at Warwick, and the attestation of her birth is both signed and sealed by the matron and the medical attendant." This petition represented her as the illegitimate daughter of the duke of Cumberland; but, in 1819, the lady became dissatisfied with this distinction, and then she discovered, and produced attestations to prove, that she was the legitimate offspring of the duke of Cumberland by the daughter of Dr. Wilmot. She alleged, that Dr. Wilmot had a daughter who was privately married to the late duke of Cumberland in 1767. It was known, that the duke of Cumberland was in fact married, not to Miss Wilmot, but to Mrs. Horton, in 1769. Of course, the ground of the petitioner's claim was, that the duke of Cumberland had been guilty of having been married to her mother two years before his union with Mrs. Horton. After the death of lord Warwick, and of every party who could prove the signatures, the petitioner produced several documents to show, that there had been a private marriage in 1767, and that she was the offspring of it. The marriage at that date would have been legal; the royal marriage act not then having been passed. She also produced various papers to account for the secret having been so mysteriously kept till the year 1819: but none of these papers had been forthcoming, until the death of every party whose signatures they purported to bear: even the accoucheur, who attended her mother, died in 1818, a year before the claim was advanced. The attesting witnesses to her documents were, Mr. Dunning, lord Chatham, and lord Warwick; and their names were used to prove a secret mar

riage, and the consequent birth of a child in 1772-no other, as was pretended, than the present Mrs. Serres. To account for the long belief that she was really the daughter of Mrs. Wilmot, she asserted that, Mrs. Wilmot, having been delivered of a still-born child, the petitioner, the daughter of the duke of Cumberland, was substituted for the sake of concealment, and that Mr. Dunning and lord Chatham had consented to that substitution. The story, said Mr. Peel, was full of fabrications from beginning to end; the two most important documents-the supposed will of his late majesty, and the pretended certificate of the private marriage, were plain forgeries. The petitioner claimed 15,000l. under an instrument which she called a will, signed on the 2nd of June, 1774, by his late majesty, and witnessed, "J. Dunning, Chatham, and Brook." The terms of the bequest were singular. It was headed Ĝ. R. "In case of our royal demise, we give and bequeath to Olive, our brother of Cumberland's daughter, the sum of 15,000l., commanding our heir and successor, to pay the same privately to our said niece, for her use, as a recompense for the misfortunes she may have known through her father." This paper was witnessed, among others, by lord Chatham in 1774; now that nobleman had resigned his office in 1768, and never afterwards held any public employment: In 1772, he made a speech in direct opposition to the king's government; and, on the 20th of January, 1775, he moved an address to his majesty, to withdraw the troops from Boston. Those, who knew the sentiments of his late majesty on the subject of the American war

would find it difficult to believe, that under such circumstances he would select lord Chatham to be his confident in a private transaction such as the one in question. But, on a reference to the recorded speech of lord Chatham on that occasion, it would be found that that noble lord actually commenced it with these words: "As I have not the honour of access to his majesty, I will endeavour to transmit to him, through the constitutional channel of this House, my ideas of America, to rescue him from the misadvice of his present ministers."* There was another of this lady's documents, said to be signed by lord Chatham, of a still more extraordinary nature. It began" To be committed to the flames after my decease ;" and it testified, "that, the duke of Cumberland having subjected himself to the crime of bigamy, we have agreed to let his daughter Olive be the sacrifice." It was signed "Warwick and Chatham." It was on the 20th of January, 1775, that lord Chatham had made his motion respecting the troops at Boston, and in six weeks afterwards his name was appended to a document couched in these terms "The princess Olive, only child of Henry Frederick, duke of Cumberland, and bred up as my brother Robert's daughter, may be known by a large brown spot of a liver colour, on her right ribs." The pretended certificate of the marriage, which was dated March 4, 1767, was in these words "I hereby certify that Henry Frederick, duke of Cumberland, was this day married to Olive Wilmot, and that such marriage has been legally and duly solemnized, accord

• See Parl. History, v. 18, p. 149.

