bread both spoke in explanation. Mr. Methuen declared, in justice to the Princess, that he had had no communication with her; and that he would be the last man to propose an increase of her income, were its consequence to be the resignation of any of her rights. Several other members spoke on the occasion; but it seems unnecessary to repeat the substance of a debate which was little more than a recapitulation of facts and arguments already laid before the house.

Lord Castlereagh having intimated that there would be no difficulty in obtaining the consent of the Prince Regent to an increase of the Princess's income, and it appearing to be the wish of the house that such a measure should take place as coming from the crown, Mr. Methuen asked his lordship what was his intention in this respect and Lord C. signifying his assent, Mr. M. withdrew

his motion.

:

On July 4th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the House of Commons to go into a committee on the documents on the table respecting the Princess of Wales. A debate ensued on a point of form, during which Mr. Whitbread affirmed that no cause for the motion had arisen from the Princess herself, who had made such economical arrangements, that at this moment she was not indebted a shilling, and had given no authority for any application for the in crease of her income.

The committee being at length gone into, Lord Castlereagh rose, and began with a statement designed to correct some misapprehensions respecting the income of

the Princess, and to prove the liberality of the Prince Regent in this matter. He then entered upon the consideration of such au increase to the Princess's income as would enable her to maintain an establishment more suited to her station in this country; and he thought the most desirable measure would be to raise it to that point to which it would be raised in the event of the death of the Prince Regent; and his proposal was, that the nett annual sum of 50,0007. should be granted to the Princess of Wales, and that the 5,000l. and the 17,000l. per ann. which she at present enjoys, should be withheld from the Prince Regent's income.

Α conversation followed, in which Lord Castlereagh having hinted that the increase of the Princess's allowance had been the object of her friends, Mr. Whitbread rose again to disclaim any such motive as applying to himself. In conclusion he said, “ As to the provision which is to be made by this vote, it is large, much larger than any of the friends of her Royal Highness could have contemplated, if such an idea had entered their minds. It is for her Royal Highness to consider whether she shall think proper to accept the whole of it. I have no doubt that she will act with dignity and propriety; and if she calls in advisers on the subject, I hope she will call in such as will support her in her own honourable ideas."

The resolution proposed by Lord Castlereagh was agreed to unanimously.

On July 8th, the report of the committee being brought up, Lord Castlereagh called the atten

tion of the house to a letter to the chair from the Princess of Wales, in which she intimated that it would be more satisfactory to her if the vote of the committee for an allowance of 50,000l. per ann, were reduced to 35,000. His lordship said, that he should not have thought of submitting to the house the proposition he had made, if he had not previously apprized her Royal Highness of the intended measure. In her reply to this communication, she had stated her willingness to accept the grant offered her, as it was clogged with no conditions derogatory to her honour, and was not an act of grace or favour from the crown, but of justice. Conceiving, however, the letter to the chair as more conclusive of her wish, as being more specific, than that addressed to himself, he should follow its intention; but he hoped that if parliament thought proper to agree to a diminution of what it had voted as an act of justice, no persons would be allowed, on that account, at any future period, to revive in that house discussions connected with the royal family. He ended with moving the reduction of the sum voted, as desired by the Princess.

Mr. Whitbread affirmed that the first letter of the Princess, written without any adviser, was only to intimate a general acquiescence in the measure proposed, without regarding the amount of the sum.He had no hesitation in saying, that when consulted on the subject by her Royal Highness, he had given it as his opinion that the sum was larger than circumstances required, and that $5,000l. would be amply sufficient for all her purposes. But whether the sum were VOL. LVI

larger or smaller, he thought it left things precisely in the same situation as before, and did not render the Princess less in need of the protection of the House.

We shall not report any farther particulars of the conversation on this occasion, which terminated in adopting Lord Castlereagh's amendment of 35,000l. instead of 50,000l.; and a bill was ordered to be brought in, conformably to the resolutions. It afterwards passed into a law.

The trial and conviction of certain persons on the charge of a conspiracy to defraud the Stock Exchange, which forms a memorable article in the judicial history of the present year, and of which a summary will be found in another part of our volume, also furnished a topic of parliamentary debate, too interesting to be passed over.

On June 10, Mr. Broadhead, in the House of Commons, adverting to the trials which had recently taken place in the Court of King's Bench, observed, that a charge having been established against two members of parliament (Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone), deeply affecting their public and private, honour, he felt it to be his duty at no distant period to call the attention of the House to the subject. And after some conversation on matter of form, he gave notice of a day on which he should move for a copy of the conviction. This instrument being accordingly laid before the House, the Hon. Gentleman, on June 24, moved for its being taken into consideration on that day se'nnight, and that Lord Cochrane should be brought up, if he desired it, on that day by the Marshal of the King's [L]

Bench Prison, which motion was agreed to; and it was ordered that a notice should be sent to Mr. Andrew Cochrane Johnstone to attend in his place on the same day.

