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

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 ainnocent 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 was, 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 arising 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
to
' 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..

.;