Star.
London, England, 1813-03-24 00:00:00

PRINCESS OF WALES.

Mr. WHITBREAD rose, and said he begged
permission to mention what had passed in conse-
quence of the step he had taken, pursuant to what
he stated in the House last night as his intention, re.
lative to a certain paper, .from which he had read
parts a few nights ago, concerning the examinations
into the conduct of the Princess of Wales. As much
misrepresentation bad gone abroad u to the manner
in which he had reacrthose-flassages and commented
upon them, he must take the liberty of-recalling to
the recollection of the House, that in the comments
which he had felt himself' justified in making on the
examination of Mrs. Lisle, he did not vouch for the
authority of the paper which he then quoted ; but
only stated, that from the.manner in which he had re-
ceived it, he had reason to believe in its authenticity.
He had stated, that copies of the depositions bad been
published ; and that he understood that many of those
copies published in the newspapers were incorrect.
He had also stated farther, that it was his opinion,
I that if the questions which were put to Mrs. Lisle,
: (according to the paper he had read) had been pub.,
1 fished along with the deposition, the unfavourable
impressions against the Princess of Wales, conveyed
by the deposition, would be greatly relieved. But it
' certainly was in the recollection of the House, that
he had never said of the four Noble Lords Commis.'
sioners, that they had fabricated, or falsified, or with-
held evidence given before them. What he had said
was this, that if the paper put into his hands was
correct in that point respecting the question put to
Mrs. Lisle, as to her opinion whether the Princess
lof Wales conducted herself as a married woman
iought to conduct herself, contrasting her supposed
conduct with that which became a married woman?
, then, unquestionably, he found that there was no an-
i swer given to that question. He never said that the
Commissioners kept back any part of the statements.
He had not read all, but only a part of the questions
said to have been put; and he had in observation,
added his opinion, (the opinion, of course, of an ig-
,norant person), that certain questions ought not to
have been put to Mrs. Lisle. He had certainly sup-
posed and believed, that the questions had been put
down as well as the answers. If he could not state
the authenticity of the paper, still he did not think
himself imposed upon. Respecting his idea of the
questions being put down, he could say, that he knew
that in commissions instituted either by Act of Par-
liament, or by the Crown, on which reports were
made, the questions put were always taken down and
I recorded. Such was also the case in similar matters
I in the Court of Chancery. He was, therefore, misled
i by those considerations, into the belief that a similar
Ipractice had obtained in this instance. He was ex-
i tremely sorry that his Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir
S. Romilly). was not now in his place • bui he ne-
vertheless felt it expedient to give the House the re.
suit of his inquiries into the subject. He was con-
vinced, that the paper could not be received as an
authentic document, after what had fallen from his
Learned Friend ; but he was still impressed with the
I belief, that the witness considered it correct. In in-
traducing it, he stated it as an illustration of his ar-
gument, and had said, that if the examinations had
I Rone forth along with the depositions, the sting would
have been taken out of the deposition of Mrs. Lisle.
He had, pursuant to what he stated in the House last
night, written a letter to Mrs. Lisle, which he should
trouble the House by reading :
._ .

(Copy)—LETTER TO MRS. LISLIE.
" House of Commons, March 112, 1813.
" DEAR MADAM—I am i4cceedingly sorry to be troublesome
to you, and especially on such an occasion : but when I have
stated the cause to you, I have no doubt you will acknowledge
the necessity I am under of addressing you.
" On Wednesday last, before I went to the House of Com-
mons, a paper was put into my hands, of which I send you a
copy enclosed.
" I was assured it contained an authentic account of your exa-
mination before the Lords Commissioners, en the conduct of the
Princess of Wales.
" Believing in the integrity of the person who made the com-
munication to me, 1 used (as I was told I might truly de) the
paper in the House of Commons, and as I thought that justice de-
manded I should.
" Lord Ellenborough has this evening declared in the House
of I.ords, that the paper is afalsefakicatioa' as I understand from
those who heard him • and that the other Commissioners have
expressed their opinions, although more mildly, to the same effect.,
" So circumstanced, I am compelled. to ask you, whether you
agree in the character ascribed to the paper by the Noble Lords.
If you do, I shall only have to lament, that I bare been Imposed'
upon, and to acknowledge the imposition practised upon me.
" If the paper should ever before have been seen by you, I
shall be extremely glad to receive all such Information as you may
baye it in yew power to glue respecting It, that I may trace the
fabrication to its author. I hey the honour to be, dear Madam,
your faithful servant, if. wavy. wasirsaaan,"
.r—ln stating that Lord glleaborough declared the
statement to be afabefaorication, be (Mr. Whitbread)
had contented himself with the softest expression re-
porte4 to him w have %Kap vseci by that 4oble all 4

