduct. It is true that I read a Minute of Council; not copied from the books of the board, but transmitted to the personage whose full and fair acquittal it purported to be. The noble lord asserts, that I had the honour of being the first person to read a Minute of Council in this House; I apprehend that if I had a Minute of Council to produce, no proceeding could be more manly, more open, more parliamentary, or more justifiable than to read it in my place in the House of Commons, but I am accused of reading what, by it strange perversion, the noble lord terms a garbled extract; and he explains this by saying, that I ought to have read the former Minute of Council, without which the latter could not be understood. Bat, what the noble lord maintains, is not the fact. I was not the first person to publish an act of state, for the hon. gentleman behind me (Mr. Cochrane Johnstone) read the previous Minute of Council, with out which the noble lord contends that I the one read by me was not comprehensible. Thus,' then, both were before the House. And even according to the noble lord, they were perfectly intelligible. If any blame attaches for having produced this Minute of Council, the hon. gentleman behind me must sustain it, and if any merit is due, to him it will belong. The noble lord, however, must allow me to remind him of a case in which minutes of council were published; nay, garbled extracts of minutes of council. The noble lord-cannot forget the origin of the duke of Portland's cabinet, and a certain publication called "The Letters of a Protestant." In these were inserted extracts unfairly taken from minutes of council. Certain important words were omitted, and in this mutilated state they were delivered to the public. These copies could only have been made from the council book; to whom the credit is due I know not, but "The Letters of a Protestant," were ascribed to a person very nearly connected with the noble lord, in friendship and official situation. But I will take upon myself the whole responsibility which the noble lord wishes to lay upon me for publishing this Minute of Council. I acknowledge that I read that document, to shew how much more completely the Princess of Wales was acquitted by the second, than by the first Minute. I produced it to prove how the latter cabinet disagreed as to the mode of proceeding, on the evidence produced. How they differed as to the advice they gave to the sovereign. How they led her triumphant in innocence to the arms of her father and her king. They were anxious that there should be no delay, but that every stain being removed from the purity of her character, she should be received in a manner becoming her exalted rank, and due to her complete vindication. In this recommendation they were unanimous: beyond that, however, there was another Minute of Council, which I did not read, shewing more satisfactorily the unanimous sentiment of the cabinet upon this important subject—it referred to a request made by her Royal Highness, that some apartments should be allotted to her In one of the royal palaces, for the purpose of more conveniently attending the drawing-room. The cabinet certainly concurred in the request, but they left it to the King to determine what apartments he thought fit to appropriate to the purpose.

Since this period, with these facts staring the public in the face, and since the deposition of lady Douglas was delivered, various publications of documents have been made in papers, the names of which I have mentioned to the House, in the habit of containing expressions not disagreeable to ministers, nor very unwelcome at Carlton-house. Upon one of these newspapers, called the Morning Herald, I shall, however, fix, in justice to his Royal Highness and to his immediate friends; for whoever sees at the head of that paper the crest of his Royal Highness conspicuously displayed—whoever knows the habits of the reverend proprietor of that paper—whoever knows that this reverend proprietor has been recently distinguished by honours and by church promotion out of the usual course of appointments of that kind—whoever knows all this, and reads the gross and scandalous publications which have recently appeared in the Morning Herald, must conclude that they are not disagreeable in a certain higher quarter.

Sir; through this channel these disgusting documents, by which the public morals have been tainted, have been issued. Ambiguous and obscure, as were the expressions of the noble lord on a former night, I do not believe he uttered any thing that will bear the inference, that it was necessary, by the publication of these depositions, to remove the false impression of the innocence of the Princess of Wales, but certain it is, that after two cabinets have declared her Royal Highness guiltless, and one of them blameless, it is thought necessary to reprint that testimony, which before its publication to the world, the noble lord acknowledged to be false and perjured. After the evidence of lady Douglas, followed in a train all the disgusting, nauseous and atrocious documents, the falsehood of which is known and acknowledged, and which, beastly as they are, have been put into the shape of a volume which has come to my hands, bearing the name of the late Mr. Perceval, by whom the press is said to have been corrected. That right hon. gentleman thought the Princess of Wales so grossly and so grievously injured, that for the sake of her vindication it was necessary she should submit these painful details to the people of England and the world: and he consequently prepared a comment upon it to prove the falshood of the story, and to expose the villainy by which it had been raised. Now, however, when Mr. Perceval is dead-when her Royal Highness has no advisers remaining—when she has been

"Deserted in her utmost need

"By those her former bounty fed,"

when a series of years have elapsed, during which the public has been kept in a state of feverish ignorance of facts that they sought with eager curiosity—when the Princess has been declared innocent and blameless by two cabinets, and the witnesses against her are acknowledged to be perjured and degraded; then, and not till then, is the public eye polluted by these unfounded, these indecent statements.

Sir, what was the object of the late Mr. Perceval in wishing to submit those documents to the examination of the public? To prove the innocence of the Princess of Wales. What is the object of their publication now? To prove the guilt of her Royal Highness. After so many declarations of her innocence front all sides, even within a few days of the time I am now speaking, these papers are brought forward to deceive the public and to lead to a base conclusion of her guilt. Mr. Perceval would have given them to the world to protect injured innocence, and now they are adduced in order to calumniate the very woman of whom he was the adviser, defender, and friend. Sir, what woman was ever before placed in such a situation? Let me ask any man whether it is possible for matters to rest here? Is not a crisis imperiously called for?—the sooner it arrives the better will it be for the crown and for the people.

Under these circumstances, Sir, I thought it my duty to give notice of the present motion; and in bringing it for-ward, be it remembered, I am not the advocate of the Princess of Wales, but the advocate of justice. We must come to a decision one way or other. For how many long years has her Royal Highness suffered under surmises, insinuations and accusations? It is now eleven years since they were commenced, and she has not yet passed through the fiery ordeal of her trial. To whom is this delay to be attributed? The Princess of Wales has at all periods loudly claimed public inquiry. In 1806, by the advice of Mr. Perceval and sir Thomas Plomer, she demanded a fair and open trial. It was not granted. In 1813 she has again thrown herself upon the Prince Regent and upon the parliament, insisting upon her innocence, and demanding to be tried. During all this time she has been debarred from the comforts to which her rank and situation entitle her, from almost every social intercourse, and from all maternal endearments. We all know that she wrote a letter to this House, claiming—not mercy, not compassion, not protection, but—that which I require not only for the Princess of Wales, but for every subject of the kingdom—justice. The case may be that of every one; our wives, our daughters may be in a situation of similar distress. I claim for the Princess of Wales an open trial; or if she be not-tried, a full, fair, free and unreserved acknowledgment of her innocence. "Try me," she entreats, "before a tribunal, competent to decide, and let that decision be final." "No," reply ministers, "you shall be tried not before a public tribunal, but before the tribunal of the public. Every man, woman and child in the empire shall read the evidence against you." She demands, "Let me be judged by my peers, and, if guilty, let me be condemned and suffer." "No," reply the ministers, "you shall be tried by self-elected juries, not of your peers, in every alehouse in the kingdom. Your judges shall be the most ignorant of mankind, incapable of drawing legal inferences of guilt or innocence. We will expose you, degraded, unprotected, to the view of the curious multitude: you shall be stripped to the eyes of a gazing world."—Good God! Sir, is this the way that justice is administered in England, the country that boasts so much of the purity of its laws and of the excellence of its establishments? Is this the mode in which innocence is maintained against the, poisoned shafts of calumny? I claim nothing of this House by way of protection. I claim nothing of this House by way of mercy. I do not pretend my self to decide whether the Princess be or be not guilty; I judge only from the decisions of those who, when appointed to en-quire, have declared her innocent; I insist only upon that which ought to be granted without even being required; let her Royal Highness suffer by law if she deserve to suffer, but do not allow her to suffer continual torments from the arrows which malignity is hourly casting at her! I feel myself therefore, borne out to the most ample extent in saying, that the enquiry has been so conducted, and the result such, that with the very extraordinary evidence brought forward, and with the very serious nature of the charge, it does not appear advisable to order any measures of prosecution to be commenced against lady Douglas. But while I. deplore the lamentable situation to which the Princess of Wales has been reduced, I am bound to declare and to state in perfect fairness, that sir John and lady Douglas are both in the same situations as to the ignominy which attends on their depositions.—Various modes have been suggested for terminating the proceedings which for years have rendered miserable the life of the Princess of Wales: and from the Report of the Commissioners recommending that lady Douglas should be prosecuted for perjury, "on such parts of her testimony as, to the law officers of the crown, may appear justly liable thereto," I had originally thought that such a prosecution ought to be commenced, because lady Douglas, it should not be forgotten, is so far in the same situation with the Princess,—either she is guilty of the crime of perjury, or she is grossly injured. Let justice raise her arm, and let the sword strike the guilty, but do not delay the blow.

Although the character of the four commissioners,—and their estimation in the public mind is deservedly high,—and although two of them maintain the highest reputation for their legal knowledge and acuteness,—I mean lord Erskine and lord Ellenborough; I have been told, for I will not venture myself to deal in technicalities, in which I profess to have no deep or competent information—that a prosecution for perjury would not lie, or that if it could be instituted, it would be impossible to adduce legal proof, so as to obtain a conviction. I am not so very bold, even in the strong case of which I am now the advocate, as to oppose my single opinion in this stage of the business to the combined opinion of others much more competent to decide upon such a point than myself. On the authority of their opinion, I shall forego the determination I had formed of moving for the prosecution of sir John and lady Douglas. But I will state to the House reasons more than sufficient to shew that some step must be adopted to bring the matter to issue. Sir, I here beg the attention of the House to the following circumstances.

