evidence. He should have thought that his professional character, his situation in life, the rank he had held, might have been enough to wipe away every stigma.-If magistrates were not permitted to put leading questions to witnesses, very fatal consequences might follow.

Lord Grenville and earl Spencer expressed themselves in milder terms than the lord chief justice, but to the same effect.

Earl Moira denied that he had covertly sought evidence on the subject alluded to. He not only never spontaneously sought information, but he had never been instigated so to do. His inquiries having led him to believe that the statement was unfounded, he had reported that no further proceedings were necessary. The commission of inquiry was not appointed until three years after. He characterized Mary Lloyd as an unwilling witness, and declared that the examination of Drs. Mills and Edmeades at his house was to prevent publicity as much as possible.

March 22.-Mr. Whitbread, in the house of commons, begged to say a few words relative to some parts of his speech in the house on a former evening. From what he had just heard, it had been stated elsewhere (see report of the house of lords), by a high and grave authority, that what he read to the house on a former night, as a copy of the evidence of Mrs. Lisle, was wholly fabricated and false. From the account which he had just received, it appeared that the truth of this evidence was disclaimed by all the noble commissioners; from which it would appear that he had been imposed upon. But before he would declare his settled opinion to the house, on that point, he wished

also to learn what was the declaration of the witness herself (Mrs. Lisle) on the subject. He was anxious to know whether she considered it a fabrication; and would not wholly disbelieve it, until that was ascertained. He would say, for his own part, that he neither sought or bought this evidence; and that it was not sent to him by the princess of Wales herself, or officially in her name. He would, therefore, suspend his opinion, until he could procure further information.

Mr. Tierney was sorry for the course adopted by his honourable friend, and regretted his intention of postponing his declaration till he should hear from Mrs. Lisle.

Mr. Whitbread said, that he had come to the resolution of postponement, on mature deliberation, nor should he now depart from it. He would to-morrow send the evidence to Mrs. Lisle, and on Wednesday evening, as an honourable member's motion stood for that night, (Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's) would declare his further sentiments, should he by that time hear from Mrs. Lisle. But should the honourable member delay or postpone his motion, he would take an early opportunity of declaring whether he had been grossly imposed upon, as had been asserted. If he was imposed upon, the gentleman who gave him this evidence was so likewise; and it would be time enough to make the declaration when he had it in his power to do so with truth.

Mr. Bathurst said, the course pursued by the honourable gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), instead of furthering the cause of justice, as the honourable gentleman expressed, and as it was natural to suppose his object should be, went, if counF 4 tenanced,

tenanced, to overturn one-half of the judicial proceedings of this country. Did not the honourable gentleman know that in many instances, at the quarter-sessions particularly, where the honourable gentleman himself was in the habit of attending, the answers only, and not the questions, were taken down in writing? Was it not also a fact, that the judges, in recapitulating the evidence to juries, gave the answers only, and in no one instance both questions and answers? Yet what said the honourable gentleman now? That he would not pay respect to the declaration of all the four noble lords who had acted as commissioners on the occasion alluded to; but that he would wait till he was satisfied by the declaration of Mrs. Lisle, not made under the sanction of an oath, as her deposition already referred to had been. The honourable gentleman had read the paper in question, not knowing that it had come from Mrs. Lisle. The four noble lords utterly disclaimed it, and declared it to be a fabrication, and it did not appear that Mrs. Lisle set it up as being true. Instead of the honourable gentleman being surprised that the paper had been so long in being disclaimed, he (Mr. Bathurst) thought he might rather have been led to the conclusion that it was an imposition, from seeing that it had not yet been authenticated in any shape. It appeared to him (Mr. Bathurst) that the honourable gentleman did not consult his usual judgement in keeping this matter pending, seeing that the paper could never be authenticated, and that, at the least, if Mrs. Lisle should say that certain questions had been put to her, it would only be the recollection of the witness setting up

the questions as well as the answers. In only one single point, the honourable member had said, the deposition, and the paper from which he had read the questions and answers, did not agree: and was this paper, he asked, to be taken in direct contradiction to the testimony of Mrs. Lisle, as taken down by the commissioners; read over by them to the witness; and, on due deliberation, authenticated by her signature? This proceeding on the part of the honourable gentleman, he was sorry to think, was one of the most extraordinary which had arisen out of this most unfortunate discussion.