. r.•

LAN /Ad. The other etpressians stated to have
been used by that Noble and Learned Lord, be (Mr.
Whitbread) thought had been long banished out of
all civilized society. lie was certain they bad long
bekn banished out of the middle ranks in life. (Hear,
hear.) In the lowest ranks of Society such eaprcs.
sioni would be disregarded ; and he ( Mr. Whitbread)
hoped if to be found among the higher classes, the
use of them was confined to that circle in which so

II

I

high a person as the Lord Chief Justice of England
moved. (Hear, hear.)—Unexpecte.:ly, this morning,
he (Mr.W.) received the following answer ;
(Core )—ANSWER.
" Caubury, March 23, 1813.
W Data received this morning your letter, with dm
aseempanyine account of my examination when before thel.ords
Ohismissioriers, in the year 1806; and having compared it with
dos original document, I lied them exactly similar.
el On my return from the Lords Commissioners, t, to the hest
of my recollection, committed to paper the questions which had
been put to me, ad my answers; and I transmitted a copy to
the Princess of Wales, baying previously received bee Royal
Highness's commands so to do.
“ It has never been my intention to set up these recolleciors
against my deposition; and as little has it been my wish that
they should be made public. Indeed, so scrupulous have l been
in this respect, that, with the exception of the copy sent to tins
Princess, Inuitediately after my ezunination, the paper now Le
question was not, till very recently, seen by my ileum cunnec.
Lions; even now it would not have been seen by them bad not
erroneous statements, and garbled extracts front my deposition,
appeared in some of the public papers.
How the paper has found its way into your hands, I guess
not. As I have already stated, it has not been by any act or in.
tension of mine; but certainly the paper which you have scut
me is a correct copy of the one that l had written.
" 1 am, dear Sir, your faithful anti obedient servant,
(Signed) " sweat LISLE."
—Now, (Mr. Whitbread observed), he hoped, that
neither the House nor the public would say that he
had been imposed upon !—(blear, hear), or that thaw
was any intermediate fabrication by the person who
gave him the paper, or by Mrs. Lisle herself (No).
The paper contained the questions and answers
.put
down by Mrs. Lisle on her return from the investiga-
tion ; but Mrs. Lisle observed, that she did not set
up her recollections against the deposition : neither did
he. It was fitting to remark a singular coincidences
Mrs. Lisle wrote from her recollection; but there was
no difference in the answers she put down, and those .
stated in the deposition, except in one instance. The
answers followed in almost exactly the same order, in
the account of the examination and in the deposition.
He must return to his original intention, and say, that
he should have thought it unfortunate for the cause of
justice—and that he should have, considered himself
extremely blameable, if he had not, under all the cir.
cumstances, endeavoured to take the sting out of the
deposition. There, then, the House had on account
of the way in which the examination was taken. If
the questions were wrongly stated, and the Commis.
sioners could contradict the account, it was so far
well. For his own part, he could not throw any such
imputation upon Mrs. Lisle, as to imagine that she
had made the slightest attempt at fabrication. There
was, indeed, in another part of the paper itself, inter.
nal evidence of its authenticity ; for in taxing her
memory, Mrs. Lisle had, in one instance, said, that
she could not put down an answer to one question,