After the decision of the four Commissioners appointed by the King to make the necessary enquiry, and report thereon, — after the most unequivocal vindication Of the innocence of the Princess of Wales, as communicated in their Report,—it appears, that a fresh examination took place into the evidence which had been completely disregarded and discredited. This new enquiry was managed by a noble person, who seemed desirous to give force to that which bad been previously deemed of no validity. When the witness whom he had summoned before him said, "I never believed the report, I treated it as the infamous lie of the day," what was the conduct of that noble person? By a most significant manner, he conveyed to the person examined, that he (the noble lord), still did give credit to the report. He shook his head most significantly, and appeared to disbelieve the strong testimony of the witness whom he had called before him. If persons who are most enlightened thus maintain their prejudices, and no means are left for vindication, how is innocence to be maintained? Does it not become us as men, as lovers of justice, as representatives of the people, as supporters of the dignity and stability of the throne, when such crimes are attributed to one so near it, to bring the matter to a decision? Is it not our bounden duty to seek a speedy determination for the sake of the governing authorities of the country? It is not the Princess of Wales alone who is shocked by such proceedings. Is not the Prince of Wales, her natural protector, shocked? Are not the best interests of the country shocked? Are not the morality, the virtues and the loyalty of the people, shocked? Is not the monarchy itself interested in the determination? Yes, we are all, both individually and collectively, shocked and affected in the deepest and tenderest points. It is, I will maintain the assertion over and over again, totally impossible that the matter can rest in its present state. It is impossible, whether the rights and interests of the crown or of the subject, are considered, that the matter can be deferred any longer. If the sentence of acquittal which has been pronounced, is to be set up as a bat against that crisis which appears absolutely necessary, can it be denied that there are people who, in opposition to the assertion of the innocence of the Princess of Wales, are at all times ready to shake their heads, and who cannot help thinking that there is something in it? It is high time that a thorough scrutiny should be instituted. It is high time that every circumstance, hint, and suggestion, should be sifted in every way that human ingenuity can devise, for the purpose of doing justice, not to the Princess of Wales only, but to all who ate implicated in the transaction. The fact is, and I speak in the hearing and under the correction of many who are acquainted with that fact, that the rumours still preve- lent, though in direct opposition to the sentence of acquittal, are numerous; and, what is worse, they are circulated with an appearance of candour which give them a weight that is better felt than it can be described. This is the mode in which mischief much more injurious, diffusive, and lasting, will be effected, than by attacks, however hostile, when open and direct. The more cautiously the injury is veiled and shaded, the deeper and the more firmly it will take root. The result is clear and certain; and while the affair rests as it is, is it not natural that the Princess of Wales should suffer,—should be degraded,—should be sunk and lowered in the estimation of men, even of the greatest respectability, integrity, and honour? When I cast my eyes backward, when I take a clear and minute review of the origin, progress, termination, and revival of the accusation, I am bound to declare to the House, that I feel it to be my duty to arrest the further progress, as far as I can, of a system which appears to me as likely to be fatal to the best interests of the monarchy and the people. I have, in truth, much to say upon the subject; but I will endeavour rather to confine myself to statements warranted by facts, than to indulge in the expression of those feelings and emotions which the severe and unmerited treatment of the Princess of Wales might call forth and justify. Notwithstanding the verdict of acquittal; notwithstanding the affectionate and assuring visits of her royal father; notwithstanding the protection she received from the King as the child of his bosom up to the last hour of his mental existence, still there are found those who traduce the character of the Princess of Wales: she may be for a time without the respect of a portion of the people of England, but I believe not without the compassion of ail. Give me leave to remind the House who the person is that has been thus grievously injured. Allow me to revert to the period when this unhappy princess first came a stranger to these shores. What is the plain and simple narrative of her connexion with this country? In 1795 the Princess of Brunswick was married to the Prince of Wales. She was received with all the honour and attention due to her rank, to her intimate alliance with the crown, and to the high destiny she was in all probability called upon to fill. She was extolled as the pattern of excellence, and was pointed out as an example to the rising generation. Fifteen months had only elapsed, from her arrival in England, when she was separated from her husband; and it is but justice to say, that not even the whisper of any imputation was heard upon her conduct. She whose conduct was unimpeachable—who had produced an infant, the hope of the nation, was suddenly stripped of the trappings of royalty, dismissed from scenes of pleasure and luxury to a private station, without any of the solaces that belong to seclusion. She had no friends, no relations, to render her solitude less wearisome, and her former splendor made the contrast more gloomy and cheerless. Still, however, her conduct was blameless—she bore her severe lot with fortitude, and up to the year 1802 the tongue of calumny was silent. Supposing, however, that after a lapse of years, she had been guilty of some improprieties of demeanour, let us consider what would be the case of a private individual in her situation. Admit even for the sake of argument, that she had been guilty of the crimes imputed to her. If the husband in common life under such circumstances should seek a remedy, what would be the decision of the law? Would he not be told by the judges, that he should have used greater caution—that a young and amiable foreigner should not have been thus left exposed to danger unprotected by a husband's care? Would the court not take into its view the peculiarity of the circumstances? Would it not form a milder judgment when it was found that a young and friendless woman had been deserted and exposed by her husband in a foreign country, without the natural protection that was her due? The Court would say, that the husband had neglected to afford his guardian care, and that it was not less his fault than hers, if her conduct had been imprudent and irregular. The case of the Princess of Wales, however, was far more severe than any which can be imagined in common life. She was turned upon society without the ordinary means of amusement; without the consolation of parents, or of her child, to recompence her for the loss of her husband, who had taken perhaps an unfounded disgust, or might have other objects in procuring the separation. Above all, if the crime imputed to the Princess were sufficiently established, we know that her blood must have expiated her offence.

In what situation is the succession to the throne placed?—Lady Douglas has been again examined as a credible witness, not only by a magistrate, Mr. Conant, but she has been treated as such by the Lord Chancellor of England. The evidence of lady Douglas has gone farther than to inferences from what she had heard in her conversations with the Princess of Wales; for she has positively sworn, that, to her know ledge, the Princess of Wales was not only with child, but was delivered of a male child; if so, the Princess of Wales is in imminent danger. If so, the Princess Charlotte is involved in danger. But, what is still more striking, lady Douglas herself persists, and offers on this day in the Petition which I have presented, to maintain, at every risk, the truth of her deposition. Why has nothing been done to ascertain the truth of this matter? For if true, this male child, and not the Princess Charlotte, must inherit the throne, unless it can be proved that he is the offspring of an adulterous intercourse.

Here the hon. gentleman entered into a view of the evidence, prefacing his enquiry with an acknowledgment that he thought the Prince of Wales had acted properly on that occasion, in referring the matter to the King, and, by his advice, to the Commissioners chosen by his Majesty. These Commissioners were in every respect fitted to the importance of the inquiry. He readily admitted, that they constituted a tribunal, than which none could be more honourable, none more qualified by their legal knowledge, and by their acknowledged talents and integrity, for the due performance of the duty assigned to them. They proceeded to examine, and they terminated by acquitting. But adding, that from the evidence of Bidgood, Lloyd, Cole, and Mrs. Lisle, there was ground for imputing to her Royal Highness a degree of levity which did not become her character and station. Upon the testimony of these persons, which had been given to the world most manifestly for the malicious purpose of injuring her Royal Highness, the public had now been called upon to judge of the impropriety of the conduct of the Princess of Wales. Many most unjustifiable steps bad been taken to poison the public mind, and to give it an unmerited bias against the Princess of Wales. He held in his hand a pamphlet, which he had on that day purchased in the city, called "The Delicate Investigation Complete;" which was stated to be published by royal autho- rity; and which, from the general purport of its running title, he had not the slightest doubt was designed with the most malicious views towards her Royal Highness—an opinion which was strongly confirmed by a placard exposed at the door of the publisher, which was of such a nature as to induce any person reading it to pass immediate' judgment upon the Princess. How this had been paid for, or under whose sanction it had been published; he could not divine. He had, however, gone into the shop, and enquired by what authority it was published? The answer given was, that it was published by royal authority; and when he fur ther asked, how that authority had been communicated, he was assured that it should be known when the proper time arrived for declaring it. The words, By Authority," formed the running title of the pamphlet, and they were affixed on the outside of the house, with the evident intention of attracting purchasers, and extending the circulation of false evidence ruinous to the character and honour, and dangerous to the existence of the Princess of Wales. Not one word of this assertion respecting royal authority did he believe. Nevertheless, he could not help expressing his surprise at a note which appeared at the conclusion of the first number of this work, in which an apology was made for putting the evidence of Cole, Lloyd, Bidgood, and Mrs. Lisle, first, although they were not the-persons first examined, and in which the reason assigned for this transposition was, that the evidence of those persons alone related to the fact now before the public. In the opinion of the compiler of this publication, therefore,' the testimony of those four persons went to establish charges against her Royal Highness, while the testimony of all the other witnesses went for nothing.

He was surprized and concerned that so much credit had been given by the Commissioners to the evidence of these four persons. But the matter having been thus, as it were, put to issue upon these four witnesses, he thought it necessary to refer to their depositions, in order that the House might judge how far any thing which had been stated by them ought to throw any imputation upon the injured object of public curiosity and attention. Out of the four, one might, without hesitation, be totally discarded. He alluded to Frances Lloyd, who, from the deposition of Dr, Mills, had been distinctly proved to have been guilty of perjury. The House would recollect that this woman had stated, that Dr. Mills bad-told her, the Princess of Wales was pregnant. They would also bear in memory, that when Dr. Mills was sent for by a noble earl (Moira) he positively denied that any such expression had ever escaped his lips, and offered to swear, not alone to the falsity of Lloyd's assertion, but to the fact that no such suspicion had ever entered his mind. And on this occasion he (Mr. Whitbread) could not help regarding the conduct of the noble earl who had called upon Dr. Mills for explanation, as most extraordinary and incomprehensible. After Dr. Mills had given the most positive contradiction to the deposition of Lloyd, what was the course pursued by the noble earl? Did he, as might be supposed, when the character and respectability of Dr. Mills was considered, and contrasted with the situation of Lloyd, at once say—"This woman must have sworn falsely?" No—the noble earl, with a coolness inexplicable, said—"This must be a mistake, she must have meant your partner, Edmeads." Thus, although the woman had positively sworn to her having heard the remark from Dr. Mills, insinuating that she was right in fact, although wrong in the identity of the person. Could any thing have been more preposterous than this? Could the House withhold its surprise and indignation at a species of proceeding bearing on its front such palpable partiality and unfairness? The supposition of the noble earl, however, had subsequently received a complete and positive refutation. For Dr. Mills, and Mr. Edmeads, with that feeling which it was well known attached to their honourable characters, revolting at the base calumny which she had uttered, declared, spontaneously, that there was not one word of truth in the foul and disgraceful aspersions which had been uttered by Lloyd. How, after this, the Commissioners had suffered the evidence of this woman to remain on their Minutes, he was at a loss to conceive.

He must now advert to the testimony of another witness, Which had made, and was calculated to make, the greatest impression of all upon the public mind. He hoped there was no one present who would feel hurt at any thing which should fall from him in commenting upon the tes- timony of the lady to whom he alluded—he meant Mrs. Lisle, whose rank and unblemished character was universally known. This lady had been placed about the Princess of Wales from her first arrival in England, and had remained in that situation down to the latter end of the year 1812. She was always on the closest footing of intimacy with her Royal Highness, and the very fact of her continuing with that illustrious person, was the best proof of her conviction that no charge of indiscretion could be supported. From the expressions attributed to that lady, however, inferences had been drawn which were not consistent with truth, and which ought to be suspended until the real and substantial import of her evidence had been submitted to the public. The manner in which the examination of Mrs. Lisle had taken place was rather extraordinary, A paper had been put into his hand that morning, by a gentleman whose veracity he had no reason to doubt, who assured him, that it contained an authentic copy of Mrs. Lisle's examination; nevertheless he desired to be understood as not personally responsible for its authenticity. Upon contrasting this document with the deposition of that lady, which had been published, he could not withhold his expression of astonishment that such a statement had been suffered to go forth. Every one knew that Mrs. Lisle was called before the Commissioners at a time when she war labouring under the deepest family affliction—so afflicted, indeed, that if it had not been the bounden duty of the Commissioners to proceed without the delay of a moment, it would have been but considerate to have postponed their enquiry for a short time. In a case of this kind, he thought it right to put the question fairly before the public, in order that they might not pass judgment precipitately, or come to conclusions which in the end would be found inconsistent with truth and justice. He was not surprised, considering, all things, even if the paper he held in his hand was quite authentic, that Mrs. Lisle had signed her name to the deposition after it had been read to her. But the aspect of the whole was so different when the questions were added to which the answers constituting the deposition were applied, that he could not-refrain from troubling the House with a few of those questions by way of example.

In the deposition it was stated, that "captain Manby always sat next to the "Princess at dinner." How different an impression was conveyed by the examination, wherein would be found this question preceding, "Did captain Manby sit next to the Princess of Wales at dinner?" to which the answer returned is, "He did."

Some questions put were of a ludicrous description. Mrs. Lisle was asked, whether she meant to say that "the whole party at the Princess of Wales's, sat as she herself and the noble Commissioners were then placed for the whole evening", and when she replied in the negative, and that the Princess conversed with captain Manby apart, she was gravely asked, "whether, she knew what they conversed about."

In the deposition it was stated that Mrs. Lisle declared that "she should not have thought any married woman behaved properly, who had conducted herself as the Princess of Wales did towards captain Manby."

