Star.
London, England, 1813-03-25 00:00:00

PETITION OF SIR JOHN AND LADY DOUGLAS.

Mr. C. JOHNSTONE moved, that the Petition
presented on behalf of Sir John and Lady Douglas,
on the 17th of March, and then ordered to lie on the
table, should be read.
The Clerk accordingly read the Petitiono—[See
The STAR of the 18th.]
Mr. C. JOHNSTONE then observed, thit he rose
Recall the attention of the House to the, Petition
hich had just been read. As no steps had yet been
taken, he could not justify himself, although labour-
ing under indisposition, in deferring longer to submit
a moien, which might declare the sense entertained
by theillouse of the nature and character- of that
Petitiod. He was persuaded, that the House would
agree with him, that this Petition was nothing but an
implident attempt to give the colour of truth to the
most' notorious and glaring falsehoods—falsehoods
already sworn to by the parties, in the prosecution of
a foul conspiracy. That Petition was then before
them—it lay on their table—and it was but justice to
the Princess of Wales, and to the country, that it
'should not be suffered to remain there longer—that
it should not be placed on the records of Parliament, '
without that House having fixed on it some decided
mark of their reprobation. By some persons it might
possibly be thought a paper wholly unworthy of no-
tice.—( Here the Hon. Gentleman being manifestly over.
come by indisposition, proceeded to READ his speech from
a written paper )—By some persons the Petition
might be considered as unworthy of observation—
they might think, that noticing it, in any way, im-
parted to it a degree of importance which it did not
deserve. His opinion was very different. They ought
not to consider the effects of that Petition, as they re-
lated to the present day, but as they were likely to ope-
rate at a future time. That Petition might be looked
upon as containing presumptive proof of the statement
of the Douglasses ; and, at a distant period, might, in
the minds of many individuals, afford something like
a support to those shameful calumnies which had
been levelled at the Princess of Wales. Therefore,
he wished to fix a strong and decided mark of repro-
bation on it, as unworthy of belief. And, it woulgt
be seen, from the Resolution which he should have
the honbur to move, that, so far from the notice he
had taken of the Petition being likely to give it any
degree of importance, it was calculated to prevent its
doing the slightest mischief, either now or hereafter.
Mr. ROSE here spoke to order.—The Honourable
Gentleman, he observed, complained of his ill state
of health, and he felt as much regret on account of
his indisposition as any Gentleman possibly could.
He conceived it his duty, however, to interrupt the
Honourable Gentleman. To read a speech, be thought
required as great an exertion of voice as to speak it.
The former proceeding was contrary to the estab-
lished usage of the House ; and if it were permitted,
a Member might, in reality, be giving the opinions
of another person, while he profesr:d to be delivering
his own— (Hear, hear.)
A considerable noise VIII here occasioned by the
conflicting cries of 64 Go on, go on!" and gi No, no !"
At length, '
The SPEAKER having obtained silence, obser-
ved, that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rose)
'was perfectly right ; it was contrary to the established
usage of the House to read speeches • and he had to
reproach himself for not having interfered, which he
certainly should have done, but for the delicate state
in which the Honourable Gentleman had described
his health to be—(hear, hear.)
Mr. TIERNEY said, it certainly was against the
ordinary rules of the House to proceed as the Hon.
Member had done ; but, if they chose to dispense
with those rules, it was in their power so to do—it
was in their option to permit a speech to be read, if
circumstances warranted it. He (Mr. Tierney)
recollected a Member of that House, not then in his
place, who, on an Indian Question, read a speech of
considerable length. There was not a doubt, that
no person had a right to read his speech in Parlia-
ment, but the House, if it pleased, might grant the
liberty.— (Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said, he considered it to be ex-
actly the same as the rule, by which every Member
was bound to speak on his legs. If, however, illness
prevented him, and he wished to sit, he must apply
tor the indulgence, and as an indulgence only would
it be granted to him.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITBREAD said, he recollected the case
to which his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Tierney) had
alluded • and it was still stronger *hen the one then
before them. An Hon. Member was, on that oc-
casion, too much indisposed to come down to the
House, and he desired a friend to'read from a paper
the speech which he intended to have spoken.- -
(Laughter.)—His friend did as f.e was requested,
and, after having read the paper, took a part in the
debate himself.— ( Much laughter.)
Mr. ROSE admitted, that the House could sanc-
tion the reading of a speech if they pleased ; but still
contended, that, if an Hon. Member had strength
enough to read, he must also have strength sufficient
to speak his sentiments.— ( Loud cries of go on, go on.)
, Mr. COCH RAN E JOHNSTONE said, he would
not have obtruded himself on the House, indisposed
as he then was, if it were not from an unwillingness
to put off a discussion of so much importance. He
then proceeded to read—The honour and lite of the
Princess of Wales were placed in peril by the foul
assertions of those petitioners; and when he examin-
ed the conduct which had been pursued by them, he
did not entertain a doubt that they were connected
and combined in a settled and premeditated conspi-
racy to alledge false, infamous, and malicious charges
Against her Royal Highness. When he had the ho
nt,ur of making his former motion, he thought he
should have heard no more about them ;—unfortu-
nately, it had turned out otherwise . awe he would
not MAY have obtruded leiatkeif ea the How, but