Mr. Whitbread declared, whatever might be said on the subject should not change his determination.

March 23.-Mr. Whitbread rose and said, he begged permission to mention what had passed, in consequence of the step he had taken, relative to a certain paper, from which he had read parts a few nights ago, concerning the exarpinations into the conduct of the princess of Wales. As much misrepresentation had gone abroad, as to the manner in which he had read those passages, and commented upon them, he must take the liberty of recalling to the recollection of the house, that in the comments which he had felt himself justified in making on the examination of Mrs. Lisle, he did not vouch for the authority of the paper which he then quoted; but only stated, that from the manner in which he received it, he had reason to believe in its authenticity. He had stated that copies of the depositions had been published; and that he understood that many of those copies published in the newspapers were

incorrect.

ircorrect. He had also stated further, that it was his opinion, that if the questions which were put to Mrs. Lisle, according to the paper he had read, had been published along with the deposition, the unfavourable impressions against the princess of Wales, conveyed by the deposition, would be greatly relieved. But it certainly was in the recollection of the house, that he had never said of the four noble lords commissioners, that they had fabricated, or falsified, or withheld evidence given before them. What he had said was this: that if the paper put into his hands was correct in that point, respecting the question put to Mrs. Lisle, as to her opinion whether the princess of Wales conducted herself as a married woman ought to conduct herself, contrasting her supposed conduct with that which became a married woman? then, unquestionably, he found that there was no answer given to that question. He never said that the con:missioners kept back any part of the statements. He had not read all, but only a part of the questions said to have been put; and he had in observation added his opinion, (the opinion, of course, of an ignorant person,) that certain questions ought not to have been put to Mrs. Lisle. He had certainly supposed, and believed, that the questions had been put down as well as the answers. If he could not state the authenticity of the paper, still he did not think himself imposed upon.. Respecting his idea of the questions being put down, he could say, that he knew that in commissions instituted either by act of parliament, or by the crown,' on which reports were made, the questions put were always taken down and recorded. Such was also the case in similar

matters in the court of chancery. He was, therefore, misled by those considerations, into the belief that a similar practice had obtained in this instance. He was extremely sorry that his honourable and learned friend (sir S. Romilly) was not now in his place: but he nevertheless felt it expedient to give the house the result of his inquiries into the subject. He was convinced, that the paper could not be received as an authentic document, after what had fallen from his learned friend: but he was still impressed with the belief, that the witness considered it correct. In introducing it, he stated it as an illustra tion of his argument, and had said, that if the examinations had gone forth along with the depositions, the sting would have been taken out of the deposition of Mrs. Lisle. He had, pursuant to what he stated in the house last night, written a letter to Mrs. Lisle, which he' should trouble the house by reading.

(Copy, letter to Mrs. Lisle.)

"House of commons, March 22, 1813.

"Dear madam-I am exceedingly sorry to be troublesome to you, and especially on such an ọccasion; but when I have stated the cause to you, I have no doubt you will acknowledge the necessity I am under of addressing you.

"On Wednesday last, before I went to the house of commons, a paper was put into my hands, of which I send you a copy inclosed.

"I was assured it contained an

authentic account of your examination before the lords commissioners, on the conduct of the princess of Wales.

Believing in the integrity of the person who made the communication to me, I used (as I was told I might truly do) the paper in the

house

house of commons, and as I thought that justice demanded I should.

"Lord Ellenborough has this evening declared in the house of lords, that the paper is a false fabrication, as I understand from those who heard him; and the other commissioners have expressed their opinions, although more milde ly, to the same effect.

"So circumstanced, I am compelled to ask you, whether you agree in the character ascribed to the paper by the noble lords? If you do, I shall only have to lament, that I have been imposed upon, and to acknowledge the imposition practised upon me.

"If the paper should ever before have been seen by you, I shall be extremely glad to receive all such information as you may have it in your power to give respecting it, that I may trace the fabrication to its author. I have the honour to be, dear madam,

"Your faithful servant,

"SAMUEL WHITBREAD."

