of July, 1802; that in January, 1803, Lady Douglas visited the Princess at Montague House, and saw there a child lying upon a sofa, &c. : that in October, 1804, Lady D. returned from Devonshire, and left her card at Montague House, which was replied to by a letter from Mrs. Vernon, desiring her not to come there any more; that Lady Douglas had never at this time mentioned the Princess's being with child, or being delivered of a child, to any person, not even to Sir John Douglas, &c.

We must really apologize to the reader for recapitulating so much of a deposition, which we have already submitted to him in an abridged state. But it was necessary for us to do so, in order to show the gross, palpable, but at the same time, unintentional discrepancy, between the deposition and the statement. For the reader will now see, that this Lady Douglas, who considered herself "justified in informing his Royal Highness as to the actions of his wife

who seemed so likely to disturb the tranquillity of the country:"--this lady, who was of opinion "that His Royal Highness evinced his regard for the interest of the country, in endeavouring to prevent such a person from one day, perhaps, placing a spurious Heir upon the English Throne;"this woman who calls herself "an Englishwoman, educated in the highest respectful attachment to the Royal Family,—the daughter of an English officer, and the wife of an officer, &c. &c. ;-who is bound to the Royal Family by ties not to be broken, and who there

fore feels it her duty to make known the Princess of Wales's conduct and sentiments, whenever she may be called on:"—— -The reader

will see that this very woman professes herself to have been, for three years before, the confidante of all the intrigues, the amours, the vices, the disguises, of the Princess of Wales; declares, that in the contemplation of the Princess's approaching confinement, she was anxious, she hoped, that she would have a safe person to deliver her in secret;-acknowledges to have conferred and have advised with the Princess, upon the best and safest means of effecting such concealment; deposes to having held conversations with the Princess, so gross, that a prostitute might have blushed to avow them; and in conclusion, takes credit to herself, that down to October, 1804, she had never mentioned the Princess's being with child, or being delivered of a child,-to any person, not even to Sir John Douglas! Why, where was all this boasted attachment to the Royal Family; where this imperative sense of duty to his Royal Highness; -where all this lofty feeling of the daughter and the wife of English officers; where that affectionate respect to royalty, in which she had been educated ; -where, it will be asked, were all these, during the three years, in which she had been made the depository of so much crime, infamy, and obscenity?What was the talisman; what the what the magic power, which could dissolve, as if it were a spell, so long, so unreserved, so congenial an intimacy? Can it be

doubted by any reasonable man, that the letter written by Mrs. Vernon, forbidding her Montague House, as she should have been forbidden it before was the first affront which excited the fiend-like, the headstrong, the immortal vengeance of Lady Douglas?—— -A woman's vengeance, bent upon its gratification, at the expence of truth, honor, modesty, in short of all the world!

Having ventured to submit these observations relative to the depositions of Lady Douglas, we proceed to notice those of Robert Bidgood, and William Cole. And indeed we can do little more than notice them, seeing that they are so fully and so efficientlly replied to in the letter of her present Majesty, then Princess of Wales, that we have rather to refer our readers to those parts of that letter, (marked X, and which will be found at page 546,) that allude to these mens' depositions, than to offer our own suggestions; which, however entirely they would concur with the sentiments there expressed by Her Royal Highness, would, no doubt, be less forcibly expressed.

The first points to which Bidgood deposes, are meant to prove, among other things, "that Sir John and Lady Douglas were in the habit, as well as Sir Sydney Smith, whom he first observed at Montague House in 1802, of dining, or having luncheon, or supping there every day.”—A noble testimony this, to the honor, the gratitude, the devoted attachment of Lady Douglas, to that Royal Hostess, of whose bounty, thus affably

extended, she was in habits of daily participation. But to come to the principal facts of which Bidgood is the assertor.-It is charged by him, that one day, in 1802, he saw Sir Sydney Smith in the Blue Room, at 11 o'clock in the morning, which was very early,-at least two hours before they ever expected company. Hereupon he "asked the servants why they did not let him (Bidgood) know? They said they had let nobody in. There was a private door to the Park, by which he MIGHT have come in; for he could not have otherwise got into the Blue Room without passing through the house in such a manner that he must have been seen."-Now the reader will here observe, first of all, the gross insinuation which is meant to be conveyed against the Princess, by the observation that Sir Sydney was seen at so very early an hour. To strengthen this tacit accusation, it is next attempted to be shewn that none of the servants knew of the gallant officer's being there. Why this circumstance leaves, literally, nothing to be inferred; it amounts to a direct charge, that Sir S. Smith had slept that night at Montague House ;-what can it be made of but this, if Mr. Bidgood's statement of the fact be correct, and if his "might,”—his bold conclusion is warranted? But let us see whether this conclusion,-viz. that Sir Sydney came in, as Bidgood infers he might, "if he had a key to it," by the Park door, be warranted even by Bidgood's statement. Bidgood was induced to suppose that Sir Sydney must have entered the house clandestinely,

because, being surprized to find him in the Blue Room, "I asked," (he says) "the servants, why they did not let me know that he was there." Well,—what then?-and the footmen informed me that they had let no person in." Now it is most apparent, that the ground of Bidgood's inquiry was, a suspicion that Sir Sydney had not entered the house, by the usual access, (if he had indeed, entered it that morning at all.)-Undoubtedly, it was reasonable enough to apply to the "servants" to ascertain whether they had admitted the individual in question, and their answer might, perhaps, as reasonably have induced Bidgood to conclude, according as it was in the affirmative or the negative, that Sir Sydney had or had not entered by the usual door. But the reader cannot forget that the household of the Princess was rather a large one; that it consisted of very many servants; many of whom, it appears, by the depositions, were females. Now we would suggest two short and very plain questions:-1st. Does Mr. Bidgood mean to affirm that it was unlikely, impossible, or extraordinary that one of the many female domestics of the Princess might have opened the door to Sir Sydney, or to any body else?

2dly. How happens it, that, whereas he put the question to "the servants" generally, the footmen alone answered, and are alone intimated even to have answered? (one of these very men was William Cole, too, of whom we shall have next to speak.) As to those parts of Bidgood's evidence, which regard the occupation, &c. by