any cause, the Princess might still have had reason to complain of the hardship; but she would have had no ground whereon to found a new complaint of an aspersion upon her character. The Report, on the contrary, by bringing forward the documents of 1806, and also other documents and evidence as the cause of the restraint, certainly called for that reply which the Princess gave in her Letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons. She there calls for the interference of Parliament; she says that she has not been permitted to know who have been her accusers; that she has not been allowed to be heard in her defence; and that, while she is told in this Report, that certain documents and evidence have formed the ground of an opinion that her intercourse with her child ought to be subject to regulation and restraint, she is not suffered to know what those documents and that evidence are. Therefore, she throws herself on the wisdom and justice of Parliament; she earnestly desires a full investigation of her conduct during the whole period of her residence in this country; she says, she fears no scrutiny however strict, provided it be conducted by impartial judges, and in a fair and open manner, according to law; and she concludes with expressing a wish, which every just man in the world will say ought to be complied with; namely, that she may be TREATED AS INNOCENT, or PROVED TO BE GUILTY. produce fresh inquiry. The resolutions were as follows: MR. C. JOHNSTONE'S RESOLUTIONS. 1. Resolved, That, from the disputes touching the succession to the throne, bitter public animosities, tumultuous contentions, long and bloody civil wars, have, at various periods of the history of this kingdom, arisen, causing great misery to the good people thereof, grief and affliction to the Royal Family, and in some cases exclusion of the rightful Heir.That, therefore, loyalty and affection towards the Sovereign, and a just regard to the happiness of the people, call upon every subject of this realm, and upon this House more especially, to neglect nothing within their power to prevent the recurrence of similar calamities from a similar cause. That it has been stated to this House by a Member thereof, who has offered to prove the same by witnesses, at the bar of this House, that, in the year 1806, a Commission was issued under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, authorizing and directing the then Lord Chancellor, Erskine, Earl Spencer, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Grenville, the then First Lord of the Treasury, and the then and present Lord Chief Justice, Ellenborough, to inquire into the truth of certain written declarations, communicated to His Majesty by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, touching the conduct of Her Royal When this letter was read to the House Highness the Princess of Wales.That of Commons the ministers were asked, the said Commissioners, in pursuance of whether they meant to propose the adop- the said authority and direction, did enter tion of any proceeding upon it, or to enter into an examination of several witnesses, into any explanations. This they declined and that they delivered to His Majesty a upon the ground, that as a motion was report of such examination, and also of speedily to be proposed by Mr. Cochrane their judgment of the several parts alleged Johnstone, relative to the Princess, it against Her Royal Highness, which Rewould be best to defer all discussion upon port, signed by the four Commissioners the subject till that motion should be made. aforesaid, and dated on the 14th of July, The motion was made, in two days after- 1806, was accompanied with copies of the wards, and a very long debate took place; declarations, examinations, depositions, and but, the moment Mr. Cochrane Johnstone other documents on which it was founded. rose to make his motion, another motion-That it has been stated to this House, was made for putting out all persons in the gallery and shutting the doors. This measure might be very proper; but I wish you to observe, that Mr. Cochrane Johnstone expressed his disapprobation of it. He, at any rate, did not wish to keep secret any thing that might transpire; any thing that might be said by any body. Indeed, as will be seen from his resolutions, a copy of which I am now about to insert, he, like the Princess herself, wished to in manner aforesaid, that the said written accusations against Her Royal Highness expressly asserted, That Her Royal Highness had been pregnant in the year 1802, in consequence of an illicit intercourse, and that she had in the same year been secretly delivered of a male child, which child had ever since that period been brought up by Her Royal Highness in her own house, and under her immediate inspection.That the Report further stated, that the Commis sioners 'first examined on oath the principal | sioners to have taken them in their capacity informants, Sir John Douglas and Charlotte of Justices of the Peace) possess a legal his wife, who both positively swore, the character; but that no legal decision has former to his having observed the fact of the yet been made upon any of the important pregnancy of Her Royal Highness, and the facts stated in these depositions and examiother to all the important particulars contain- nations, and that it has not yet been legally ed in her former declaration, and before re- decided that the fact positively sworn to, ferred to,' and that the Report added, that of Her Royal Highness having been delithe examinations are annexed to the Report, vered of a male child in the year 1802, is and are circumstantial and positive.