Mr. Whitbread said, he selected the softest words used by the learned lord. There were other words used, which were banished from the communications of the intermediate ranks of society; words which were not considered necessary for personal justification, or even for offence. In the lowest ranks, indeed, they had sunk into disregard; and if they could find a place anywhere, it must be only in the sacred person of the lord chiefjustice of England. To this letter he had received an answer from Mrs. Lisle, which he also read.

(Copy, answer, Mrs. Lisle to Mr. Whitbread.)

"Canbury, March 23, 1813. "Dear sir-I received this morn

ing your letter, with the accompanying account of my examination when before the lords commissioners in the year 1806; and having compared it with the original document, I find them exactly similar.

"On my return from the lords commissioners, I, to the best of my recollection, committed to paper the questions which had been put to me, and my answers; and I transmitted a copy to the princess of Wales, having previously received her royal highness's commands so to do.

"It has never been my intention to set up these recollections against my deposition; and as little has it been my wish that they should be made public. Indeed, so scrupulous have I been in this respect, that, with the exception of the copy sent to the princess, immediately after my examination, the paper now in question was not, till very recently, seen by my nearest connections; even now it would not have been seen by them, had not erroneous statements, and garbled extracts from my deposition, appeared in some of the public papers.

"How the paper has found its, way into your hands, I guess not. As I have already stated, it has not been by any act or intention of mine; but certainly the paper which you have sent me is a correct copy of the one that I had written. I am, dear sir,

"Your faithful & obedient servant, "HESTER LISLE."

Now, (Mr. Whitbread observed,) he hoped, that neither the house nor the public would say that he had been imposed upon! or that there was any intermediate fabrication by the person who gave him the paper, or by Mrs. Lisle herself. The paper contained the ques

fions and answers put down by Mrs. Lisle on her return from the investigation; but Mrs. Lisle observed, that she did not set up her recollections against the deposition: neither did he. It was fitting to remark a singular coincidence: Mrs. Lisle wrote from her recollection; but there was no difference in the answers she put down, and those stated in the deposition, except in ope instance. The answers followed in almost exactly the same order, in the account of the examination and in the deposition. He must return to his original intention, and say, that he should have thought it unfortunate for the cause of justice, and that he should have considered himself extremely blameable, if he had not, under all the circumstances, endeavoured to take the sting out of the deposition. There, then, the house had an account of the way in · which the examination was taken. If the questions were wrongly stated, and the commissioners could contradict the account, it was so far well. For his own part, he could not throw any such imputation upon Mrs. Lisle, as to imagine that she had made the slightest attempt at fabrication. There was, indeed, in another part of the paper itself, internal evidence of its authenticity for, in taxing her memory, Mrs. Lisle had, in one instance, said, that she could not put down' an answer to one question, having forgotten the precise answer which she made to it. He felt very sorry, in these unfortunate circumstances, to have done any thing which could give pain to noble lords, and friends for whom he entertained a high respect; or to any magistrate, such particularly as the lord chief-justice of the king's bench: but he had felt the paramount im

portance of a sense of justice to the part he had taken in the business, and which occasioned his comments. On that feeling he relied, and was upheld by it now. He thought it his duty to take some course for setting himself right; and he placed himself on the justice of the house.

Lord Castlereagh must lament, that when the learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) was present, early the other evening, the honourable member had not communicated to him the contents of the paper, in order to ascertain what its character was, and what was that of the other authenticated document whose credit was to be impaired by it. He could only hope, that in this age of disclosure, the honourable member would admit, that in this respect it was imprudent to hazard such a document as he had produced, before he knew that it contained a description entitled to that credit which he seemed to mean to attach to it.

Sir S. Romilly said, that his honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread) had been quite incorrect in his supposition, that any part of the evidence had been burnt or destroyed. There had been only one examination taken down of the evidence of any witness, and no minute or copy was kept of it. In many of these depositions, there had been considerable alterations at the request of the witnesses. He could not, however, absolutely take upon him to say, that in some cases where there were many of these alterations, there might not have been a copy made.

Mr. Ponsonby thought that there could not be a stronger illustration of the frailty of memory, than that his honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread) could not now remember, with any accuracy, what was his

statement