controul.

diate vicinity of the Canal; but the fact
was, they were not the persons who in-
troduced this measure.
On the contrary,
he had presented a Petition from 100
land-owners, whose estates were likely to
be affected by the clause. If therefore,
the maxim, volenti non fit injuria,' was a
just one, the Bill ought not to be permitted
to proceed farther. The persons sup-
posed to be injured did not complain; but
those, who might be considered the op-

against the clause, as it now stood, yet it | vested in any persons, without some proper was but just to observe, that many others had also petitioned for its continuance; Mr. Lewis contended, that no parliaand, indeed, the general impression of the mentary grounds had been shewn for county of Brecknock, which he had the bringing in this Bill, and, therefore, it must honour to represent, seemed to be in fa- be opposed on its principle. It was said vour of it, as it now stood; and in Radnor- that this Bill was necessary for the proshire and Herefordshire, a similar feeling.tection of the land-owners in the immeseemed to exist. However unpopular the Bill was, he thought it his duty to bring it forward, that its merits might be properly discussed, which alone could be done in the committee. He did not pledge himself either to support or oppose the Bill, but he thought it should go to the committee, where it could be properly considered. The Canal proprietors said, if the clause were suffered to remain, it would be injurious to their interests and the interests of the public. On the other hand, the land-pressors, were the persons who appeared owners denied the allegation, and contended, that the greater the number of rail roads the more traffic would be carried on through the medium of the Canal. It was, therefore, a matter of calculation, and more particularly called for a committee. Each of the parties accused the other of wishing to preserve a monopoly. For, his own part, he declared, if the Bill went to a committee, and either party made out a case of monopoly against the other, he should conceive it his duty to vote for that party who made good the accusation. Sir C. Morgan opposed the altering a clause in an act which had been passed twelve years ago, and which was not objected to till very recently. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, "That the Bill be read this day six months."

Lord Robert Seymour supported the motion. If the Bill were not sent to a committee, he did not know how he and other hon. members would be able to decide on the merits of a measure, on which such contradictory allegations had been made. If the Bill went to a committee, perhaps the clause might be so altered, as to meet the wishes of all parties.

to be dissatisfied; for the Canal Company, and not the land-owners, were the sup porters of the Bill.

Mr. J. P. Grant stated, that a Petition from 500 land-owners had been presented in favour of the Bill, and another from 100 land-owners, against it. Where there were such strong allegations on both sides, he thought the Bill ought to go to a committee.

Mr. T. Foley expatiated, at some length, on the benefits which would be derived from the act, as it at present stood: 45,000l. had been subscribed for making the canal from Brecknock; and those by whom this large sum had been laid down, had no idea of making an advantageous per-centage on it, but were influenced solely with the desire of benefiting the county, by bringing lime and coal (articles which were much wanted) into it, at a cheap rate. By the provisions of the act, they would be enabled to supply the town of Brecknock with coal and lime, from pits within eight miles of it; instead of going, as they must otherwise do, to the distance of 18 miles; the consequence must be, that coal, instead of 12s. would be sold at 15s. per ton; and lime, at 14s. instead of 10s. per waggon load. The persons who wished the alteration to be made, called on parliament to strike a clause out of an act they had themselves Mr. Harvey was of opinion that the procured, and desired gentlemen not to clause ought to be amended. As it at open the pits of lime and coal on their present stood, a rail-way might be car- own estates. They had, in the first inried through any gentleman's-garden, instance, availed themselves of the clause, spite of his representations against such a proceeding. The House, he hoped, would not consider this a proper liberty to be in

Mr. Protheroe opposed the Bill. He observed, that the value of estates in the neighbourhood of the Canal, chiefly depended on the continuance of the clause now about to be interfered with.

as far as it could be serviceable to them in their monopoly, and now they would fain interpose to prevent others from receiving

any benefit from it. He could very easily explain how so many land owners were induced to sign petitions in favour of the Bill. The persons who were interested under this eight mile clause, were those who had property on that side of the Canal, where the lime and coal-pits were. They wished the clause to remain as it was; but those land-owners who petitioned for its alteration, possessed property on the opposite side, where there were no pits, and consequently, they were not at all affected by the measure.

The House then divided, when there appeared-for the original motion, "That the Bill be now read a second time," 93; for the Amendment, "That it be read this day six months," 160; majority against the Bill 67.'

THE PRINCESS OF WALES.] Mr. Lygon moved, that strangers should not be re-admitted after the division on the Brecon Canal Bill.

