GENERAL HISTORY. 



[19 



As a question of law, they left the 

 matter as the}' found it. He un- 

 derstood that fir John and lady 

 Douglas persisted in their story; 

 but if it were notoriously false, 

 why were they not prosecuted ? 

 He went on to remark, that he 

 was informed, no proceedings of 

 the late privy-council, except the 

 report, had been transmitted to the 

 princess ; but he submitted, that 

 copies of all the examinations 

 should be given to her. The hon. 

 member concluded with moving 

 two resolutions. The first of these, 

 consisting of several paragraphs, 

 contained, in substance, a relation 

 of the commission of 1806, and a 

 declaration against its legal power 

 to pronounce a judgment in the 

 case ; whence it was inferred, that 

 nolegal decisionhadyetbeenmade 

 against the truth of the fact sworn 

 to, of her royal highness's being 

 delivered of a male child in 1802 ; 

 and that in consequence, the house 

 was called upon by a regard to the 

 security of the throne and the tran- 

 quillity of the state, to institute, 

 while the witnesses are living on 

 both sides, an ample and impartial 

 investigation into all the facts ap- 

 pertaining to this subject. The se- 

 cond resolutioii was for an address 

 to the Prince Regent, to order a 

 copy of the above report to be laid 

 before the House, with copies of a 

 number of written documents par- 

 ticularly specified. 



The motion was seconded by 

 Mr. John Wharton. 



Lord Casllereagh then rose, and 

 fifit remarked on the singularity 

 of the hon. mover's proceeding, 

 whose second resolution called for 

 those very papers as matters of in- 

 formation, on which his first reso- 

 lution was founded. He eaid, that 



the only object of the information 

 called for, seemed to be,to persuade 

 the House that such serious doubts 

 existed as to the succession to the 

 throne as required the interference 

 of parliament. But if the commis- 

 sioners were not competent to de- 

 cide upon the charge of her royal 

 highness's pregnancy in 1802, the 

 House of Commons was certainly 

 not the proper tribunal for such a 

 decision. It was equally improper 

 to bring before it for discussion the 

 minor charges againstthe princess, 

 or any unfortunate differences 

 which might exist between any 

 branches of the royal family. The 

 only solid practical ground on 

 which parliament could proceed 

 would therefore be, that doubts 

 attached to the succession of the 

 crown. But in the present case 

 not the smallest doubt was enter- 

 tained on that subject. The com- 

 missioners of 1806 did not make 

 a comparative inquiry into the 

 weight of lady Douglas's testimony 

 compared with that of other wit- 

 nesses ; but they assei ted, that they 

 had traced the whole history of the 

 child in question, and fully estab- 

 lished that it was the child of an- 

 other woman. Their report was 

 also solemnly confirmed by a sub- 

 sequent cabinet. No prosecution 

 had been instituted against lady 

 Douglas, because, the case being 

 laid betbre the crown lawyers, al- 

 though they were satisfied as to 

 tlie perjury, they saw difficulties 

 in the way of establishing it by le- 

 gal evidence. On the whole, he 

 thought that calling for further 

 information would only be to 

 make the parliament an instru- 

 ment for gratifying that taste for 

 calumny, which was so rauch the 

 rogc at the ijrescnt time. 

 [C2] 



