The National Register.
London, England, 1814-07-24 00:00:00

SUNDAY, .JULY 24, 1814.

LATER TO HIS ROYAL HILiIIgESS TUE DUKE or SUSSEX.

SIR-it is indeed ref►esh:ng, at a moment pregnant with
such itif►pite danger to the usual habits of the English nation,
to see one of the branches of the Illustrious Family seated
on the Thlone, so devoted to our forms of Law, and so jea-
-I.►us of their invasion, as to step forward, when others are
afraid to do so, to protect the purity of their administration,
and to use the wholesome custom of inquiry in the teeth of
those, who either have not the inclination, or want the
Power, to thwart or controul the exercise of a mis-directed
Authority. •

One should, however, Sir, have' thought that your rink
and influence in the State, would have exempted you from
the virulence and insults of those hired to impugn the mo
tives of all opposed to them. But; Sir, even your objects
are questioned—your paramount sense of constitutional duty
scurrilized, and your noble endeavours to defend the cha-
racter of the country, for that alone is implicated by the na-
ture of some recent transactions, imputed to factious designs,

and revolutionary principles.
But while the vilest terms are offered to your character and
objects, the whole nation arc, thank God,
their approval of them.

unanimous in

It has always been maintained, that the grossness of injus.
tice, in a free country, was a sufficient protection against its
exercise. But your Royal Highness seems justly aware that
the pretensions of some men are equally dangerous with the
avowal of others, and that the tenderest ties arc no security

against acts of covert or open oppression.
All history, Sir, tills us, that whatever may he the cha-
racter of a government, adherents always abound—and that,
under the most vicious, as, for instance, under NAPpLEox,
agents may be found to act the part of jailors, and to under-
take the defence of the most unconstitutional practices.—
Ligland has hitherto been free from such crimes, but it
requires all the vigilance of your Royal Ilighness to keep
her 60.

The restoration of Peace seems to have remitted, on the
part of the People, some portion of their usual examir4ation
and jea:ousy ; but, v►hatever they may he on other sol‘jects,
they have never relaxed in the interest they take in the af-
fairs of the Royal Family. The attendants assigned to

TriliCeSS CHARLOTTE OF WAL Es had excited their
IW. VII. No. CGCXXXI,7II.

!st

, _

b

s3a#lo

inquiry, and your Royal Highness has anticipated the wishes
of the whole country. One tyranny has been put down, but
let us take care that another does not arise nearer home, and
the more fatal, because divested of the frank and honourabto
character of English manners. That such a system should
obtain root in this country would be a subject of deep regret
to all classes of the People:--nor can the splendour of military
triumphs, nor the disgust of popular sentiment, justify an
attempt to infringe upon the liberty of an individual dear UV.
the feelings of every true Englishman. It would be equally
dangerous to the governing and the governed, and would
leave the wise and prudent to deplore the probable destruce
tion of that balance, which has hitherto preserved us safe,
amidst the storms and crimes of revolutionary warfare.
To prevent these is surely above detraction—and glorious
to the individual. The Princess CHARLOTTE is a Ward of
Parlia;• tut, and both Houses of Parliament are her naturaj
Protectors. What would be said to any one, upon whom had
devolved the sacred character of a guardian, abandoning the
solemn duty he had bound himself to perform ? We have
often heard the Loan CHANCELLOR with awful veneratinn
upon this subject, and it now remains with him to reconcile
his opinions as a man—with his duty at a Peer. When, Sir,
he undertakes to praise, does he mean to say that which he
praises he advised? There would be mote rf personal cou-
rage than prudence in the avowal ; and yet, we must centres.
more for us to admire, than in the conduct of those who
strive !o shift the mimosibility, and make those, who are
not subject to the penalties of the Constitution, answerable
for a delinquency, of v►hich, by Law, it is impossible they
can be guilty.

We are not now discussing, Sir, the moral obligations of
Patent and Child (they ara no less settled by the law of the
land than the law of God), but whether in this free country
steps should be taken of a tyrannical nature ? Whether
in the fare of day the liberty of the subject is to he
restrained, upon the pretensions of those who insist on the
right of acting as they please, without being responsible to
any Other code than that suggested by their passions? There
is nu divinetion in the eye of the law between the richest
and the poorest, the most exalted and the 'west humble.
Those who wou!d set up such a distinction know it to be
false. Whet, has our niat;istiacy refused to t:
in cases of a similar nature wi;h that under
sigisV When hive such complaints been denial the

"•\
rsi

;1\'"?1.%,%p'

44

I

••■•!•6=k,.•o

mtei fere
discus-
LC pri Vi-
V •
~,'
•