How different the impression taken must be by any one who had the opportunity of reading the paper he held in his hand, wherein the lord chancellor Erskine was stated to ask a question to this effect; "Now, Mrs. Lisle, I put it to you as a woman of sense, character, and knowledge of the world, to answer before God and this Committee, do you think the conduct of the Princess of Wales to captain Manby was such as became a married woman? I would put it to you as in the case of your own daughter?" Those who were acquainted with the unhappy circumstances in which Mrs. Lisle was at that moment placed, would know, that if there ever was a question framed to harrow up the soul of woman, to make every chord of her heart vibrate with anguish, this was the question which must have probed Mrs. Lisle to the very quick, so as almost to disqualify her from further proceeding in her evidence. But she collected herself for a dignified and affecting answer; "My daughter, my lord, lived well with her husband!" In that short sentence a world of meaning was conveyed.

But my lord Ellenborough had amended the question by adding, "I suppose your lordship would put it as a married woman generally."

To this question so amended, it did not appear by the paper which he held in his hand that any answer had been returned.

He was sorry to, be obliged to animadvert on the conduct of the noble Commissioners, but he should be doing gross injustice to the cause if he did not say, that if the accused had been provided with an advocate, the witnesses would have been protected, and prevented answering many questions which were put to them. It would appear by the deposition, that Mrs. Lisle had voluntarily said that the Princess's manner was flirting, and that she had greater pleasure in talking with captain Manby than with her ladies. In the examination, however, it would be found that these were answers to questions directly pressed upon the deponent, and that after she had declared the Princess "to be free and condescending in her manner to all," she was further questioned, and then replied, "that the Princess appeared to like to talk with captain Manby better than with her ladies."

Let the House recollect that although there were attached to the Princess ladies of high birth and attainments, and of an unblemished reputation, (a circumstance in itself from which it might be inferred in what estimation her Royal Highness was held by the great families of the country) yet could any body doubt, that when new society broke in upon the sameness and fatigue of retired and mock royalty with new subjects of conversation, to one who was debarred from almost every ordinary source of rational amusement, and was uncompensated by any of the decorations and trappings of state, such novelty must be acceptable? Could any body be surprised that it was found agreeable or that it might be indulged in with innocence? Yet upon the Princess of Wales, conduct so natural and so innocent was to be imputed as blameable. Let gentlemen take under their consideration the situation of their own wives, sisters and daughters! When they left home to attend to their public or private business, if it were attempted to impute criminality to women dear to them in those different relations, upon charges such as these, would they not treat the insinuation with scorn and contempt? They might be disposed to prosecute a calumniator who dared to found charges upon such innocent trifles. But the Princess of Wales was altogether bereft of such protection.

Some parts of the examination were of a nature which appeared to him beneath the dignity of the examiners. About her driving out with Mr. Hood in a little whiskey, and whether the servant who attended them was a man or a boy, and "who drove," and so forth, all which appeared too ludicrous for an examination so serious, and yet in their consequences to the Princess far too serious to be considered in a ludicrous point of view. Would it be fair play to the Princess to suffer this deposition to make further and deeper impression, without giving to the world the questions by which it was produced?

In that part of the deposition wherein Mrs. Lisle had stated that "Mr. Chester "was a pretty young man," the inference unavoidably drawn by those who read the deposition would be, that Mrs. Lisle herself conceived that the Princess had shewn a preference to Mr. Chester because he was a pretty young man.

How different the impression if it should turn out, as stated in the paper he had before him, that Mrs. Lisle was specifically asked by the Commissioners "whether "Mr. Chester was not a handsome man?" and that she had returned an answer conveying singly her own opinion upon the appearance of Mr. Chester, that "he was a pretty young man."

It was too nauseous and disgusting to be obliged to dwell upon many parts of the evidence, but it was too hard upon this unfortunate person that all the common incidents and infirmities of nature were to be imputed to her as evidence of frailty and guilt. The deposition, immediately after the statement respecting the company at Sheffield-place, and that Mr. John Chester was the only person who on the first arrival of her Royal Highness was there to meet her, went on to give an account of her Royal Highness having been up and about the house at a late hour of the night.

Here the examination again came in aid of the Princess, and recounted questions preceding.—"Do you remember "the Princess getting up in the night, and "going into another room for a light?" "I do." Then came the following question from two grave lawyers: "Why did she "get up in the night?" The answer was, "I heard her Royal Highness say she "had been taken ill, and that her candle "had gone out."—Here was the solution of this transaction, which to some had appeared so mysterious.

The head-shakers had shaken their heads because Mrs. Lisle had said so and so in her deposition. Let the examination be taken with the deposition, and the most incredulous of innocence must be convinced.

Then Mr. Chester had walked out twice with the Princess, and had stayed once a longer and once a shorter time, owing to the state of the weather, or some accidental circumstance. Then came the history of "Captain Moore, and that the Princess had been twice alone with him whilst Mrs. Lisle was gone to look after some books, for which she had been sent by the Princess. That she might be gone half an hour at the one time and twenty minutes at the other." Surely if any imputation rested upon the Princess on account of those errands, they fell as heavily upon Mrs. Lisle herself, But in truth to an unprejudiced mind they warranted no presumption of guilt, nor slightest impropriety of behaviour. He might now go on to the circumstances of Mr. Lawrence, and so to the end of the chapter, but he had done enough to show that the notes of the examination, if correct, took the sting intirely out of the depositions. Lloyd had been proved to have perjured herself by the testimony of Mills and Edmeads. He had endeavoured to shew how little weight was to be attached to the testimony of Mrs. Lisle. All that remained was the evidence of Cole and Bidgood. They might be left to themselves, even without the trial to Which he wished they had been subjected of the cross-examination of the Attorney General, of whom, he should like to ask some questions. The purest of mortals could not stand the ordeal to which the Princess of Wales had been subjected: human conduct, however innocent, was unequal to a scrutiny so conducted.

During the whole of this protracted and afflicting period, her situation could not be better described than in the words of one of the paragraphs, in the Letter to the King drawn up by the late Mr. Perceval, the present Lord Chancellor and sir T. Plomer: "a situation of friends turned enemies—of servants who seemed traitors and spies—of foul conspiracy, of social and domestic treason, and in which she could look to no security but to that principle of justice which constantly actuated the conduct of his Majesty." We had now seen a combination of tank, talent, and character; a combination of all the first authorities in the state, the church, and the law, again examining her conduct, and pronouncing an opinion, while she was still left without a defender, or any other support, than that courage and spirit which conscious innocence could alone inspire.

Much had been said of the responsibility that attached to the advisers of her Royal Highness. He would not shrink from the share, which had accidentally fallen to him, although he pretended not to know to whom was to be attributed the publication of that Letter addressed to the Prince Regent, which had led to all the recent disclosures. With respect to the passage which the noble lord had been pleased to call a canting paragraph, it was to be observed, that the Princess had made previous representations to her Majesty on the subject of the delay in the confirmation of her daughter. No restraint had existed upon the intercourse between her Royal Highness and the Princess Charlotte until the year 1810, when the King proposed some little alteration, adapted to the change in the system of her education. It was in the course of the last autumn only that the, Lord Chancellor signified to the Princess of Wales that further restrictions were about to be imposed. The noble lord had regretted that her Royal Highness had not now her former advisers. How was the Princess of Wales to obtain their advice? Lord Eldon, who had been one of those advisers, was converted into the stern messenger of rejected requests and arbitrary mandates. Lord Eldon had withdrawn his friendship and advice, Mr. Perceval was no more; the rest had deserted her. The letter to which he had alluded was returned three times unopened, and not till then published. That publicity had, as he conceived, been productive of good; because it had brought the situation of her Royal Highness to a crisis. It was a letter which, had he been the author, he should have willingly acknowledged, although he avowed that the threatening letter sent by the advice of the late Mr. Perceval to the King, was one which he could never have sanctioned.

The noble lord (Castlereagh) had affected to treat the whole as a private arrangement; but his Royal Highness had now responsible advisers, and the question was of the highest public moment. What had followed the publication of this letter? Then came the meeting of the privy council, at which the Speaker himself was present. The letter appeared on the 12th of February, and on the 13th Mr. Conant examined lady Douglas. Was there any crime, then, in publishing the letter, even if the Princess of Wales had authorized it? Was that in itself high treason? was the Princess to be beheaded because her letter had appeared in a public newspaper? It was understood that private examinations were still proceeding. The noble lord disclaimed all knowledge of them. But if such was the case, he did not see how the noble lord could justify himself in remaining any longer in office. If the noble lord could not discover, as he confessed he had not been able to discover, legal criminality, the intercourse ought not to be interrupted. If justifiably interrupted now, why was it not interrupted in the year 1806? It should be unrestricted, or interdicted altogether. If the restraint was only to last, as the noble lord had said, till the Princess Charlotte should return to town, why not expostulate with the Princess of Wales upon her impatience, and point out the time when it would be fully gratified? It would not have been difficult, he believed, to have persuaded her, if the advisers of the Prince Regent had been so disposed, to submit to any measure which, while it corresponded with the dignity of her station, did not outrage the feelings of nature.

As a proof of the moderation of her Royal Highness, of her disposition to adopt any conciliatory measure, be would state the following fact. Immediately after the late discussions, he had been in company with a noble attendant upon the Princess of Wales, and in his eagerness to promote in every possible an event so much to be wished for, he had hastily sketched such a letter as he conceived if written by her Royal Highness would be well calculated to effect conciliation if it could be effected by honourable and dignified submission.

The letter was taken to her Royal Highness, and she had done him the honour to adopt it, to copy it with her own hand, with the intention of sending it to the Prince of Wales. But this healing and desirable step had been prevented, by her receiving information, that sir John and lady Douglas were again under examination, and that, too, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor. The letter he would read, if the House would indulge him. The following was a copy of it.

"Sir; I once more approach your Royal Highness, and can venture to assure you, Sir, that if you will deign to read my letter, you will not be dissatisfied with its contents.

"The Report made by certain members of his Majesty's privy council, was corn- municated to me by lord Sidmouth, and its contents appeared to those, upon whose advice I rely, to be such as to require on my part a public assertion of my innocence, and a demand of investigation. It cannot be unknown to your Royal Highness that I addressed a letter to the Lord Chancellor, and a duplicate of that letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, for the purpose of its being communicated to the two Houses of Parliament.

"The Lord Chancellor twice returned my letter, and did not communicate its contents to the House of Lords.

"The Speaker of the House of Commons thought it his duty to announce the receipt of my letter, and it was read from the chair. To my inexpressible gratification I have been informed, that, although no proceeding was instituted according to my request, certain discussions which took place in that honourable House, have resulted in the complete, unequivocal, and universal acknowledgment of my entire innocence, to the satisfaction of the world.

"Allow me, Sir, to say to your Royal Highness, that I address you now relieved from a load of distress which has pressed upon me for many years.

"I was always conscious that I was free from reproach. I am now known to be so, and worthy to bear the exalted title of Princess of Wales.

"On the subject of the confirmation of the Princess Charlotte, I bow, as becomes me, and with implicit deference to the opinion expressed by his Majesty, now that I have been made acquainted with it. His Majesty's decision I must always regard as sacred.

"To such restrictions as your Royal Highness shall think proper to impose upon the intercourse between the Princess Charlotte and myself, as arising out of the acknowledged exercise of your parental and royal authority, I submit without observation. But I throw myself upon the compassion of your Royal Highness, not to abridge more than may be necessary my greatest, indeed, my only pleasure.

"Your Royal Highness may be assured, that, if the selection of society for the Princess Charlotte, when on her visits to me, were left to my discretion, it would be, as it always has been, unexceptionable for rank and character. If your Royal Highness would condescend, Sir, to name the society yourself, your injunctions should be strictly adhered to.

"I will not detain your Royal Highness —I throw myself again on your royal justice and compassion, and I subscribe myself, with perfect sincerity, and in the happy feelings of justified innocence, your Royal Highness's, &c, &c. &c."

