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

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 SAMUEL 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 denied by 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 18016, 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. Garrow. and Mr. Jeky ? should be giud
to know hots ill • last itisidions Paragraph of that opinion carne before
the public? 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 into 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-

monsom