Star. — London, England, 1813-03-17 00:00:00

t few observations widtrespect to some points touch ed upon by his Noble Friend, relative to the admini stration of affairs in India, and expressed his full co incidence in what he said respecting the superior ad-I vantages of the settlement of a permanent land reve nue in Bengal, and observedi he had never felt grea ter satisfaction than in his endeavours to extend that excellent and salutary system into the Southern Pro vinces of British India. Lord GRENVILLE said, that his Noble Friend must have misunderstood him on the subject of the permanent settlement. He thought his Noble Friend must know him too well- to imagine that he could ever wish that the extension of the eynetrt should be adopted upon hasty and undigested views: Whether his Noble Friend or the Directors were right or wrong in the instance to which his Noble Friend had adver ted, he did not at present consider. He did not op pose whatever caution, delay, and inquiry the nature of the subject might require; but what he said was, that the ,faith of the British Government was or ought to be pledged, that the system should be adop ted as soon as it could be conveniently applied. But now he learnt that a Report had been made by a Committee of the House of Commons, which appea red to set aside the 'whole principle of the permanent settlement, and to form some evidence of an intention to keep the inhabitants of our lately acquired Indian dominions under the lash of the Collectof—to pre serve the worst feature of Mahometan tyranny, in stead of extending to them the advantages of British Government. This Report quoted, (he hoped, in correctly quoted,) two dispatches of the Directors, in which, in terms light indeed, when compared with the magnitude of the subject, they stated, 4 , that they were in no hurry to establish the permanent settle ment." Whit he meant to say was this, that the Legislature should declare, in opposition to the words of these•dispatches, that consistently with all neces sary caution and inquiry, it was in a hurry to extend the advantages of the permanent settlement. Their Lordships adjourned till today. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Ballots having taken place for the appointment of Committees to try the merits of the controverted elections for Cardigan and Youghall, the following Members were chosen and sworn in : 101 CARDIGAN. H C. Combe, Esq. Sir J. T. Duckworth J. H. Strutt, Esq. B. Gaskell, Esq. J. A. Ward, Esq. iras YOUGIIALL. I li.F.Cavendish,Esq. Sir J. Montgomery, `'w lion H. Lascelles Bart, 1. Rantsbottom,Esq Viscount Jocelyn W.H.Fremantle,Esq I Sir C.M. Burrell, Bt. Righ: Hon. W. Fitz- I Hon. W. Broderick gerald Viscount Bernard Mr. BATHURST stated, tha t his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being pre vented by indisposition from bringing forward his Resolutions respecting the Finance of the Country ; which stood for that day, he should move, that the order be discharged. The order was accordingly discharged ; and l'hursday was fixed for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the state of British finance. Lord CASTLEREAGH postponed to Mcnday next, his motion respecting the renewal of the Etst India Company's Charter. As the resolutions of his Right Hon. Friend relative to the finance of the country were deferred to Thursday, he had heard, and it was probably the intention of the Hon. Mem ber opposite to postpone his motion which stood for to-Jnorrow evening to Friday. Mr. WHITBREAD expressed his concern that any motion of which he had given notice, should in terfere with the benevolent Society of St. Patrick, for %%Inch he entertained the sincerest respect; but as the evil, of which he and the House had just reason to complain, grew more alarming every day, he trusted that the Noble Lord, and every admirer and votary of that Saint, would feel more satisfaction in seeing justice done to a wronged and injured woman, than in attending to the festivities of the Anniversary, which was to be celebrated to-morrow.—(Hear, hear). —He should therefore be in his place, and discharge his duty, by bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice. Sir Eyre Coote, Bt. W. CHve, Esq. Sir J. Sidney Yorke Hon. Gen. E. Phipps Eon. W. Elliot Lord G. Cavendish P. W. Baker, Esq. W. Fitzhugh, Esq. C. Dundaa, Esq. J. J. Lockhart, Esq. Hon. W. Howard Viscount Alt horpe Hon. F. G. Howard M. Foulkes, Esq. - : 4 i discharged ; and P l'hu 4 ' . to resolve itself into a i, , to consider of the state Lord CAS'I'LE R I i: next, his motion resf , lt, India Company's Cha Right Hon. Friend • I country were deferre I, 4 and it was probably tl 4 ' ber opposite to postpo to-morrow evening to Mr. WHITBREA , n any motion of which 1 terfere with the ben( 1 for which he entertain 1 the evil, of which he to complain, grew I !I trusted that the Noble 1 votary of that Saint, seeing justice done to than in attending to tl which was to be celebr —He should therefor 4 his duty, by bringing he had given notice. i On the second reac • JAMES SHAW arg 1 to compel manufactu names to their articles merits would be more ingenuity and industr , Sir CHARLES M Mr. WHITBREA the Bill, in the course 'of the regulations of th of a proper proof-hou ' thority. 