This letter, thus hastily written, the Princess had copied with her own hand, when she was informed that a host of attornies and spies and informers were again at work—that the carrion evidence, so long buried, was to be flung before the public, to offend the general sense—that the Douglases were again sent for. Under these circumstances, could she be expected to send it? He had held the late debate to have been a verdict of acquittal—a verdict, in which all who had joined in that debate most entirely concurred. He had, then, naturally entertained the hope, that her Royal Highness had at length arrived at the period when she might be permitted to leave her lonely state, that the sun was again shining upon her, and that she might now be received again by her royal husband. Had it been possible to send such a letter, all might now have been at rest. Unfortunately this had been rendered impracticable, and he had only to lament the disappointment of the general wish and hope. Before the representatives of the people of England, then, he now defied the accusers of her royal highness the Princess of Wales. He challenged them to the assertion and to the proof of her guilt. He called upon them to produce their charges, and to bring her Royal Highness to a public trial. She could not prosecute in her own name, and she had no husband to prosecute for her. He had heard it said, that she ought to leave the country. Was it fit the Princess of Wales should leave the country? Was it for innocence to fly? In the whole world, perhaps, she was the person the most unprotected. She came hither to a high destination, but on the hard condition attached to female royalty: a foreigner, unknowing and unknown. Let the House recollect the fate of Caroline Matilda, the sister of his present Majesty, who was unfortunately married to a person unworthy of her—the then king of Denmark. A conspiracy was formed in the court of that kingdom, which arose out of a struggle for power. Brandé and Struensé were executed; and to the former it was imputed that he had been criminally connected with the queen. She was described by the historian as suffering in consequence of her being far removed from the equitable tribunals of this country. In Denmark, it was said, that justice was not to be expected, which she would have been sure to experience had she been so fortunate as to have continued subject to the mild and equitable laws of England. Caroline Matilda, an English princess, could not obtain justice in Denmark. But the case of the Princess of Wales was in England, and she might, therefore, expect to have her conduct judged of by the laws of England. She was suspected, and she asked to be brought, for the investigation of her conduct, before an English tribunal. Art. English princess could not obtain English justice in Denmark. But she, a German princess, asked with confidence for English justice in England. She, the niece of this very Caroline Matilda, asked that justice in England, which had been denied to her aunt in Denmark. Caroline Matilda, when rouzed from her repose by the tumult which took place in the palace on the explosion of the plot formed against her life and honour, endeavoured to escape from her persecutors, to throw herself at the feet of her weak and deluded husband. In her anti-chamber she was met by her mortal enemy Rantzau, and she returned to her chamber. Again she took courage and rushed forth; in the interval a body of soldiers had been stationed there to oppose her course. Regardless of the bayonets which were presented at her breast, she persevered, and forced her way to the apartment of the king; but he had been removed. She was secured, and carried to the castle of Cronberg. Her enemies had intended to take her life, but the blow was averted by the powerful intervention of her brother, our most gracious sovereign, and having been removed to Zell, she expired in her 24th year of a broken heart; the deprivation of the society of her children having preyed upon her mind more than every other circumstance of her great and unmerited misfortunes. The evidence against her, as historians stated, far from warranting a legal conclusion of guilt, did not amount even to presumptive proof of it.

On what foundation of authority did the innocence of the Princess of Wales stand?—on this—lord Eldon, as a lawyer, (as the high legal authorities of Denmark had done with respect to Matilda) said, the greater part of the evidence was satisfac- torily disproved, and as for the remainder, all men utterly discredited it. But these mysterious examinations still continued, and her Royal Highness found, notwithstanding the boast of the historian, that there was not even in this country any tribunal to which her guilt or innocence could be brought to issue. If she resolved to quit this country she had now no father to go to; nor had she even her father's country to afford her an asylum. Just after the period when these examinations had been conducted with so much acrimony against his beloved daughter, he, had paid the forfeit of his life at the battle of Jena. She had however the consolation to know that her father had received all the papers relative to the investigation of her conduct, and had expressed his dying conviction of his daughter's innocence. The Princess had the satisfaction of knowing that he lived to be informed of her acquittal, and died in the persuasion of her entire innocence. What protection, then, had the Princess of Wales? She had a right to that of her husband and of the law. Would the House deprive her of the latter? Her husband had withdrawn from her Royal Highness his protection; and was that House to withhold from her its protection also? She had, indeed, her noble mother here—the sister of Caroline Matilda; she had her bosom to retire to. She had also the sanction of the countenance and affection of her gallant brother, but he had not the same means of affording her protection. She, therefore, or rather he, (Mr. Whitbread) in her name, called on that House—the representatives of the people of England,—to become the protectors of an innocent, traduced, and de-fenceless stranger—the mother of their future queen. He wished most sincerely that "The Book" now lying on the table of the House, before him, had never been printed; he wished that the letter to his. Majesty in the year 1807, threatening that the book should be published on the following Monday, had never been written. He did not ask of the House to approve of any subsequent letter which had since been published: he only asked of them to compare that letter with the threatening letter dictated by Mr. Perceval. He should not, however, read the two. He would not do it, on account of Mr. Perceval, who was now no more. He did not wish to execute justice on him, but he would on lord Eldon, if he could, because on him he thought justice should be done. He would read the two letters for the sake of executing justice on the one, were it not that he might thereby seem to be doing an act of injustice to the memory of the other.

One word more, and then he had done. He should certainly abstain from making the motion of which he had given notice, and earnestly hoped that a disposition similar to that which he knew to exist on one side, might be evinced, on the other. It was never too late to conciliate, and if, even now, matters could be brought to that crisis, he was certain the nation would esteem it the greatest boon that could be conferred on the country.

As a preliminary to his motion, he would put in two papers, the Morning Herald and Morning Post of Saturday last.

asked, what part of the papers which he had put in, the hon. gentleman intended to complain of?

having stated that they were marked, he moved, that the Morning Herald of Saturday, March the 13th, and the same paper of Monday, March 15, 1813, should be delivered in, and the paragraphs complained of be read. This having been done, the honourable gentleman stated his complaint against these Papers, purporting to contain the Depositions taken before certain privy counsellors therein alleged to have been appointed by his Majesty, to enquire into matters touching the conduct of her royal highness the Princess of Wales, in which Depositions her Royal Highness is accused of the crimes of adultery and treason, but which charges are in the said publications alleged to have been declared by the said privy counsellors to be wholly unworthy of credit.

He then moved the following Resolution:—

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, expressive of the deep concern and indignation with which this House has seen publications so insulting to the honour and dignity of his Majesty's royal family, so offensive to decency and good morals, and so painful to the feelings of all his Majesty's loyal subjects; and that this House humbly requests that his Royal Highness will give directions that proper measures may be taken to discover and bring to justice all the persons concerned in committing, or procuring to be committed so high an offence, and for pre- venting the repetition or continuance of such publications."

The question having been put from the chair,

said, the hon. gentleman, in the course of his speech, had introduced a vast body of matter, which was wholly unconnected with, and irrelevant from, the motion with which he had concluded. He however would not be induced by any thing contained in the speech of the hon. gentleman, to follow him through the great variety of topics into which he had entered, and the statements he had grounded on papers which were not connected in any way with the business before parliament. For his own part he knew not what practical end could be answered by the course of proceeding which he had adopted. Would that course produce conciliation? Would it tend to foster that conciliatory spirit, which the hon. gentleman seemed to think existed in a high quarter? However much conciliation had been spoken of throughout this business, it did not seem to have been cherished by those who were most loud in recommending it. What, he would ask, appeared in the public, prints the very day after the last discussion on the subject in that House? Instead of any thing calculated to produce conciliation, the next documents with which the public were indulged, were two letters written to his Majesty himself, which were published for the evident purpose of throwing blame on another illustrious personage.

This proceeding was followed up by the speech which had just been uttered by the hon. member, a speech by which he was satisfied the House would agree with him in thinking he was more likely to promote the effects he appeared to deprecate than to obviate them. The delivery of this speech was altogether inconsistent with the rules of parliament, and if he had not been unwilling to interrupt that hon. member in pursuing the subject on which he had employed his eloquence, he would have noticed the irregularity of the proceeding. He agreed most perfectly with the hon. member, that the monarchy was deeply concerned in the proceedings to which the attention of the House was directed. Nothing could more nearly concern the interests of the monarchy than the subject which had been introduced to them: and it, was their duty, with cool and deliberate consideration, to decide on what they, according to the constitution of parliament, had a right to do. Sorry, however, he certainly was, that the discussion which had taken place had led to such speeches, from the hon. gentleman and others, as he could not hear without feeling considerable pain. The good sense of parliament was now called on to act; and he hoped it would, in the outset, express its dissent from the course proposed by the hon. gentleman—a course entirely different from that which he had originally stated his intention of pursuing. He began his speech in a manner not at all relevant to the motion which he meant to propose; and if he (lord Castlereagh) did not feel a strong disinclination to interrupt the hon. gentleman, he should have felt it his duty to have called him to order—since, under the mask of defending the Princess of Wales, he had indulged himself in a most personal, improper, illiberal, unfair, and unparliamentary attack on his royal highness the Prince Regent.—(Cries of Order, Order!)

objected to the terms in which the noble lord had described his conduct; and

asserting, that what he had said was perfectly justifiable,

requested to know whether the hon. member wished the words of the noble lord to be taken down?

having replied in the affirmative,

. The hon. member desires the words of the noble lord to be taken down. The Clerk will do so—and he will then read them aloud, for the purpose-of ascertaining, whether the words so written were those made use of.

then proceeded to dictate the words to the Clerk, in which he was assisted by several of his friends.—To this proceeding the Speaker objected, observing, "That, as the hon. member complained of the words, he alone should point them out." The sentence was at length written by the Clerk, thus—"Under the mask of defending the Princess of Wales, the hon. gentleman has indulged himself in the most improper, and unparliamentary personal attack OH his royal highness the Prince Regent."

The words haying been read by the Clerk,

took up the paper on which the offensive expressions had been copied, and admitted they were those he had used adding, that that he had no explanation to offer.

Consistently with my parliamentary duty, it is a task incumbent on me to demand of the noble lord, whether he used these terms? If I acted in such a way as to deserve their application, it was the duty of the noble lord to move for my committal to the Tower.

It now remains with the noble lord, either to admit or to deny the words which he is stated to have used; if he admits them, it will then be competent for him to offer such explanation, with respect to his intent and meaning, as he may think proper.

admitted the correctness of the words as taken down.

The noble lord has now an opportunity of entering into such explanation as he may deem necessary.

. I shall now proceed to state, why I conceive the hon. gentleman did, under the mask of defending the Princess of Wales, make an attack on his royal highness the Prince Regent, which I consider unfair, illiberal, and unparliamentary. The hon. gentleman, in the course of his speech, selected a chapter from the history of those distressing events, by which we are all so deeply affected, which I thought neither he, nor any other member of that House, would have resorted to—I mean those unhappy personal differences between the Prince and Princess of Wales, which we must all contemplate with feelings of the most acute regret. He did advert to those Circumstances; he proceeded to argue the question, as if connected with them; and assumed, that the whole demerits of the transaction were to be ascribed to his Royal Highness—and that, if the Princess of Wales were criminal, it arose from the conduct which had been pursued towards her.

I deny having drawn any such inference as that stated by the noble lord—I deny having meant to produce such an impression—I know too much of parliamentary proceeding to have uttered such sentiments.—If I had delivered myself, in the way the noble lord has described, it was his duty to have, called me to order; and, I am sure, Sir, speaking under your cognizance, if any thing improper had fallen from me, you would have immediately enforced obedience to the rules of the House. Your not having stopped me, is, I think, of itself a sufficient proof, that no part of my speech called for the designation which the noble lord has applied to it.

The noble lord has a right to proceed, and offer such explanation as he pleases on the subject—when he has done, it will be for the hon. member, or any other hon. gentleman, to propose any proceeding which he may deem expedient.