ing to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England." It was signed "James Wilmot," present "Brooke," "J. Adder." "G. R.” was also appended, but for what purpose did not appear. This document was intended to make out, that the marriage was solemnized by James Wilmot, the real uncle of the petitioner. Now, James Wilmot was a fellow of Trinity college, Oxford, and unfortunately for the petitioner, on that very day, March 4, 1767, he was resident there; as it appeared by the books of the college, that he quitted Oxford on the 5th of March, 1767. So much for James Wilmot: the signatures of the late lord Warwick and of J. Adder alone remained to be disposed of. The late lord Warwick, by the paper, appeared to have signed "Brooke," his father being still alive; but unluckily again, the late lord Warwick, before he succeeded to the title, had always signed "Greville." He was so named in the entry of the burial of his wife. His servants knew him by that title only, and by that title his father's property was bequeathed to him. He (Mr. Peel) was in possession of a letter from the present lord Warwick, stating that the title of lord Brooke had not been borne by any eldest son but himself. The fabricator of this instrument had therefore been misled by the present practice of the family. As to the signature "J. Adder," a person had been sent down to Warwick, to inquire if there existed any recollection of such a person; and by the residents he was rather startled to be informed, that the medical attendant of the Warwick family certainly was a Dr. Adder. On further investi gation, it turned out, however,

He held

that the real name of the gentleman was James Haddow; that he came from St. Andrew's; and that the people of Warwick generally, in speaking of Dr. Haddow, had omitted the H in his name altogether, and had substituted an R for a W at the end of it. Here, again, vulgar mispronunciation had misled the framer of this piece of imposture. It was needless to go into other documents. There was however, one pretension, on which he (Mr. Peel) did not wish to throw the least discredit. in his hand a manifesto signed "Olive," and claiming the high dignity of princess of Poland, by virtue of her relationship to Augustus Stanislaus, upon the pretext that the duke of Cumberland married Olive, the legitimate daughter of the king of Poland. It concluded in these terms "Alas! beloved nation of our ancestors, your Olive lives to anticipate the emancipation of Poland. Invite us, beloved people, to the kingdom of our ancestors, and the generous humanity and wise policy of the emperor Alexander will restore the domain of our ancient House." It went on to assure the Poles, that her legitimacy, as princess of Poland, had been fully proved in England. With her claim to be a Polish princess, Mr. Peel declared that he had not the slightest wish to interfere; he was satisfied with having shown that she had no pretension to that rank in England.

The statement of Mr. Peel left no doubt on the mind of any person of the imposture of this woman; and the motion for an inquiry into the matter, was loudly and unanimously negatived.

On the 19th of July, the session terminated. As his majesty

had for a short time previously been somewhat unwell, the fatigue of the ceremony of closing the session in person was deemed too great for him; and therefore the parliament was prorogued by commission.

The commissioners were the lord chancellor, the archbishop of Canterbury, the earl of Harrowby, the earl of Liverpool, and the earl of Westmorland. The speech was read by the lord chancellor, and was as follow:

"My Lords and Gentlemen,

"We are commanded by his Majesty, in releasing you from your attendance in parliament, to express to you his Majesty's acknowledgments for the zeal and assiduity wherewith you have applied yourselves to the several objects which his Majesty recommended to your attention at the opening of the

session.

"His Majesty entertains a confident expectation, that the provisions of internal regulation, which you have adopted with respect to Ireland, will, when carried into effect, tend to remove some of the evils which have so long afflicted that part of the United Kingdom.

"We are commanded to assure you, that you may depend upon the firm, but temperate exercise, of those powers which you have intrusted to his majesty, for the suppression of violence and outrage in that country, and for the protection of the lives and properties of his Majesty's loyal subjects.

"It is with the greatest satisfaction that his Majesty is enabled to contemplate the flourishing condition of all branches of our commerce and manufactures, and the greatest abatement of those diffi

culties which the agricultural interest has so long and so severely suffered.

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,

"We have it in command from his Majesty to thank you for the supplies which you have granted for the service of the year, and to assure you that he has received the sincerest pleasure from the relief which you have been enabled to afford his people, by a large reduction of taxes.

"My Lords and Gentlemen, "His Majesty has commanded us to inform you, that he continues to receive from all foreign powers, the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country.