4 Mr. WYNNE thou , 4 i as it stood. Watchm . , same principle, and a ' in, in their favour. 1 comparatively rude st and brought to Lond ther and finished. If might be expected fot 'Cons, general views s of trade and manufact were always, he unde of a particular perso It should be a great inentary interference, cessity were afforded. Mr. MA RRYAT 1 I lent reasoning on the the principle of the B 4 said as to the details every man have that el bour, and employmen these reasons he shoul Mr. P. MOORE s a gross attempt at mi Mr. FRANKLAI Committee on the B ight be done away. • ciple, as it was manife 4 good name be filched • ress. Let country • airly, but let not a apital, be stolen fron i The Hon. Mr. WA ' ct the circumstance. FIRE-ARMS. On the second reading of the Fire-arms Bill, Sir JAMES SHAW argued for the necessity of a law to compel manufacturers to affix their respective :mes to their articles, as by that mode their different Jerks would be more precisely ascertained, and their igenuity and industry rewarded. Sir CHARLES MORDAUNT opposed the Bill. Mr. WHITBREAD made a few observations on Bill, in the course of which he said, that instead the regulations of this Bill, he preferred the erection a proper proof-house, at Birmingham, under au. _.. WYNNE thought it better to leave the matter it stood. Watchmakers might be injured on the _ rinciple, and a Bill, of course, would be brought in their favour. The fact was, that articles in a laratively rude state, were made in the country, ,rought to London, where they were put toge arid finished. It this Bill passed, similar ores ht be expected for other trades. In these ques , general views should be taken of the situation trade and manufactures. Watches sent to Turkey always, he understood, marked with the name a particular person, whether he existed or not. should be a great occasion that required Parlia - interference, but here no proofs of such ne ,sity were afforded. Mr. MA RRYAT said, he had heard some excel. It reasoning on the subject ; but no objections to principle of the Bill, whatever might have been as to the details. It was fair and just to let very man have that estimation to which his skill, la ir, and employment of his capital, entitled him: for Ise reasons he should vote for the second reading. Mr. P. MOORE should vote against the Bill, as gross attempt at monopoly. Mr. FRANKLAND supported the going into a .tee on the Bill, as all the objections to it tbe done away. He warmly defended its prin. , as it was manifestly wrong to let an individual's name be filched from linn, and leave him no re- Let country manufacturers fight the battle but let not a man's enterprise, talents, aid .4, be stolen from under him. Hon. Mr. WARD said, they ought to recol circumstances of the times iu which our ma- i nnractures were slanted, which were not inch as to • invite experiments. Few Turks could read the. En glish inscriptions on watches ; but they considered the ' word London" as the English mark. If , d Bir. mingham" were engraven, they might take the irti de for one of a very different manufacture. Mr. Foam and Lord BROOKE , opposed the Bill. Mr. BARJNG felt a partiality for the capital. The practice cok‘plained of was a general trick of trade ; if the law dkl not prevent the engraving of indivi ; dual names, he was willing to enact something on ' that subject. On the whole, he regarded the Bill as L an effort at monopoly. Sir JAMES SHAW said, it appeared to him that of three objects proposed by this Bill, two were con ceded :—first, that Birmingham should be provided with a proper proving-house ; and secondly, that a security should be given to artists for the respect due to their own names on their own works. Other ob jections to the Bill could be easily done away, and he therefore hoped for a general concurrence in vot ing for the Committee. The name might be forged, and punishment evaded, by the omission or the ad dition of a single letter. Government had a proof house in Birmingham, but there was no such thing for the goods sent out for sale by the manufacturers. On a division, on the amendment, the numbers for postponing the reading of the Bill were—Ayes 78 7 - Noes 18—Majority 60. The till was consequently lost. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of.—Adjourned. FURTHER DOCUME)TS. (CONTINUED MOM YESTERDAY'S STAR.) LETTER ADDRESSED BY HER ROY AI. HIGHNESS THE PRIN. CESS OF WALES TO THE KING. (Not published in " the Boa.") " SIRE—In discharge of the duty I owe•to myself, and the great duty I owe to your Majesty and your illustrious Family, I have herewith transmitted a statement 4 0 , which I confidently trust will appear to prove me not unworthy of the protection and favour with which your Majesty has been pleased to honour me. 66 To be restored to that favour and protection, in consequence of a conviction in your Majesty's mind of my innocence, produced by the papers, I now humbly lay before your Majesty, is the first wish of my heart. " 6 Grieved, Sire, deeply grieved as I cannot but be, that your Majesty should be exposed to so much trouble on so painful an occasion, and on my account, it. is yet my humble trust that your Majesty will gra ciously forgive me, if extreme anxiety about my ho nour, andyour Majesty's favourable opinion, leads me humbly to solicit, as an act of justice, that scrupulous attention on your Majesty's part to these papers, which cannot fail, I think, to produce, in your Majesty's mind, a full conviction of my innocence, and a due sense of the injuries I have suffered. " One other prayer I with all possible humility and anxiety address to your Majesty, that, as I can hope for no happiness, nor expect to enjoy the benefit of that fair reputation to which I know 1 am entitled, till I am re-admitted into your Majesty's presence, ! and as I am in truth without guilt, suffering what to me is heavy punishment, whilst I am denied ac cess to your Majesty, your Majesty will be graciously pleased to form an early determination whether my conduct and my sufferings do not authorize me to hope, that the blessing of being restored to your Majesty's presence slay be conferred upon, Sire, your M.!jesty's dutifully attached, affectionate, and afflicted daughter-in-law and subject, (Signed) " CAROLINE." " Blackheath, Oct. 2, 1606." HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OF WALES TO TIIK KING. " Sine—l received yesterday, and with inexpres sible pain, your Majesty's last verbal communication. The duty of stating, in a representation to your Ma jesty, the various grounds upon which I feel the hardships of rrty case, and upon which, I confidently think, that upon a review of it, your Majesty will be disposed to recall your last determination, is one I owe to myself ; and 1 cannot forbear, at the moment when I acknowledge the receipt of your Majesty's letter, to announce to your Majesty that I propose to execute that duty without delay. 46 After having suffered the punishment of banish ment from your Majesty's presence for seven months, pending an inquiry which your Majesty had directed to be made into my conduct, affecting both my life and my honour. After that inquiry had at length terminated in the advice of your Majesty's confiden tial and sworn servants, that there was no longer any reason for your Majesty's declining to receive me.— After your Majesty's gracious communication, which led me to rest assured that your Majesty would ap point an early day to receive me. If after all this, by a renewed application on the part of the Prince of Wales (upon whose communications the first inquiry had been directed), 1 now find, that that punishment to which I had been condemned during that same seven months inquiry, previous to the determination in my favour, should, contrary to the opinion of your Majesty's servants, be continued after that determi nation, to await the result of some new proceeding, to be suggested by the Lawyers of the Prince of Wales, it is impossible that I can fail to assert to your Majesty, with the effort due to truth, that I am, in the consciousness of my own innocence, and with a strong sense of my unmerited sufferings, 44 Sire, your Majesty's most dutiful and affectionate, but much-injured subject and daughter-in-law, (Signed) 44 CAROLINE." Montague-house, Blackheath, Feb. 12, 1807." • The statement here referred to is that which follows : THE PRINCESS OF WALES'S DEFENCE. The Report and Examinations having been trans- - mitted to her ROYAL HIGHNESS, she took the advice of the late Mr. PERCEVAL, Lord avow, and Sir THOMAS PLOMER, who drew up her Defence, the first part of which was occupied in severe animadversion on the nature of the proceeding—the formality of the King's warrant—the legality of the Commission —the ex-parte nature of the Examination, &c. &c. After stating that the Report of the Commissioners most fully cleared