The hon. gentleman observes that I ought to have called him to order, if he used such language as I have described. I did not resort to that course, for two reasons; in the first place, I was unwilling to interrupt him; and, in the next, the attack was not made on his Royal Highness, as Prince Regent, but as Prince of Wales. I think the attack was illiberal, because it was made in the absence of the person to whom it related—and because the hon. gentleman was ignorant, whether there was any person present who would stand forward to defend his Royal Highness.

I will put it to the noble lord, when the hon. gentleman has distinctly stated, that he made no observation with the feeling imputed to him, whether he will persevere in affirming that he did? The noble lord will, I am sure, give me credit when I state, that nothing should induce me to say I heard what I did not hear—or to deny my having heard that which I did hear—and, in justice, I must observe, that I do not recollect my hon. friend to have said any thing which could bear the interpretation of the noble lord. The noble lord may conceive the whole of my hon. friend's argument, in his view of it, as lying open to this interpretation—but that is different from the attaching a particular character to select parts of it. Where, however, an hon. member is charged with having used intemperate expressions, and denies the charge, it is contrary to the courtesy of the House, and, indeed to the custom of parliament, to persevere in the charge.

The hon. gentleman had observed, that, if my statement were correct, I ought to move "that he be committed to the Tower." Now, I merely stated, that the general course of his argument warranted the inference which I drew. And I must say, that I never heard a speech which gave me greater pain.

I am entirely innocent of any intention of treating the Prince of Wales with disrespect. When such an assertion was made,. I should have been highly blameable if I did not notice it. If any part of my observations appears to the noble lord to bear such an inference as he has drawn, I can only say, that he is mistaken. I never meant that which he seems to suppose.

Having heard the statement of the hon. gentleman, I perfectly acquit him of having intentionally used any expression calculated to produce the impression to which I have alluded. [Here the matter terminated.]

then proceeded with his speech. He called on parliament to look at the hon. member's proposition, and see if they could agree with it upon any principle consistent with expediency or justice. For what was it that this champion of the liberty of the press asked them to do for the purpose of vindicating the Princess of Wales from aspersions which he said had been cast upon her—why truly at the distance of about a fortnight to punish two newspapers for having published the whole evidence, on a matter of much interest to the country. The course he wished to pursue was, to point out to the House, the disagreeable situation into which they might be brought, if they did not minutely examine the motion before them. The proposition was, to bring two printers to the bar of the House, or to agree to an address, which would occasion their prosecution by the Attorney General, for having published certain depositions, after all the leading, documents were placed before the public. He did not mean to argue in justification of these disclosures. In every point of view they were to be deprecated as injurious. But this he would say, that those who first commenced the publication of those papers, were the persons to be censured. They all knew that the other documents were not confined to the recesses of the state alone—they all knew that they had found their way into the hands of individuals; and, if one set of persons disclosed a part of those documents, it was not to be expected that others would suffer the remainder to be concealed. It would never be left to one party, in a matter of this description, to publish what would lead to false conclusions, affecting public men, either in that House, or elsewhere, without an effort being made to give a more fair view of the subject. On that point they were perfectly clear; they knew where the disclosure began, and he would now say what he had observed on a former occasion, that when the disclosures once commenced, a very strong necessity would arise for going on. But did the hon. gentleman really think he could persuade the House that they ought to procure the arrest of those printers? Was it not a proof how little the faculties of parliament were calculated to meet this subject, when the hon. gentleman having given notice of a grave motion, for the purpose of procuring the prosecution of lady Douglas for perjury, suddenly abandoned that intention?—He found there were insurmountable objections to it—and, after entering into a long argument on the question—after making his own partial comments on the documents, when he knew it was quite impossible for any gentleman then present to speak to the facts, he forgot to redeem the pledge he had given, and instead of lady Douglas, he ended with a motion perfectly ridiculous! The House must perceive, that the motion was only introduced as giving an opportunity of making the speech which preceded it.—finding that he must abandon the prosecution of lady Douglas (because there was nothing within the whole scope of their experience, by which parliament could be guided in its proceeding on the subject), the hon. gentleman was at last compelled to shelter himself by retreat. [Mr. Whitbread was walking out of the House at this moment, which circumstance, coinciding with lord Castlereagh's observation, occasioned great laughter.]—Really, from the course of the hon. gentleman's argument, the House might suppose, that, instead of desiring some proceeding to be taken with respect to the Princess of Wales, he was anxious to shew that there was no necessity whatever for any interference of parliament on the subject. His principal object seemed to be to examine the conduct of the four commissioners, who had conducted the enquiry, and he thought he ought, in justice, to have informed his hon. and learned friend (sir Samuel Romilly) of his intention, and of the line of argument he intended to pursue, in which case, he was sure, that learned gentleman would not have fled from the defence of the persons with whom he was joined in the commission. That hon. and learned gentleman had declared the legality of. their proceedings, and had admitted, that he was the person who, in his judicial character, and as their secretary, took down the depositions, read them over to the persons concerned, and saw that they were legal, correct, and just. It was to be regretted, therefore, that that hon. and learned gentleman, had not staid in his place to contradict the statements of his hon. friend, the more so as the other persons, being peers were precluded from that opportunity of justifying themselves, instead of leaving lord Ellenborough and lord Erskine in the disagreeable situation in which they at present stood, under the charges of the right hon. gentleman. It was not for him (lord Castlereagh) to discuss the merits of these noble persons, and the learned gentleman, who was, at the period alluded to, solicitor general; neither was it for him to enter into or pronounce a judgement upon these depositions. He protested, as he had done before, that the House was not fit to entertain the subject, either with a view to the happiness of the parties concerned, or with reference to the preservation of the tranquillity of the country. They had no right to assume powers unknown to their regular functions, under the specious plea of administering justice. They were incompetent to this duty. It was not within the scope of their functions; and in his opinion, whatever the hon. member might think of it, neither the act nor the attempt was calculated to produce peace in the country, or tranquillity in the minds which deserved to be tranquillized. The hon. gentleman observed, that he understood him (lord Castlereagh) to have given a verdict of acquittal on the subject. He denied that he had ever done so; for he did not find himself, as a minister, in a situation which rendered him more competent to come to a decision, than that in which he stood as a member of parliament. The opinion he gave was not at all shaken; and he again repeated, that he did most distinctly explain to the House, that the opinion which he formed, when in another council, and with different references, was perfectly consistent with the opinion which he gave in the cabinet of the duke of Portland, in 1807. He had given his vote on a general view of the evidence, but he had not proceeded to a minute decision. In the opinion he gave, in a late council, that the intercourse between the Princess of Wales and her daughter, should continue under regulation and restraint; he meant not to impute criminality to the former, for he begged again to be distinctly understood as not assuming any functions which did not belong to him. He founded that opinion on what he learned in the year 1807, and on no other circumstance. But he begged to refuse the exercise of functions which he was not called on to make use of; and, in the duke of Portland's administration, he was not directed either to try the guilt or innocence of the Princess. In the Portland cabinet there had been no exercise of judgment on the guilt or innocence of the Princess of Wales, but the delivery of an opinion on the documents laid before them.—They knew the law better than to pronounce such sentence. Much of the evidence against her had passed before him; but that part, which went to exculpate her, could not be brought before him. He was not exercising a judgment on the guilt or innocence of that illustrious personage—he was called merely to give an opinion on the documents laid before him. That opinion he gave in the words which he had used on a former occasion; but it was not on his dicta that the hon. gentleman should state the innocence of the accused-party—every subject of the realm must be considered innocent till proved guilty by due course of law. If it had been the opinion of the cabinet, from a consideration of the depositions, that she should be put upon her trial for high treason, his concurring in that opinion, if it were his, which it certainly was not, would not have shaken the right which she, and every other person in the realm, possessed, under the law, of being deemed innocent till she was declared guilty. He was not competent to convict or acquit her. Her conduct was not brought before the council for that purpose. And he agreed in the sentiment of lord Grenville's cabinet, that it was foreign from their duty to exercise such a power. The Minute of that cabinet was as follows:—"We are fully convinced that it cannot be your Majesty's wish, that we should lay before you a detailed account of the proceedings which have been instituted by the legal advisers of the Prince of Wales, And we beg leave, with all due humility, to state, that the laws have not placed us in a situation to decide on the guilt or innocence of any subject of the realm, much less on a person so nearly connected with the royal family."—He adhered to the principle laid down in that Minute—it was not their duty to try, in any judicial sense, her Royal Highness. But, looking at all the circumstances before them, it was for them to say, whether some proceeding should not be had against her—and, in the words of the Minute, "it was not deemed expedient that any further proceeding should take place," an opinion which he considered indispensible to the cause of justice.—The hon. gentleman observed, that this transaction must come to a decisive point, one way or other—and what was the decisive step he advised them to take? Why, to hasten that crisis, a prosecution of two newspaper proprietors was the only measure which the deliberative wisdom of the hon. gentleman could devise. What did he mean by this? Did he think it necessary to institute this trial for the purpose of proving the innocence of the Princess of Wales? Would a mock trial of this nature have that effect? The very idea was absurd. How would this affect the question as to the Princess of Wales? Whose honour, he should be glad to know, would be proved by the trial of those persons? The expediency of any farther proceeding was negatived by the cabinets of the duke of Portland and lord Grenville—all the depositions were delivered to her Royal Highness, who made such observations on them as she thought fit, and had affidavits sworn in contradiction of them—but still the subsequent opinion of those cabinets was, that no farther proceeding should take place. The hon. gentleman had not distinctly pointed out what course was to be pursued. He seemed desirous that a fresh examination should be instituted; but, for his own part, he could not consider any person a wise and prudent protector of the honour of the Princess of Wales, who would call on parliament to pursue such a course, if they were competent to do it, which, he contended, they were not. With respect to the recent examinations alluded to by the hon. member, he would neither admit or deny that such examinations were going on. He had on the other night declined answering the hon. member's questions, and his reasons for not giving any answer to the questions which were then put to him, still remained in full force. Nothing that he had heard from him this night, had satisfied him that in propriety or wisdom, he ought to depart from that determination. He was resolved to give no answers on the subject, till he saw in what parliamentary manner those answers would be applied. He would not answer the questions of the honourable member; but he would say, with perfect decorum, he would not answer his questions as to what happened out of that House. He would not submit his public conduct, or as a minister of the crown, to be catechised by the honourable member to see if he approved or disapproved of it. He must lay parliamentary grounds for his propositions, and on the present important occasion, though on matters of minor consequence, it might be convenient for the dispatch of business to allow in courtesy of question and answer, he saw enough of this subject to resolve him not to relax. He would neither agree that the documents should be produced, nor would he, in his place, as a minister of the crown, answer any interrogatories, till he was thoroughly satisfied of the parliamentary proceeding which was intended to be instituted. If the Princess were placed on her trial, then, of course, she would have the protection of the law for her defence. But the House ought to take care of those defences which were not according to the law or constitution of the country, but arose from that sort of clamour which was the worst description of defence any person could have. He was not aware, that there was a disposition in any quarter, to deprive the Princess of Wales of all proper protection; on the contrary, there was every desire to afford her the utmost protection of the law.—He thought he had said enough to shew, what an ill effect the constant agitation of this subject in parliament, without any specific object, must have on the public mind.—The hon. member had not been able to state any measure more specific than the prosecution of two printers. Now, when he consented to this sacrifice of the liberty of the press, it was to be hoped that he would have acted on a broad and, liberal plan—and, instead of making the invidious selection which he had done, that he would have moved for the prosecution of all persons who had published those documents.—Indeed, it appeared to him, that these two newspapers had been very tardy in committing the sin of disclosure. His lordship concluded by observing, that he would oppose the motion, as relating to a transaction in which parliament could not interfere, with advantage to the cause of justice, to the parties concerned, and, above all, to the safety and tranquillity of the country. Let them look soberly to the state of the question, and not allow their passions to be misled by the hon. member. Instead of their agreeing with him they would take no step, except they saw that it would be consis- tent with the Welfare and peace of the country, and with the honour and dignity of parliament.

