Star.
London, England, 1813-03-06 00:00:00

HOUSE. OF COMMONS.

Sir C. POOLE brought up the Report of the Pembroke Com-
mittee, which declared sir J. Owen to be duly elected for both
the Coon awl the Borough. It stated the pettuon against his
return to be neither frivolous nor vexatious.
A new writ Is as ordered for the Borough of Pembroke, in the
room of Sir J. Owen, he having made his election to serve for the
county.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT, front the Liverpool Committee, Re-
I ported that G. Canning, Esq. and General Gascoigue (the sitting
Members) were duly elected, but stated tie petitions to be
I neither frivolous nor vexatious.
The SPEAKER thought it might be convenient to the House
to be apprised, that as Monday next was the last day of receiving
Private Bills, it was his intention to come to the House on that
day at three o'clock, then to take the Chair if enabled to do so.
Mr. H. THORNTON' brought in a Biil to relieve certain
persons confined in the King's Bench and Marshalsea Prisons,
who, being natives of Ireland, had not thelarne advantages
) afforded to them at present, as from existing arrangements were
enjoyed by other prisoners.
,i. { After a tew words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the Bill was read
l' , a first, and ordered to be read a second time.
Colonel WOOD moved the second reading of a Bill, the object
of which was to alrer a clause in the Brecknock Canal Bill.

Sir CHARLES MORGAN moved, as an amendment, that
the Bill should be read a second time on thlit day six months.
After a discussion in which Lord A. SEYMOUR, Mr. Pao-rux.

RO%, Mr. HARVEY, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. I. P. GRANT, and other
Honourable Members participated, the Gallery was cleared for
a division. On dividing, the numbers were—
For the Amendment— 160. .Against It 93.
The Bill was therefore lost.
After the division, strangers were not again admitted.
THE PRINCESS OF WALES.

While the Gallery was cleared, Mr. BENSON
moved the Standing Order, and it remained un-
opened.
Mr. BENNETT repeated his motion of adjourn-
ment, stating, that be did so merely to mark his dis-
approbation of the exclusion of all strangers. This
motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE then rose.—
His motion, he stated, originated entirely with him-
pelf, without any communication with other persons.
He even did not know that he should find one Mem-
ber to second it. He had transmitted to the Princess
i.of Wales, and to the King's Ministers, a copy of the
Resolutions he intended to propose: He then re-
ferred to the Report made by the Commissioners of
the Privy Council, at the command of his Majesty,
in 1806 ; and the authenticity of which, he said, he
was enabled to prove at the Bar, if fequired to do
so. He read over the charges made against her
Royal Highness at that time, and many of the par-
ticular items of those charges, with the concluding
Report. The Princess, he stated, had, on her re-
ceiving a copy of that Report, addressed a letter to
his Majesty, a copy of which he read, (this letter was
of considerable length), the authenticity of which he
was also prepared to substantiate. The letter alluded
to the malice of her enemies—to her not. being call-
ed upon to make'a fair defence—and to the parties
be credible witnesses. That Report was
is, Spencer, Grenville, Er-
In March, 1807, a change
.'s Councils, and Mr. Per-
the King to restore the
she was accordingly again
that time no material change

