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

Ie‘TARCIT 7. the Commissioners above stated, containing the most unqualified opi nion, that the charge produced by Sir John and Lady Douglas against the Princess of Wales, of having been delivered of a child in the year 1802, was utterly destitute of truth. It added, that the birth and teal mother of the child, said to have been born of the Princess, had been proved beyond all possibility of doubt. The Report concludes with some objections made by the Commissioners, to the MANNERS, or to esv ore of manners, upon different occasions, in the Princess. The Honourable Member next proceeded to state, that the paper he should now read WAS a document WHICH HE WAS READY TO PROVE AT THE DAR OF THE HOUSE WAS DICTATED SY Lord Eldon, Mr. Perceval, and Sir Thomas Monier, though signed by the Princess of Wales : it was a letter written, or purporting to be written, by her Royal Highness to the King, 9th October, 1806, as a Protest against the Report of Commissioners, just detailed ; the letter being read at length appeared to be a formal and elaborate criticism upon the 'mature of the Commission under which her conduct had teen reviewed; it asserted in the most unqu ditied terms her own innocence, and called the charges of her aceusers A FOUL AND FALSE CONSPIRACY, made IX-PARTE, and affording no appeal. Upon this letter being row!, the Honourable Member observed, that he fully concurred in the semi• ments it apressed upon the subject of the Commission, and he in sisted that the charge against the Princess before that Tribunal; by Sir John and Lady Douglas, was nothing short of TREASON ; that it the Commissioners had power to acquit her Royal Highness of the crime charged, they had equally the power to convict her : what was the state of that country in which sus h a thing were even possible ? Besides, he inquired, what became of Sir John and Lady -lloitglas ? If he were rightly informed, they still persisted in the same story ; if all they maintained were so notoriously false, WHY WERF. THEY NOT PROSECUTED? (HEAT, bear, hear !) The Honourable Meiebsr went on to remark, that he understood no proceedings of the keg Privy Council, except the Report, had been transmitted to the Prircess of Wales. This was the case in 1806, but he submitted thaecopies of all these examinations shuuld be given to her: The lion. Member then concluded by moving, first, a very long Resolution, containing nearly the whole of the Report of the Commissioners in 1806, with his own reasoning upon the illegalty of SHCII a Commission, and ter minatine with expressing the expediency of A NEW AND DIFFERENT TRIAL of, or inquiry into, the same subject; the second motion was, for a variety of Papers connected with this subject, from 1806 to the present time. Lord CASTLEREAGH opposed the motion, and began by observing upon the singular line of conduct adopted by the Hon. Mover, in first calling upon the House to agree with him in all the facts stated in his first resolution, and then asking fur infUrmation on the same subject in his second motion ; at all events the information ought to have pre ceded time conclusions from it. His Lordship could not conceive, from any reasons that had been given by the Hun. Mender, that the Ilouse would entertain any serious doubt that the papers called for by the Rota. Mover were not at all necessary to remove any apprehension as to the successor to the throne of these kingdoms. The Commissioners for 1806 had not been Commissioners for the trial of the Princess,' but as Privy Counsellors, Commissioners of Inquiey, and that the appoint ment of such Privy Counsellors for such purposes was the constant prac tice in all periods of the history of this country. If, however, the lion. Mover was serious in his opinion that the Commission of 1806 was an improper tribunal to have reviewed the conduct of the Princess sf Wales, did be think the House of Commans a proper place to try either the Princess of Wales for treason, or to sit in judgment upon the levity of her manners? It was rather extraordinary in the Hon. Meiniver to call upon the House of Commons to clear up the doubts on a subject when he had expressed no doubts of his own ; the two Learned Judges who were part of the Commission. Lords Erskine and Elleriborough, had entertained no doubts ; they, with their legal skill and habits, had been able to trace the whole transaction to its source; it ear not a judgment upon credibility of witnesses only, not upon the incocsetency alone of Lady Douglas's testimony, but the real mother of this child ? Ann Austin was adduced, and its birth, with every circumstance at tending it, had been clearly proved to the Commission. This Report, too, of the Corumissitmers, with all the evidence on which it was Initial ed, had been referred to his Majesty's then Ministers, and they, upon oath, had unanimously confirmed that Report. This was not all - the fame Report and Evidence had been referred to the subsequeet ad ministration, and they in like manner, on their oaths, had unanimously declared the innocence of her Royal Highness. His Lordship did not mean to say that if any great doubt could be entertained by his Ma jesty's subjects on this important and delicate qaestioe, some &clam- THE NATIONAL REGISTER. 