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-