1819.] Alphabetical List of Bankruptcies. 255 some of whom have treated it with considerable success, among whom we may reckon Mr. Howell. The style of his original has been his guide throughout his digressions, and the whole is certainly an inviting and improving exercise. Doctor Busby, having now nearly finished, at press, his translation of Lucretius, is about to employ himself in the production of a new Oratorio. Its title will be "JEHOVAH." The plan of the composition will be, at once, new and grand. It is expected to appear in the ensuing winter.The third and last reading of his Lucretius, has taken place within the month, to numerous and brilliant audiences. ALPHABETICAL LIST of BANKRUPTCIES and DIVIDENDS, announced between the 17th of February, and the 16th of March, extracted from the London Gazettes. N. B.-In Bankruptcies in and near London, the Attornies are to be understood to reside in London, and in Country Bankruptcies at the Residence of the Bankrupt, except other wise expressed. Kershaw 0. Hayfide, Oldham, manufacturer. (Edge, Manchefter Mofs R. Liverpool, tobacconist. (Blackstock and co. Maunder R. Effex, wine merchant. (Collett and co. London Matthews W. Winchcomb grocer. (Edmonds, London Maitland W. 5. North Atreet, Red Lion fquare, merchant. (Kearfey and co Marth T. Newman's row, Lincoln's Inn-fields, watchmaker. (Allen M'Kinrot A. Tortola, West Indies, merchant. (M'. ougal and co. London Nicholls H. Birmingham. builder. (Pearse. London (Burnett, London Nayler W. and J. Cockerton, Sheffield, fellmongers. (Exley and co. London Oforio J. St. Mary Axe, broker. (Jacobs Oliver T. Queen's Head palage, Newgate freet, publican. (Bourdillon and co. Porter R. Woolwich. baker. (Hughes, London Proder R. Monk Wearmouth, Durham, innkeeper. (Hinde, Bishop Wearmouth Pinchin T. Stockton, fpirit merchant. (Windle, London Pritchard E. Milford fadler. (Price and co. London Price G. Tottenham Court New road, taylor. (Vincent Phillips J. Exeter, innkeeper. (Collet and co. I ondon Piatt J. and A. Kaye, Bolton-le-Moors, grocers. (Blandford and co. London (Nind Faget J. Great Tower freer, infurance broker. co. London Bifte W. Loughborough, Leicester, ftationer. (Tilfon Wiliams W. Much Wenlock, Salop, grocer. (Tarrant and co. Londun Wood H. Tettington. Lowerend. Lancafter, cotton manu facturers. (shepherd and co. London Webb D. Ledbury skinner. [Tarrant and co. London Withey R. Charterhofe ftreet, twine maker. [Patten Weston E. Chelfea, bricklayer. [Blofield, Londos Weightnian T. York, glove manufacturer. 'Lambert and co. London Worthington w. shiffel, hat manufacturer. London Walthew R. Liverpool, liquor dealer. co London Wates E. Newport, coal merchant. London WinP Wapping Wall, publican. [Smart, [Blackstock and [Vizard and co. Wett J. jun. Bath, butcher. [Shephard and co. London Wright J. Bristol, timber dealer. [Wadeson and co.. [Sweet and co. London White J. King's Ripon, horfe dealer. [Smart, London 1813.] Pitt C. Southampton Proctor J. sen. Lancafter Porbury G. Sidmouth State of Public Affairs in March. Phillips P. Great James freet, Bedford row Paton A., T. Gill, and J. Brown, Old Simpson J., and W. G. Fairman, Old Sherwood J. W. Newgate freet Short J. St. Catherine's lane, Eaft Stein J.. T. Smith, R. and J. Stein, Simpfon T. W. Taylorion, J. Sander Smith W. and F. Becket, Liverpool Smith W. of the Luftre Weft Indiaman Simonds J. Jermyn Street, Westminster Taylor W. Hereford Covent 257 STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS IN MARCH. Containing official Papers and authentic Documents. GREAT BRITAIN. THE HE topic which has wholly absorbed the attention of the British public during the past month, has been the Delicate Investigation into the conduct of the Princess of Wales. This subject was revived by the letter of the Princess, which appeared in our last Magazine, and which excited so lively a sympathy in the public mind, that further disclosures became indispensable. At length, the depositions which follow, and which were the foundation of the charges against the Princess, in June, 1806, appeared in two Court Newspapers; and these documents have been followed by the re-publication of several editions of Perceval's famous Book. We bave given place to the evidence as matter of record; but we feel it our duty emphatically to state, that the Defence of the Princess contained in Perceval's Book, is, to our minds, COMPLETELY SATISFACTORY. She had no opportunity of cross-examining these witnesses, nor of adducing counter-evidence; she was driven, therefore, to the necessity of refuting them by contrasting their own evidence, and by her own explanations of circumstances, which their ignorance and misapprehension had led them to consider as criminal, but which, in truth, were PERFECTLY INNOCENT. The defence of the Princess is a masterly performance; but, even without its aid, the commissioners pronounced an acquittal of the charges of criminality; but, had they read it, we are persuaded they would also have acquitted her of the levity and indiscretion, in which they pronounced her culpable. She has since been declared guiltless by two minutes of Council; has been graciously received by MONTHLY MAG, No. 239, the King; has attended publicly at court; and has been often visited by the royal family. We regret that our limits do not enable us to insert the defence, and even that it appears due to our readers to give place to the evidence itself; we advise every one, however, who doubts our inference in regard to her Royal Highness's innocency, to read her defence; and those who wish to become acquainted with certain extraordinary political facts, to consult the statement of Lady Douglas, given at the end of the Book. Nor do the circumstances of this case involve contradictions, and those peculiar features which the ebullition of partyspirit would represent. One exclaims, "As the Princess is acquitted, the witnesses ought to be prosecuted for perjury;"-as though per jury, in witnesses, was a necessary con sequence of a verdict of acquittal! What would our criminal courts say to such reasoning? Who would become a prosecutor, if the difference of the Jury's opinion, in regard to criminality, involved him in a charge of perjury?