bad occurred in bet situation 01 recently, when she
had received a communication from the Earl of Li-
verpool, by which she was informed, that her accus-
tomed intercourse with the Princess Charlotte was to
be abridged. This produced her Royal Highness's
Letter to the Prince Regent, and led yo the late re-
ference of the case to certain Members of the Privy
Council. In his opinion, the four Lords Commis-
sioners in 1806 had gone beyond their authority, in
pronouncing their opinion on the Princess's conduct,
as they had done. The charge against her Royal
Highness was no less than High Treason. If, as
Magistrates, they had a right to examine witnesses to
the facts, yet he conceived that they had no right to
pronounce either her condemnation or her acquittal.
That Report, therefore, as far as concerned their
judgment, he looked upon as of no effect in law.
Lady Douglas's deposition, who swore to the preg-
nancy in 1802, remained uncontradicted. In what a
state would the country be placed, if this proceeding
was again to be called for, and the evidence of Lady
Douglas produced ; while that of witnesses on the
other side, could not, from death or other causes, be
obtained ? It was, therefore, the bounden duty of Par-
liament to provide against such an event. He called
to the recollection of the House, that no proceedings
had been instituted against Sir John or Lacfy Doug-
las, for defaming the character of the Princess. He
thought that the confidential servants of the Prince
Regent ought to send the Princess copies of all letters
and papers concerning her conduct since 1806, as far,
at least, as it was alluded to in the proceedings on the
late Report. A strict and impartial investigation of
her conduct ought certainly to take place. In the
task he had undertaken, he was actuated only by a
conscientious sense of his duty As a Member of Par-
liament. After various other remarks, the Honour-
able Member concluded by moving two Resolutions.
The first was of great length, recapitulating the*con-
tents of all the reports and papers concerning her
Royal Highness. The second was for an Address to
his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying his
Royal Highness to lay the whole of the documents
before the House, together with all other papers re-
' lative thereto.
Mr. JOHN WHARTON seconded the motion.
Lord CASTLEREAGH rose, and said, he felt
that he should act most consistently with his duty in
confining himself to explanation, with respect to parts
of the Hon. Member's speech, which would tend to
guard the House against those false impressions
which it might otherwise excite. This mode of pro-
ceeding adopted by the Hon. Member was some-
what singular. His first Resolution was, in fact,
even in his own view of it, without any proof. His
second Resolution called for those very papers, as
matter of information, on which his first Resolution
was founded—as if they were matters of certain
knowledge. He did not mean to urge it in the way
of cavil against the proceeding ; but surely, if there
were any grounds for the Resolutions, the second
should have been the preliminary one; as the first,
in its order, could by no possibility be adopted by
the House. The only object of the information called
for, seemed to be, to persuade the House that such
serious evils existed as to the successirai to the throne,
as required the interference of Parliament. He should
not enter into any detailed enquiry as to the legality
of the Privy Council acting as a tribunal in their pro-
ceedings on this subject ; but he would state, that he
was perfectly satisfied that they were fully compe-
tent to enquire whether there were or were not suffi-
cient grounds of charge for putting her Royal
Highness the Princess of Wales on her defence
The present motion, however, did not go to- the ex-
tent of settling the question, whether any such pro-
ceedings were, or were not, necessary ? But he must
say, that if the Commissioners were not competent
to decide upon the charges against her Royal High-
ness of being pregnant in the year 1802, the House
of Commons was certainly not the proper tribunal
for deciding on such a question. If, on the other
hand, no actual criminality was imputed to her Royal
Highness, that House was equally an improper tri-
bunal for deciding on that question. If, again, every
shade in the conduct of the Princess of Wales, from
the highest degree of guilt down to the lowest levity,
were to be considered, that House was not, certainly,
the place where such matters should be di cussed.—
He must also observe, that if any unfortunate dis-
putes or disunions existed between any members or
branches of the Royal Family, any discussion in the
House of Commons could serve only to increase
alienation, to augment the evil, and to widen the
breach. The only solid practical ground, therefore,
on which Parliament could proceed, would be, that
doubts attached to the succession to the Crown.—
But in the present case there was not the smallest
doubt entertained upon that subject. The Commis-
sioners in 1806, from their known character and high
legal qualifications, were certainly fit persons to de-
cide upon that question ; and they had decided, and
no doubts remained on their minds that required the
necessity of Parliamentary interposition. They did
not make a comparative• enquiry into the weight of
the evidence of Lady Douglas, as compared with or
contrasted to that of other witnesses ; but they decid-
ed, that they had traced the whole history of the
child so completely and satisfactorily, that no pos-
sible doubt could remain that it was not born of the
Princess of Wales, but of another woman, named
Sophia Austin. Nor, indeed, did this decision rest
only on their Report, for it was afterwards referred
to other confidential servants of his Majesty, who
gave a solemn judgment, confirming the Report of
the first Commissioners. The supposed doubt
respecting the succession, was, therefore, rebutted
by the authority of the first Commissioners of
the first Cabinet ; and also by that of the sub-
sequent Cabinet, to whom the matter was refer-
red, and who confirmed the same judgment..
If any doubt found its way into the mind of Parlia-
ment, he would not deny, in the abstract, that no
case might exist, as to the question of Succession,
which it might be the duty of Parliament to examine;
but would the Honourable Gentleman say, that after
all those authorities which he had stated, it would be
regular or rational for Parliament to interfere ?
Would not such interference rather serve to originate
doubts, where no doubts existed ; and give counte-
nance to suspicions, contrary to the repeated decla-
rations of all parties, that no case whatever had been
made out, to require any such interference on the
part of Parliament ? The Hon. Gentleman himself
had made his statement in such a manner art° shew
that he entertained no doubts upon the subject ; yes,