- not true. -That in any claim to the sucThat the Commissioners, after the above cession to the Throne, which, by possibistatements, proceeded in their said Report lity, at least, may hereafter be set up, by to state to His Majesty that they thought it any aspiring personage possessed of great their duty to examine other witnesses as to power, the circumstantial and positive evithe facts in question, and that they stated, dence of Sir John Douglas, and of Charas the result of such farther examination, lotte his wife, if again called for, would 'their perfect conviction that there is no still retain all its legal character and foundation whatever for believing that the weight, while it might happen, that the child now with the Princess is the child of evidence on the other side might, from Her Royal Highness, or that she was deli- death or other causes, be found deficient; vered of any child in 1802, or that she and that there can be no doubt that if it was pregnant in that year,' and that the should hereafter be made to appear, that Commissioners added, That this was their the facts sworn to by Lady Douglas are true, clear and unanimous judgment, formed and if the identity of the male child so upon full deliberation, and pronounced born should be proved, he would be the without hesitation, on the result of the legal heir to the throne, notwithstanding whole inquiry.That the Noble Lords any assertions, or any proofs, relating to the composing the Commission aforesaid had alleged illicit intercourse of Her Royal not, and could not, in that capacity, have Highness the Princess of Wales.That, any legal power to pronounce a judgment therefore, the honour of Her Royal Highor decision in the case; that the matter of ness the Princess of Wales, the sacred right charge submitted to them as a subject of in- of the Princess Charlotte of Wales, the quiry amounted to a charge of high treason, safety of the throne, and the tranquillity of a crime known to the laws, and, therefore, the country, do all unite, in a most impetriable only in a known Court of Justice; rious call on this House, to institute now, that if, as Justices of the Peace, (a charac- while the witnesses on both sides are still ter belonging to them as Privy Councillors), living, and while all the charges are capathey were competent to receive informations ble of being clearly established, or clearly and take examinations regarding the con- disproved, an ample and impartial investiduct of Her Royal Highness, they had no gation of all the allegations, facts, and cirlegal power in that capacity, nor in any cumstances appertaining to this most imporother capacity that could be given to them, tant subject of inquiry. to pronounce an acquittal or a condemnation upon the charge referred to them; for that, to admit them to have been competent to acquit, is to admit them competent to have found guilty, and this would be to admit their competence to have sent Her Royal Highness to an ignominious death, in virtue of a decision founded on selected ex parte evidence, taken before a secret tribunal. -That the whole Report, as far as it relates to the judgment of the Commissioners, (if the making of it be not an unlawful act), is, at least, of no legal validity, and, in the eye of the law, leaves the question of the guilt or innocence of Her Royal Highness where the Commissioners first found it; that the depositions and examinations upon oath (supposing the Commis II.-RESOLVED, That an humble address be presented to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, requesting that His Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to order, that a copy of a Report made to His Majesty on the 14th day of July, 1806, by the then Lord Chancellor, Erskine, Eart Spencer, Lord Grenville, and Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, touching the conduct of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, be laid before the House, together with the copies of the following written documents annexed to the Report, namely,' The Narrative of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, dated the 27th of December, 1805. Two written Declarations, or Examinations, of Sarah Lampert; one dated Chel tenham, 8th of January, 1806, and the other the 29th of March, 1806. One of Mr. Lampert, baker, Cheltenham, same date with the last. Four of William Cole, dated 11th January, 14th January, 30th January, and 23d February, 1806. One of Robert Bidgood, dated Temple, 4th April, 1806. One of Sarah Bidgood, dated Temple, 23d April, 1806. One of Frances Lloyd, dated Temple, 12th May, 1806. The King's Warrant for holding the Commission, dated the 29th May, 1806. Deposition of Lady Douglas, dated the 1st of June, 1805. Deposition of Sir John Douglas, dated the 1st of June, 1806. Deposition of Robert Bidgood, dated the 6th of June, 1806. Deposition of William