—In short, who would seek at law to recover any right, or become a prosecutor for any wrongs, if failure were to be adduced as prima facie evidence of malice or perjury? The witnesses, in support of a pro * It is however true, that a stupid bar rister might hold, that to miscarry in a suit, is prima facie evidence of malice; and he might award five hundred pounds against a pounds justly due to him, but not recovered mau for seeking to recover five hundred at law, owing to some informality; yet reason, justice, and common sense, forbid that the doctrines of such stupid barrister should generally prevail in any country. LI secution, secution, may at all times be right in appearance, or innocent in their own view, and yet wrong in fact, or in the opinion of a Jury. Another exclaims, "That a certain noble lord went about seeking for, and trying to warp the evidence ;"-but we ask, was it not commendable that he should exhibit an active zeal in behalf of the honour of his Prince, on a charge of so serious a nature? And would be not have been culpable if he had exhi bited less zeul than he displayed? If it is now certain that the Princess was erroneously accused, her innocency was not equally certain at the time the exa minations were instituted! Lord Moira has, however, so ably justified his own conduct in the House of Peers, that any observations of ours would be impertinent. On the whole question, it is our opinion that further crimination, or mutual reproaches, are uncalled for; and that nothing has passed which may not, and ought not, to be forgotten and forgiven. In plain truth, we wish to see the Prince and Princess of Wales united in supporting the true dignity and character of the court; and hope that all their past animosities, at least in the public eye, will be speedily buried in oblivion. The INVESTIGATION of 1806, into the CON- “GEORGE Ŕ. "Whereas our right trusty and well beloved Counsellor, Thomas Lord Erskine, our Chancellor, has this day laid before us an Abstract of certain written declarations, tonching the conduct of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, we do hereby authorise, empower, and direct, the said Thomas Lord Erskine, our Chansellor, our right trusty and well-beloved Cousin and Counsellor George John Earl Spencer, one of our Principal Secretaries of State, our right trusty and well beloved Counsellor W. Windham Lord Grenville, First Commissioner of our Treasury, and our right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor Edward Lord Ellenborough, our Chief Justice, to hold pleas before ourself, to inquire into the truth of the same, and to examine, upon oath, such persons as they shall see fit, touching and concerning the same, and to report to us the result of such exami nation. "Given at our Castle of Windsor, on The Deposition of Robert Bidgood. Princess in March 1798, and have lived with her Royal Highness ever since. About the year 1802, early in that year, I first ob served Sir Sydney Smith come to Montaguehouse; he used to stay very late at night; I have seen him early in the morning there, about ten or eleven o'clock. He was at Sir John Douglas's; and was in the habit, as well as Sir John and Lady Douglas, of dining, or having luncheon, or supping there almost every day. I saw Sir Sydney Smith one day in 1802, in the blue room, about' eleven o'clock in the morning, which is full two hours before we ever expected to see company. I asked the servants why they did not let me know that he was there? The footmen informed me that they had let no person in.-There was a private door to the park, by which he might have into the blue room without any of the sercome in if he had a key to it, and have got vants perceiving him. I never observed any appearance of the Princess which could lead me to suppose that she was with child. I first observed Capt. Manby come to Montague-house either the end of 1803 or the beginning of 1804. I was waiting one day in the anti-room, Capt. Manby had his hat in his hand, and appeared to be going away; he was a long time with the ing, I looked into the room in which they Princess, and as I stood on the steps, waitwere, and in the reflection in the looking glass I saw them salute each other; I mean, that they kissed each other's lips. Capt. Manby then went away.---I then observed the Princess have her handkerchief in her hands, and wipe her eyes as if she was crying, and she went into the drawing-room. The Princess went to Southend in May 1804; I went with her. We were there, believe, about six weeks before the African came in. Siccard was very often watching with a glass to see when the ship would arrive. One day he said he saw the African, and soon after the Captain put off in a boat from the ship. Siccard went down the shrubbery to meet him. When the Captain came on shore Siccard conducted him to the Princess's house, and he dined there with the Princess and her ladies. After this he came very frequently to see the Princess. The Princess had two houses on the Cliff, Nos. 8 and 9. She afterwards took the drawing-room of No. 7, which communicated by the balcony with No. &, the three houses being adjoining. The Princess used to dine in No. 8, and after dinner to remove with the company into No. 7, and I have