~:~.,

vehenateither he, nor any other Member, had any
doubt respecting the legitimacy of the Succession, he I
called upon Parliament to legislate. It was perfectly
true that there had been no prosecution entered into
of Lady Douglas; her evidence was taken by the
Commissioners in the discharge of
,their duty; and
the Hon. Gentleman should have stated in candour,
that the first Cabinet recommended that no procee-
dings should be bad, unless the Crown Lawyers
deemed it advisable to prosecute Lady Douglas for
perjury. A case was laid before them ; and though
they were satisfied as to the perjury, they, neverthe-
less, saw great difficulties in the way of establishing
it by legal evidence, and, therefore they did not ad-
vise prosecution.. If he were so disposed, he might
use some grounds for personal complaint against the
Hon. Member, for be had transgressed the rules of
his parliamentary duty, in stating that Mr. Perceval
had prevailed upon the Cabinet to espouse the cause
of the Princess of Wales. The Cabinet had acted
deliberately and conscientiously in thebusiness, and had
advised that there were no reasons why her Royal
Highness should not be admitted again to the presence
of the Sovereign, agreeably to the recommendation of
I the former Cabinet, with whom, indeed, it had origi-
nated. The Hon. Member had stated with marked em-

phasis, that Lady Douglas's evidence was given by
command of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent.
In this matter, the Prince Regent followed the advice
of Lord Thurlow, which was to have the evidence
reduced to writing, in order to submitting it to legal
consideration. Then his Royal Highness felt it to
be his duty to communicate the charges to his Royal
Father, with whom, and with whose Cabinet, and
not with his Royal Highness himself, the whole
affair had from that time remained. He could really
see no necessity for pursuing the subject of this dis-
cussion any farther. It could not be properly
brought forward, except on the presumption that
some doubts existed relative to the Succession to the
Crown ; and he trusted, that in what he had said,
he had convinced the House that no such doubts did
exist. Calling for further information, if agreed to,
would only be the means of gratifying private cu-
riosity, by making Parliament the instrument of pro-
curing that gratification, that taste for calumny,
which was so much the rage at the present moment.
He should trust to the indulgence of the House, to
explain farther in reply, in case other circumstances
were touched upon, which might. render farther ex-
planations necessary : and he hoped that the House
would not tolerate suspicions or doubts, where none
whatever existed, by adopting the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman. _ _ _