having forgotten the precise answer which she made
to it. He felt very sorry, is these uriortunate cir-
cumstances, to have done any thing which could give
pain to Noble Lords, and Friends for whom he en-
tertained a high respect—or to any Magistrate, such
particularly as the Lord Chief Justice of the
King's Bench ; but he had felt the paramount
importance of a sense of justice to the part he had
taken in the business, and which occasioned his com-
ments. On that feeling he relied, and was upheld
by it now. He thought it his duty to take some course
for setting himself right, and he placed himself on the
justice of the House—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Lori CASTLEREAGH made some observations
on what fell from Mr. Whitbread, in rather a low
tone of voice. Would the Honourable Member have
thought it consistent with public or private duty to
give the House that account, unless he believed it to
be a true one, which he only now found out to be an
authentic document ? It would be, indeed, a strange
perversita of all legal principles, if the recollections
of a witness, after being examined with all the forms
of justice, however respectable in life such a witness
might be, were to be received, as it were in judgment.
against formal depositions, and in derogation of the
-judicial character of eminent persons entrusted with
the exercise of a painful public duty, His Lordship
knew that the Hon. Member held too strongly his
constitutiopal principles to maintain such a doctrine ;
and, therefore, he must contend in his behalf, that in '
'the first instance he was imposed upon, for nothing
else could have induced him to read the paper. He
also must lament, that when the Learned Gentleman
(Sir Samuel Romilly) was present, early the other
evening, the Hon. Member had not communicated to
him the contents of the paper, in order to ascertain
what its character was, and what was that of the other
authenticated document, whose credit was to be im-
paired by it. He could only hope, that in this age
of disclosure, the Hon. Member would admit, that in
this respect, it was imprudent t 6 hazard such a docu-
ment as he had prcatuced, before he knew that i: con-
tained a description entitled to that credit which he
seemed to mean to attach to it. He did not wish to
prolong discussions on this subject, but surely the
Hon. Member must have read it, with a conviction
at the time that it was an authentic document.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, that the Noble Lord
wished to acknowledge for him, what he himself did
not acknowledge. He certainly thought at the time '
that the questions were as he,had read them, but he
denied any imposition being practised on him. He
should be ashamed to throw upon another what must
be his own neglect in failing to ascertain what was
the authenticity of the document. He had not at
first made the necessary inquiry to that point. There
indeed he might be called deficient ; but he must de-
ny any charge of imposition on him by Mrs. Lisle
or the person who gave him the paper. Whatever
blame there might be, rested. solely on his own shool-
Irs, He had never meant to derogate from the
aracters of the Learned and Noble Lords who
composed the Commission. He bad only expressed
his surprise, that such questions as were stated in the
paper should have been put to the witness by Lord
skin. Had he been told that it was Mrs. Lisle's
'own• account, he should certainly have stated that
fact to the House.
4.ord CASTLEREAGH conceived that the Ho.
luonrable Member could not have been justified in
stating to the House, and commenting upon a dace-
Plef whit was pit, authentic. The beating of the

