Star. — London, England, 1813-03-16 00:00:00

.., ~~ - is his Royal Highness is with regard to this subject, it would have been peculiarly incumbent en them to. have given this advice, had they entertained the least suspicion that her Royal Highness the Princess or Wales was justly liable to any imputation of actual criminality. Under these circumstances, the motion which I now give notice that it is my intention to make, will be for an Address to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he will Be gra ciously pleased to gtve instructions to the Law Of ficers of the Crown to prosecute Lady Douglas fot perjury, on such parts of her testimony as the Com missioners of 1807 declared (to use their own words) —' appeared to them to render her justly liable thereto.' " Lord CASTLEREAGH—" The Hon. Gentle man has very candidly stated the nature of his in tended motion, and the reasons by which he is in• duced to take the step that he means to adopt. I must as frankly declare, that I do not consider myself bound in duty to answer the Hon. Gentleman's ques tion, until the subject shall be brought regularly under the consideratjon of Parliament." Mr. WHITBREAD—" The Noble Lord has Satisfied himself with respect to what he conceives to be his duty. But, Sir, I have called on any other Wernher of this House who may be aware of the facts, to state them in reply to my inquiry. The Noble Lord has declined all reply to my questions ; but it does not follow that they must remain unan 'peered. I repeat them. Have the Law Officers of the Crown been instructed to prosecute Lady Douglas for perjury ? Has Lady Douglas been ex amined as a credible witness between the 12th Fe bruary and the sth March, the last being the day on tvhich the Noble Lord characterised her Ladyship as a perjured and degraded person ? If the Noble Lord' does not feel competent to reply to this last question (for I must inform the House that Sir John Douglas t'lld me, that on apprising the Noble Lord that Lady Douglas had been examined yesterday li':night, the Noble Lord assured him, that he had to knowledge of it), I ask, in the absence of infor mation on the part of the Noble Lord, if any other Member of this House knows whether, on or since the sth of Match, any examination of Lady Dou glas, touching the old matter, or involving any new allcotions of criminality, have taken place ? If I receive no answer from the Noble Lord, who, it %eons, thinks it his duty to give no answer, or no answer from any other Member, I must convent my self for the present with the consciousness of having done my own duty in making the inquiry ; and with declaiing t h at on Wednesday I will execute the pur pose which I have already announced to the House, of moving an address to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give instructions to the Law Officers of the Frown to prosecute Lady Douglas. Sir, Ido this, being perfectly certain that the public mind cannot bear to be contaminated as it has recently been ghat i‘catrnot continue in, the ferment which ele publications to which I have alluded have ex cited, and that it loudly demands that if her Royal' Highness the Princess of Wales is guilty, she shall , be brought to trial—it innocent, that the witnesses against her shall be punished for their perjury." Lord CA sTLEREAGH- 4, Sir, I will not allow any observations made by the Honourable Gentle. man to tempt me to depart from the course which, a view of my public duty has prescribed to me.— Much less should I walranted in such a departure by any publications for the nature or tendency of which Ministers are not answerable. As to the public feelings that may have been excited by the recent disclosures, that is a burden which must rest on the shoulders of those by and in whom the disclo sures originated. The Honourable Gentleman him self has deeply to answer on this subject. It was he who first read in this House a garbled extract of the documents connected with the case. Sir, he ought to have read all those documents or none of them ; and if any injury should arise from the disclosure, of that inconvenience the Hon. Gentleman is himself the author." Mr. WHITBREAD- A It is impossible for me, Sir, to abstain from defending myself against the imputation of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord says that I read to this House a garbled extract of the documents. What I read was the minute of the Cabinet of 1807, of which the Noble Lord was a Wernher, and to which minute the Noble Lord's flame is appended. If this be a garbled extract of evidence, I have not hitherto known what a garbled extract of evidence is. Being in possession of this document—a document printed by Mr. Perceval— and in the possession of hundreds as well as myself, I thought it necessary to read it to the House of Commons on au occasion to which it was so peculi wily applicable. But, Sir, is the reading of this minute of a Cabinet, recording a verdict of acquittal of her Royal Highness to be compared to the publi cation of such evidence as, notwithstanding that recorded verdict, has a clear tendency to criminate her Royal Highness ! This evidence has been com municated to the Public through the medium of two Newspapers—the one The Morning Herald, the other The Morning Post ; both issuing from the press en the same day. In