Mr. Bennet moved an adjournment; first, because he wished it to appear, that when one member exercised an acknowledged right of excluding strangers, another member exercised a right equally undisputed, that of moving an adjourn ment and secondly, because he owed it to himself, as a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke) had uttered an indiscreet menace on the preceding evening: he should not however press his motion to a division if contrary to the sense of the House.

The question of adjournment being put was negatived without a division.

solutions, as he had done to the ministers he had consulted no one-he did not even know that there was a member in the House who would second his motion, The hon. member proceeded to_ob. serve, that it was well known that a Commission had been granted by the King in 1806 to four noble lords, Grenville, Spencer, Erskine, and Ellenborough, to examine into certain allegations that had been preferred against the Princess of Wales. He then read the whole of the Report made by the Commissioners above stated, containing the most unqualified opinion, that the charge produced by sir John and lady Douglas, against the Princess of Wales, of having been deliver. ed of a child in the year 1802, was utterly destitute of truth. It added, that the birth and real mother of the child, said to have been born of the Princess, had been proved beyond all possibility of doubt. The Report concluded with some objections made by the Commissioners, to the manners, or to levity of manners, upon different occasions, in the Princess.

The hon. member next proceeded to state, that the paper he should now read was a document which he was ready to prove at the bar of the House, was dictated by lord Eldon, Mr. Perceval, and sir Thomas Plomer, though signed by the Princess of Wales; it was a letter written, or purporting to be written, by her Royal Highness to the King, on the 9th of October, 1806, as a Protest against the Report of the Commissioners, just detailed; the letter being read at length appeared to be a formal and elaborate criticism upon the nature of the commission under which her conduct had been reviewed; it asserted in the most unqualified terms her own in

Mr. Cochrane Johnstone then rose in pursuance of his notice, and said, that it was the undoubted right of the hon. member (Mr. Lygon) to act as he had done, in clearing the House of strangers: if, how-nocence, and called the charges of her acever, this precaution had been taken under the impression that any thing he had to say would be unbecoming the respect he owed to that House, or inconsistent with what was due to the feelings of every branch of the royal family, such apprehensions were utterly unfounded. He thought it a duty he owed, in the first instance, to the Princess of Wales, to declare, that for the motion he was about to submit, he had no authority from her, he had had no communication with any person or persons whatsoever, and that the proceeding originated entirely and exclusively with himself. He had had no communication with the Princess of Wales, further than to send her a copy of the Re

cusers a foul conspiracy, made ex-parte, and affording no appeal. In this letter, the Princess of Wales threw herself and the honour of her family on the justice of the King-her honour and her life being at the mercy of the malice and foul perjuries of her accusers-she complained of the ex-parte recrimination, and of the manner and way in which the charges were credited. After some interval of painful suspence, and hearing from various and anonymous letters, that an accusation was preferred against her-the duke of Kent announced to her Royal Highness the near approach of two attornies to take away, by a warrant, half of her family, in order to examine them as evidence on the

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 signed 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 truths of certain written declarations, communicated to his Majesty by his royal highness the Prince of Wales, touching the conduct of her royal high

charge-the only request she made was to request the duke of Kent to remain in the room with her till her servants were gone, for fear she should be suspected of holding any conversation with them. Upon this letter being read, the hon. member observed, that he fully concurred in the sentiments it expressed upon the subject of the commission, and he insisted that the charge against the Princess before that tribunal, by sir John and lady Douglas, was nothing short of treason; that if the Commissioners had power to acquit her Royal Highness of the crime charged, they had equally the power to convict her; what was the state of that country in which such a thing were even possible? He declared, that in his opinion the noble lords had no authority to give a judgment on the occasion-they had no right to pronounce an acquittal, for they had no right to find a verdict of guilty-ness the Princess of Wales. as a question of law, the matter was left "That the said Commissioners, in puras the Commissioners found it. Besides, suance of the said authority and direche inquired what became of sir John and tion, did enter into an examination of lady Douglas? If he was rightly informed, several witnesses, and that they delivered they still persisted in the same story, but to his Majesty a Report of such examinaif all they maintained were so notoriously tion, and also of their judgment on the false, why were they not prosecuted? The several parts alledged against her Royal hon. member went on to remark, that he Highness; which Report, signed by the understood no proceedings of the late four Commissioners aforesaid, and dated privy council, except the Report, had on the 14th of July, 1806, was accompabeen transmitted to the Princess of Wales. nied with copies of declarations, examinaThis was the case in 1806, but he sub-tions, depositions, and other documents on mitted that copies of all those examina- which it was founded. tions should be given to her. As to the "That it has been stated to this House, minor charges, he should be silent about in manner aforesaid, that the said written them-it was the duty of ministers to accusations against her Royal Highness transmit to the Princess of Wales the expressly asserted, That her Royal Highfresh informations they had taken.-Heness had been pregnant in the year 1802, recommended the case to be tried by the in consequence of an illicit intercourse, whole privy council, and that the present and that she had in the same year been ministers should not be of the number; secretly delivered of a male child, which after the discussion that the Princess had child had ever since that period been provoked, if she should then be injured, brought up by her Royal Highness in her she would have herself alone to blame. own house, and under her immediate inThe hon. member concluded by moving spection.' the following Resolutions:

