The National Register. — London, England, 1813-03-07 00:00:00

monsom IClik viea. ler% not to hey by the ConnitisS.lollell in. 18''6 Do then." cid Mr. Whitbread. " DO Lord Cestlereagh or Lord Eldon, mean to. eist:aps from their words? There never was a verdict of Nut Guilty like this. is it to be permitted to go back to evidence given before this setitence et new& tal, and to preneunce a new verdict of guilty ? Wets ever eoman so ,riumt.hant ?—Let the public recollect, that no one act has peace! since 1807, that the active breath of slander has dared to bring avoinst the Princess of Wales. The lion. Member then read the late Report, and proceeded to observe that the Noble Lord han t falitmely asseved that the Princess of Wales had. doubt less, some head adviser, or some frierds within those .walls, who would he teund to advocate her cause. It had been so. She had a powerful lead adviser in that House its the late Ir. Perca val. Many too of the neat able men ie the country, in the !louse and nut of it. bed been her friends and adviser. ; etong them he could name Lord Eldon, Sir T. Pioneer and Sir Win. SC'ltt. It was due to the memory of Mr Pea:ev I, to state, that to his &vine day he alwnys publicly proclaimed the innocetae of tile Princess, but as far her ether sur viving flietids (bell were mute. No doubt the Princess had her legit; adviser, mud who would never shiink from the responsiblity of the duties of his situation, or disown' his being such adviser, to luta who heel any right to piestiou him ; for himself, in performing what he did, he would not call himself the friend of the Ptinceas of Wales, but the friend of justice. Was her Royal Highness at least Rot entitled to the common courtesy belonging to her sex Had she attempted more than had been done in die brutal reign of Ilenra the by the %infer- Innate At.st Millen, who asked a. be declared a in nocent or proved to he guilty ? Mr. NI/Imam:ad concluded a most animated speech amidst "I . ni'4)l use, and moved an Amendment for the production of the Report recently made by the individuals selected roan the Privy Lord Casaer. R zee H said he must trespass on the indeleence of the Ilouse, under the very important circumstances of the question, to make stare observations in reply to the Hon,urable Member . e was extremely glad to find the question in his hands, making, as he had done, the Mr le force of his speech a direct, manly, and bold at. taik on his Majesty's Geverntrent. He would, however, say there 'lever was a more unjust representation than that of confounding his Majesty's. Cabinet of iBO7, wish the legal advisers of the Princess. Mr Perceval,. so far from identifying himself with the Cabinet, stu diously abstained from signing any document coming from it on this subject at that period. He would disclaim being a party with Mr. , Perceval in the transaction ; he had never been a party in the counsel of her Royal Highness. and he would say, to inactive the two,charace ters was unfair and unjust in argument, and by ro means candid in the Honourable Member. The Noble Lord said, he would now came at once to the letter of her Royal Highness; and if be spoke of it with plainness it would he as the letter of her legal advisers, weal would it have been for her if she now had such advisers as she formerly had. In. respect to the complaint that Was made of the Prince having refused to read her letter, it wag not for the House to judge of the merits of the parties under the long and settled separation which existed.. This was a matter of private arrangement, and long ago the Prince had deter- Pined that no correspondence should take place, .and htcould.ac.quaiot the House that this was not the first latter which had.batit sent back. Eitt this complaint was founded on a supposition that some punish ment had been inflicted en the Princess by the restraints that were Placed on the intercourse between her and her daughter. He would state to the House how the case was, and then it would see that no such pus nishrnent was intended. When the Princess Charlotte went toWindsor, the Prince altered the arrangement under which the Prireess had been accustom d to see her, from once a we: c to once a fortnight, that less interruption of her studies might happen by frequent journies to London, and it was net intended to require the alteration to continue longer than during the Princess's residence at 'Windsor. This was the whole of what was magnified into a great injection of punishment and inference of guilt, and he was sure the House would see it as he did, to he a fritter in no ways sufficient to justify the letter of her Royal Highness. In respect to the conduct of the Prince, he did all that lay in his power to secure sound advice. He called in all the heads of the Law, and the Church, to advise merely to one point, what re straints, should he placed on the intercourse between the Princess and her datighrer. There never avas a stronger imputation cast on any 4Mlethan wa s , roost on the Prince by the 1e..al atlyibers.of the Princess— It was an appeal to the Country against their Prince, and an appeal te to the Child against her Parent. Ilia of all the paragraphs of the letter that which relates to the mating paragraph about