the latter of those Papers the evidence is accompanied with certain comments ; as If her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales were amenable to the tribunal of the Editor ! The other Paper, it is well known, is the property of a person who has lately received a titular distinction, and who )as the honour of enjoying a familiar intercourse at Carlton House. Sir, the Noble Lord at the time that I read the minute of the Cabinet in question did Dot complain of my doing Lord CASTLEREAGH- 6 ' Yes, I did." Mr. WHITBREAD--" Did you ?. I beg par don; Ido not recollect it; it has escaped me. But, -Sir, there is a material difference between reading such a document, and editing publications which. after an acquittal, go to load the person who has been declared innocent with ignominy. Sir, I have not been the adviser of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, in the publication of her original letter to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent. Iu a subsequent letter of her's, which has also been published, her Royal Highness disclaims all know ledge of the publication of the former. She has, bowelltr, come down to Parliament, desiring 'to be either treated as innocent, or proved guilty. Thai she cannot be the latter, 1 repeat that I have the ittongest re‘sou to be assured, from.the oiseuroCao,ce II a of no Meanie from the Throne having bees pont ed to this House on the stibject-P 1,45 rd CASTLEREAGH. 4 I now know what this Hon. Gentleman's views are. I may be allowed to say, in explanation, that on the occasion of the discussion to whirl; the Hon. Gentleman has allud ed, I did most distinctly complain that he garbled— , I do not mean to use the word in an offensive signs= fication—but that he garbled the statement of the proceedings relative to her Royal Highness. For what did the Hen. Gentleman do ? He brought for ward the Minute of the Portland Cabinet, of 1807, without putting the House in possession of the pro ceedings in the preceding Cabinet, thereby creating an impression which would not have been produced had the whole been submitted to the House. The proceedings of the Portland Cabinet are intelligible only as founded on the proceedings of the Grenville Cabinet, to which they advert, and which they con firm. The Hon. Gentleman has also had recourse to an old tactic, of charging Government with un fairness, because documents and transactions have ap peared (front what quarter it does not seem) in parti cular Newspapers. Sir, I repeat, that the Hon. Gen tleman could not read in his place the Minute of the Cabinet of 1807, without creating an impression that the context would not justify. In support of this as sertion, 1 refer to the inute of the Portland Cabi net ; and I only beg the House to bear in mind, that it confirms the declaration of the preceding Cabinet, in as far only as by that Cabinet it was declared that no legal charge of criminality could be substantiated against her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. If the Hon. Gentleman did not mean that the whole transaction should come out, he ought to have ab stained from reading that Minute. Whence her Royal Highness derived the advice under which she has proceeded, I know not ; but I am intrepid in maintaining this, that antecedently to a partial dis closure, calculated, as I contend, to make an unfair impression, no attempt was made from any other quarter to lead to a disclosure of the circumstances of the transaction. Those alone who brought out that garbled statement, for the purpose of making a false impression, are answerable for the consequences. On the Hon. Gentlem?.n's individual head be the consequences." Mr. WHITBREAD.—" .Be it on any head ; be it on my head, that I attempt to vindicate her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales ! be on my bead the responsibility of all that I have donee and be on the heads of others the responsibility of all that they have done! and be on the head of the Noble Lord the respon sibility of abstaining front making any answer to the questions which I proposed to hint !—Sir, we all re. member what Mr. l'crceval said on this subject; and , what the Attorney-General said, and what the Noble Lord said here the other night. Are those expres sions to be retracted ? I trust, Sir, there is no serious intention now of imputing criminality to her Royal Highness ? And yet the whole effect of that which has been published in the Newspapers since the De claration to which I have alluded is to impute crimi nality to her Royal "Highness. The Noble Lord has not chosen to satisfy me on the subject of any elami , nation cf Lady Douglas on the oth of March. I take it for granted, that when I make my intended Mo tion on Wednesday, I shall obtain an explanation on that head." _ _ Lord CASTLEREgGII.-- ,, I distinctly deny, Sir, the accuracy of the Hon. Gentleman's statement with respect to myself. I never made any declara tion of the innocence or the guilt of her Royal High ness the Princess of Wales. We were not a compe tent jurisdiction to make such a declaration. What I Mated was, distinctly, that the evidence, as submit ted to the Portland Cabinet, so far as it went to cri. minate her itoyal Highness, was either contradicted by other evidence, or was not in itself entitled to cre dit. I did not attempt to pronounce on her Royal Highness's guilt or innocence ; for I repeat, that I did not consider that we were a competent jurisdiction for that purpose, On the discussion of the subject, I complained of the false impressions which the Ho-/ nourable Gentleman must produce by reading gar. bled extracts of the documents. With respect to any further explanations, 1 shall reserve them till the sub ject shall come properly under the consideration of the House." Mr. WHITBREAD.