Hon. Member's segment Wetted to hIM to be,
th it the paper which he had read, was the real depee-,1
si.,on of Mrs. Lisle ; and that -what had been given.
in as the deposition was bet the abstract of It.
Mr. W'HIT'BREAD rejoined, that he had not
produced the copy to contradict it, but to explain the
testimony of the witness.
Sir A. PIGOTT was sorry to protract a discus-
sion which he conceived to be unpleasant to the
Haws, and cf injurious consequence to the public.
1-Ie could not, however. avoid saying, that his Ho-
nourable Friend appeared to hint to have committed
an irregularity in the production of this paper, which'
was sometimes called evidence, and sometimes an
authentic document; and he regretted much that his
Honourable Friend should have allowed himself to
fall into so great an. irregularity. The. House had
Certainly been placed by it tinder a great disaddan-
tage, as they were net In possession of any authentic
document with which diet could compare thispaper.
Before his Honourable Friend had made such an use
of the paper, it appeared to him, that, he should have
at least taken every means in his power to ascertain
its authenticity. Ile should at least have made the
inquity, which he since had done, and laid it before
Mrs. Lisle. However honourable the witness might
be, yet it could not be supposed possible that she, at a
subsequent time, could have written down accurately,
all the questions which had been put to her. No per-
son could place such a reliance on his memory, as to
be certain, that an account se drawn up, would be an
accurate report of what had taken place.
Mr. ELLIOT felt great reluctance in prolonging
the present debate. He could not, however, avoid
saying, that the impression made on his mind, and,
he believed, oft the minds of a very great proportion
of the House, from the statement of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, was, that the evidence had been really taken
down, question and answer, except in the cafe of the
deposition of Mrs. Lisle. The Hon. Perfileman had
stated the deposition, signed by Mrs. Lisle, to be only
an abistract of her evidence, It appeared to.him, that
in producing this paper, be had introduced a prin-
ciple which would go to attack all the recorded testi-
mony of the country. If the, alter-recollections of a
'witness were allowed to be set up against the au-
thentic depositiop, taken in a manner so formal and
solemn, be did not see how any recorded testimony
could be supposed to possess any validity. He was
acquainted with Mrs. Lisle, and knew that she was
entitled to the high estimation with which her name
had been spoken of in the House; at the same time,
be was pretty sure that M.s. Lisle could not place so
much reliance on )her memoryv as to be perfectly cer-
tain that site recollected exactly every question that
was put. to her in the course of a long examination.
This was a stretch of memory beyond what any pro-
fessional Gentleman could pretend to.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, that this paper had not
been set up generally against the deposition, but as to
that particular question respecting the words married
woman, which he thought was very material : in that
he
,thought that it was no great stretch of memory.
to suppc.se the witness hid a distinct recollection.—

•

When Lc considered the deposition as an abstract of
the evidence, he only meant that the answers had
been given abstracted from the questions. If the
paper had been a contradiction to the deposition, he
certainly would not think it ought to have been set up
against it. He had never meant to impute to the
Commissioners, that they had taken down as evidence
that which the witness had not said.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, that his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Whitbread) bad been quite incorrect in
his supposition, that any part of the evidence had
been burnt or destroyed. There had Seen only one
examination taken down of the evidence of any wit.
ness, and no minute or copy was kept of it. In many
of those depositions, there had been considerable al-
terations at the request of the witnesses. He could
not, however, absolutely take upon him to say, that
in some cases, where there were many of such altera-
tions, there might not have been a copy made.
Mr. I'ONSONDY thought that there could not be
a stronger illustration of the frailty of memory, than
that his-Hon. Friend ( Mr. Whitbread) could not now
remember, with any accuracy, what was his statement
the other night. The impre.ision nhich his. statement.
had conveyed to his mind was, certainly, that the Com.
missioners had set down something contrary to what
the witness now alleged to have been her evidence.
T;:at this had been the impression on his mind he had
then stated to the House, and had thought it necessary
to scud a note to his Right Hon. and Learned Friend
(Sir S. Romilly) to request an explanation relative tat
this statement. If a witness were afterwards to give
an account of a transaction different from his deposition
regularly takcin, the effect of this would he to destroy
the credit of such witness. He thought he had some
cause or complaint against his Hon. Friend (Mr.Whit-
tread), who having sat near him tor some time before
he made his statement, never intimated to him, that it
Was his intention to bring forward such a charge
against the four Noble Commissioners : with three of
ivhom, at least, he had lived in the greatest liabits of
.intimacy, and whose honour was as dear to him as
his own. He could not help saying, that the impres-
sion made on his mind, by the statement, was, that.
, the Commissioners were charged with having sub-
mitted to his Majesty, as the deposition of Mrs. Lisle,
something which was substantially different from
what that witness meant to say. A graver and more
serious charge could not have been made on meh,
who were upon their oaths, discharging a painful
duty, in which the character of one of the most
persons in the isa :ion was co:.cer!td. If they
had acted in such a manner, he thought they would
be *serving of impeachment, and the must serious
_punishment.
FRANCIS BURDETT thought that what
'had been done by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whit-
-bre:id) was much to his credit. Far from regretting
the course which the dischssions had taken on this
enbject, he confessed he looked upon.it as the most
s'ortunate thing tor the country wbich could have oc-
curred—fortunate that it had been so conducted—
Jertunate that it had been brought forward at all.
• He could not conceive 'that any thing better could
have happened, and he knew not how any party
could feel otherwise than satisfied at ascertaining the
innocence of the Princess established, as it had been
by the Honourable Gentleman, a hose conduct had
been so severely censured. The Right Honourable
Gentleman who spoke last had opened his speech by
saying, 4, a stronger illustration of the little depen-
deuce that ought to be placed on the memory of frail

