Star. — London, England, 1813-03-06 00:00:00

, mediate fruits of our civil dissentions, have placed us 1 in a situation similar to that in which was found the administration of Louis XIV. and Louis XV. but If the situation is similar, the other circumstances are different in every respect. • T o lle possession of Holland, of the Scheldt, the ex tension of our power; upon the coasts of the Adriatic, the ports of Genoa and Spezzia, all the course of the Rhine and the Meuse, affords us maritime means of very different importance to those who possessed the ancient monarchy ; we can construct fleets without the enemy's superiority being able to prevent, or ren dering them expensive. The judicious administra tion of the finances of the. Empire places us in a situa tion to meet the expences which the establishment of a grand marine, and satisfying the expences of Con tinental wars, occasions. In short, the energy of Our Government, its firm and constant will, was alone ca pable of overcoming the greatest obstacles. The ad -1 ministration of the marine nevertheless felt tile ne cessity of adopting a fixed and calculated system, which should keep pace with the creation or re-esta blishment of ports, the constructions of vessels, and the instructions of the sailors. In La Mancha, Nature has done 'every thing for England ; she has done nothing for us. From the reign of Lous XIV. the importance of having a port on that sea was felt ; the project of Cherbourg was adopted, and the foundations of the banks laid. But in our civil troubles, all these works interrupted were deteriorated ; every thing became a doubt in respect to place, and it was asked if it would not be better 1 . to prefer La Hogue to Cherbourg ? 1 The Administration fixed its intention upon these important questions. The decision in favour of Cherbourg was confirmed, and immediately the ele vation of the banks, to shelter the road, was com menced. [Here follows an account of the harbours of Cher bourg, Flushing, and Antwerp, in the latter of which, it is said, twenty vessels can be constructed I . at the same timeJ.—To be eoniinued. PARLIAMEMARr PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH S. The Crown Deb:ors' Relief, the' Salt Excise, the Cornish Mi ners Enlistment, and a few others, chiefly private Bills, were brought up from the Commons by Mr. Lusiiirio - roN, Mr. An- Dr n N, and other Members, and respectively read a firstthne. The Earl of DERBY presented a Petition from the merchants, traders, and others, of the Borough of Preston, in Lancashire, against the continuance of the East India Company's monopoly. His I ordship presented another Petition to the same effect train el Won-ender-Line. Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH presented lists of the names of those 'tinfoil Catholics who have takell the oaths under the Re levant Acts, in pursuance of an Address of their Lordships.— Ordered to . e printed. . Lord Holton.; presented a Petition from the City of Exeter, fin favour of the Catholic Claims. Lord ROLLE (who had on a former evening presented a pe ,' tithai •of aco .trary nature from the same city) observed, that the Mee i: g at which an adverse petition was voted, was one of the ;• Urges , ever known in that city ; and took notice, that some of those who appeared to have supported that now presented by the Noble Lord, were then against the claims of the Roman Catholics. I.nrd HOLLAND rated, that with respect to the individuals alluded to, (hey had been opposed to these Claims, under the suist.dttn notion that the oaths required by the Acts, which the Catholic, of both England and Ireland now freely took, were tho. , which they wanted to get rid of. Alta . a tew tarther words in the way of explanation between these Noble Lords,' the petition was ordered to lie on the table, and the Items adjourned till Monday. HOUSE . OF COMMONS. Sir C. POOLE brought up the Report of the Pembroke Com mittee, which declared sir J. Owen to be duly elected for both the Coon awl the Borough. It stated the pettuon against his return to be neither frivolous nor vexatious. A new writ Is as ordered for the Borough of Pembroke, in the room of Sir J. Owen, he having made his election to serve for the county. Mr. CARTWRIGHT, front the Liverpool Committee, Re- I ported that G. Canning, Esq. and General Gascoigue (the sitting Members) were duly elected, but stated tie petitions to be I neither frivolous nor vexatious. The SPEAKER thought it might be convenient to the House to be apprised, that as Monday next was the last day of receiving Private Bills, it was his intention to come to the House on that day at three o'clock, then to take the Chair if enabled to do so. Mr. H. THORNTON' brought in a Biil to relieve certain persons confined in the King's Bench and Marshalsea Prisons, who, being natives of Ireland, had not thelarne advantages ) afforded to them at present, as from existing arrangements were enjoyed by other prisoners. ,i . { After a tew words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the Bill was read l' , a first, and ordered to be read a second time. Colonel WOOD moved the second reading of a Bill, the object of which was to alrer a clause in the Brecknock Canal Bill. Sir CHARLES MORGAN moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time on thlit day six months. After a discussion in which Lord A. SEYMOUR, Mr. Pao-rux. RO%, Mr. HARVEY, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. I. P. GRANT, and other Honourable Members participated, the Gallery was cleared for a division. On dividing, the numbers were— For the Amendment— 160. .Against It 93. The Bill was therefore lost. After the division, strangers were not again admitted. THE PRINCESS OF WALES. While the Gallery was cleared, Mr. BENSON moved the Standing Order, and it remained un opened. Mr. BENNETT repeated his motion of adjourn ment, stating, that be did so merely to mark his dis approbation of the exclusion of all strangers. This motion was negatived without a division. Mr. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE then rose.— His motion, he stated, originated entirely with him pelf, without any communication with other persons. He even did not know that he should find one Mem ber to second it. He had transmitted to the Princess i.of Wales, and to the King's Ministers, a copy of the Resolutions he intended to propose: He then re ferred to the Report made by the Commissioners of the Privy Council, at the command of his Majesty, in 1806 ; and the authenticity of which, he said, he was enabled to prove at the Bar, if fequired to do so. He read over the charges made against her Royal Highness at that time, and many of the par ticular items of those charges, with the concluding Report. The Princess, he stated, had, on her re ceiving a copy of that Report, addressed a letter to his Majesty, a copy of which he read, (this letter was of considerable length), the authenticity of which he was also prepared to substantiate. The letter alluded to the malice of her enemies—to her not. being call ed upon to make'a fair defence—and to the parties be credible witnesses. That Report was is, Spencer, Grenville, Er- In March, 1807, a change .'s Councils, and Mr. Per the King to restore the she was accordingly again that time no material change bad occurred in bet situation 01 recently, when she had received a communication from the Earl of Li verpool, by which she was informed, that her accus tomed intercourse with the Princess Charlotte was to be abridged. This produced her Royal Highness's Letter to the Prince Regent, and led yo the late re ference of the case to certain Members of the Privy Council. In his opinion, the four Lords Commis sioners in 1806 had gone beyond their authority, in pronouncing their opinion on the Princess's conduct, as they had done. The charge against her Royal Highness was no less than High Treason. If, as Magistrates, they had a right to examine witnesses to the facts, yet he conceived that they had no right to pronounce either her condemnation or her acquittal. That Report, therefore, as far as concerned their judgment, he looked upon as of no effect in law. Lady Douglas's deposition, who swore to the preg nancy in 1802, remained uncontradicted. In what a state would the country be placed, if this proceeding was again to be called for, and the evidence of Lady Douglas produced ; while that of witnesses on the other side, could not, from death or other causes, be obtained ? It was, therefore, the bounden duty of Par liament to provide against such an event. He called to the recollection of the House, that no proceedings had been instituted against Sir John or Lacfy Doug las, for defaming the character of the Princess. He thought that the confidential servants of the Prince Regent ought to send the Princess copies of all letters and papers concerning her conduct since 1806, as far, at least, as it was alluded to in the proceedings on the late Report. A strict and impartial investigation of her conduct ought certainly to take place. In the task he had undertaken, he was actuated only by a conscientious sense of his duty As a Member of Par liament. After various other remarks, the Honour able Member concluded by moving two Resolutions. The first was of great length, recapitulating the*con tents of all the reports and papers concerning her Royal Highness. The second was for an Address to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying his Royal Highness to lay the whole of the documents before the House, together with all other papers re ' lative thereto. Mr. JOHN WHARTON seconded the motion. Lord CASTLEREAGH rose, and said, he felt that he should act most consistently with his duty in confining himself to explanation, with respect to parts of the Hon. Member's speech, which would tend to guard the House against those false impressions which it might otherwise excite. This mode of pro ceeding adopted by the Hon. Member was some what singular. His first Resolution was, in fact, even in his own view of it, without any proof. His second Resolution called for those very papers, as matter of information, on which his first Resolution was founded—as if they were matters of certain knowledge. He did not mean to urge it in the way of cavil against the proceeding ; but surely, if there were any grounds for the Resolutions, the second should have been the preliminary one; as the first, in its order, could by no possibility be adopted by the House. The only object of the information called for, seemed to be, to persuade the House that such serious evils existed as to the successirai to the throne, as required the interference of Parliament. He should not enter into any detailed enquiry as to the legality of the Privy Council acting as a tribunal in their pro ceedings on this subject ; but he would state, that he was perfectly satisfied that they were fully compe tent to enquire whether there were or were not suffi cient grounds of charge for putting her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales on her defence The present motion, however, did not go to- the ex tent of settling the question, whether any such pro ceedings were, or were not, necessary ? But he must say, that if the Commissioners were not competent to decide upon the charges against her Royal High ness of being pregnant in the year 1802, the House of Commons was certainly not the proper tribunal for deciding on such a question. If, on the other hand, no actual criminality was imputed to her Royal Highness, that House was equally an improper tri bunal for deciding on that question. If, again, every shade in the conduct of the Princess of Wales, from the highest degree of guilt down to the lowest levity, were to be considered, that House was not, certainly, the place where such matters should be di cussed.