—" The Noble Lora still talks of false impressions : I am willing that the whole responsibility of what I have done may fall on myself. I certainly did give an impression of the innocence of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, by reading what appeared to me to be a com plete acquittal of her Royal Highness ; and not a Cabinet Minister in this House dared to deny the ac curacy of that impression. A Right Honourable Gentleman who was a member of the Cabinet, the Minute of which I read to the House (Mr. Canning) made a complete avowal of his conviction of her Royal Highness's innocence. I appeal to you, Sir, whether the Noble Lord himself did not declare that if any criminality attached to her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, the intercourse between her Royal Highness and the Princess Charlotte would have been not merely restricted, but proWbited alto gether 1" Lord CASTLEREAGH.—" The Honourable Gentleman says he is perfectly ready to take on him self the responsibility. All I maintain is, that he is not justified in charging generally on others the ef fects of that unfair impression which he himself first made." x Mr. WHITBRA D.— , g Was an impression of her Royal Highness's innocence derived from a Ca binet Minute unfair ?" Lord CASTLEREAGH.--0 The Cabinet did not decide on her Royal Highness's guilt or inno cence, but only confirmed the minute of a preceding Cabinet." Lord MILTON rose, and was about to speak on the subject, when—, The SPEAKER observed, that there was no ques tion before the House. Lord PALMERSTONE moved that the Order' of • the Day be read for the Hpuse to resolve itself into a Committee on the Mutiny Bill, Mr. WYNNE spoke to order. He conceived that his Noble Friend (Loj Milton) was.in possession of the House. The SPEAKER.—" All I have to say is this I waited with considerable pain during a conversation Frotracted to an unusual length. by circumstances ttn questionably of an important and extraordinary na ' wort 111404vepatigo 4.rming:d• I tupcd to Noble Lord, who I knew had public busisentobring forward, and whose turn was on the paper. The Hones will now do whatever it feels disposed to do." Lord PALMER frrON repented his motion. Lord MILTON expressed his surprize that the* Noble Lord (Castlereagh) should say one thing one day, with respect to her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, and say another thing on another day. He was proceeding, when Mr. BANKES rose to order. He humbly con ceived, that a conversation so properly terminated ought not to be renewed. Mr. WHITBREAD also spoke to (why'. He was sorry to differ from his Hon. Friend.—Nothing ap peared to him more proper than that his Noble Friend if he thought Wednesday too long a delay for the motion respecting which he (Mr. Whitbread) had given notice, to mocut the Order of the Day moved I by the Noble Lord, with a view, if he chose it, of moving on the subject indenter. Lord MILTON resumed his observation,. He declared that np man who entertained a just sense of propriety and decency but must be shocked and dis gusted at what had recently issued from the public press.He, end many older persons than himself,4 bad never before witnessed such . publications. He ' advised individuals ikt high situat ions tp take are how they trifled with the people. Let it not be sus pected that the publication of such pollution was not contrary to the will of persons in high places. If it were really so, they would - have muds to answer for. With respect to the Noble Lord's statements, did the Noble Lord seriously institute a comparison between ' reading a Cabinet mute in that House, and the publication of such documents as those to which he had alluded ? The idea was preposterous. Whoever might.be culpable; he trusted that the guilt of origi nating such discloshres would fall on the beads of those who were really the offenders. The Noble Lord then moved, as an amendment, that the House should adjourn ; bat his motion was not seconded, and the conversation dropped. MUTEST • The House went into a Committee on this Bill, which having been red by the Chairman, e Lord PALMERSTONE moved for leave to insert a clause, inflicting a penalty on those persons who raised recruits under false pretences.—Leave given. 