"That the Report farther stated, that Resolved, I. "That from disputes the Commissioners first examined on oath touching the succession to the throne, the principal informants, sir John Douglas, bitter public animosities, tumultuous con- and Charlotte, his wife, who both particu tentions, long and bloody civil wars, have,larly swore, the former to his having obat various periods of the history of this served the fact of the pregnancy of her kingdom, arisen, causing great misery to Royal Highness, and the other to all the the good people thereof, grief and afflic-important particulars contained in former tion 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

declarations, and before referred to, and that the Report added, that the examinations are annexed to the Report, and are circumstantial and positive.'

"That the Commissioners, after the

above statements, proceeded in their said Report to state to his Majesty that they thought it their duty to examine other witnesses as to the facts in question, and that they stated, as the result of such far ther examination, their perfect conviction that there is no foundation whatever for believing that the child now with the Princess is the child of her Royal Highness, or that she was delivered of any child in 1802, or that she was pregnant in that year,' and that the Commissioners added, That this was their clear and unanimous judgment, formed upon full deliberation and pronounced without hesitation, on the result of the whole inquiry.'

to the alleged illicit intercourse of her royal highness the Princess of Wales.

"That in any claim to the succession to the throne, which, by possibility, at least, may hereafter be set up, by any aspiring personage possessed of great power, the circumstantial and positive evidence of sir John Douglas, and of Charlotte, his wife, if again called for, would still retain all its legal character and weight, while it might happen, that the evidence on the other side might, from death or other causes, be found deficient; and that there can be no doubt that if it should hereafter be made to appear that the facts sworn to by lady Douglas are true, and if the identity of the male child so born should be proved, he would be "That the noble lords composing the the legal heir to the throne, notwithstandCommission aforesaid had not, and coulding any assertions, or any proofs, relating not, in that capacity, have any legal power to pronounce a judgment or decision in the case, that the matter of charge sub- "That therefore the honour of her royal mitted to them as a subject of inquiry, highness the Princess of Wales, the sacred amounted to a charge of high treason, a right of the Princess Charlotte of Wales, crime known to the laws, and therefore the safety of the throne, and the tranquilliable only in a known court of justice;lity of the country, do all unite, in most that if, as justices of the peace (a charac-imperious call on this House, to institute ter belonging to them as privy counsellors) they were competent to receive informations and take examinations regarding the conduct of her Royal Highness, they had no legal power in that capacity or in any other capacity that could be given to them, 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 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 Commissioners to have taken them in their capacity as justices of the peace) possess a legal character; but that no legal decision has been made upon any of the important facts stated in these depositions and examinations, and that it has not yet been legally decided that the fact positively sworn to, of her Royal Highness having been delivered of a male child in the year 1802, is not true.

now, while the witnesses on both sides are still living, and while all the charges are capable of being clearly established, or clearly disproved, an ample and impartial investigation of all the allegations, facts, and circumstances appertaining to this most important subject of inquiry.

"Resolved, II. That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, requesting that his Royal Highness will be graciously pleas ed 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, earl 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 said 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 Cheltenham, 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 Jan. 14th Jan. 30th Jan. 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,

Mr. John Wharton seconded the motion. Lord Castlereagh rose and said, he felt that he should act most consistently with his duty in confining himself to explanation, with respect to parts of the hon. member's speech, which would tend to guard the House against those false impressions which that speech might other-racter and high legal qualifications, were wise excite. The mode of proceeding adopted by the hon. member was somewhat singular. His first Resolution was, in fact, even in his own view of it, without any proof. His second Resolution called for those very papers, as matters of information on which his first Resolution was founded; as if they were matters of certain knowledge. He did not mean to urge (VOL. XXIV.)