22] 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



It might now have been hoped 

 and supposed that the discussion of 

 this unpleasant subject was termi- 

 nated; but thecircumstances which 

 had appeared took strong hold on 

 the public mind; party, as usual, 

 interfered in the business, and the 

 newspapers were made the vehicle 

 of new attacks and recriminations. 



On March 15, Mr. Whitbread 

 rose in the House of Commons, 

 and after alluding to various docu- 

 ments on the subject which had 

 appearedinnewspapers notorious- 

 ly under the influence of govern- 

 ment, desired to ask of the noble 

 lord (Castlereagh)or of any other 

 member, whether instructions had 

 been issued by the Prince Regent 

 to the law officers of the Crown to 

 prosecute lady Douglas for per- 

 jury ; and whether, in the interval 

 betweenFebruaryl2th,and March 

 5th, lady Douglas had been exa- 

 mined as a credible witness by the 

 solicitor of the treasury and a ma- 

 gistrate, in the presence of sir J. 

 Douglas ; and whether that exami- 

 nation, or any other relative to the 

 conduct of the princess of Wales 

 still continues? 



Lord Castlerengh declining to 

 answer these questions till he 

 shouldbe informed of the proceed- 

 ing which it was the hon. gentle- 

 man's intention to recommend to 

 the House in consequence. Mr.W. 

 declared that it was, either that 

 the princess of Wales should be 

 brought to trial, or that lady 

 Douglas should be prosecuted for 

 perjury. Lord C. then said, thathe 

 did not consider himself bound in 

 duty to answer the questions until 

 the subject should be brought re- 

 gularly before the parliament. A 

 ■warm conversation then ensued, 

 which wac terminated by the 



Speaker, and the House proceed- 

 ed to the business of the day. 



On March 17th, Mr. Whitbread 

 presented a petition of sir John 

 Douglas in behalf of himself and 

 his wife, stating, that understand- 

 ing that the depositions they made 

 respecting the princess of Wales 

 in 1806, were not made in such a 

 manner as would support a prose- 

 cution for perjury against them, if 

 false ; they were readyand desirous 

 to reswear the same before any tri- 

 bunal competent to administer an 

 oath which would subject them, if 

 false, to the penalties of perjury. 

 This petition, upon motion, being 

 laid upon the table, Mr. W. rose 

 to address the House. 



He began with taking notice of 

 lord Castlereagh's correction of his 

 assertion, that the cabinet of 1807 

 had acquitted her loyal highness 

 from all imputation of criminality, 

 his lordship, as he had since been 

 informed, having prefixed the word 

 legal, to imputation. He also ad- 

 mitted that the House, correctly 

 speaking, had not passed a verdict 

 of acquittal, because it was not a 

 tribunal competent to decide upon 

 the question ; but he contended, 

 that the noble lord himself, and 

 the cabinet, had pronounced such 

 an acquittal. He next affirmed, 

 from the authority of sir John 

 Douglas himself, that lady Dou- 

 glas, from the 13th ( i February to 

 the period of the last debate, had 

 undergone various examinations 

 by the solicitor to the treasury, be- 

 fore Mr. Conant, on the subject, 

 with the knowledge of the lord- 

 chancellor. He said he had also 

 heard, that from the 15tb of the 

 present month examinations had 

 been going on, and emissaries 2iad 

 been dispatched to pry into every 