1 Captain BENNET moved to insert several clauses relating to the infliction of corporal punishment in the Army. The first clause was to make it unlaw ful for any General, Commanding Officer, Court Martial, Ste. to inflict the punishment of flogging in I any of the troops serving in Great Britain, Ireland, the Isles of Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man. 2. To make it lawful to sentence the troops serving abroad to receive corpopl punishment, provided this punishment did not exceed 100 lashes. S. To make it unlawful for any Officer, after a part of the sm. tence had been inflicted, to order any man to be , brought out a second time to receive the remaining ' lashes. In the proposal to insert the last clause, he hoped for the concurrence of the Judge Advocate' (Mr. Manners Sutton) who had on a former occa sion declared his opinion that such renewal of the punishment was illegal. He then mentioned an in , stance related to him by an Officer lately come from the Peninsula, of a General, who, disapproving of ' his mode of punishing a soldier by confinement, had ordered the black book to be brought, and finding' him debtor so many lathes, immediately had him tied up to the halberts to receive them. Lord PALMERSTON said, that after the repea ted discussions which had taken place on this ques tion, he should not trouble the House with any ob. seivations, but he should feel it his duty to resist the introduction of the proposed clauses. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that the system of flogging was reprobated by every thinking and humane mind, as an ignorant substitute for the only proper mode of punishment for smaller offences, namely, confinement. The facts and arguments which had been brought forward on this subject had had the beneficial effect of bringing this punishment into comparative disuse ;—but he should never rest contented without its total abolition. He wished to have known from the Noble Lord how far the re striction imposed by the orders of the Commander in Chief. respecting the number of lashes, extended?— Fer nearly 1500 were often given, and the unfortu nate victim was sometimes brought out three, four, or five times to receive them. But whatever was the disuse of this barbarous and humiliating custom, or the limitations imposed omits exercise, he wished that no discretion should be left on this subject to Court- Martial., or Commanding Officers. At present a brave and veteran soldier might be sentenced to this punishment by an unfledged Ensign, mid not only have the flesh torn off his bones, but an indelible stigma fixed upon his character, and upon the peace and lasting happiness of his mind. This punishment could do no good ; it was never known to reform a bad soldier, g ood had often destroyed good ones.— Those regiments were uniformly the best disciplined where corporal punishment was the least used. The Honourable Baronet thought that there should be a scale .of rewards in the army as well as a scale of punishments, and that if a decent provision were made for those who had served for se many years in the army, to which, however, they would not be en titled without a good character, this would be a strong inducement to good behaviour. He then ad verted to the change which had taken place in the composition of our army. This punishment had for merly been justified from the character of those who generally enlisted in the army, and also on the ground that a man's enlisting in the army, and consequently subjecting bimself to this punishment, was purely voluntary. At present a great part of the army at borne, particularly the Local' Militia, were taken by ballot from all glasses of the community, and they being subject to this punishment was 20 longer vo luntary on the part of the common soldier. Some distinction on this ground was certainly necessary between our troops at home and those serving abroad. Mr. MANNERS SUTTON thought it quite im-' possible to get rid of corporal punishment at present. It had, however, fallen very much into I Though the number of Court Martials qow were three times as many as formerly, the actual aggre gate of cases in which corporal - punishment was in. flicted, was considerably less. The sentence of flog ging was exchanged in two cases out of three, into tof genera' service: and in most ether cases con finement was adopted, There wns'a general dispo. *icsu, abiost an avidity in conginandin Of f icers/ tq ... Arai themselves nrany mode of punishment in pre. ference to flogging. He then adverted to some cases ' of peculiar hardship brought fbrvrard by Sir Francis Burdett last year. One was, that of a poor man who had stuck pins and needles in his legs to avoid the executiOn of his sentence ; another-of - some poor men who had been punished severely for marrying contrary to the orders of their sillerior Officers ; another case was that of some soldiers who were said to have had clogs fastened to their legs, sad to have, been compelled to walk seven or eight hours in tl,:s manner everyday. Into of these supposed cases' inquiry had been made, and the accusation was found in every one of them to have been utterly groundless. As• to the system ef reward proposed by the Hon. Baronet, he would only says that if such a system were shewn to be practicable, there was no one who would more gladly assent to it than himself, but the ' theory of philanthropy was one thing. and the pow-:e of making every body rich was another. h shoull I also be recollected, in answer to what was said of this number of persons seen begging about the streets ' without an arm or a leg, that there was such a thing in this Metropolis as imposture. He thought the punishment of confinement in the army was only ! effectual, as k was the alternative for corportl punish. ment. The third clause proposed by the Hon. Gen• tleman opposite for preventing the repetition of this