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY commenced ,by ob-
serving, that the Hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane John-
stone) had indulged himself in such strong censure'
of the Administration of 1806, as to render it impos-
sible for him to preserve silence. No man who knew
them, would throw the slightest shade of disrespect or
suspicion on the conduct of those four Noble Lords,
who composed that Commission of Enquiry. With
respect to himself, he had to say, that he was con-
sulted by his Royal Highness, in his professional ca-
pacity, upon the subject ; and was, he believed-, se-
lected for that purpose by the recommendation of the
late Lord Thurlow, that he might give his opinion
on this very delicate investigation. Alter having con-
sidered it with the utmost care and anxiety, he ad-
dressed a letter to his Royal 1-I;ghness, containing
.his Sentiments on the matter, in December, 1805.
After he gave that opinion, his Royal Highness took
every possible means to ascertain what credit was due
to the parties, whose testimony had been given. In
the change of Administration which shortly followed,
he had the honour of being appointed Solicitor-Gene-
ral ; and in March, 1806, he received his Majesty's
commands to confer with Lord Thurlow on this im-
portant business. Lord Thurlow desired him to tell
the Prince of Wales, that the information was of a
nature much too important for his Royal Highness
not to take some proper steps in consequence. 1 his he
communicated to the Prince of Wales, and in a short
time afterwards, the facts, as stated, were submitted
to some of the King's Ministers. An authority was
then issued under the King's Sign Manual to certain
Members of the Privy Council, to take up the investi-
gation of the whole of the case. Many meetings were
held, and many witnesses were examined thereupon :
and he (Sir S. Romilly) was the only other person
present, besides the Commissionerss, at these exa-
minations, which were conducted by the four Noble
Lords mentioned, and he took down all the deposi-
tions. He must declare in the most solemn manner,
that no enquiry was ever conducted with greater im-
partiality, nor was there ever evinced a more anxious
desire to discharge justly a great public duty. With
respect to the propriety of instituting proceedings
against Lady Douglas, he should beg to state,
that the objections to the instituting such proce:d-
ings, did not arise from any doubts of the right of
the Commissioners to administer an oath, as some
persons. had insinuated, nor indeed from any doubt
as to whether the facts sworn to were true or false,
but from other circumstances. He was prepared to
maintain, that the legality of the Commission, com-
posed of certain Members of his Majesty's Privy
Council, required no other authority but the autho-
rity of the King, directing them to inquire into the
circumstance of a charge of high treason : and that
it was not only their right, but their duty to go into
such inquiry. Ought a bill, for instance, to be sent
down at once to a Grand Jury of the county of Mid-
dlesex, without any preliminary proceedings ? No
man, he believed, who was acquainted with the duty
imposed upon the King's Privy Councillors, would
hazard such an assertion. It was their duty to in -
quire into all matters of a treasonable nature, before
they referred them to the regular tribunals for trial.
In the recent case, for instance, of Margaret Nichol-
son, the Privy Council found the woman to be in-
sari! ; and no proceedings whatever were instituted
against her. Sir Samuel Romilly argued at some
length, in proof of the legal right of the Privy Coun-
cil to act as a tribunal of investigation for the pur-
pose specified, of which, he contended, no doubt
could reasonably be entertained. He was, therefore,
of opinion, that the motion ought to be negatived.
Mr. WHITBREAD observed, that the Honour-
able Member who had brought forward the present
motion, had stated his intention to him ; and he had
told him, that he thought his first Resolution could.
not be adopted. He, therefore, did not rise in sup-
port of it ; for he concurred in much that had fallin
from the Noble Lord opposite, and thought that, at
this period at least, no such motion should be enter-

Ptained by the House as might render it the ♦elticle of
communicating to the Public at large those matters
which it was much better should be suppressed. He
must, however, remind the Noble Lord of his expres-
sion of his readiness to make explanations, particu-
larly with respect to the more recent parts of these
transactions. If the House dismissed this :object
, without any farther explanations or proceedings, the
IPrincess of Wales would, in his mind, be grossly in-
jured. Her Royal Highness complained to the
House of vague and ambiguous blame thrown upon
her, and demanded explanation at least. By the
common uncontradicted rumour, it appeared, that
she had addressed a letter to the King, impeaching
the proceedings of the four Noble Lords who were
the. Commissioners in 1806 ; and it should be re-

membered, that in so doing, she was understood
to be acting under the advice of Mr. Perceval.—
Lord Eldon, it was also stated, approved of that let..
ter. The same was said of Sir I'. Plomer, now his