the confirm:,- Si ete is the most reptehensiblel,for if Mr Royal Highness has ever . • F.GISTER. MARCH 7. spoken to the Bishop of Salisbury, the tutor of the Ptincess, on the - subject, with a wish on her part to have the ceremony performed, he • could have told her that it was his Majesty's express wish it should not take place till the Princess had attained her eighteenth year. The Country, he was sure, would fed the Prince had discharged bisduty ; and that his consultation with the Council on the education of his child svas.a proof of his love of his people, by referring for advice to his Council, and that he had shewn an anxious desire to exercise the prerogative of educating his daughter, with a just sense of its great importance. It was tic.t by any means just to infer that any crimina lity was imputed to the Princess, for the separation alone was suf ficient to justify the restraints, and they ought to be considered merely as a matter of reettlatlon ari s ing out of the unfortu. ate circumstance of the separation. He would inaitit..in the Honourable Member had not laid any Parliamentary grounds for his amendment, not having shewn what course 0 f proceed;ngs he. would adopt. it the Report was laid on the ratite, ,4htt therefore he should oppose his motion. Sir Tnota ss PLAMER being alluded to personally. he felt called on to defend iiiiiselt against a charge for having been an adviser of the Princesf, or for having given his advice or for not beittz any longer ad.. vier. As to the first point, he had to say he was commanded, in 1808. to a tend her Royal Hightiess at Blackheath, to assist in defending her Royal Highness !rout the charge at t: aii ime made against her— .id he do wonta in not withholding that advice ? As to the second point; was it expected he should tell whst adv . i.e he had given? He did not think he ots:tht to be calle'l on to stand there as a defend nt, and he certainly should Ail at t very prof ssioi.alls if he di 'closed what *lvies he halt given. He had, however, the consolation of beirg able to say, that his opinion was in complete unison with that of Mr P •reeval, who was, no at that t•me in the Cabin-t„ or in any oniitical siruation. He also had the consolation to say, that his advice had been sue. ess. charge fill in defending her Royal Highness against th.. thin mediti. tared ay jest her. He would not, however, be teen tempted to corn. tnunisate svnat that advice was. He agreed with what had been pub. licly statel.by Mr. Perceval. that throughout the whole discussion ;he could not discover any thing to allow him to think there was any t o ' ust touts cation for the charge that was preferred bn the third point, could only say it was, tram no act of his own, be was no longer a , legak adviser, of, her : Repel HighnesA. She bad no doubt voluntarily • made choice .of persons much better able than be was to give hey advice. . . Mr. Beams said, he was diappointed in the speech he had just heard .1 he expected to have heard some.sepbr to . the allusions made to the Leasned.Gentleman. in his elainien circumstances had come out. which mad. him think She country wars.ex POved to Mn t.:.h difiktlL ty anddanger.. The Noble Lord had iiiadann satisfactory reply to .the . Honourable Mevnber below him (Mc. Whitbreaditit was not enough, to say the Regent had the sole prerogative.tof educating his daughter.—' Statements had 'been handed about in which it was said, the .Princess was accused by suborned witnesses, to suffer the matter to rest here was a denial.ohjustice.to tile Princess; tor this reason he would sup" port the amendment of his Honourable Friend. Mr, Wos.vt.sN said, he felt very warmly on this occasion,llas a min of- honour and a Gentlernan, but he could not vote either for the ori gipal motion or. the amendment. Hs must at the same time. say, it ,was. not the speech of the Noble Lord that induced him to come to this determination, for he has lett the points which are the most mate rial in.thediscussion without any answer. He considered this a most galling and disgraceful subject, no less than dragging the Royal Family before the House. The tt rie question was whether Ministers had dons their duty, first to their King, and secondly to their country. In his opinion. the four Commissioners appointed in 1806 had gone farther than they were required to do.—The Commission were to examine into a charge of one kind oily ; but front the evidence brought to sup. port this, they tormed another, and :hos exceeded their jurisdiction. If their Report was only to go to the King, this circumstance would not have been material, but as it was to g: to the Princess, it was sure to be productive of such difficulties as no woman could submit. with out complaint, to the imputations that were cast.uPon her. But pass ing by this Report, the next to be considered is that of 1807, which is a complete acquittal as to every point. *r his the Noble Lord has not !ttliied in his speech ; but the Ministers of that day not only acquitted her "Royal Highness, but went farther, and advised his Majesty to re ceive the Princess at Court ; with such a Report in existence. why was it necessary now to ransack the evidence of 1806. and to rake Ws ~~. ?ft 1. . .; TRE NATIONAL