"Deeply as his Majesty still regrets the failure of his earnest endeavours to prevent the interruption of the peace of Europe, it affords him the greatest consolation that the principles upon which he has acted, and the policy which he has determined to pursue, have been marked with your warm and cordial concurrence, as consonant with the interests, and satisfactory to the feelings, of his people."

Some time before the end of the session, an attempt was made, but without success, by the regency, which had been established at Madrid immediately after the arrival of the duke of Angoulême in that capital, to open a correspondence with the British government. Don Victor Saez, in the name of the Regency, wrote to Mr. Canning, on the 7th of June, announcing the installation of that body; and he transmitted to him at the same time a letter to the king, communicating that event together with copies of documents relative to it. Mr. Canning, howVOL. LXV.

ever, refused to acknowledge this Regency, or to hold any communication with them. The following was his answer to Don Victor Saez:

Foreign-office, June 19, 1823. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the letter, which your excellency did me the honour to address to me on the 7th inst., announcing the installation of a new regency at Madrid, and enclosing a letter, addressed (as you inform me) by that body to the king, my master.

The regency of Urgel some months ago, and more recently that which was instituted after the entrance of the French army into Spain, successively addressed letters to me, announcing, in like manner, their assumption, respectively, of the government of Spain.

To neither of these communications has it been thought necessary to return any answer; and if I now deviate from the course pursued in those two instances, it is only because I would not appear to be guilty of incivility, in sending back your messenger without a written acknowledgment of your letter.

I have, however, nothing to add to that acknowledgment. The king, my master, having a minister resident near the person of his catholic majesty, cannot receive a communication of this description; and it is therefore not consistent with my duty to lay before the king, the letter addressed to his majesty, which I have the honour herewith to return. I have the honour, &c.

(Signed) GEORGE CANNING. His Excellency Don Victor Saez, &c. &c.

One result of the success of France [L]

beyond the Pyrenees was, that it produced some change in the avowed character of our relations with the states of South America. In the month of July, an application was made to the foreign office, by a number of respectable merchants connected with the South American trade, submitting to the consideration of that department, whether it might not be fit to recommend to his majesty, that commercial agents should be appointed to protect British interests in that quarter of the world. On the 22nd of August, an answer was returned, by the direction of Mr. Canning, which stated that the subject was under consideration; and shortly afterwards, consuls and consuls-general were appointed to the principal stations in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chili, and Buenos Ayres. The consuls were to receive 1,000l. a-year, and be at liberty to trade as merchants, The consuls-general were to receive 2,2001. a-year, but were not to engage in traffic,

In the latter part of the year, communications, with respect to these countries, took place between our government and that of France. The language of Mr. Canning on this subject was manly and consistent "We will not interfere with Spain in any attempts she may make to re-conquer what were once her colonies; but we will not permit any third power to attack them, or to re-conquer them for her; and in granting or refusing our recognition of their independence, we shall look, not to the conduct of any European power, but to the actual circumstances of these countries."

During the autumn, Mr. Canning extended his influence among the commercial classes by a visit

to some of the principal commer cial and manufacturing districts. He received every where, but more especially at Liverpool, the most flattering testimonies of the popularity of his conduct. In October, being in Devonshire on a visit to the earl of Morley, he was voted the freedom of Plymouth; and on being presented with it, addressed the corporation in a speech, which, though de livered on an occasion of ceremonial compliment, excited much attention at the time, on account of the manifestation which it contained of the views and feelings of the most important member of the cabinet. "Our ultimate object was," said Mr. Canning, "the peace of the world; but let it not be said," he continued, “that we cultivate peace either because we fear, or because we are unprepared for, war; on the contrary, if eight months ago the government did not hesitate to proclaim that the country was prepared for war, if war should unfortunately be necessary, every month of peace that has since passed has but made us so much the more capable of exertion. The resources created by peace are means of war. In cherishing those resources, we but ac cumulate those means. Our present repose is no more a proof of inability to act, than the state of inertness and inactivity, in which I have seen those mighty masses that float in the waters above your town, is a proof they are devoid of strength, and incapable of being fitted for action. You well know, gentlemen, how soon one of those stupendous masses, now reposing on their shadows in perfect stillness-how soon, upon any call of patriotism, or of necessity, it would assume the likeness of an animated