— He must also observe, that if any unfortunate dis putes or disunions existed between any members or branches of the Royal Family, any discussion in the House of Commons could serve only to increase alienation, to augment the evil, and to widen the breach. The only solid practical ground, therefore, on which Parliament could proceed, would be, that doubts attached to the succession to the Crown. — But in the present case there was not the smallest doubt entertained upon that subject. The Commis sioners in 1806, from their known character and high legal qualifications, were certainly fit persons to de cide upon that question ; and they had decided, and no doubts remained on their minds that required the necessity of Parliamentary interposition. They did not make a comparative• enquiry into the weight of the evidence of Lady Douglas, as compared with or contrasted to that of other witnesses ; but they decid ed, that they had traced the whole history of the child so completely and satisfactorily, that no pos sible doubt could remain that it was not born of the Princess of Wales, but of another woman, named Sophia Austin. Nor, indeed, did this decision rest only on their Report, for it was afterwards referred to other confidential servants of his Majesty, who gave a solemn judgment, confirming the Report of the first Commissioners. The supposed doubt respecting the succession, was, therefore, rebutted by the authority of the first Commissioners of the first Cabinet ; and also by that of the sub sequent Cabinet, to whom the matter was refer red, and who confirmed the same judgment.. If any doubt found its way into the mind of Parlia ment, he would not deny, in the abstract, that no case might exist, as to the question of Succession, which it might be the duty of Parliament to examine; but would the Honourable Gentleman say, that after all those authorities which he had stated, it would be regular or rational for Parliament to interfere ? Would not such interference rather serve to originate doubts, where no doubts existed ; and give counte nance to suspicions, contrary to the repeated decla rations of all parties, that no case whatever had been made out, to require any such interference on the part of Parliament ? The Hon. Gentleman himself had made his statement in such a manner art° shew that he entertained no doubts upon the subject ; yes, ~:~., vehenateither he, nor any other Member, had any doubt respecting the legitimacy of the Succession, he I called upon Parliament to legislate. It was perfectly true that there had been no prosecution entered into of Lady Douglas; her evidence was taken by the Commissioners in the discharge of ,their duty; and the Hon. Gentleman should have stated in candour, that the first Cabinet recommended that no procee dings should be bad, unless the Crown Lawyers deemed it advisable to prosecute Lady Douglas for perjury. A case was laid before them ; and though they were satisfied as to the perjury, they, neverthe- less, saw great difficulties in the way of establishing it by legal evidence, and, therefore they did not ad vise prosecution.. If he were so disposed, he might use some grounds for personal complaint against the Hon. Member, for be had transgressed the rules of his parliamentary duty, in stating that Mr. Perceval had prevailed upon the Cabinet to espouse the cause of the Princess of Wales. The Cabinet had acted deliberately and conscientiously in thebusiness, and had advised that there were no reasons why her Royal Highness should not be admitted again to the presence of the Sovereign, agreeably to the recommendation of I the former Cabinet, with whom, indeed, it had origi nated. The Hon. Member had stated with marked em- phasis, that Lady Douglas's evidence was given by command of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent. In this matter, the Prince Regent followed the advice of Lord Thurlow, which was to have the evidence reduced to writing, in order to submitting it to legal consideration. Then his Royal Highness felt it to be his duty to communicate the charges to his Royal Father, with whom, and with whose Cabinet, and not with his Royal Highness himself, the whole affair had from that time remained. He could really see no necessity for pursuing the subject of this dis cussion any farther. It could not be properly brought forward, except on the presumption that some doubts existed relative to the Succession to the Crown ; and he trusted, that in what he had said, he had convinced the House that no such doubts did exist. Calling for further information, if agreed to, would only be the means of gratifying private cu riosity, by making Parliament the instrument of pro curing that gratification, that taste for calumny, which was so much the rage at the present moment. He should trust to the indulgence of the House, to explain farther in reply, in case other circumstances were touched upon, which might . render farther ex planations necessary : and he hoped that the House would not tolerate suspicions or doubts, where none whatever existed, by adopting the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. _ _ _ Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY commenced , by ob serving, that the Hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane John stone) had indulged himself in such strong censure' of the Administration of 1806, as to render it impos sible for him to preserve silence. No man who knew them, would throw the slightest shade of disrespect or suspicion on the conduct of those four Noble Lords, who composed that Commission of Enquiry. With respect to himself, he had to say, that he was con sulted by his Royal Highness, in his professional ca pacity, upon the subject ; and was, he believed-, se lected for that purpose by the recommendation of the late Lord Thurlow, that he might give his opinion on this very delicate investigation. Alter having con sidered it with the utmost care and anxiety, he ad dressed a letter to his Royal 1-I;ghness, conta i n i ng .his Sentiments on the matter, in December, 1805. After he gave that opinion, his Royal Highness took every possible means to ascertain what credit was due to the parties, whose testimony had been given. In the change of Administration which shortly followed, he had the honour of being appointed Solicitor-Gene ral ; and in March, 1806, he received his Majesty's commands to confer with Lord Thurlow on this im portant business. Lord Thurlow desired him to tell the Prince of Wales, that the information was of a nature much too important for his Royal Highness not to take some proper steps in consequence. 1 his he communicated to the Prince of Wales, and in a short time afterwards, the facts, as stated, were submitted to some of the King's Ministers. An authority was then issued under the King's Sign Manual to certain Members of the Privy Council, to take up the investi gation of the whole of the case. Many meetings were held, and many witnesses were examined thereupon : and he (Sir S. Romilly) was the only other person present, besides the Commissionerss, at these exa minations, which were conducted by the four Noble Lords mentioned, and he took down all the deposi tions. He must declare in the most solemn manner, that no enquiry was ever conducted with greater im partiality, nor was there ever evinced a more anxious desire to discharge justly a great public duty. With respect to the propriety of instituting proceedings against Lady Douglas, he should beg to state, that the objections to the instituting such proce:d ings, did not arise from any doubts of the right of the Commissioners to administer an oath, as some persons. had insinuated, nor indeed from any doubt as to whether the facts sworn to were true or false, but from other circumstances. He was prepared to maintain, that the legality of the Commission, com posed of certain Members of his Majesty's Privy Council, required no other authority but the autho rity of the King, directing them to inquire into the circumstance of a charge of high treason : and that it was not only their right, but their duty to go into such inquiry. Ought a bill, for instance, to be sent down at once to a Grand Jury of the county of Mid dlesex, without any preliminary proceedings ? No man, he believed, who was acquainted with the duty imposed upon the King's Privy Councillors, would hazard such an assertion. It was their duty to in - quire into all matters of a treasonable nature, before they referred them to the regular tribunals for trial. In the recent case, for instance, of Margaret Nichol son, the Privy Council found the woman to be in sari! ; and no proceedings whatever were instituted against her. Sir Samuel Romilly argued at some length, in proof of the legal right of the Privy Coun cil to act as a tribunal of investigation for the pur pose specified, of which, he contended, no doubt could reasonably be entertained. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the motion ought to be negatived. Mr. WHITBREAD observed, that the Honour able Member who had brought forward the present motion, had stated his intention to him ; and he had told him, that he thought his first Resolution could. not be adopted. He, therefore, did not rise in sup port of it ; for he concurred in much that had fallin from the Noble Lord opposite, and thought that, at this period at least, no such motion should be enter- Ptained by the House as might render it the ♦elticle of communicating to the Public at large those matters which it was much better should be suppressed. He must, however, remind the Noble Lord of his expres sion of his readiness to make explanations, particu larly with respect to the more recent parts of these transactions. If the House dismissed this :object , without any farther explanations or proceedings, the IPrincess of Wales would, in his mind, be grossly in jured. Her Royal Highness complained to the House of vague and ambiguous blame thrown upon her, and demanded explanation at least. By the common uncontradicted rumour, it appeared, that she had addressed a letter to the King, impeaching the proceedings of the four Noble Lords who were the. Commissioners in 1806 ; and it should be re- membered, that in so doing, she was understood to be acting under the advice of Mr. Perceval.