her Royal Highness of the charge of high treason, by the foul crime of adultery, there remained imputations, strongly sanctioned by the Report, stating that the circumstances detailed against her must be credited till they were decisively contradicted. These were entertained on testimony so little worthy of belief, betraying the malice in which re% •Or it originated, that it was with no little astonishment that she perceived the Commissioners had acted up on-it. It was extraordinary that they should entertain ciiarges amounting to no legal offence, even if clearly proved ; and still more so, that they did not employ the attention that was necessary to detect the villainy of the foul conspiracy, which was evidently formed against her life and honour. Above all, that they should have thought themselves justified in reporting on such evidence, without hearing one word on her behalf, to his Majesty, from whom there could be no appeal to the laws, because the charges could not be made the ground of judicial enquiry. She trusted that his Majesty would not attribute her warmth, in speaking of the manner of this prosecution, to any want of duty or respect to the throne, but to her own sensz of dignity, and to the just feelings which she entertained for the honour of the Royal Family, of which she was a Member. _ For more than two years she had been told of insi nuations against het honour—that her neighbour's servants had been under secret examinations—and dark intimations were given to her of some mischief hatching for the destruction of her peace, if not aim ing at her life. On the 7th of June, 1806, the Duke of Kent communicated to her, that a formal investi gation was actually commenced into her conduct ; and she instantly heard that two Attornies. (one the Solicitor of Sir John Douglas) were arrived at her house, to execute warrants to take half of her house hold servants away, for the purpose of examination. It now appeared that the design was a charge of the crime of high treason, in the infamous crime of adul tery, by which an attack was made directly on her life. The first feeling of her heart prompted her to request his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent to re: main with - her till her servants were gone, that he might bear witness that she held no conversation with any of them previous to their departure, which he accordingly did. This at least might serve to shew that there was no alarm on her part, arising from any consciousness of guilt, or that she had any need of putting her servants on their guard, much less of giving them instructions. The Inquiry went on for two months from this time, without her receiving the least communication on the subject, or knowing what dark and fatal machinations might be going on. At length, the Report, though dated the 14th of July, did not reach her till the 11th of August. She could not, in a situation of such peril to her life and honour, trust to her own judgment, and therefore she consulted legal men in forming her defence. They advised her that the body of the charges was not com plete, as the Declarations upon which the King's Warrant originated had not accompanied the Exa minations and Report, and that the whole had not been officially authenticated. By a representation to his Majesty these omissions were rectified. On the 29th August she received the Declarations (including the Duke of Kent's) and on the 3d September the papers were authenticated. She was ready to acknowledge that her honour was of more importance to the State than that of any o her worean ; that her conduct, therefore, might be fitly subjected, when necessary, to a severer scrutiny than that of others; but it conld not follow, because her character might be of. more importance, that • it might be attacked with more impunity. For two years she had been slandered in the most ignominious way—insinuations thrown out against her in her neighbourhood—spies placed upon her conduct—the ' servants in the neighbouring families tampered with, and that by the Earl of Moira, as would appear by the deposition of Jonathan Partridge, porter to Lord Eardley. She humbly trusted, that before any other proceeding should be gone into, it would be conside 'red as fit that it should be done by another and more ' known and regular tribunal, and in a manner more consonant with the forms of British judicature. ' She now proceeded to observe on the evidence ad duced; and, first, of the testimony, of Lady Douglas. The first observation that must strike every one, was the folly of gratuitously and uselessly confessing to a person, almost a stranger, a secret of such vital im portance as that of pregnancy, if it had been really so. Lady