Cole, dated the 6th June, 1806. Deposition of Frances Lloyd, dated the 7th of June, 1806. Deposition of Mary Wilson, dated the 7th of June, 1806. Deposition of Samuel Roberts, dated the 7th of June, 1806. Deposition of Thomas Hikeman, dated the 7th of June, 1806.1 Deposition of J. Picard, dated the 7th of June, 1806. Deposition of Sophia Austin, dated the 7th of June, 1806. Deposition of Sir Francis Milman, dated 3d of July, 1806. Deposition of Mr. Lisle, dated 3d July, 1806. Letter from Sir Francis Milman to the Lord Chancellor, dated 4th July, 1806. Deposition of Lord Cholmondeley, dated 6th July, 1806. The debate upon these resolutions, appears to have been of great length; but as the galleries were shut, a mere sketch of it has gone forth to the world. That sketch, however, (which I have inserted below) will shew, that, in whatever degree the different speakers might vary in their opinions as to other points, they were all perfectly of accord, that there existed no grounds of charge against the mother who was restricted in her visits to her only child. The Honourable mover of the re solutions said there may exist doubts, as to the innocence of the Princess; if not at this time, there may hereafter exist doubts with regard to that innocence; and, therefore, while all the witnesses are alive, while all the testimony is forth coming, while all the means of proof are at hand, let us inquire, and for ever put an end to these doubts, and to the possibility of doubt. No, no, no, said the ministers, the innocence of the Princess is so clearly established; all the charges against her so manifestly void of foundation, that inquiry is not only not nee cessary, but that to inquire would be doing Letter from Lord Spencer to Lord Gwy-injustice to the Princess, by seeming to allow dir, 20th of June, 1806. Letter from Lord Gwydir to Lord Spencer, 20th of June, 1806. Letter from Lady Willoughby to Lord Spencer, 21st of June, 1806. that there are persons in the world who still entertain a doubt of her innocence. MR. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE might well say that the day on which he made his motion was a proud day for him. It was Extracts from the Register of Brownlow-so, but it was a still prouder day for the street Hospital, dated 23d of June, 1806. Deposition of Elizabeth Gosden, dated 23d of June, 1806. Deposition of Betty Townley, dated 25th of June, 1806. Deposition of Thomas Edmonds, dated 25th of June, 1806. Deposition of Samuel G. Mills, 25th of June, 1806. dated Deposition of Hamit Fitzgerald, dated 27th of June, 1806. Letter from Lord Spencer to Lord Gwydir, dated 1st of July, 1806. Princess of Wales, who, at the end of seven years of calumny, of base parasitical slander, heard herself pronounced innocent and her traducers pronounced perjured, and that, too, by the chosen ministers, by the confidential Servants, by the advisers of the Prince her husband, This discussion in the House of Commons has, in the minds of all men of common sense, settled the question. There are still some persons to throw out insinuations against Her Royal Highness; but these are so notoriously the panders of mean Letter from Lord Gwydir to Lord Spen-hatred, cowardly analice, despicable im cer, dated 3d July, 1806. Query to Lady Willoughby, and Answer, dated 3d of July, 1806, Farther Depositions of Robert Bidgood, dated 3d of July, 1806, potence, and of every thing that is vile in man, aye, in the meanest of mankind, that no one pays the smallest attention to what they say. Whether the parliament may think it they spoke of her in terms the most con temptuous, they affected to pity her for having been so weak as to call for fresh in meet to adopt any proceeding upon the sub- of Labrador. Talk of LIBELS, indeed! ject; whether they may think it right, in What libels has she not had to endure? the way of address or otherwise, to inter- A month has not passed over our heads fere in behalf of the Princess, I cannot since the writers in the Courier and Times pretend to say, and they are a body far too newspapers poured forth libels against her, wise for me to presume to offer them any which no private person would have suf thing in the way of advice; but, I have no fered to pass without prosecution. They scruple to say, that I think it a fit occasion called her rash, foolish, and with an inso for the people, assembled in a constitutional lent affectation of compassion, pointed her manner, to prove, by some solemn decla-out as seduced and unfortunate. In short, ration of their sentiments, that they still retain that love of justice and that hatred of false accusation, which were formerly prominent features in the character of Eng-quiry into her conduct, which conduct they Jishmen. As to the precise way in which they ought to do this, it is not for me to point out; but, the way will not be difficult to discover by men of proper feeling and of just minds. It is now seven years since these calumnies were first circulated against the Princess of Wales; and, now, that they are all shewn to have been false, now, that we are fully able to estimate all her sufferings and her long forbearance, it would be a shame indeed, if there were none to be found amongst us to shew that we feel for her as we ought. The