Majesty's Attorney-General,who,being present, could
contradict the assertion, if it were untrue. He wished

to know from the Noble Lord opposite, whether.
forwi the
with the privity and knowledge of those persons, and
purpose of making her Royal Highness's in-
nocence manifest to the world, a work was not

printed, intended to be published, and circulated
throughout England and Europe? When the Noble
Lord talked of an appetite for slander and calumny.
was he not aware that newspapers had lately teemed
with paragraphs and extracts, the tendency of •
which was to libel the Princess of Wales ? WAS not

the public mind in a state of agitation on this sub-
ject, which it was highly expedient to allay ? Nobody
doubted that Lady Douglas was a perjured person ;
but though that was not doubted, she still 'remained
a competent witness ; and, therefore, some check
ought to be put to the propagation of ambiguotis re-
ports. It appeared that her Royal Highness)! find-
ing the intercourse between her and the young
Princess was restricted more and more, addressed a

letter to the Prince Regent, whick was twice returned
unopened. At length, it seems, it was read to his
Royal Highness, and the cold answer returned was,
that Ministers had received no commands on the sub.

ject. That letter at last found its way into the publi,.
prints ; and then his Royal Highness, not as the
Head of his Family, but as Prince Regent, by the
advice of Ministers, summoned a Privy Council to

consult what he should do : and the extraordinary
advice of this Privy Council to his Royal Highness
was, not to refer to the present conduct of the
Princess of Wales, but to the evidence of 1806 or
1807 I Was there ever advice so preposterous, and
so cruel ? The levities of her Royal Highness in
1806 were to be punished in 1813, more severely
than was thought necessary in former years, by
increased restrictions and restraints ! The Ho.
nonrable Gentleman then adverted to the opinion
lately given by the legal advisers of the Prince
Regent, which had but recently been made known,
and whifh stated, that, according to their experience,
cases not of graver import might be sent to a Jury.
Here, then, it would appear, there must be doubts as
to the succession to the Throne 1 When the Noble
Lord and his Colleagues framed their last Report,
had they not all this before them ? If so, let the
House see what this Cabinet did, who, in 1807, pro.
flounced a verdict of entire acquittal on the part of
her Royal Highness, and who fastened such serious
imputations on her In ISIS I By the advice of Lord
Eldon and Mr. Perceval, as it was understood,
the Princess of Wales threatened publicity to the
former proceedings, and then she was readmitted at
Court. Her advisers must, at that period, have
been fully persuaded of her innocence, or they never
would have recommended her to risk such a pub.
lication to the world. Mr. Whitbread then com.
mented on the various circumstances connected
with the transactions of 1807, when an unanimous
opinion was declared, that all the particulars of the
Princess's conduct, to which any character or colour
of criminality could be ascribed, were either satisfac-
torily contradicted, or rested on evidence under such
circumstances as to render it unworthy of credit.---
This was a complete verdict of not guilty. The King
had been previously advised to receive her Royal
Highness, with a reproof for her unguarded conduct ;
but those Ministers advised no reproof, and called on
his Majesty to restore her, and to receive her at once
in the manner due to her exalted rank and station in
the community ! But now, in 1818, was raked up
the old evidence of 1806, by some of those very per.
sons, in order to defame her, and punish her by ad-
ditional restrictions ! Ought she to submit to these
imputations ? Ought not that House to interfere ?
—The Noble Lord, indeed, had observed that any
of her Royal Highness's legal advisers who chose
to do so, might come forward in her behalf. There
was a time when she did not want legtl advisers
—when Mr. Perceval, and Lord Eldon, and others,
were her legal advisers ! But one of them was
now dead, and the others had become mute !-
-He had declared last night, that if no one else did,
he would stand up, not as her advocate, but for the
cause of justice. She ought not to be the only per.
son in this country, so famed for its humanity, with-
out a friend, or a legal adviser. Irtat recourse was
left to her but an appeal to the justice of Parliament?
Her request to the Prince Regent was similar to that
of Anne Boleyne to Henry the Prove me
guilty, or admit me to be innocent 0 The Speaker
of the House of Lords has twice returned her letter,
as we hear, unopened. You, Sir, (addressing the
Speaker) have, with great propriety, submitted the
letter which you received, to our consideration.—
Suppose you had refused to present her petition I It
might have happened, Sir, that nobody else would
have presented it. The Hon. Gentleman, who is
the mover of this question, once gave me a Petition,
which he told me 135 Members had refused to pre.
sent. This might have been the situation of the Prin.
cess of Wales." Mr. Whitbread then moved as an
amendment to the motion, that after the word that,'
the following should be adopted : 4 An Address to
the Prince Regent, praying that a copy of the Report
to which her Royal Highness had referred, be laid
before the House."
Lord CASTLEREAGH was sorry to trouble the
House a second time, but trusted to their indulgence.
He could assure the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last,
that he was glad to find the question in his hands, as
he had met it in a manly manner, and had put it on
the true grounds, of an attack on the Ministers of the
day. He denied that the opinions of the-Members
of the Privy Council who signed the Minute were