LONDON.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1813.
PRICE OF S rocKs THIS DAY AT ONE O'CI.00K:
Cong. 591 i—for ac. 591-5 per Cent. 88H—Rond.4s.51. pr.
Exch. Bills ss. 6s. dle.—Omnium. northing done.

It will be seen from the proceedings in the House
of Commons last night, that Mrs. Lanz confirms the
autlxnticity of the paper which Mr.WILITIMEAD read
as the questions put to her when examined, relative
to the conduct of the Paiscass of WALES, and The
answers she gave to them. So far Mr.WHLTBILEAD is
borne out in his statement ; but he was incorrect,
and has acknowledged it, in supposing that a differ-
ent course, from what was usual in taking down evi-
dence, had been pursued on that occasion. As to the
weight to be given to the regular evidence compared
with statements made from recollection afterwards,
there can be but oee opinion—the opinion generally
expressed by the House ; but it is impossible for any
dispassionate person, from all that is now known of
the evidence, and the manner in which it was taken,
to avoid this conclusion—that had the witnesses been
also examined, at the time of giving, their evidence,
by Counsel for the PRINCESS, the probability is, that
its complexion, in some points, would have been dif-
ferent from that now upon record : and though it be
' true that after-recollection* are not to lag suffered to

. . .
neigh down fecordect evidence, it seems plain that.
Mrs. LISLE'S evidence, sb fat as it has been consider-
ed as militating against the Putnam, falls to the
ground ; for that very evidince would have been
canvassed and re-examined, had judicial proceedings
been instituted against her Royal Highness ; aud it
is evicipt, from Mrs. List.a's own statement, that
the evidence which that Lidy would give in a Court
of justice, would not be such as to Carry the infer-
ences which may be drawn from the record of the
Commissioners. What we now state, no way affects
the honour of the Commissioners. We are bound to
believe, and we sincerely believe, that their account ,
of Mrs. LISLE'S evidence is correct ;-;-but witnesses
are often ignorant of the tendency of a particular
expression, and when enlightened by a cross.examina.
tion, are often indignant at their own stupidity in not
perceiving the incorrectness of their own statement.
The Commissioners feel highly indignant, that by
inference, insinuation, or otherwise, their honour,
their high character should be under the slishtest
suspicion. It weuld, indeed, be wonderful should
they feel otherwise, and they would in that case have
deserved expulsion from all honourable society. We
applaud their feelings. We think every person whose
character or probity is questioned, must feet indignant
and seek to wipe off the stigma. If we applaud them
for this tenacity of character, can we.. withhold our
approbation from a much higher character—a cha-
racter of much greater importance in a public and
national point if view than all of them put together—
for having sought vindication from the foulest slan-
der and calumnies—from charges affecting her life
and her honour? Has that Lady, ender all the ag.
gravations of her case, used warmer language in her
own vindication, than the Contnissicmers themselves-
' have done in theirs ?

A Corunna Mail arrived 'in town this morning.
By the following extracts from the Spanish Rapers,
the fact of the gradual evacuation of the Peninsula by
the French troops seems to be placed beyond doubts—
.. SANTANDER, YEB. 23.