Douglas had, in fact, courted her acquaint ance, by the most humble attentions, and she was not a person who, either by her manners or acquirements, ' could engage any part of her confidence. The Prin cess proceeds to examine her Declaration, made on the 3d of December, 1805, :hough it was not com municated to his Majesty till the month of May, and, though she did not feel herself called upon to enter into any refutation of an evidence that was totally discredited, yet, in justice to her own feelings, she must shew how inconsistent, vague, and futile it was in every part, and accordingly the Princess goes through it passage by passage. The other declara tions were made by persons of a character and de scription, as one would have thought would of itself have deprived them of all credit. Such informations, such ex:parte examinations, were of themselves suffi cient to make the Commissioners hesitate—but to re port upon them to his Majesty, with all the weight and authority of their high names, she was perfectly at a loss to account for. The evidence was described as containing matters of , 6 great impropriety and in decency of behaviour, and as other particulars in themselves extremely suspicious, and still more so, when connected with the assertions already mention ed." And they go on to say, "that particularly what passed between her Royal Highness and Captain Manby must be credited, until they receive some de cisive contradiction; and, if true, are justly entitled to the most serious consideration." Now, what did the whole rest upon Nearsays--rumours—sespi cions, and reports of very doubtful persons. All the witnesses except Mrs. Lisle, were witnesses of the in formers. For Mrs. Lisle she had great respect; but all the rest were placed by the Prince about her; and what is it that they say ? They speak only to such generalities, as makes it difficult, at such a distance of time, to recollect facts with sufficient accuracy to contradict them. • Cole, for instance, talks of her eating sandwiches with Sir Sidney Smith : that he sometimes came to dinner, and to supper, and staid till twelve or one, or later. These were assertions which she could not contradict, because they were true. His conversa tion, and the history of his achievements, amused her. She was fitting up a Turkish tent, and he assisted her. He gave her the plan of Murat Bey's. He taught her how to draw Egyptian Arabesques, &c. and this oc casioned his frequent visits, and some, probably, as early in the morning as Bidgood mentions. Bidgeod might also have met them walking in the ?ark alone; for the Ladies miet have gone up to take off their cloaks, and dress for dinner, while they remained alone. At some of these times Cole and Bidgood might have seen Sir Sidney, when he had not entered through the waiting-room ; but she never knew that he had a hey to - the park ; and as to being alone with him? it must have happened with many others as well as him ; and she did n‘t conceive it to be in. consistent with the manners of society. It was only In the drawing-room—in no other room did she ever see Gentlemen ; andas to eating sandwiches, she had herself ordered them to be brought in, according to daily custom, and he undoubtedly might have bee* sitting on the same sofa. She might have often been seen sitting on the same sofa with other GentlemeN as well as Sir Sidney Smith; but it was impossible fot her to say what corner 0 a sofa he might have occu pied four years ago. Her conscience perfectly ac quitted her of any improper freedom ' • and, unless it should be considered, that a Princess of Wales could never descend to the familiarities and intercourse of private life, it must be under any circumstances ex tremely hard ; but under her's, it could hardly be ex pected from her. There were four different declarations fromCole— all different from the deposition which he afterwards made, and materially differing from one another. It was her misfortune that Cole and Bidgood had not been sifted and questioned as they ought to be. The Law Lords were not always, nor even often present, and the examinations were left to Earl Spencer and Lord Grenville. Cole was not punishable, because the two Lords could not administer an oath ; —and yet, mark the conduct of this man. He had o bserved a man in a great coat, at midnight, without feeling or giving any alarm ; and yet this man had his nerves so shocked as to start at seeing a gentleman sitting on a sofa at mid-day. He could stiffer the approach of a man at midnight to his master's bed, because he did not believe him to be a thief—and yet could have his suspicions aroused at seeing a friend with his mistress in an open room ! It was, no doubt, the watchman