! not being credible witnes
signed by the four Lords,
I skim and.Ellenborough.
took place in his Majesty'
CeVdl then prevailed upon
Prince's to favour ; and 51
received at Court. Since tb

I

binding on alt the Ministers of the diy; who were
not then consulted, or that he, as a Minister, could
be viewed as any party to the advice of Mr. Perce-
val, in his professional capacity. He disclaimed any
knowledge of the circulation of paragraphs reflecting
on her Royal Highness. He wished she had still
such advisers as Mr. Perceval ; then such a letter
would have neither been written nor published. As
to the letter being returned unopened, it was an un-
fortunate circumstance attached to the separation
of the Printe and Princess, that all correspondence
had been at an end, lest it might aggravate the
existing misunderstanding. That was not the
rst letter which had been so returned. The re-
strictions on the intercourse between the Prin-
cess and her daughter was not of that vindictive na-
ture, which might be called punishment. The alter.-s
tion in the visits from once a week to once a fort- '
night, was made when the young Princess went to
Windsor, to prevent the interruption of her education
by too frequent visits in town, and was not intended
tote continued when she should return to London to
reside. All the circumstances of this part of the case,
he did not feel justified in submitting. They had ap-
peared, however, sufficient to men of as honourable
minds as the Honourable Gentleman. He 'mist say,
that the publication of the letter was such an appeal
to the country against the Prince Regent, and such
an appeal to the daughter against the father, as to
render every change in the plan impossible. Of all
the passages .in it, he most disapproved of that cant-
ing one about Confirmation. There was no restraint
on the intercourse between the Princess of Wales, and
the Rev. Bishop of Exeter : and if she had commu-
nicated with that Prelate, she must have known that
the King, from religious motives, had enjoined that
her confirmation should not take place till she attained
the age of 18. His Royal Highness had conde-
scended to advise with his servants, in his anxiety to
discharge every part of his important trusts with the
greatest attention to the public welfare. He should
resist, therefore, the production of the documents,
since no parliamentary ground could be alleged for it.
Sir THOMAS PLUMER having been personally
alluded to, hoped for a short indulgence. He did
not know whether he was accused of once being her
Royal Highness's legal adviser ; whether it was for
the advice he then gave • or for his now having ceased
to be one of her Royal ilighness's legal advisers.—
In 1806, he waited or. her at-her request, and gave
his professional advice. Had he done wrong in that ?
He should not disclose that evidence ; but he had, in
that advice, the satisfaction of being joined by Mr.
Perceval, who was not then in the Cabinet, but a
professional man. All he should say was, that he never
discovered any just-foundation for the charges made
against the Princess. Certainly he was not one of
her advisers now. The situation he held would pro.
bably have precluded him from that ; but he had not
been applied to, and he presumed her Royal High-
ness employed those in whom she had more confi-
dence.
The Hon. Mr. BRAND admitted the competency
of the Privy Council in the case they had before
them ; but contended that their Report exposed the
affairs of the country to much difficulty and danger.
He made various animadversions on the speech of
the Noble Lord ; and concluded by observing, that
if they refused to entertain the application of the
Princess, they refused justice to the first subject in
the country.
Mr. STUART „WORTLEY said he felt warmly
oh the subject, as a man of honour. He could not
vote either for the original motion or the asnend-
tient ; bat yet be did not think that the Noble Lord
(Castlereagh) had given a satisfactory answer to
either of them. He was extremely averse to seeing
the Royal Family dragged, year after year before the
House of Commons. He thought the Noble Lords,
the Commissioners, went further, in the first instance;
than the case seemed to require ; and that they
should have confined themselves to the criminal
charge alone, with a view to the possible proceedings
on which their advice was taken. The first Repent
of some of the present Ministers advised the King to
receive the Princess ; and now this last Report raked
up old documents, on which they had acquitted her
RoyarHighness before. It the Prince Regent had
said-4s As your ,husband, and as the father of your
child; I choose to restrict you to visiting her once in
a week," the public might have been satisfied with
an arrangement which it was his right to make, if he
thought fit. however, should have been
aware, that his own conduct, at those periods, when
those accusations were going on against --,
would not bear the strictest scrutiny ; and lie thought
that the R— F— ought not to be insensible to
the events which had taken place on the Continent.
Mr. W. SMITH fully participated in what fell
from the Hon. MeMber who spoke last but one. if his
sister had been treated as the Princess had been, he
should feel extremely sore. He regretted he could not
see his way clear how justice could be done to the
Princess; and therefore he wished his Hon. Friend
would explain what further proceedings he had in
contemplation.