said, he must confess that some parts of the speech of his hon. friend did very much surprise him. He was not at all aware, being ignorant of those proceedings, that any blame could be, attached to the four Commissioners, who, in 1805, were directed by his Majesty to proceed with the investigation. But, if what his hon. friend asserted was correct, it was impossible for him to acquit them of blame, of very great blame, as having submitted to the crown a deposition, purporting to be the result of a witness's evidence, when that deposition was not borne out by the examination. Nothing could be more censurable than this, which he might call a judicial forgery. He, however, was of opinion, that the zeal of his hon. friend had misled him; that he had been deceived by the person who put into his hand that unauthorized and unvouched paper, which he had that night produced in opposition to Mrs. Lisle's deposition; that those four Commissioners had done the crown and Mrs. Lisle justice, and had not submitted what her evidence would not fully bear out. From the high situation of those four Commissioners, being all peers, they could not be present to explain their conduct; and he was extremely sorry too, that his hon. and learned friend (Sir S. Romilly), who acted as secretary under the commission, had quitted the House previous to the charge being made. If a deposition was submitted to the crown, hot warranted by the evidence, his hon. and learned friend (and he would speak his sentiments openly) must be as culpable as any of the Commissioners. But he would rest on the known probity and character of those noble lords, he would rest on the known probity of his learned friend, his opinion, that nothing was submitted to the crown but what was warranted by the evidence He had, however, endeavoured to supply the absence of his hon. friend, by writing to him a note, in which he stated what had passed, and requesting his presence in the House, so that he would probably be in his place before this debate was finished, to give some explanation on this subject to the House.—With regard to the motion, he would give it his support; but from reasons in many respects different from those urged by the hon. mover. He believed no man in that House, or out of it, could venture to assert, that he had, on any occasion, interfered improperly, or interfered at all in those unfortunate dissentions which existed among the royal family. He had voted against the motion the other night; and if the motion this night was for the prosecution of lady Douglas, he would vote against that also; because he could not conceive any good that would arise from such a prosecution. But what was the motion then under consideration? It was a motion calling for the prosecution of certain printers of two newspapers for publishing the depositions relative to the Princess of Wales; but if the hon. gentlemen opposite would rather that all who had offended should be prosecuted, if they had thought it better that every printer who bad published those depositions should be punished—he would vote for that also. He had no objection to the motion so extended, and would vote for the punishment of all who had published these depositions. In the speech of the noble lord, be observed a very great fallacy, in thinking these not more reprehensible than former publications. The noble lord had spoken of those with whom the publication of the documents commenced; but he should have recollected, that, in the first publication, there was nothing which was shocking to the mind or to public morals, while those which had been lately produced displayed such a scene of pollution and infamy, as was not to be equalled in any family of high distinction in Europe—much less in one exercising the powers of sovereignty. He would put it to the candour, the honour, the feeling of the House, was it fitting that publications, such as these, should be permitted to be continued in a civilized country? He did not wish to stir up seeds of strife—he did not wish to give one party an advantage over another; hut he was desirous of putting an end to such disclosures altogether—he wished to remove the frightful exhibition now held up before the public What would be the consequence if such a system were suffered to go on? Every vile and filthy anecdote that could be collected together would be disseminated through the country. And who would the House then have to blame? Why, itself, and itself only—for when a motion was made to put a stop to such proceedings as those, the House refused it—and by that means encouraged the depraved taste which was growing up in the country: they would not punish the offenders brought before them, and thus gave a sanction to others to follow their impure example. If the House pleased to gratify the malignity of any party, by keeping such scenes before the public eye, they would reject the motion; but let ho man hereafter in that House raise his voice to complain that there was a spirit in the country ewer to traduce or degrade royalty—let no man complain, that there was an antimonarchical faction in the empire—let no man complain, that there were persons anxious to make a traffic in family dissentions, only as a grade to raise themselves to power.—Let the House hear those reproaches no more—for let who would be the persons who began these publications, a motion was then made, which, if carried, would put an end to such proceedings;—if the propositions were agreed to, the House would overthrow the, system—if they rejected it, the system would be encouraged; and, he would venture to predict, that before a month was passed, they would have bitter reason to regret their own improvidence.

said, the right hon. gentleman had certainly taken a very different view of the question from that urged in its support, by the hon. mover, and had promised his vote on grounds widely dissimilar from those which influenced that hon. gentleman. He had however argued the case with some shew of reason, which entitled him to a statement of the opinions of those who found they could not concur in sentiment with him. He would not enter into the hon. mover's attack upon the four peers, who had acted as commissioners upon the occasion alluded to, but merely notice that the whole course of the speech with which the motion was prefaced, led to a conclusion to which, in a parliamentary view, that speech had not the slightest reference. When the hon. gentleman talked of a crisis, his motion had no more connection with that matter than it had with a motion for an adjournment of the House. For what would be the result if the prosecutions be proposed should be instituted? How could they accomplish his avowed object? And beside, for what offence were they to be resorted to? Not for calumny, for the newspapers had not invented the matter, nor were they the authors of the documents. Their crime it seemed, in the eyes of the hon. gentleman, that they had published the whole book, and not partial extracts to prejudice the public in any way. Their only offence was that of presuming to publish all the evidence, and if convicted of this, what would that conviction do towards vindicating the Princess of Wales? But the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had gone on another ground, and wished to punish these publishers for the indecency and gross impropriety of their offence against the public morals; which, he said, was so great that it ought not to be overlooked. Let the House then look at the subject in that light, and not couple the question with considerations altogether distinct. If they did so, and agreed to the motion on these arguments; if they once began to act as custodes morum, they might be assured they would very soon have their hands full of this sort of business. He put it to them to say, if there really was any thing in this so offensive to public morals as to call for their interference. The right hon. gentleman had cautioned them that if they did not take this step to night they would have no cause to complain of the existence of such evils, nor any right to apply a remedy to them hereafter. In his opinion a very great distinction was to be drawn. These documents were not the invention of the printers implicated in this motion; they might at one time have been published by the, Princess of Wales herself, and if they had been so published, would any one say that the publication would have subjected her Royal Highness to pains and penalties, such as were now proposed to be inflicted on these printers. These papers were matter of history; not productions inserted for party purposes, to gratify malignity, or convey partial or mischievous impressions. When indecent trials were published, for the sake of justice, no one thought of prosecuting their authors. These were not original inventions and he did not see that by passing them over the House was precluded from any subsequent measures, or from taking up any offence in future which they might deem worthy of their interference. They ought also to look a little to the cause of these publications. The first door to them was opened by those who printed the Princess of Wales's letter, and after that ill-advised step, it was not to be wondered at that persons in possession of the whole documents should feel themselves at liberty to make them public, in order to do away the false impressions made by the promulgation of partial and garbled extracts; Under all the cir- cumstances of the case, he considered the laying of the whole before the public to be no offence.

said, that had the motion related to the prosecution of lady Douglas, it would have been a matter of much doubt how he should have given his vote; but as the hon. gentleman had changed his course, no doubt remained on his mind in what manner he ought to decide. If the House did not interfere on this occasion, it never could in any case hereafter. The press, in this case, had transgressed the bounds of morality and of decency, and he called on the House to visit on the publishers of the disgusting and obscene documents complained of, the just vengeance of the House. This was the more necessary, when they considered the high situation of the parties affected by these shameful publications. He therefore warmly contended for the prosecution of the printers; as if they were suffered to escape with impunity, a bad example would be set to others who saw the gross breaches of public decorum which were allowed to be committed without punishment.

conceived that no good could result in this instance from parliamentary interference. He lamented the nature of these publications, but blamed those whose first publication of the Princess's letter had naturally led to them, as the source of all the mischief that might ensue. That letter contained paragraphs calculated strongly to excite public opinion in a certain direction, and he could easily enter into the feelings of persons who deemed it right that there should be no partial statements of this important business; but that, if any part came forth, then that all should appear before the country. The hon. mover had in conclusion said that his object was conciliation—for his part he could imagine nothing so well calculated to insure this blessing than to abstain from such speeches and motions as the hon. gent had just made. He earnestly hoped that this would bathe last of these attempts, as it was impossible to see that any good could result from them; and on the other hand their tendency to confirm and increase all the mischief, the removal of which they pretended to have in view, was sufficiently obvious.

acknowledged that he had read these papers not only with pain but with grief; but he had read documents equally disgusting in other papers, and in some of them before last Saturday. But he rose to speak to another point. He rose in consequence of an attack on the memory of an illustrious friend of his, the revered and lamented Mr. Perceval. When the hon. mover took merit to himself for not doing justice to the memory of that virtuous minister; when he talked of sparing his character by not drawing a comparison between his conduct on a former occasion, and that of the hon. gentleman himself now, it was barely possible to listen to him with patience and moderation. Mr. Perceval had undertaken to superintend a book containing the evidence in the case of the Princess of Wales, for her Royal Highness as her defence, and if as her advocate he had omitted any passages, to what would he have exposed her and himself? to the charge of having omitted and withheld parts of the testimony, and thereby invalidated the whole. He believed that this was the first time the mention of immorality had ever been connected with the name of Perceval, or that he had been accused of disregard to the decencies of life, who had been so eminent an example of respect to them all. But did the hon. gentleman mean to say, that as the Princess of Wales's counsel, in an appeal she was about to make to the public, he had any choice in altering or abridging the evidence on which that appeal was founded?—And what was the letter which had been called—"threatening?" It was written upon the supposition that by her exclusion from court being enforced, a sanction would be conferred not only upon the charge of levity, but upon the more serious accusations which had been brought against the Princess—that she ought not to acquiesce in this ignominy, but afford the public an opportunity of judging of her conduct. Ought Mr. Perceval, in this case, to have garbled the evidence? Even the hon. gentleman, with all his predilection for garbling, would scarcely say that ought to have been done. If a line had been suppressed, the argument would have been against the Princess. Suppose any part of the depositions had been left out, would it not then have been said that her Royal Highness had made an insidious and unfair appeal? Yet such was the argument of the hon. member, and he deplored that her Royal Highness's ease had fallen into such hands. He deeply deplored that her Royal Highness had not such advisers now as she had at that time. It would have been well for her and for the public; and her defence would not have fallen into such injudicious hands as into those of the hon. gentleman this night. It was truly said,

"An open foe may prove a curse,

But an imprudent friend is worse."

