Star.
London, England, 1813-03-18 00:00:00

PkICB %CORN CS-BlALrptNi4t6.

. . ---- -.---
Which that distussitin had twiginstdd, 16 had sfateci.
towards the conclusion of that debate, that from w! at
fell front the Noble Lori (Cas:lereagh), frohi bis
Majesty's Attorney-General, front anathar Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr; C •nnieg), ani generaily front •
those persons best qualified to speak to the beti-tt,
he thotight that her. Royal Highness the Princess of
Wales might be considered as having receited -a 'vers
dict.of acquittal. At no time was he c mifi Jett cf
being petfectly. correct -in repeating what fell frog
other Gentlemen, but from the peculiar n .tore of the
Noble Lord's elocution, it perhaps was more difficult .
to understand his meaning than that of persons Who
were more precise. He thought, however, as well
as he could understand the N able Lord's expressions
that he said that the Princess of Wales was, by the
Cabinet of 18ff1, acquitted• of all imputation of
crime winnevero-'-(Lon3 cries •Of Rear, hear ).—lic
had since been. inf,;tnied, notwithstanding, that tee
Noble Lord bad added. a word . which escaped him ;
(Mr. Whitbread)", and said, that her Royal High.
ness ryas acquitted from ail 481 criminality.—oaa •
However the Moak Lard might have qualified his •
'expression, lie did think, that as far as ihat ['tome*:
could pronounce the guilt or innocence of the Prin. -
cess (not being, certainly, the proper tribunal), 4 '. 1
verdict of accnintal- had been given—that 'verdict it
, acquittal was recorded, ton, in the Cabinet Minute .' !
which he had rot introduced with any improper in- :
tention. From this, and from all that had b•en said • '
by everriadividual in that House, it app ared to
him then, and it appeared still, that as complete *
verdict of acquittal had been pronounced from all
criminalhy as it waein the power of words so convey. . ;
So had he bcea impressed, and under that impreision 1
he had thought, that gotwithstendeig the unhappy •
differences which had se long subsisted, the tone
might soon come, when by the interposition of itidia '
cious advisers ; by submission and conciliation on the
one part, and by kindness and indulgence on the
other, an end might at length be put to the painful
circumstances winch had hitherto preventid the re•
storation of harmony. He had hoped that the pub.
lic feelings, so long outraged and lacerated, might
be soothed and appeased. But he was told, on put. •
ting those questions to the Noble Lord, that though i
he would not givean answer then—he would be pre. ~
pared to do so on a future occasion. He now asked
him, therefore, whether it was true that those pet- 1
sons whom he had stigmatised as perjured and de. ,
graded witnesses, had been since re-examined as cre-
dible witneves ? He (Mr. W.) had been tcfal by
Major-General Sir John Douglas, th t from the 12th
of February, down to the very day on which di! de•
hate heti taken place (the sth of March), that fresh 1
examinetions had taken place, and that Lady Done j
glas had been examined as a competent and credi. "
ble witness. Sir John Douglas further produced_ a '
letter from Mr. Conant, the Magistrate, !trite-sting
the attendenc^ of Lardy Douglas, 1,-r the purpose of
teeing examined, or stating his readiness to attend her
for that purpose. The examination had been subse-
quently carried on by Mr. Litchfield, the SOlteiter 1
for the Treasury, in the presence of Mr. Conant, and . f
he knew not but there might hare been some other
person or persons present. He was therefore under
the infatuation of supposing that Ministers had set on
foot an examination of that very person who had -.
been so described by the Noble Lord, and when Le 1
(Mr. W.).naturally asked, what could be the mean- i
ing of all he heard, he saw an account in the Daily
Papers, of Sir John_Daugles having waited on the i
Noble Lord for an explanation ; that Gentleman a
stated the peculiar hardship of his case, and inquiring
with 'respect to the expressions made use of, the Noble
Lord denied any knowledge of any proceedings, upon !
which Sir John Douglas said, "if your Lordship I
knows nothing about them, the Lord Chancellor ,
doei!" How then did the case stand ? Were the per•
sons forming the Administration no longer acting in
concert ? Was one part carrying on secret examinations
to the exclusion of the other ? Did the right hand
not know what the left hand was doing ? Or did
Lord Eldon lend himself to this new examination ? •
(Hear, hear.) Sir John Douglas then said, that he
must have redress ; that he and Lady Douglas knew
more, much mote, than they ',ad yet discrosed ; and
Cett he (Sir John) was determined to do, himself jus- 1
'
tice. He (Mr. Whitbread) then told him, that he .
was sure no• Member of that House would ail so far
in his duty, as to refuse to present, Iris petition. When, ,
therefore, he had such knowledge, that the Delicate.
Investigation, as it was falsely called, was not esleep-
-when he daily saw the most indecent and nausea.
ting exposures offered to, the publx—wheft a new ex.
amination was carrying on, under the high author ity
of the Lord Chancellor of England, he knew-that a
crisis was come—that some step mu.-t be taken, and
however inclined he might he to Advise an address,
he knew that it was utterly impossible that such ad.
vice would be given ; but he he ird more—he had
heard that there had been examinations since the Lth
of March a that agents were at work ; that solicit' 7 s
were employed ; and that in every grovelling conar
of the metropolis, where it was- supposed, that eta"!
testimony could be gathered, for the purpose of c, t 1
minatung the Princess, a search n•as made. .Wese
these transactions currying on with or without tie
concurrence of the Noble Lord ? Did he know that
they were carrying on ? Had the Lord Chancellor
ary part in them ? (Hear, hear.) Or ssere there
any secret advisers—(Near, hear) -any perv.:ns ;'ne
known to the Constitution and to the Cabinet . Minis.
ters ? and if so, .would it not be the duty of the
Noble Lord to inform the House and the Prince Re,
gent of the discovery cf such a circumstance ? On
WAS it not in the option of any man to refuse to serve
a person who Was secretly served by others ? After
the lapse of a week from the debate to which he had
before alluded, the evidence which had been so Masi
ted came forth simultaneously in two papevs—thossi
papers were 27te Morning Fen and The Morn* .ffera!
—and if he was not much mistaken, the Noble Lor
appeared to justify the publication as a consequent
of the Minute of Cebirr, which, he said, he (W.