The Sun.
London, England, 1813-03-05 00:00:00

be called upon to do so by radiamentary autho-
rity. The present Report was not a revival of a
toriner investigation. The question was not one
of charge or no charge ; _but whether the inter-
course betiveen her Royal Ilighness the Princess
,of Wales, and the Princess (charlotte of Wales,
should or should not be subject to regulations and

restraints. ,
Mr. WHITBREAD rose again, and after a few
observatibns, read the Report of the PrieyCoun-,
cil, from a neWspakr which had come into his
hand that evening. He rentarked, that the pub-
lic, though they had now the Report; were yet
unapprized of the circumstances' which had in-
duced the Privy Council to form their Resolution.
It appeared to him to be of material importance
to the understanding of the subject, that those
documents should be laid before that IloUse. He
thought it was hard to throw a slur an the pro,-
ceediogs of the Princess of Wales,, who came be-
fore that House' as a petitioner ; and who bad no
Privy Council to advise her, and to frame Reports
in her vindication. It-was certainly the duty of
the Noble Lord to move for the production of this
Jtepoit, which, if that. Noble Lord, or some other
Member did not move for, he (Mr. W,) kneaded
to. do ; and indeed he should have done it al-.
ready, had the motion of the Hon.' Member (Mr.
Cochrane Johnstone) been. withdrawn.
Lord CASTLEREAGH could not suffer,the .House
to separate. an the business, .with an imputation
on the conduct of the P; ivy Council l'hich did not
attach. to it. The.criminality of her Itorilkligh-
ness the Princess of Wales %vas not the object be...,
fore the PriVy, Council, In the case of the. crimi.:
naiity of liet.ltoxid. Highness, the intercourse be-
tween her and the Princess Charlotte of Wales
*would 'not have I an inlei•conrse subjected to
regulations and t.e.,,traints, but would "lave been
prohibited aitoet,ier.
Liird wished, to know, whether his
Atajestys.s. Mimsters intended to- take any other
/notice of the letter received by the Speaker front
her Royal. Higimrss the Princes* of Wales ?:
Lord CAST LEnEAGLI said, he, should give the
acciistomed notice, whenever he shotild have any
intention of submitting any motion upon the
subject. • .
Lord MwroN said, that as the Hon. Mover of
the original motion had abandoned, or morestrict-
ly speaking, had ,postponett his motion sine die, ht
tvas desirous -of knowing whether the 'Noble Lord
also intended to 'postpone all proceeeinga on the
.subject of the letter sine die ? He cOnsidered-the
present ;is a very grave subject, anti Wert e.,f that•
hoportance whieh,the Noble Lord affeCted
co represent it, ' • .
Mr. fIeNNETT intimated his intention, whenever
the Gallery was Cleared,. to persist,in his motion.
of 'adjournment. He should repeat his motion,.,
that' the noose do now ailjourn." • •
Mr. Yottice expressed' his regret that the Hon.
Member should persist iii his resolution, which
would tend to impede , the progress .of the public,'
business. He thought that the I.lotise ought to
mark their sense of such conduct. He hate once
been himself a marked Man, and had been nearly
in danger of having his . house pulled down, for
.clearing the gallery,--for doing his: duty. He
would not hesitate to, say, that unless the House
maintained that ancient and intlisptitable right,
Gentlemen' had all better go home to their •respec-
tire counties and places of residence, •
Sir to tt..4 `,Esveatir trusted that the Hon. Mem-
her '(\lr. Bennett). would exercise the power he
held of moving :an adjournment ; and that. he
'would not be deterred by the threats of any man,
however high in authority.- He begged to rewind.
Gentlemen of a period, when a late !tight
noinahle Friend of his (Mr. Fox) was exhausted
by his application to his public duties, wine of
those Gentlemen, who on this occasion exclaimed
against the question of adjournrAat; had thein-
selves repeated that question, perhaps fourteen,tir,
fifteen times in the same evening. If.strangera
sv;„re to be excluded Boni the Galleryi, the e'onse,
euenee would be,' that the public would 'consider
'the House. of Commons as• a sort of SeeretTribus
nal, sheltering itself' from public opinion.
Mr.ToaxE explained, that the reason asttigned
for the motion -of Adjournment, anti not the mo-
tion of Adjournment itself, was the foundation of
•his Complaint, • ,
Mr. CANNING observed, that :he had 'already
shcwn that he disapproved of:themotion of „Ad
journment, by voting_against it, wfiich lie shoUld„
apin whenever it should be pressed
.to a
division: The motion for
clearing the 'Gallery,
and excluding *trangers—with what propriety
now made he should trot' decitio—was founded
•on a privilege; the exercise of which Mint ever
be' maintained, without any qualification, or ques-
tion upon it a or it would, in filet, lose its whole
essence. • The present motion of adjourninent he
considered highly impolitic under all the circiim—
stakes ; though be would admit that he' had
• himself againiiind again moved it, to the manifest
impediment of the progress of public hospess.
He had done so" With the express intention of
marking his sense. of the impropriety of, proceed-
ing on the particular business of the !loose, with-,
out clue ti
me .f(Sr deliberation ; conceiving that,
motion to he onion the lawful arms of a minori-,
ty against an:overbearing majority; The attempt,
to retrain and limit, the power of clearing the
House of strangers, would, if suecessful, destroy,
its independence as to the public ; and tiny at-
teurist to enter into a disqiiisition en the motives
or on the discretion :of MemberS, in moving, the
standing order, would de:stroy the independence of
the House Within itself.
STUART WORTLEY .txplained the motives
on which lie had, On a former oceasiononoved It
queStion of adjournment. tie did not make that
motion from the consideration of his having no
audience to hear his speech,
Lord.' CIABTE,EREA6I, ,trustpd that the House
would never' be called upon to deliberate on the
right of any Member to- move an Adjournment.
-The mode, however, in Which that right Uits now
exercised, Was different from any ever -beforere-
corded in the koceedingi of Parliament. 'He
would pat it to: the-candour of the lion. Gentle-
man'', whether It was a proper proceeditig ?
Ctipt.Vystt observed, that it Gentleman, in mak-
ing such a motion, took upon himself the respon-

rd by'TIIONIAK WOOD, of NO. 112, Strand: and
isZo,, 112, Stlllls‘l, wliere MirtVisements, Orcitrs fin