several times seen the Princess, after having gone into No. 7, with Capt. Manby and the rest of the company, retire alone with Capt. Manby from No. 7 through No. 8 into No. 9, which was the house in which the Princess slept. I suspected that Capt. Manby slept frequently in the house. It was a subject of conversation in the house. Hints were given by the ser 1813.] Depositions relative to the Princess of Wales. vants, and I believe that others suspected it as well as myself. The Princess took a child, which I understood was brought into the house by Stikeman. I waited only one week in three, and I was not there at the time the child was brought, but I saw it there early in 1803. The child who is now with the Princess is the same as I saw there early in 1803; it has a mark on its left hand. Austin is the name of the man who was said to be the father. Austin's wife is, I believe, still alive. She has had another child, and has brought it sometimes to Montague-house. It is very like the child who lives with the Princess. Mrs. Gordon was employed as a nurse for the child, and she used to bring the child to the Princess as soon as the Princess awoke, and the child used to stay with her Royal Highness the whole morning. The Princess appear ed to be extremely fond of the child, and still appears so. The Deposition of William Cole. I have lived with the Princess of Wales ever since her marriage. Sir Sydney Smith first visited at Montague-house about 1802. I have observed the Princess to be familiar with Sir Sydney Smith. One day, I think about February in that year, the Princess ordered some sandwiches; I carried them into the blue room to her. Sir Sydney Smith was there; I was surprised to see him there, he must have come in from the park; if he had been let in from Blackheath he must have passed through the room in which I was waiting. When I had left the sandwiches, I returned, after some time, into the room, and Sir Sydney Smith was sitting very close to the Princess on the sofa. I looked at him and at her Royal Highness. She caught my eye, and saw that I noticed the manner in which they were sitting together. They appeared both a little confused when I came into the room. A short time before this, one night, about twelve o'clock, I saw a man go into the house from the Park, wrapped up in a great coat. I did not give any alarm, from the impression on my mind that it was not a thief. Soon after I had seen the Princess and Sir Sydney Smith sitting together on the sofa, the Duke of Kent sent for me, and told me that the Princess would be very glad if I would do the duty in town, because she had business to do in town, which she would rather trust to me than any body else. The Duke said, that the Princess had thought it would be more agreeable to me to be told this by him than through Siccard. After this I never attended at Montaguehouse, but occasionally when the Princess sent for me. About July, 1802, I observed that the Princess had grown very large, and in the latter end of the same year she appeared to be grown thin; and I observed it to Miss Sander, who said that the Princess 259 was much thinner than she had been. I had not any idea of the Princess being with child. Mr. Lawrence, the Painter, used to go to Montague-house, about the latter end of 1801, when he was painting. The Princess and he have slept in the house two or three nights together. I have often seen him alone with the Princess at eleven and twelve o'clock at night. He has been there as late as one or two o'clock in the morning. One night I saw him with the Princess in the blue room after the Ladies had retired. Some time afterward, when I supposed that he had gone to his room, I went to see that all was safe, and I found the blue room door locked, and heard a whispering in it, and I went away. The Deposition of Frances Lloyd.. › I have lived twelve years with the Princoffee-room; y situation in the coffeecess of Wales next October. I am in the room does not give me opportunities of seeing the Princess. I do not see her sometimes for months. Mr. Milles attended me for a cold. He asked me if the Princess 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. It may have been five years ago. I think it must have been some time before the child was brought to the Princess. I remember the child being brought, it was brought into my room. I had orders sent to me to give the mother arrow-root, with directions how to make it, to wean the child, and I gave it to the mother, and she took the child away; afterwards the mother brought the child back again. Whether it was a week, ten days, or a fortnight, I cannot say, but it might be about that time. The second time the mother brought the child, she brought it into. my room; I asked her, how a mother could part with her child? I am not sure which time I asked this. The mother cried, and said she could not afford to keep it.—The child was said to be about four months old when it was brought. I did not particu. larly observe it myself. I was at Ramsgate with the Princess in 1803. One morning when we were in the house at East Cliff, somebody, I do not recollect who, knocked at my door, and desired me to get up to prepare breakfast for the Princess; this was about six o'clock; I was asleep. During the whole time I was in the Princess's service, I had never been called up before to make breakfast for the Princess. I slept in the housekeeper's room, on the ground-floor: I opened the shutters of the windows for light. I knew at that time that Capt. Mauby's ship was in the Downs. When I opened the shutters I saw the Princess walking down the garden with a gentleman; she was walking down the gravel-walk towards the sea. No orders had been given over-night to LI 2 prepare |