Mr. Holmes then rose, and, by the express desire of Lord Coch rane, moved, "That there should be laid before this House a copy of the report of the late trial upon an indictment in the Court of King's Bench against the Lord Cochrane, together with his statement, or any affidavit of his filed in the Court of King's Bench."

Mr. A. Browne seconded the motion, and said that without such an opportunity afforded to the members of attentively looking over the evidence, the House, in the exercise of its judicial and inquisitorial functions, would be pronouncing a judgment of high importance upon the fact of a conviction of the Courts below. The individual in question had used every means in his power to bring his case under the revision of the Court, but had been prevented by a rule of practice which required the personal attendance on the floor of the Court of every individual affected by the judgment, which it was impossible for him to effect. It might be said, that investigating the evidence on which the judgment of the Court was founded, would be involving the House in a trial of the guilt of the individual; but no argument arising from this inconvenience could reconcile it to the duty of that House to proceed to a sentence of expulsion, if on a careful review of the case it should think that the conviction was erroneous.

The Attorney General said, that

it was impossible for him to acquiesce in the motion consistently with his respect for the trial by Jury; for what was proposed for the House to do but to review a conviction by a jury, to sit as a court of appeal or error on facts on which a jury had pronounced a verdict? After some farther observations on this point, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded to correct a mistake on which the last speaker had founded a great part of his argument. He had spoken of technical rules which had prevented the party convicted from obtaining a revision of the verdict given against him. The rule of court alluded to was wisely founded on the principle, that if several persons were convicted of a conspiracy, and one, probably the least implicated, were, on coming into Court, to apply for and obtain a new trial, all the rest would be entitled to come in and take the same benefit; but in the event of his not obtaining a new trial, the others, though the most deeply involved in the crime, would have the best opportunity afforded them of eluding the punishment. With respect to the present case, after Lord Cochrane had been told by the Court that they could not hear a motion for a new trial when he stood alone; on a subsequent day the Counsel for Butt had moved for an arrest of judgment with respect to him, but the Court had delivered their opinion seriatim, that there was nothing in the point urged that called for such an arrest. On this occasion Lord C. did precisely what the rules of the Court had prevented him from doing on the preceding day. He read from a paper ably written,

and which evinced a profound knowledge of the law, a minute examination of the evidence which had been adduced at the trial, and offered certain affidavits is support of his application. Did the Court then entrench itself behind its technical rules, or say that it was too late to grant a new trial?

Mr. Horner differed from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to what he had said with respect to the examination of evidence in this case, as if it were entering upon a new trial. The House was not doing any thing in the ordinary course of criminal jurisprudence, but exercising a species of jurisdiction peculiar to itself, in which there was no rule to prevent them from calling for evidence. He, however, thought that in this case it was not necessary to call for more information than they had before them, and he was fully satisfied with the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court.

The motion was negatived.

On July 5, Mr. Broadhead moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the record of the conviction of Lord Cochrane and Mr. Cochrane Johnstone. The Speaker being informed that the former was in attendance, he was introduced by the Serjeant at Arms, and was desired to take his place. A Messenger of the House then stated, that on going to serve the order on Mr. Cochrane John stone, he was not to be found; and two Members of the House affirms ed that they had seen him at Calais. Lord Cochrane being then called upon to state what he had to say in his defence, made a speech, of which, from its length, and the variety of particulars mentioned in

reference to the evidence on his trial, we can give only a very summary account. His lordship commenced with most solemnly declaring, in the presence of the House, and with the eyes of the country fixed upon him, that he was wholly innocent of the crime laid to his charge, and for which he had been condemned to the most infamous of punishments. He then proceeded to comment upon the steps taken by the prosecutors previous to the indictment, the appointment of the jury, and all the circumstances connected with the trial; in doing which he indulged himself in such a severity of personal invective, that in the report of his speech it was found necessary, in order to avoid the charge of libellous publication, to make a great number of asterisms. One of the most important particulars adduced by his lordship relative to the evidence, referred to the colour of the coat in which De Berenger (the chief conductor of the imposition) appeared at his house. It had been sworn by Lord C. that this was a green uniform; but in the brief given to his Counsel it was described as a red coat with a green collar. When this contradiction appeared, Lord Cochrane's counsel, Serjeant Best, attributed it to an oversight, and declined examining Lord Cochrane's servants, then in attendance, on the point. Their affidavits, however, made before the Court, subsequently to the trial, fully went to the fact of their having seen him in a green coat. A great part of his lordship's speech consisted in remarks on the conduct of the Judge (Lord Ellenborough) who tried his cause, and whom he accused of gross pare