— Lord Eldon, it was also stated, approved of that let.. ter. The same was said of Sir I'. Plomer, now his Majesty's Attorney-General,who,being present, could contradict the assertion, if it were untrue. He wished to know from the Noble Lord opposite, whether. for wi the with the privity and knowledge of those persons, and purpose of making her Royal Highness's in nocence manifest to the world, a work was not printed, intended to be published, and circulated throughout England and Europe? When the Noble Lord talked of an appetite for slander and calumny. was he not aware that newspapers had lately teemed with paragraphs and extracts, the tendency of • which was to libel the Princess of Wales ? WAS not the public mind in a state of agitation on this sub ject, which it was highly expedient to allay ? Nobody doubted that Lady Douglas was a perjured person ; but though that was not doubted, she still 'remained a competent witness ; and, therefore, some check ought to be put to the propagation of ambiguotis re ports. It appeared that her Royal Highness ) ! find ing the intercourse between her and the young Princess was restricted more and more, addressed a letter to the Prince Regent, whick was twice returned unopened. At length, it seems, it was read to his Royal Highness, and the cold answer returned was, that Ministers had received no commands on the sub. ject. That letter at last found its way into the publi,. prints ; and then his Royal Highness, not as the Head of his Family, but as Prince Regent, by the advice of Ministers, summoned a Privy Council to consult what he should do : and the extraordinary advice of this Privy Council to his Royal Highness was, not to refer to the present conduct of the Princess of Wales, but to the evidence of 1806 or 1807 I Was there ever advice so preposterous, and so cruel ? The levities of her Royal Highness in 1806 were to be punished in 1813, more severely than was thought necessary in former years, by increased restrictions and restraints ! The Ho. nonrable Gentleman then adverted to the opinion lately given by the legal advisers of the Prince Regent, which had but recently been made known, and whifh stated, that, according to their experience, cases not of graver import might be sent to a Jury. Here, then, it would appear, there must be doubts as to the succession to the Throne 1 When the Noble Lord and his Colleagues framed their last Report, had they not all this before them ? If so, let the House see what this Cabinet did, who, in 1807, pro. flounced a verdict of entire acquittal on the part of her Royal Highness, and who fastened such serious imputations on her In ISIS I By the advice of Lord Eldon and Mr. Perceval, as it was understood, the Princess of Wales threatened publicity to the former proceedings, and then she was readmitted at Court. Her advisers must, at that period, have been fully persuaded of her innocence, or they never would have recommended her to risk such a pub. lication to the world. Mr. Whitbread then com. mented on the various circumstances connected with the transactions of 1807, when an unanimous opinion was declared, that all the particulars of the Princess's conduct, to which any character or colour of criminality could be ascribed, were either satisfac torily contradicted, or rested on evidence under such circumstances as to render it unworthy of credit.--- This was a complete verdict of not guilty. The King had been previously advised to receive her Royal Highness, with a reproof for her unguarded conduct ; but those Ministers advised no reproof, and called on his Majesty to restore her, and to receive her at once in the manner due to her exalted rank and station in the community ! But now, in 1818, was raked up the old evidence of 1806, by some of those very per. sons, in order to defame her, and punish her by ad ditional restrictions ! Ought she to submit to these imputations ? Ought not that House to interfere ? —The Noble Lord, indeed, had observed that any of her Royal Highness's legal advisers who chose to do so, might come forward in her behalf. There was a time when she did not want legtl advisers —when Mr. Perceval, and Lord Eldon, and others, were her legal advisers ! But one of them was now dead, and the others had become mute !- -He had declared last night, that if no one else did, he would stand up, not as her advocate, but for the cause of justice. She ought not to be t he only per. son in this country, so famed for its humanity, with out a friend, or a legal adviser. Irtat recourse was left to her but an appeal to the justice of Parliament? Her request to the Prince Regent was similar to that of Anne Boleyne to Henry the Prove me guilty, or admit me to be innocent 0 The Speaker of the House of Lords has twice returned her letter, as we hear, unopened. You, Sir, (addressing the Speaker) have, with great propriety, submitted the letter which you received, to our consideration.— Suppose you had refused to present her petition I It might have happened, Sir, that nobody else would have presented it. The Hon. Gentleman, who is the mover of this question, once gave me a Petition, which he told me 135 Members had refused to pre. sent. This might have been the situation of the Prin. cess of Wales." Mr. Whitbread then moved as an amendment to the motion, that after the word that,' the following should be adopted : 4 An Address to the Prince Regent, praying that a copy of the Report to which her Royal Highness had referred, be laid before the House." Lord CASTLEREAGH was sorry to trouble the House a second time, but trusted to their indulgence. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he was glad to find the question in his hands, as he had met it in a manly manner, and had put it on the true grounds, of an attack on the Ministers of the day. He denied that the opinions of the-Members of the Privy Council who signed the Minute were ! not being credible witnes signed by the four Lords, I skim and.Ellenborough. took place in his Majesty' CeVdl then prevailed upon Prince's to favour ; and 51 received at Court. Since tb 161111111111 1! wit