Mr. PONSONBY could not agree to the motion
of his Hon. Friend, yet he was almost inclined so to
do, from the admirable, incomparable, resistless elo-
quence with which be urged it. He would ask, Is it
competent for.this House to grant the prayer of the
Princess's Letter ? The Report of 1806 ought not to
be laid before the House. Is there any thing in it
that ought to be submi►ted to their consideration ?
Suppose the Report cal the table, what could they do
with it ? Could they address the Regent for a trial ?
Could they condemn ? Could they acquit ? This is
truly an attack on the Government; and the defence
of the Noble Lord worthy of the newspapers which
advocate his cause. He denied that any person in
Opposition had had any connection with the publica-
tion of the papers, or with any part of the transaction ;
he disclaimed all knowledge of all proceedings there.
in, and he should despise any one who would make
the Royal quarrels a source to prove a stepping.stoue
to office : he had never SG done ; those he acted with
had never so done ; and he wished be could say as
much for the living and the dead, and that all could
lay their hands on their hearts and say the same. He
despised such, base and despicable conduct, from the
bottom of his soul

Mr. WHITBREAD said, after the question ask-
ed of him by his Hon. Friend, Mr. Win. Smith, he
might, perhaps, be allowed to make good the defi-
ciency in his former speech, by explaining what his
fur.Lcr views and intentions were, provided be should