•
and shameful attempt made
e medium orthe Petition, to give an ap-
f truth to that. which was proved to be
of credit. The Honornkle Gentletnan
ludid by moving—. - •
or That the Petition of Sir John De s, In behalf of himself
and of Charlotte his wife, laid upon the table of this House on
the 17th instant, Is regarded by this House as an mutat:loos effort
to give, in the eyes of the nation, the colour of truth to the filo-
hoods before sworn to by the Petitioners in the prosecution SY
foul sod detestable attempt against the puce snd happiness, the
homer and life, of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales."
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT seconded 1.1.-ae motion.
Loud and reiterated cries of Question followed,
and strangers were ordered to withdraw, preparatory
to a division—when

f!T tit!

Mr. HERBERT, of Kerry, rose in the midst of
the storm, and observed, that he felt it due to his
conscience, and to the justice of the ceunay, to de-
clare, that he never would consent to make the Ric-
solution of that House a vehicle of opinion on matters
connected with judicial proceeding—on matters,
which, by possibility, might be brought before that
Hcuse for decision. .Were they, he would ask, to
prejudge this cause ? He knew that the preponde-
rance of evidence was clearly with the Princess of
Wads, but still be never would travel out of the
strict line of his -tuty to deliver an opinion without a
proper ground on which the proceeding might be
defended: esey agreed to the Resolution, he con-
tended they would prejudge the cause ; and, there-
fgre, if he stood single on the occasion, he would
divide the House on the proposition.
The cries of Quettion were now redoubled. •
Mr.WHITBREAD rose and observed, that as he
understood his Hon. Friend (Mr. C. Johnstone) in-
tended to press his motion to a division, be wished
shottly to state the grounds,. the obvious grounds,
which prevented him from voting for that motion—
he could not vote for it, because the House were in
possession of no evidence to support the allegations
contained in the •Resolutioo.—(Hear, hear.)—Ac-
cording to that Resolution, the Petitioner had at-
tempted to set up as true, in the eyes of the nation,
evidence which was proved to be false. New, the
House had no documents whatever, on which to
found this statement.—(Hear, hear.)--And although
every step he proceeded in this dark and mysterious
affair, tended more perfectly to convince him that
the evidence was most false, ind that a wicked con-
spiracy existed against the life and honour of the
Princess of Wales, yet, as they had no papers before
them on which that judgment could be fairly form-
ed, he not only thought, but he was quite sure, that
they could not proceed with the resolution of his
Hon. Friend. He was, therefore, of opinion, that it
would be better for the House not to take this ques-
tion at all into consideration, but to get rid of it alto-
gether, by having the previous question, or the order
of the day moved upon it. lf, however, he should
be obliged to vote on his Honourable Friend's mo-
tion, he must, for the reasons he had already stated,
vote against it.
Sir WILLIAM GARE.OW said, he believed, if
the House manifested impatience during the time an
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Herbert) was speak-
ing, it was now very clear it did not arise 'from the
feeling which that Honourable eentleman seemed to
think it proceeded from. He need not have been
afraid of opposing the resolution tingly—for, with the
exception of the Honourable Mover, and of the Ho-
nourable Baronet who came forward reiuctautly to
second the motion, he was sure it would have been
negatived by every voice in the House. He would
say but one sentence more—he hoped the House
would not entertain any other question, but would
get rid of this most extraordinary, and, it it were car-
ried, most disgraceful, because most unjust proposi-
tion, by a direct negative. If such a resolution were
tolerated, it would be subversive of all justice, and
the House of Commons, instead of being a blessing
to the people of these realms, would soon become a
curse Hear, hear.)
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT did not mean to perH
.sist in the motion, because there was not evidence, in
a formal and regular shape, before them, to support
it—and, perhaps, his Honourable Friend would not
press it on the House. He would, however, take the
present opportunity to shew the awkward predicament
in which they were placed by the Petition then lying
on the table. That Petition, lying where it did, ren-
dered them, in a manner, accessary to those false-
hoods and calumnies, which the parties, who had
once sworn them (although they have been since dis-
proved), now stated they were ready to come forward
and re-swear, in any Court whatever, where the pe-
nalties of perjury would apply. He contended, there-
fore, that they were in the awkward predicament of
giving an indirect sanction to calumnies, which ro
man in that House, not even the Learned Gentleman,
who had just sat down, would willingly countenance.
Into this situation they had been betrayed by a trick ;
with a view of correcting it, his Honourable Friend
had brought forward his motion ; which, shougb re-
jected, contained a truth, which every nian in the
House, he believed, would assent to.
Mr. TIERNEY obje;ted to the course proposed
by the Learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor-
General.) He (Mr. Tierney) wished to express no
opinion either of the Resolution or Petition ; but, if
he negatived the proposition, he must, of necessity,
ajirm that the Ptaition is not "an audacious effort."
(No, no, from theTreatury Bench.) The substance of
the Resolution was, " That the Petition is an auda-
cious effort to give colour of truth to certain false
evidence, whereby the honour and life of the Prin-
cess of Wales are put in jeopardy." Now, by his ne-
gative, he would deny that these allegations were
true—and he must, of course, at the same time, af-
firm the converse of the proposition, namely, " that
it is not an audacious attempt."—(No, no, no.)—lf
his statement were not correct, he did not understand
the English language. His wish was to proceed to
the order of the day, but nc.t to come to a direct ne-
gative. He was prepared to vote, that the proposie
tion ought not to be entertained, no mote than the
matter of the petition. And he should be glad to
know what objection the Learned Gentleman had to
moving the order of the day ? Was it for any desir-
able purpose that he (Mr. Tierney) was required to
give the proposition a direct negative ? If the Learned
Gentleman could thew him, that such a vote would
not produce the exact effect he bad stated, he should
feel very mach gratified,
Sir W. GAR ROW.—" Notwithstanding the light
is which the Right lon. Geutlematt bias enclwou-