people have not, indeed, the power to punish her traducers; they have not the power to replace her in Carlton House; they have not the power to give her admission to her daughter; but they have the power to shew to all the world, and to that daughter in particular, that they are lovers of Justice, and that they hold in abhorrence false accusers, cowardly and malicious calumni-forget the praises we then bestowed upon ators. had the impudence unequivocally to describe Besides the justice due to the Princess, we ought to consider the light in which we as a nation, shall appear, in this instance, in the eyes of the world. It will not be forgotten with what addresses, what speeches, what exhibitions, what acclamations of joy this lady was received upon her arrival in England. The world will not her, and even the gratitude we expressed In the case of the Princess of Wales there at her having condescended to become inis every thing to excite a feeling in her strumental in the happiness of ourselves favour. In the first place, we see that it and our posterity: and, the world will was owing to no fault of hers that her hus- not fail to remark, that the commencement band's palace was no longer her place of of the calumnies against her, that the perabode. In the next place we see false and juries by which she was traduced took infamous accusations trumped up against place in a very few months after her father her, and the tongue of calumny let loose, was killed, and his successors bereft of while she was destitute of all the means of their dominions! I will not impute even defence, having by her counsellors, been to perjured wretches the baseness of choosprevented from making public the refuta- ing such a time for the making of their attion of charges, the substance of which tack; but the fact, as to the time, is as I charges, unaccompanied with any answer, have stated it; and most assuredly the bad gone forth to the world. Lastly, we change produced by the events here spoken see her denied the sight of her daughter of, in the circumstances of her family, except once in a fortnight, while even the must have great weight in the mind of eveadvisers of the Prince declare her to be in-ry considerate person. The more destitute Docent and her traducers to be perjured. Such is briefly the state of her case, and I say, for the whole nation to remain silent, for no part of the people to give utterance to any feeling for her would justify the opinion, that Englishmen have less sensibility than the half-frozen inhabitants of the coast she is of the means of protection from any other quarter, the stronger is her claim on the people of England; and I cannot help repeating my opinion, that if the occasion be suffered to pass without some testimony of public feeling in her favour, it will be a great and lasting reproach to this nation. This interference on the part of the people is the more necessary, and at the same time more likely to be proper, as both the great political factions have left Her Royal Highness to her fate, or, rather, have, each in its turn, been her enemies. Nay, they have not only by turns disclaimed her cause; but they have both of them accused her of having resorted to the support of the "enemies of social "order and regular government;" that is to say, men who meddle with politics without pocketing, or wishing to pocket, the public money. These are, in our country, called Jacobins and friends of Buonaparte; and to these men the factions, who fight for the public money, have accused the Princess of resorting for advice and support. If this accusation be true (and I have no inclination to deny it), it appears that she has not made a bad choice at last. She has not been betrayed this time, at any rate. Until now her conduct has been an object of calumny with her enemies and of suspicion with many good people; but, by following the advice of the Jacobins, she has silenced the former If and removed the doubts of the latter. her husband were to take a little advice from the same source, it would, I am perThe suaded, be full as well for him. -Princess has, in fact, made her appeal to the people. She has published her complaint. She has called upon the people for their opinion upon the merits of her case; and, though that opinion has been pronounced without hesitation in private, it wants, in order to give it its full effect, to be expressed in a public, solemn, and authentic manner. In a future Letter it will give me great pleasure to tell you that this has been done; and, in the meanwhile, I remain your faithful friend, Wч. COBBETT. REPORT (Copied from the Times News-paper of the 6th Of a Debate in the House of Commons on [N.B. I insert this Report just as I find it printed; but, I think it right to observe, that it is said to be a very imperfect sketch of the real debate; and I think it my duty to state most distinctly,—that I do not impute perjury to Lady or Sir John Douglas; I merely show what other editors have pub lished; and I further say, that I think the public should wait and HEAR Sir John and Lady Douglas, before it makes up its mind as to the guilt of either of them.] MR. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE then rose. gone beyond their authority, in pronounc- |