•
tamed in his motion of tonight, and obtain the Re.
port alluded to in the Letter of the Princess of Wales
to the Speaker. It certainly was his intention, in
the event of success to his first motion, to have fol-
lowed it up by motions for such Papers. as might ap-
pear necessary for the further elucidation of the busi-
ness, and for the justification or -conviction of the
person who had gown herself, as a last resource,
upon the justice and mercy of the House. But the
few hours which had passed since he moved his
Amendment, had sd entirely altered the state of the
case, that he should not now even press a division.
'l'he most complete defiance on the part of the
Princess of Wales had been thrown out, in the pre-
sence of those persons who had the fullest opportu-
nity for inquiry, and whose duty it was to inquire
:tit° every part cf her conduct—who have the means
of r...tiching her very heart. So completely did she
now appear acquitted of-all possible imputation of
blame, even by the persons from whom the asper-
sions were, by the world, supposed, in the last Re-
port, to have been thrown upon her, that it was in
his mind unnecessary to press the matter to a division.
Het innocence was acknowledged entire—complete.
To such restrictions on the Prince Regent in his ca=
parity of father to the Princess Charlotte, or by the
advice of his Ministers, might think proper to im-
pore upon her intercourse with her daughter, she
must submit. It was her lot. But she had the sa-
tisfaction of knowing, that her reputation hencefor-
ward was, by the confession of all, without imputa-
tion or reproach.—From these considerations he
should not press a division.
Mr. CANNING could not sufficiently praise the
honest and manly warmth shewn by Mr. Whitbread:
but all motions similar to the present he should re-
sist. He never would consent to support that
which, however plausible at the moment, would
endanger the permanent interests of the coun-
try. Besides, the necessity of such motions is lessen-
ed, if the object be to declare an entire acquittal
of the Princess, because from the tone of the Noble
Lord, as well as his repeated declarations of her in-
nocence, further proceedings are unnecessary. He
was prepared to assert and maintain, that the words
and meaning of the Cabinet report in 1807, conveyea
a complete, satisfactory and unlimited acquittal. Hr
would not have supported the late Minute of the
Council had he been in the Cabinet ; he should have
been content to say that his Roy4l Highness was the
master of his own family—as Father and Sovereign,
he had a right to direct and controul the conduct of
his daughter, and to regulate whom she should see,
and whom she should not see. The Minute, he was
glad to hear, owned, left acquitted innocence, as it
was, before the Council made their Report. It is
hard to stop these discussions here, but it was better
they should be so done, than left where it would be
difficult to controul their circulation.

Mr. BATHURST disapproved of the motion.
Mr. CANNING disapproved of the original pub-
lication of the letter as the cause of all the mischief.
He would not have raised the flame by calling in the
aid of other persdns to assist the Cabinet, which has
given to the proceeding a character of uneasiness and
anxiety that has been very injurious.
Mr. GARROW maintained that the Prince Re-
gent was placed by the appearance of the letter in
'Vint, in a situation that forced him to take the opi-
nion of grave and honourable persons, as to the line
he was to take upon the subject. He denied being a
party to the publication- of the extract which ap-
peared in a newspaper some days back. What took
place was this, he and Mr. Adam, and Mr. Jekyll,
were not called to revise the proceedings of the
Council in the year 1806, but they were commanded
by the Prince to give their opinions upon question%
proposed to them. They met at his house, locked lid
all the papers while the subject was in discussion ;
they destroyed all the copies but one, and he had no:
seen the papers since, till he WAS shewn the extract
that was printed id one of the newspapers the other
day.

Mr. YORKE requested Mr. C. JOheitone to with-
draw his motion.
Mr. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE refused so to
do, adding, that it was a proud day for him, because
it had completely established the innocence of her
ROyal Highness the PRINCESS of WaLas.
The question was put, and Mr. C. JOHNSTONE's
motion was negatived without a divisioa.— The
House then adjourned.

THE EVENING STAR

LONDON.

T}lE NEWSPAPER PRESS.

Yesterday evening a rival Journal, not addicted to wanton
abuse, ventured to accuse Ts STAR, in language not the
most becoming, with having ream, from its Second Edition
of the preceding night, the entire Report of the Committee
of the Privy Council, which appeared in our Second Edition
of the same evening. Had the charge been Correct; they
would haire been justified in applying to us the epithets which
they have employed; but the fact is otherwise. Our copy was
NTattuscript, and was in our postiession before three o'clock ;
and of this they may satisfy themselves by ineiniting at, the source
whence they derived their own copy, which we know was also
hi manuscript, Imputing their abuse to a sonse of supposed
injury; we refrain ftom retaliation, convinced that, when they
shall have made the proper enquiry, they will retract, as openly
as they have Made, the groundless charge brought against us
in their columns—and thank Us for our moderation.

SATURDAY, MARCH 6, 1613.
PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK;
Red. shut—Cons. 581 i—for ac. 59#-4 per Ct. shut
5 per Cent. 884i-13ds. 4s. ss. Ais.—Long Annt. shut.
Exch. Bills 35. ss. pr.—Oniniuni nothing done.