East Cliff in the evening, on which occasion captain Manby was not of the party, nor was he in the Downs-but it is very possible, that having prepared to set off early, I might have walked down towards the sea, and been seen by Fanny Lloyd. On the other occasion, captain Manby was to have been of the party, and it was to have been on board his ship. I desired him to be early at my house in the morning, and if the day suited me, we would go. He came; I walked with him towards the sea to look at the morning; I did not like the appearance of the weather, and did not go Upon either of these occasions Fanny Lloyd might have been called up to make breakfast, and might have seen me walking. As to the orders not having been given her over-night, to that I can say nothing. to sea. "But upon this statement, what inference can be intended to be drawn from this fact? It is the only one in which F. Lloyd's evidence can in any degree be applied to captain Manby, and she is one of the important witnesses referred to, as proving something which must, particularly as with regard to captain Manby, be credited till contradicted, and as deserving the most serious consideration. From the examination of Mrs. Fitzgerald I collect, that she was asked whether captain Manby ever slept in the house at East Cliff, to which she to the best of her knowledge, answers in the negative. Is this evidence, then, of Fanny Lloyd's relied upon to afford an inference that Captain Manby slept in my house; or was there at an improper hour? or in a manner, and under circumstances, which afforded reason for unfavourable interpretations? If this were so, can it be believed that I would, under such circumstances, have taken a step, such as calling for breakfast at an unusual hour, which must have made the fact more notorions and remarkable, and brought the attention of the servants, who must have waited at the breakfast, more particularly and pointedly to it? "But if there is any thing which rests, or is supposed to rest upon the credit of this witness though she is one of the four whose credit, your Majesty will recollect, it has been stated that there was no reason to question, yet she stands in a predicament in which, in general, at least, I had un derstood it to be supposed, that the credit of a witness was not only questionable, but materially shaken. For towards the beginning of her examination, she states that Mr. Mills attended her for a cold; he asked her if the Prince came to Blackheath 'backwards and forwards; or something to that effect; for the princess was with child; or looked as if she was with child. This must have been three or four years ago. She thought it must be some time before the child (W. Austin) was : brought to the princess. To this fact she positively swears, and in this she is as positively contradicted by Mr. Mills; for he swears, in his deposition before the commissioners, that he never did say to her, or any one, that the princess was with child, or looked as if she was with child :—that he never thought so or surmised any thing of the kind. Mr. Mills has a partner, Mr. Edmeades. The Commissioners, therefore, conceiving that Fanny Lloyd might have mistaken one of the partners for the other, examine Mr, Edmeades also. Mr. Edmeades, in his deposition, is equally positive that he never said any such thing-so the matter rests upon these depositions; and upon that state of it, what pre tence is there for saying, that a witness who swears to a conversation with a medical person, who attended me, of so extremely important a nature. and is so expressly and decidedly contradicted in the important fact which she speaks to, is a witness whose credit there appears no reason to question? This important circumstance must surely have been overlooked when that statement was made. Ma "But this fact of Mr. Mill's and Mr. Edmeades's contradiction of Fanny Lloyd appears to your jesty, for the first time, from the examination before the commissioners.-But this is the fact which I charge as having been known to those who are concerned in bringing forward this information. and which, nevertheless, was not communicated to your majesty. The fact that Fanny Lloyd declared, that Mr. Mills told her the princess was with child, is stated in the declarations which were delivered to his royal highness the prince of Wales, and by him forwarded to your majesty.—The fact that Mr. Mills denied ever having so said, though known at the same time, is not stated. "That I may not appear to have represented so strange a fact, without sufficient authority, I subjoin the declaration of Mr. Mills, and the deposition of Mr. Edmeades, which prove it. Fanny Lloyd's original declaration, which was delivered to his royal highness, is dated on the 12th of February. It appears to have been taken at the Temple; I conclude, therefore, at the chambers of Mr. Lowten, sir John Douglas's solicitor, who, according to Mr. Cole, accompanied him to Cheltenham to procure some of these declarations. On the 13th of February, the next day after Fanny Lloyd's declaration, the earl of Moira sends for Mr. Mills upon pressing business. Mr. Mills attends him on the 14th; he is asked by his lordship upon the subject of this conversation; he is told he may rely upon his lordship's honour, that what passed should be in perfect confidence; (a confidence which Mr. Mills, feeling it to be on a subject too important to his character, at the moment disclaims ;)-that it was his (the earl of Moira's) duty to his prince, as his |