« PoprzedniaDalej »
recollect, that on the 13th I returned my grateful thanks to your Majesty, for having ordered these papers to be sent to me.
Your Majssty will readily imagine that, upon a subject of such importance, I could not venture to trust only to my own advice; and those with whom I advised, suggested, that the written Declarations or Charges upon which the Inquiry had proceeded, and which the Commissioners refer to in their Report, and represent to be the essential foundation of the whole proceeding, did not accompany the Examinations and Report; and also that the papers themselves were not authenticated. I therefore ventured to address your Majesty, upon these supposed defects in the communication, and humbly requested that the copies of the papers, which I then returned, might, after being examined, and authenticated, be again transmitted to me; and that I might also be furnished with copies of the written Declarations so referred to in the Report. And my humble thanks are due for your Majesty's gracious compliance with my request. On the 29th of August I received, in consequence, the attested copies of those Declarations, and of a Narrative of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent; and a few days after, on the 3d of September, the attested copics of the Examinations which were taken before the Commissioners.
*The Papers which I have received are as follow:
* The Narrative of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, dated 27th of December, 1805.
A Copy of the written Declaration of Sir John and Lady Douglas, dated December 3, 1805.
A Paper containing the written Declarations, or Examinations, of the persons hereafter enumerated ;-The title to these Papers is,
“ For the purpose of confirming the Statement “made by Lady Douglas, of the circumstances « mentioned in her Narrative, The following ex“aminations have been taken, and which have “ been signed by the several persons who have " been examined"
Two of Sarah Lampert ;-one, dated Cheltenham, 8th January, 1806,- and the other, 29th March, 1806.
One of William Lampert, baker, 114, Cheltenham, apparently of the same date with the last of Sarah Lampert's.
Four of William Cole, dated respectively, 11th January 14th January, 30th January, and 23rd February, 1806.
One of Robert Bidgood, dated Temple, 4th April, 1806.
One of Sarah Bidgood, dated Temple, 23rd April, 1806; and
One of Frances Lloyd, dated Temple, 12th May, 1806.
* See Appendix (B).
The other Papers and Documents which ac: companied the Report, are,
1806. No. 29 May, 1. The King's Warrant or Commiss
sion. 1 June,
2. Deposition of Lady Douglas. 1 3.
of Sir John Douglas, 6 4.
of Robert Bidgood, 6 5.
of W. Cole. 6.
of Frances Lloyd. 7.
of Mary Wilson. 8.
of Samuel Roberts.
of Thomas Stikeman. 10.
of J. Sicard. 11.
of Charlotte Sander. 12.
of Sophia Austin. 13. Letter from Lord Spencer to
Lord Gwydir. 14.
from Lord Gwydir to
Lord Spencer. 21 15.
from Lady Willoughby to
Lord Spencer. 16. Extract from Register of Brown
low-street Hospital. 23 17. Deposition of Elizabeth Gosden. 23 18.
of Betty Townley. 25 19.
of Thomas Edmeades. 25 20.
of Samuel G. Mills. 27 21.
of Hariet Fitzgerald. 1 July, 22. Letter from Lord Spencer to
Lord Gwydir. * See Appendix (A)
3 July, 23. Letter from Lord Gwydir to
Lord Spencer 21. Queries to Lady Willoughby and
Answers. 25. Furtherdeposition of R.Bidgood. 3
26. Deposition of Sir F. Millman. 3 27.
of Mrs. Lisle. 28. Letter from Sir Francis Millman
to the Lord Chancellor. 16 29. Deposition of Lord Cholmon
30. The Report. By the Copy which I have received of the Commission, or Warrant, under which the Inquiry has been prosecuted, it appears to be an instrument under your Majesty's Sign Manual, not countersigned, not under any seal.-It recites, that 20 Abstract of certain written Declarations, touching my conduct (without specifying by whom those Declarations were made, or the nature of the matters, touching which they had been made, or even by whom the Abstract had been prepared,) had been laid before your Majesty; into the truth of which it purports to authorize the four, noble Peers, who are named in it, to inquire and to examine upon oath, such persons as they think fit; and to report to your Majesty the result of their Examination. By referring to the written Declarations, it appears that they contain allegations against me, amounting to the charge of High Treason, and also other matters, which, if understood
to be, as they seem to have been acted and reports, ed upon, by the Commissioners, not as evidence confirmatory (as they are expressed to be in their title) of the principal charge, but as distinct and substantive subjects of examination, cannot, as I am advised, be represented, as in law, amount. ing to crimes. How most of the Declarations referred to were collected, by whom, at whose solicitation, under what sanction, and before what persons, magistrates or others, they were made, does not appear. By the title, indeed, which all. the written Declarations, except Sir John and Lady Douglas's bear, viz. “That they had been taken for the purpose of confirming Lady Douglas's Statement,” it may be collected, that they had been made by her, or at least by Sir John Douglas's procurement. And the concluding pas sage of one of them, I mean the fourth declaration of W. Cole, strengthens this opinion, as it represents Sir John Douglas, accompanied by his Solicitor Mr. Lowten, to have gone down as far as Cheltenham for the examination of two of the witnesses whose declarations are there stated. I am, however, at a loss to know, at this moment, whom I am to consider, or whom I could legally fix, as iny false accuser. From the circumstance last mentioned, it might be inferred, that Sir John and Lady Douglas, or one of them, is that accuser. But Lady Douglas, in her written Declaration, so far from representing the information which she then gives, as moving voluntarily from herself,