ever there is; and there your Majesty will perceive, that he affirms the fact of her having reported to him Mary Wilson's declaration in the very same words in which Fanny Lloyd denies it, and it is therefore evident that the Commissioners, in putting this question to Fanny Lloyd, must have put it to her from Cole's declaration. She positively denies the fact; there is then a flat and precise contradiction, between the examination of Fanny Lloyd and the original statement of Mr. Cole. It is therefore can have spoken true.

impossible that they both The Commissioners, for some reason, don't examine Cole to this point at all; don't endeavour to trace out this story; if they had, they must have discovered which of these witnesses spoke the truth, but they leave this contradiction, not only unexplained, but uninquired after, and in that state, report both these witnesses, Cole and Fanny Lloyd, who thus speak to the two sides of a contradiction, and who therefore cannot by possibility both speak truth, as witnesses who cannot be suspected of partiality, whose eredit they see no reason to question, and whose story must be believed till contradicted.

But what is, if possible, still more extraordinary, this supposed communication from F. Lloyd to Cole, as your Majesty observes, relates to something which M. Wilson is supposed to have seen and to have said; yet though M. Wilson appears herself to have been examined by the Commissioners on the same day with Fanny Lloyd, in the Appendix (B.) p. 99.

copy of her examination, as delivered to me, there is no trace of any question relating to this declaration having been put to her.

And I have not less reason to lament, than to be surprised, that it did not occur to the Commissioners to see the necessity of following this Inquiry still further. For, if properly pursued, it would have demonstrated two things, both very important to be kept in mind in the whole of this consideration. First, how hearsay representations of this kind, arising out of little or nothing, become magnified and exaggerated by the circulation of prejudiced, or malicious, Reporters; and, Secondly, it would have shewn the industry of Mr. and Mrs. Bidgood, as well as Mr. Cole, in collecting information in support of Lady Douglas's statement, and in improving what they collected by their false colourings, and malicious additions to it. They would have found a story in Mrs. Bidgood's declaration, as well as in her husband's (who relates it as having heard it from his wife,) which is evidently the same as that which W. Cole's declaration contains. For the Bidgood's declarations state, that Fanny Lloyd told Mrs. Bidgood that Mary Wilson had gone into the Princess's bed reom, and had found her Royal Highness and Sir Sidney in the most criminal situation; that she had left the room, and was so shocked, that she fainted away at the door. Here then are Mrs. Bidgood, and Mr. Cole, both declaring what they had heard Fanny Lloyd say, and Fanny Lloyd denying it. How extraordinary is it that they were not all confronted ' Appendix (B.) 106. † Appendix (B.) p 103.

and your Majesty will see presently how much it For, from is to be lamented that they were not. Fanny Lloyd's original declaration, it appears As she that the truth would have come out. there states that, "To the best of her knowledge Mary Wilson said, that she had scen the Princess and Sir Sidney in the Blue Room, but never heard Mary Wilson say she was so alarmed as to be in a fit." If then, on confronting Fanny Lloyd with Mrs. Bidgood and Mr. Cole, the Commissioners had found Fanny Lloyd's story to be what she related before, and had then put the question to Mary Wilson, and had heard from her what it really was which she had seen and related to Fanny Lloyd, they could not have been at a loss to have discovered which of these -witnesses told the truth, They would have found, I am perfectly confident, that all that Mary Wilson ever could have told Fanny Lloyd, was that she had seen Sir Sidney and myself in the Blue Room, and they would then have had to refer to the malicious and confederated inventions of the Bidgoods and Mr. Cole, for the conversion of the blue-room, into the bed-room; for the vile slander of what M. Wilson was supposed to have seen, and for the violent effect which this scene had upon her. I say their confederated inventions, as it is impossible to suppose that they could have been concerned in inventing the same additions to Fanny Lloyd's story, unless they had communicated together upon it. And when they had once found Mrs. Bidgood and Mr. Cole, thus conspiring to Appendix (B) p. 107.

gether, they would have had no difficulty in connecting them both in the same conspiracy with Sir John Douglas, by shewing how connected Cole was with Sir John Douglas, and how acquainted with his proceedings, in collecting the evidence which was to support Lady Douglas's declaration.

*

For, by referring to Mr. Cole's declaration, made on the 23d of February, they would have seen that Mr. Cole, in explaining some observation about Sir Sidney's supposed possession of a key to the garden door, says that it was what " Mr. Lampert, "the servant of Sir John Douglas, mentioned at "Cheltenham to Sir John Douglas and Mr. Low"ten."-How should Mr. Cole know that Sir John Douglas and Mr. Lowten had been down to Cheltenham, to collect evidence from this old servant of Sir John Douglas's? How should he have known what that evidence was? unless he had either accompanied them himself, or at least had had such a communication either with Sir John Douglas, or Mr. Lowten, as it never could have occurred to any of them to have made to Mr. Cole, unless, instead of being a mere witness, he were a party to this accusation? But whether they had convinced themselves, that Fanny Lloyd spoke true, and Cole and Mrs. Bidgood falsely; or whether they had convinced themselves of the reverse, it could not have been possible, that they both could have spoken the truth; and, consequently, the Commissioners could never have reported the veAppendix (B.) p. 103.

racity of both to be free from suspicion, and de. serving of credit.

There only remains that I should make a few observations on what appears in the examinations relative to Mr. Hood, (now Lord Hood,) Mr. Chester, and Captain Moore. And I really should not have thought a single observation necessary upon either of them, except that what refers to them is stated in the examinations of Mrs. Lisle.

With respect to Lord Hood it is as follows: *" I was at Catherington with the Princess "remember Mr. (now Lord Hood) there, and the "Princess going out airing with him, alone in "Mr. Hood's little whiskey;-and his servant was "with them; Mr. Hood drove, and staid out two

or three times ;-more than once, three or four "times. Mr. Hood dined with us several times; "once or twice he slept in a house in the garden; "she appeared to pay no attention to him, but "that of common civility to an intimate acquain"tance." Now, Sire, it is undoubtedly true that I drove out several times with Lord Hood in his one horse chaise, and some few times, twice I believe at most, without any of my servant's attending us; and considering the time of life, and the respectable character of my Lord Hood, I never should have conceived that I incurred the least danger to my reputation in so doing. If indeed it was the duty of the Commissioners to inquire into instances of my conduct, in which they may conceive it to have been less reserved and dignified, than Appendix (A.) No. 27.