punishment, would, he thought, go to abolish it al. together ; for when a, man knew that he could not be brought out a second time to receive his 100 lashes, there was no fraud or artifice to which he would not resort to evade the execution of the sen tence in the first instance. Colnpel DUC KETT spoke is favour of the present system. He at the same time repelled an insinuation of Mr. Bennet, that in the militia they tametimes flogged all round. In the militia. he said, there was much less flogging than in the regulars, and yet it would be foun d that the discipline of the militia was. superior to that of the regulars. Captain RENNET, in answer to what haibeea said by the Hon. Gentleman (Colonel Duckeul or polite, said, that in some militia regiments, the prac tice was not the same as in the regiment of that Gem densest it being a practice to flog, not all round in deed, but from flank to centre. That it was the practice to call out men a second time for punishment, might be inferred from the words of the sentences of Courts Martial, that the tßan should gg receive so many lashes when aid where Ow Commanding Officee shall direct." Mr. WHITBREAD congratulated the flame on the temper with which the question had that night been debated. and the progress which had beep made towards the abolitionof the punishment in question. About twenty years ago, when he was a young Memo ber of that House. he mentioned for the first time in his place, this practice, so much to be reprobated, of bringing out men twice to receive one sentence. It was then said, in opposition to him, that it Was most horrible to mention any thing( o f the kind in the House,—that the soldiers had by no means too much flogging,—that a lash could not be spared. Now, however, owing in a great degree to the Hen. Baronet behind him (Sir F.Burdett), who had brought the matter repeatedly into discussion., and owing to the interference of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Sutton), the punishment was in a great de. gree got rid of. He (Mr. Whitbread) shoyld not press the point at that moment, as it was not then ripe for disctusion ; but he was convinced, that by the silent progress of time, when the Officers should find the disadvantageousness of this sort of punishment. k would gradually diminish until finally abolished. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Sutton) had said, that he had heard of no instances where 3 soldier had been brought out to receive the remainder of sentence which they could not bear at one time. Un less Officers had grossly deceived him (Mr. W.), ;hie was a frequent practice ; and one instance in parti cular he had hoard, where a man, after having been tried by a Court.martial and acquitted, was. on a re. ference to the black book by the Officer who had pre. ferred the charge against him, flogged, as a remain. der of a sentence pronounced long antecedently. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Sutton) had said, that if the bringing a man out the second time for punishment were forbidden, all possible shifts would be resorted to k to escape from punishment 3as if all meant possible would not, even in the present state Of things, be made ose of by the unhappy spfferers. This practice had, as he conceived, been pronounced by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Sutton) ilk gal ; but now it was said to be, not only not illegal, but expedient ; so that if that Right Hon. Gentle. man's ideas of legality remained unchanged, he would of course have Introduced a clause into the Mutiny Act, authorising . the practice. As to the cases of mendicity from insufficient provision, it was dee plorable sight to see two, " With half their limbo in battle lopped away, " Beg bitter bread tbrtigh realms their valour saved.' But in many cases be agreed with the Right Hen. Gentleman (Mr. M. Sutton) that deception was psao. tised, and that even in cases where the men had been in reality mutilated, their sturdy beggarhood changed pity into disgust, and called loudly on the police to remove such annoyances to British pride. An lb. nourable Gentleman oposite had said, after epposint the clauses, that in regifflents of Militia the flogging was twenty times less, and yet offences less frequent than in the line. This was a pretty strong fact against the practice of flogging.. Mr. Whitbread sat down by expressing his conviction, that as by discussion the practice had been brought low, so it would in the end be entirely destroyed. Mr. M. SU ITON said, that the Commander in Chief would not have suffered to pass, without repro, bation, any officer who had orderea a man to have been brought out a second time on an old sentence. He was happy to state, that from late regulation al lowing commutation to general service, flogging had decreased in militia regiments. Sir EYRE COOTE said, that the punishment in question had greatly diminished, and would in all probability be abolished. The diminution had arisen from the clause allowing substitution of imprison ment, &c. and to the half yearly inspection of re. giments. Zr. HERBERT, of Kerry, said, that ix the mai tia regiments which had come under his experience, he had found that nothing but the terror of the lash would deter men from offences, especially in CAWS of inebriety. 14r, W4ITDRE4R said, that as to what hA