147 tion from Parliament, as to the succession, might not become necessary, but when such doubts have been so repeatedly negatived, would it nut, he asked, be giving a sort of weight and authority to the evidence of Lady Douglas? lithe affidavits of profligate persons were thus to be sanc tioned, where would he the end of such attempts? Fortunately there never was a case that could excite tt t little hesitation. A more mon strous propositivo, than to legislate en Lady Douglas's evidence, was never heard. The Honourable Mover had complained that no pro. ceedines had been ihstituted against Sir John and Lady Douglas. Hts Lordship bad to state, thin the first Cabinet distinctly recommended n reference to the then Law Officers of the Crown, to consider of sues 'unser:talon ; and if it had trot been instituted, it did not arise irons any doubt in the minds of those Law Officers as to the punishment that would be brought down upon the degraded and guilty heads of Sir John and Lady Douglas, but it was from a wish to avoid bringing such subjects before the public. The Noble ISl•gd added, that he did not wish to push the subject any farther ; he was treading on delicate ground. He thought the only effect of the present motion would be to make the House of Commoes a channel forpoissning the public mind. Upon the subject of the late letter, the Noble Lord declined saying any thin at pressnt, that not being befere the House. Sir S A MUEL Romit t y fltmtly vindicated the charseters of the four Commissioners in 1806, us well a , the legality of that Commission. Mr. WHITBREAD rose and said, that the Hon. Member who made the motion had informed the House he had communicated his motion to him. He had done so ; anti Mr. Whitbread told hint he could not support it. The Noble I.oid (Castlerenelt) on a former occasion had stated, that when the Hen. Metnner !As old p-oduce his motion to night, he would then furnish all the ittiVritatiutt that aas nefessary re garding the late letter. He had not so far favoured the House; and and 111(1.0111e, if the inotivn went off, and nothing was said of thin letter, the Minces! of Wales was' most unhappily and unfortunately situated. The Noble Lord talked of poisonina the public mind, by publi.hing the ease and just demands of the Princess of Wales ; he only knew by public rumour that time letter written by the Princess of Wales, in Sept. 1806, to the King, calling so emphatically for publi city, and a more fair tribunal, had been dictated by Lord Eldon, by Mr. Pei ceval, and Sir Thome.: Plower, This fact had often been asserted in the presence of Mr. Perceval, and never d enied b y him. The last person named (Sir T. Plomer) now sat opposite, nod might deny it If he could. Mr. Whitbread put it to Lord Castlereagh, if it was not known to him, that all. that had been said by the Hon. Mover,,-aye more, notch unire, had been printed by Mr. Percevul, Lord Eldon, and the Cabinet, of which he the Noble Lord was one, for the satiss faction, not only of England, but of Europe ? Ile inquired it' garb led accounts of this transaction were not now published to the world under the . authority of the present Cabinet ? Mr. Whitbread then en tered into a narrative relating to the recent letter to the Regent from the Princess. This letter was twice returned unopened ; the Princess '• then only required that her petition (for such it was) might be read to his Royal Highness. This favour was at length wanted, and a cold answer was sent from the 'Minister, swing thst the Prince had nothing to ssy. Then, after twice returning the letter unopened, and refusing to say any thing, in reply, when it wan opened, it at last met the public eye. Ministers advise the Regent to summon a Privy Council, and then came the most extraordinary conduct on the part of Lore. Castlereagh and Eldon; they refer, not to the recent conduct of her Royal highness, but to her conduct in 180 1 6, and for 'itch conduct she is to be punished, and not for any thing dune by her in 1807, 1008, 1809, or any subsequent year. " Then," exclaimed Mr. " under what circumstances stand their famous proceedings of 1806, far winch alone her Royal Highness is to he punished ? A.l the a it nesses against her [mylured hod blasted ! It is so admitted by the Noble Lord, and vet he and Lord Eldon mix up this uld hash of evidence as the only te:timeny that could be found to affect the Princess of Wales. But a as mot this famous evidence in 1006 laid heist; e the Prince's legal advisers. Mr. Adam , Mr. Gar r o w. and Mr. Jeky ? should be giud to know hots ill • last itisidions Paragraph of that opinion carne before the p u blic? tVhether it was not so made puitils from authority ? Atotin ; 11.1 d not the Onto of 1807, all the evidence given in Iflo6. before it. and the legal opinion of the Prince's Dialers I just refairt d, to i n to the bargain, when their verdict ei unqeentied acquittal ss as given ? Front this verdict the nw m y o ste to siniftl., because the via. (hence is stale and f-rgotten. Mr. Whitbread then read the Mitten , of Council of 1807; it was sieved by Lards Castlereagh and Eldon, and doubted the legality of the Commission that sat upon the C mien in 1806. Yet (add' d kMr IVliitbread) these Noble Lords, who in 1607 doubt the legality of ths proceedines of 1806, now eat back to • Ovate same proceedines in 1806, a!' II- the , sad shit part of the Minute sf 18117. th Wales of every charee of criminalit lasses, but exculpates her likewise 43 their filly vote. lie then read 'lst rot only in4.i s the Prances, of iv brought agiiinst her by the Doug- . Moths every Mat of umgattrilvd lte-