(A laugh from the opposition bench.)—He was glad to see the hon. gentleman so jocose now. He had tried to be very pathetic in his speech, almost tempting him (Mr. S.) to take out his handkerchief, and to beguile himself with the idea that there was really a tear in the hon. gentleman's eye. His present merriment proved this to be a mistake. Not being pathetic, he might be allowed to say, the long inflammatory argument of the hon. gentleman had turned entirely on this, that the Princess of Wales had not now a full acquittal. He was not satisfied with the acquittal of the Grenville Cabinet; with that of the Portland Cabinet; with that of the great and revered body who had lately investigated the matter; but out of regard to her Royal Highness would set all afloat again. This knight of the lanthorn, who stood forward to defy all accusers of the Princess; what was the lance he broke? A tilt at and prosecution of the Morning Post and Morning Herald newspapers. What, then, was it by this he was to prove the Princess of Wales guilty or innocent?—The hon. gentleman had undertaken a heavy responsibility by reading' the paper relative to Mrs. Lisle's evidence—that paper from which he had drawn accusations against four noble lords, and the learned gentleman now in his place, (sir S. Romilly, who had come in)—accusations which, if true, proved that they had acted in a manner highly perfidious to the trust reposed in them, and dishonourable to men in any rank in life. For what was the charge? That they had put words into the mouths of witnesses which they had never used, and extracted evidence by means of questions improper for a judge to put, and which would not have been permitted if the parties had had any legal advisers with them. If these were so, these noble lords were more reprehensible than he had words to express. But he doubted the hon. gentleman's information. He ridiculed the knight errantry of the hon. gentleman, which, instead of procuring the evidence to be revised, was evaporated in an attack upon two editors. As for that conciliation which, he said, belonged to the letter he had written for the Princess, and read to the House, be (Mr. S.) did not see all that conciliatory temper in it. To him it looked more like a triumph on what had passed in that House. But he gladly relinquished the subject, having fulfilled the object for which he rose, to vindicate from the aspersion of want of a reconciliatory spirit between man and wife, in Mr. Perceval, who was himself an ornament to the conjugal state.

said, he understood that since be left the House, a statement had been made by his hon. friend nearly affecting himself, of which he might have expected some previous intimation, and which he regretted he was not present to hear, having been called away by an indispensible avocation. He did not impute it to any want of candour on the part of his hon. friend that such a statement took place in his absence; and he was extremely sorry it was not possible for him, at that moment, to give the explanation that might be wished. From the account of this statement which had been communicated to him, be was extremely sorry that he could not give that explanation, but still he believed that what he was enabled to state would prove so far satisfactory to the House. The House would have in its recollection, that he stated on a former evening he had been present at all the examinations but one, on which day he did not receive the notice time enough to attend. He had to repeat then, that he was present at every examination held by the four Lords Commissioners in 1806, except one; and it unfortunately so happened, that this was on the 3d of July, the day on which the examination of Mrs. Lisle took place. He was sorry it so occurred, not only for himself, but for the noble lords whose conduct had been questioned. But unless the examination of that lady was conducted in a way very different from that of every other examination, he must assert, that it was absolutely impossible that the statement of it, as given by his hon. friend, could be the true one. The mode of examination was this:—the witnesses were examined almost exclusively, by lords Ellenborough and Erskine; the questions which they put, were never taken down at all—and he (sir S. R.) being the only person present, besides the Commissioners and the witness, took down only the answers of the latter. This, indeed, was the course uniformly followed in all examinations before a magistrate, and he would again repeat, that no one question was ever taken down. If upon oath, he was ready to declare, that he took down the evidence precisely and literally in the words of every witness; it was then read over to each of them, or they read it themselves, and in some instances made alterations suggested by such perusal, and then signed the whole. He had to add, that there were no copies of the evidence taken by the noble lords, or the least alteration introduced by them; but the whole original examinations, in his hand-writing, were submitted to the privy council. On the day when he was absent, the evidence was taken by one of the learned lords then present. There was, therefore, no possibility of the paper produced by his hon. friend being authentic, unless the noble lords followed a different course that day from what they had ever before done. He would leave it to the House to judge of the probability or possibility of such an alteration of procedure, and the evidence would be found in the hand-writing of one of the noble lords, there being none else present on that day but the four Commissioners. Having said thus much, he would take the liberty of adding, that in his opinion the examinations were taken throughout with the utmost impartiality, and rather with a leaning to find the Princess not guilty of the charges brought against her.

thought that a species of disgrace attached to all of those who did not use every means in their power to suppress these scandalous publications. Did not every one wish to hide them from his family, and from his servants? From the known character and sentiments of the hon. and learned member (Mr. Stephen), he expected that he would have been clamorous against them; but, somehow or other, it so happened that his morality always chimed in with the directions of ministers. He was no friend to prosecutions for libels, but this was one of those cases in which a public vindication of the illustrious personage who had been so atrociously aspersed would be gratifying to the feelings of the country. The public feeling was strong on this subject, and that feeling ought never to be despised. He was sure that the Princess had been hardly dealt with, and in a manner which would have been thought harsh if exercised against the wife or daughter of any man in that House. He was unwilling to prosecute for libel; but very lately he had seen a printer convicted of a calumnious publication against an illustrious person, and should the Souse refuse to interfere to vindicate the honour of an injured woman?

explained, that he had expressed the utmost abhorrence and detestation of the gross and scandalous nature of the publications in question.

wished, to learn in what sense the publishing the depositions in council could be called a libel? The publishers might have published them without authority, but they were not libels. Admitting, as he most fully did, that the publication of such documents was most degrading and reprehensible, he thought it ought to be considered that the depositions alluded to had long been in the hands of many persons, that some forbearance had, therefore, been shown on the part of the editors, and that the eventual publication was in some degree to be attributed to the provocation of the original publication from the opposite quarter. He expected nothing less, when he came to the House to night, than to hear a motion made either to bring her royal highness the Princess of Wales to a trial, or to indict lady Douglas for perjury. He was astonished when he found this important proceeding brought so low, as to end in the prosecution of a printer of a newspaper. He could not understand what would be the effect of a prosecution of these printers for a libel: nor indeed could he see, how the publication of proceedings before a privy council could be tailed a libel. He agreed with all those who thought the published details were in the highest degree disgusting and disgraceful: but he thought the House, before it proceeded to vote, should be assured of the practical benefit of the motion.

who spoke amidst frequent interruptions and loud cries of question, was against the motion, and thought that no ground of libel could be laid.

said, if the attack made on the former legal advisers of the Princess of Wales had been confined to himself, he should have been silent: but as the character of his deceased friend, and of another eminent person, was concerned, he should, with the, indulgence of the House, explain the reasons which influenced their advice to the Princess, When they were called upon to consider how they should act in justification of her Royal Highness against the charge brought against her, they had to deliberate what would be the public sentiment, if they were left in the dark as to the result of an enquiry affecting her honour and her life: whether the character of the Princess would not, in such a case, suffer severely by exclusion from the royal presence. On the best judgment which he could form, as to the good and evil likely to result from the publication of the investigation, and not ignorant of the objections which lay against such a proceeding, still they thought that the vindication of her innocence required that the whole should be put before the public. Whether such judgment was right or wrong, certainly it had not been their intention to calumniate or traduce her Royal Highness, but to justify and acquit; nor did it appear probable to him that the present publication of the Book could be influenced by a malicious motive. When the object of admission to the royal presence had been obtained, the publication was immediately abandoned, and such inviolable secrecy preserved respecting it, that he had not even trusted himself with a copy, either printed or manuscript, of the proceedings: and in this secrecy he believed it would have still remained, had not the partial statements of one side provoked counter statements on the other, and thus led to a complete disclosure. As to the question, whether the publication were a libel, his opinion on this subject must appear interested, for he could not call the work a libel, unless he meant to accuse himself formerly of such libellous intention, or supposed that the Princess meant to calumniate herself by the statement which was made for the purpose of her vindication.

rose to animadvert on the first part of the speech of the hon. and learned member who had just sat down, which contained the most complete justification of the motion of his hon. friend, and which unless it were contradicted by an equally competent authority, would go to lay it down that the publication of the, investigation was no libel. The hon. and learned gentleman stated that they, the advisers and friends of the Princess of Wales, had brought forward this publication of the Book as necessary to screen her from the inferences from the secret inquiry. He should be glad to know how that necessity was less now than formerly? A secret enquiry had been carried on in 1806, it was necessary to do some thing to screen her from the consequences, if the surmises which would naturally follow remained uncontradicted; a secret enquiry was, it seemed, going on now; and was nothing to be done at present for her vindication? The two cases were perfectly parallel; the argument went on all fours. He should not now examine into the manner in which the evidence had been suppressed, and so studiously suppressed, that large sums of money had been offered for a copy of the work. It had been said that the Princess was desirous to hare it suppressed; he believed that others had suppressed it for her. But to concede this point for the sake of the argument. It was inferred, because she was received at court, this set every thing right; she was upon the footing of any other person; there was an end to the question; the three lawyers were completely satisfied; the book was no longer of any value; and the putting her foot in St. James's was supposed to whitewash all stains. But was she now received at court? Was she now in the situation of every other person? So far from it, she was not even allowed the intercourse of her own daughter. She stood therefore now in the situation in which she stood when her legal advisers thought the publication necessary; and now as then some steps should be taken to clear her character. If this had been known at the time, that she would be received at court, but was to be debarred from the society of her child, would she then have been willing to suppress the evidence? Would she not have thought some farther vindication necessary? Nothing new had happened since that period; no new accusations had been hatched; and he could not comprehend how, standing in precisely the same situation as she did, when the learned gentleman took his station at the bookseller's door, ready to give his publication to the world, in vindication of the Princess's honour, how that learned gentleman, the former adviser and advocate of her Royal Highness, could withhold his assent from a motion calculated to vindicate her honour. No one felt more strongly than be did the disagreeble nature of the duty imposed upon them, but matters were come to a crisis, and something must be done sooner or later, to meet that crisis. If the noble lord over the way would state, as he had been pressed to do, that any measures, were taking to come to a decision one way or the other, to give the House and the country satisfaction—he wished the noble lord would attend to him, because he had professed himself ready to give an answer if any one would give him a reason for so doing. If he would only assure him that any such measure was in agitation, he should not hear one word more from him on the subject; he would close his lips, and await the result in silence. All he insisted on was, that they ought not to remain in their present situation. He could discern by no gesture or look of the noble lord, whether they were to remain in that situation or not. But waving this question, he wished to know by what authority Mr. Conant had called for the evidence of any person on the subject; why the privy council, being still in full vigour, if not abounding in wisdom, he (Mr. Conant) should undertake to meddle with matters of state? It had been said by the learned gentleman, that the Princess of Wales could not intend by the documents which were published to criminate herself. True; but he wished to know who were the recriminating party. These, he believed, were those of his Majesty's ministers, who were not satisfied of the innocence of her Royal Highness, who were not quite sincere in their professions on that point, and who published these documents with very different motives from those which had actuated the learned gentleman and his colleagues in 1807. He did not understand what the opinion or declaration of the noble lord on this subject was on the first night he had spoken on it, nor on the second night he had spoken on it. There was some difference between the two, but he could not tell what. On the first night be seemed to incline to a complete acquittal, on the second he either retracted that opinion, or qualified it in a very ambiguous manner. Indeed, he was not singular in the misfortune of not always understanding that noble person; those who were nearer to him, and who heard him more distinctly, did not seem to know what they were to think. An hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) had even gone so far as to declare, that there was not one dissentient voice as to the complete innocence of her Royal Highness. But the practical result might be expressed thus, "Madam, we have not been able to prove you guilty, and therefore we are compelled to consider you as innocent."—When a person of her rank was so treated, so tantalized with a mockery of justice, would any one say that it was not competent for that House to interfere, to urge the privy council to a more explicit decision, to urge the executive government to give effect to that decision? — The Princess had appealed to the House of Commons for redress, and surely the nature of that House was much changed, if when a secret investigation was again set on foot; if when witnesses were again privately examined, who had been publicly declared perjured, they could not interfere effectually for that purpose, not by exercising jurisdiction themselves; but by remonstrating against the abuse of it in others—by not suffering the government any longer to trifle with the feelings of her Royal Highness or the public. This was a privilege which they could always exercise in the case of the meanest individual, brought before any tribunal in this country. But on the supposition of the Princess being brought to a regular trial by her peers, the effect of these publications was to prejudge her in the eye of the public, to supersede the authority of the Minute of Council, and to revive all the old absurd gossiping charges, which had been exploded. He did not pretend to speak from his own knowledge, but there were strange rumours afloat. His Royal Highness might have had advisers—he suspected he had had bad advisers. He would suppose that he knew the person who advised the publication in question, and that the House knew him, would there be a doubt that they would condemn him, that they would pass the severest censure upon his conduct? But till they did know who the person was, they must, prima facie, charge this measure on the ministers. If it was not their doing, had they no suspicion, no means of ascertaining who was the real author?—People talked of conspiracies, of a conspiracy between the Douglases; but there might be conspiracies and collusion elsewhere. If the ministers were accessary to this act, there were no terms of execration strong enough to express his abhorrence of their conduct. If they will publish their own case, let them publish a case which they believe, not one which they have over and over again declared to be false, malicious and unfounded; if they will appeal to evidence, let them not appeal to that which they themselves declare to be perjured and degraded evidence, nor consider this as a necessary set-off against the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the privy council. With these floating rumours, with these contradictory opinions, with all these whisperings and conspiracies, and secret examinations, the character of the whole of the royal family was falling into contempt, and nobody could tell where it would end. He was not for prosecuting the printers of the papers, but thought that they ought to he called to the bar of the House, to answer by whose authority they had published the depositions before the privy council, and from whom they had received them. He should move this as an amendment to bit hon. friend's motion, if he were encouraged by the House.—[A cry of move, move!]

said, he should not object to withdraw his motion, to make room, for the amendment.

then moved, That the printer and publisher of the Morning Herald, and he afterwards added, and of the Morning Post, do attend at the bar of this House to-morrow, to answer to these questions.