whom he saw at midnight, whose duty it was to go his rounds, both without and within the house—and it was his duty to have ascertained who it was, if he had doubts on the subject. He ascribes his removal to his starting. It was not so—Cole was a disagree able man : he had been educated above his station ; he spoke French, played on the violin, &c. He would frequently play on her harpsichord and read her books. He shewed a forwardness and impertinence which were disgusting. He had lived at Dtvonshire house, and was recommended from thence to the Prince. He carried thither all the observations which he made on the Princess's family, which determined her to remove him ; and for this purpose she desired the Duke of Kent to acquaint him that she wished him to wait on her at Cariton-house, and the arrange.. ment would have been made desirable to him, it he had conducted himself with propriety. The Lamperts, seryauts of Lady Douglas, the Commissioners had not thought proper to examine, no doubt from their sense of the ignominy into which Lady Douglas had plunged herself ; but it was un fortunate, that, by the absence of Sir Sydney Smith, she was unable to call upon him to refute the decla ration of the Lamperts. The next person imputed to the Princess was Mr. Lawrence, the painter. Mrs. Lisle said, that she sat to him in London and at Blackheath; and Cole said he 44 slept two or three nights at Montague-house; that one night she was with him alone in the blue-mom, after the ladies had retired ; and that afterwards, when he supposed that Mr. Lawrence had gone to bed, ha went to see whether all was safe, and he found thet blue-room locked, and heard a whispering . in it, upon which he went away." In his first declaration he said, that much suspicion was entertaiaed of Mr. Lawrence, but he does not mention the whispering nor the loch ed door. This contradiction is worthy of remark... It is perfectly true, that in 1800 or 1801, Mr. Law. rence painted a large picture of her and her daughter, and he asked to be permitted to sleep a few nights at Montague-house, that he might get up and work on the picture in the morning. Sir William Beecher had done the same. Accordingly an apartment was assigned to him at the other end of the house. did not dine with the Princess, but he came down sometimes to music in the evening. "He sometimes read, as he reads Shakspeare with great elegance, and he sometimes played at chess with the Princess. It frequently might have happened that he stayed till one or two o'clock. The Ladies and he went together ; but it might have happened that once he was lett with her, as he himself recollects that it did happen for a minute or two after the Ladies had retired. He lived in the greatest intimacy with Mr. Lock and Mr. An gerstein, and the Princess had asked him to dine with her with them. No doubt she often sat alone to him, and often continued in conversation with him after the sitting for the day was over ; but it never occurred to her that it was necessary to her honour to have a witness upon all such occasions. Mrs. Lisle says, that she left the Princess at Mr. Lawrence's, but thinks Mrs. Fitzgerald was with her. As to Captain Hanby, the evidence of Bidgood. Frances Lloyd, and Mrs. Lisle are to be considered; and first as to Mrs. Lisle's evidence : she had placed two boys under his care, and Mrs. Lisle says " that he was the person with whom the Princess took greater pleasure in speaking to than any other; that she be hayed to him only as any woman would do who likes flirting, but she would not have thought that any mar ried woman would have behaved properly who be haved as she did to him. She would not say she was attached to him, but it was a flirting conduct.— She never saw any gallantry, as kissing her hand or the like." This was the sum of her evidence. The Princess was introduced to Captain Manby at Lady Townshend's. She put two boys under his care. While the Afri. caine, his ship, was fitting out, he took apartments at Blackheath, and she sometimes saw him. Having placed these boys under him, she made him a pre sent of a little plate, as it was constantly her prac tice to make a present of some sort, where she im posed trouble. In like manner Sir Samuel Hood had two of her boys, and she gave him an epergne.-- -She admits that she frequently conversed with Cap tain Manby, but Mrs. Lisle's evidence was not suffi ciently sifted ; she ought to have explained more dis tinctly what she observed, and not to he left to speak in generalities. The Princess's conscience acquitted her of every improper freedom. Mrs. Lisle had at this time lost a favourite daughter, which no doubt gave to her mind 3 serious wed even severe turn is , I