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 1 received in 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 3rd of September, the attested copies 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 3rd December, 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 exa"minations 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 of 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, and one of Frances Lloyd, dated Temple, 12th May, 1806."

[The other papers and documents we have already recapitulated at Page 520.]

"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 an 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, amount

ing to the charge of High Treason, and also other matters, which, if understood to be, as they seem to have been acted and reported 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, amounting 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 passage 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 my 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,

expressly states that she gives it under the direct command of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and the papers leave me without information, from whom any communication to the Prince orignated, which induced him to give such commands.

"Upon the question how far the advice is agreeable to law, under which it was recommended to Your Majesty to issue this warrant, or commission, not countersigned, nor under seal, and without any of Your Majesty's advisers therefore, being on the face of it, responsible for its issuing, I am not competent to determine. And undoubtedly considering that the two high legal authorities, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, consented to act under it, it is with the greatest doubt and diffidence, that I can bring myself to express any suspicion of its illegality. But if it be, as I am given to understand it is, open to question, whether, consistently with law, Your Majesty should have been advised to command by this warrant or commision, persons (not to act in any known character, as Secretaries of State, as Privy Counsellors, as Magistrates otherwise

em

powered; but) to act as Commissioners, and under the sole authority of such warrant, to inquire (without any authority to hear and determine any thing upon the subject of those inquiries), into the known crime of High Treason, under the sanction of oaths, to be administered by them, as such Commissioners, and to report the result thereof to Your Majesty; if, I say, there can

ing to the charge of High Treason, and also other matters, which, if understood to be, as they seem to have been acted and reported 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, amounting 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 passage 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 my 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,