The amendment having been put,

observed, that the hon. mover had been most unfortunate in not being able to get one person to support his motion. The hon. member had now abandoned it for the amendment of the right hon. gent, which amendment would not meet with his support, as he would not be accessary to the House exerting an act of authority which might be rendered nugatory by the individual refusing to answer. Upon this ground alone he would oppose it; but he was not aware of any good purpose any motion on the subject could answer, and he should therefore oppose all others of the same kind.

should vote for the motion, not on the views of the hon. mover: he did not wish to interfere in the unfortunate quarrel: he wished that the authority of that House should be exerted to prevent further disclosures. He feared that there was ground of apprehension that all were not yet published.

when this subject had been before submitted to the House, had expressed that he felt the greatest pain, and those feelings were not at all diminished by his disappointment in being again called on to discuss any thing connected with the present subject. The object he had in view was, to consider how this question could be most advantageously disposed of; the last motion had occurred to him; he had deliberated on it much; and upon as mature a consideration as the time had allowed, and upon the most impartial view he could take, he considered it as less objectionable than either of the other motions which had been submitted to the House; but he would wish that one more chance for conciliation were given by rejecting the present motion. At the same time he did not mean to impute the smallest blame to the hon. mover; he would bear his testimony, humble as it was, to the talents, the eloquence, and the temper with which he had brouight it forward. He would agree, that the atrocious publication, which had been so much animadverted upon, called for censure; but he hoped the hon. member would forgive him, if still he thought it expedient for all parties, and for the sake of quieting the agitation of the public and the country, that if possible the House should go through this trying crisis, without taking any step. Rut the patience of that House might be pushed too far, and even those who were at present the most unwilling, might feel it an imperious inevitable duty, if there should be a prolongation of the discussion out of doors, that an end should be put to the public anxiety, as Ho whether any proceedings were going on with a view to a further investigation of the Princess of Wales's conduct, and for that purpose, originate some proceedings in that House. He thought that this would be the case, if the present suspense of the public mind were continued much longer, if they were not suffered to know the real intentions and sentiments of ministers. He should not have risen to-night, had it not been for some allusion made to transactions in which he bore a part. As far as he was concerned, the minutes of the council in 1807 were a perfect acquittal. If any proceedings were instituted with a view to a further investigation, and if such proceedings were avowed, it was the duty of that House to abstain from all discussion on the subject as long as such proceedings were stated to exist. The House ought not to take any step without the most mature deliberation. If the printer should be called, no man could say to what it might extend: the object might be defeated by the contumacy of the individual; other gentlemen might call other printers, and the House might find itself involved in almost endless proceedings. However, the patience of the House must at length be exhausted, unless all parties should take a warning from the feeling expressed by the House, and a period should be put to that agitation which at present inflamed the public mind. A degree of responsibility had been stated to attach on all who were members of the cabinet of the duke of Portland. For himself, he would say, that his' conduct had been perfectly consistent: in 1807 he had raised his voice in the language of entreaty, of supplication, against the printing of the proceedings by his right hon. friend, in the vain hope of being afterwards able to suppress them. His uniform language had been, if you print you publish. Even the sacredness of private friendship gave way on such occasions, as was instanced in the case of a remarkable pamphlet of lord Bolingbroke's, which had been committed by him to Pope to have printed, with strict injunction to destroy all but one copy: but on the death of Pope, 1,500 were found in his closet. Such was the weakness of the holds on human confidence. Before that discovery, no person could have supposed that Pope would have betrayed his trust to his dearest friend. When the book was printed, he received a copy for his private perusal, as did all the other members of the cabinet. On the receipt of it, he wrote a note to his right hon. friend to the following effect:—"I have received the book. I am sorry it is printed. I feel assured that it will get into publication; and that it may not be supposed it happened through my copy, I now return it without breaking the seal."—As far as could appear from exparte, evidence, the innocence of the Princess of Wales from all crime was completely acknowledged. He was not the man to say that the House ought to interfere with the rights of the husband and of the father: these were merely domestic arrangements. Viewing the situation in which the matter stood, he was of opinion that every chance for conciliation had not been given. Had he been in the councils of the Prince of Wales when he became Regent, without restrictions, he should have exerted himself, not in the vain endeavour to do away personal dislikes, but to bring about such an arrangement as would have preserved the public feelings and public decency from being shocked, and he conceived that ministers must have been highly culpable, if, after the restrictions were taken off, they had made no such effort. Any person who would have tried, would not, he thought, have found it impracticable, and he hoped it had been attempted. It had been stated, that the exalted female, living in a retirement, without any of the insignia of royalty, had fallen into the hands of bad advisers. He should like to know whether she bad the choice of those who ought to have been her advisers. He should like to know whether there had been any thing like an agreement between the officers of the cabinet, to abstain from communication with the Princess of Wales. It there were such an agreement, it could not have been called for; it could not have been gratifying to the Prince of Wales; it must have been gratuitous; his noble and generous mind could never have required it. Not only the Princess, but every branch of the royal family, had a right to the advice of the executive officers. If that advice was refused, on those officers lay the responsibility of the Princess having fallen into improper hands. The letter which was the origin of all those disclosures—for he must be allowed to say, that it was the origin—was, he feared, an insuperable difficulty to conciliation. Until this night he was ignorant, that that letter was written in consequence of a renewed investigation. But whatever he might think of the prudence of writing such a letter, yet as coming from her Royal Highness, it was fit it should be read and answered, if there were the means of answering. That canting paragraph, as to confirmation, as it had been called by a noble lord, if it were not obtruded for the first time, as a make-weight in argument, as a flower of rhetoric, was important. Had it been answered immediately, instead of by the minute through the hands of lord Sidmouth, there might have been a chance of preventing the appeal to the public. The right hon. gent. concluded by expressing his hope that a speedy and satisfactory termination would be put to the discussions on this subject—discussions which overwhelmed the public in agitation, which were tainting the minds and morals of the present generation, and conveyed a legacy of impurity to posterity.

said, that such had been the tone and temper of the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), the appeared to have diffused throughout the House a feeling so desirable, that he would not take off, from its expression by indulging himself in any reply to the various animadversions which had been made upon his conduct in the course of the debate, although he flattered himself he could have replied to some of the speakers, and particularly to the learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) who had been so pointed in his defence of his deceased friend, with some severity and effect. But the conduct of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had been so plain, manly, and judicious, his authority, from the situation he "held in the cabinet of the year 1807, so great, and his verdict of acquittal so unequivocal and complete, that it would be injuring the cause he had espoused, if he were to say any thing more than was necessary to his own immediate vindication. Much had been said on the nature of his motion. He acknowledged it to be not only such as he was not desirous of making, but such, as he could have wished to have avoided. But this was one of those extreme cases, where extraordinary steps were not only justifiable, but necessary. He had intended to move for the prosecution of lady Douglas; that course, he was told by his learned friends, was inexpedient, if not impracticable. Perhaps it might be found impracticable, but, at all events, it was inexpedient, because if the matter could be brought to trial it might be impossible, from technical reasons, to obtain a Verdict, although the guilt of the party accused might be incontrovertible. Then the situation of the Princess of Wales would certainly be rendered worse, although her innocence would not be impeached. In these circumstances he had yielded to the opinions of his hon. friends, and had adopted the course which had been recommended by them. Not with a view to the punishment of any particular persons, but to obtain that end to which his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) had chalked out a shorter course, to make room for which he had withdrawn his own motion.

He was quite insensible to the paltry, petty, foolish reproving of his opponent upon his attack upon the liberty of the press, and such like stuff, and he was really glad to have afforded to the noble lord (Castlereagh) thereby his only resting place; when he got off that, he was floundering and flinging about in a very disastrous manner.

Upon the subject of a paper of which he had read parts, purporting to be the examination of Mrs. Lisle, he begged permission to state, that haying seen his learned friend (sir Samuel Romilly) in the act of bringing up a Bill just before I he rose to address the House, and having, as he believed, seen him in his place after he had begun to speak, he had no conception he was speaking in his absence.

The paper itself had not been communicated to him sufficiently in time for him to have made known its contents to the noble persons whom it concerned. The printed paper, said to be the deposition of Mrs. Lisle, might or might not be correct—he had it only from the newspapers. Such as it was, however, it had made an impression on the public which he thought unwarranted; and believing the questions and answers stated to have been correctly given in the paper placed in his hands, upon the assurance of the person who had so placed it, he should have deemed himself unjustifiable in withholding it, and worst of all, upon the ground of the noble lords in question being all of them persons for whom he had high personal respect. He was bound to deal with them as with the most determined political opponents in such a case. If, however, it should hereafter be proved to him that he had been imposed upon, he would as frankly and publicly acknowledge the imposture so practised upon him, as he had read and commented upon the paper itself. Respecting the proceedings of that night, he was again placed in a situation to make it unnecessary for him to take the sense of the House. The Princess of Wales had been declared innocent by general consent. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had consistently, manfully, and unequivocally declared her to be so. The Attorney General had repeated his declaration of her innocence. The learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) had said there could not be two opinions on the subject. The noble lord, with all change of phrase, had not retracted his former assertions respecting the witnesses, nor had he taken any thing from the value of his testimony to her complete innocence. No one had risen to accuse or give an opinion in the smallest degree differing from those strong individual verdicts in her favour. In these circumstances he should not take the sense of the House; he had rather rest upon the general feeling, and if he were to presume to advise her Royal Highness, it would be henceforward to despise all the publications which might be issued against her—to defy all secret inquiry, and to act as if she were not conscious of the exist- ence of either. To come forth in the way in which she was accustomed, and in which her circumstances enabled her to appear, without ostentation, but with the satisfaction of knowing that the sun shone upon a woman innocent and acknowledged to be so. He reverted to the circumstance of the cordiality and kindness expressed towards her invariably by the King, after the inquiry, and up to the last moment of his mental existence. His visit to Montague-house on the arrival of the duchess of Brunswick, and subsequent, and the unaltered affection of his manner. He again said, the moment of reconciliation could never be deemed passed, and expressed an earnest wish, for the sake of the parties, the throne, and the nation, that steps be taken to put an end to this dreadful national calamity, as it had now become. He was sure on one side, that prudent advice would be listened to, if any opening might be expected for its operation.

For his own part, unless some circumstances, novel and unexpected, should arise, he should never more move on the subject in parliament; and to the necessity of making the motion he had done, he was reduced by the conduct of the noble lord. Had the noble lord answered in the negative, that no inquiries were going on, he should have been content. Had he answered in the affirmative, it would have been proper to have waited for the result of those inquiries. His mysterious and inexorable silence had rendered the proceedings of that night indispensible.

The question being put, the motion was negatived without a division.