111111

red to put the question, I have no difficulty in giv.
4ng him an answer immediately. If I had proposed
an amendment to the Resolution, which should have
the effect of calling upon the House to declare, that
die Petition was not an audacious attempt of the kind
described, then indeed it might be said, that my object •
was to give a direct negative to the riicter of the t
motion ; but if I am asked to say that black is whitet%
or that white is black, and I answer no, I apprehend
the effect of the answer is, that I shall give no opi.
nion on the subject. If the House refuses to say that
dle Petition is a scandalous or audacious attenipt,
`does it Llierefore say, that the attempt is meritorious!
If that ilkre the case, I should admit that the obser.

Tation of the Right Hon. Gentleman is well foundcd;
but Ido not think so. By giving a negative to the
Resolution, the House declares that it will not enter.

taint the question ; and my objection to that Resolu-
tion is precisely this—that it proposes for decision
a question which the. House ought not to entertain."
Mr. TIERNEY—,6 The opinion of the learned
Gentleman, then, is, that to negative the assertion
that the Petition is an audacious attempt, does not
mean an affirmation that it is not an audacious at.
tempt. But suppose a future historian were to find
on their journals, that such a motion as this had been
made in the House, and that the House tad given it
a direct negative—what would be his continuos ?.
Attending only to the plain sense of the English lan-
guage, he would immediately conclude that the
House had decided that óe Petition was not an au-
dacious attempt. Unless this be the meaning of a
negative, I protest I do not understand the English
language. I ask again, where is the objection to
moving the Order of the Day ?"
Mr. -BARHAMig When persons of great genius
appear among us, we now and then certainly do get
new and extraordinary lights from them. For my
own part, I always thought that when a question was
submitted to the House, there were only three modes
of proceeding—to say aye, or no, or to refuse to give
any opinion at all ; and when it was intended to
avoid giving any opinion at all, that the course was
to move the previous question. Now it is agreed, that
the object is to give no opinion at all upon the pre-
sent Resolution ; and if that is not a case for the pre.
vious question, I don't know what can be a case for
that particular course of proceeding. Bur, then, we
may certainly derive new light upon the subject, from
the talents and learning of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman ; ;Ind, therefore, I hope the House will
indulge him with an opportunity of 'hewing what
'species or kind of propositions form proper subjects
for the previous question, if that course of proceeding
is not the right one in the present instance."
'Sir W. GARROW.—" I do not mean to persist
in a criticism upon words. To induce me to give
way, it is enough that I find a considerable number
of a different opinion. I have no objection, therefore,
to move, that this House do now adjourn."
The question of adjournment was then put and
carried without a division.—Adjourned.