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

. . _..._
i . t" • 4 tit, L. -. -11 iith• • .
set metre itt.the thanes. ier ill*: WI
'the Hain could not reftisetei.aheptiesci in the .
It his' Hentraridole. 14414. it eras . toe carman. Or
hat iinuae -p) cabmen a contezetfor pteilic °pi.
,
i"*lt. At present there Was no • se in.the kinga
'on white the cnnduet of the wife of the Prince lie.
g •nt was not eanvassed; He was eirwilling .to Pea.
acute. for libel j but very lately he .had seen iipeas• •
ter convicted of caltimniating an Illustrious Peters
and shotild thiii Rouse 1-,:fuse to hitt:Wife to vividileato
the honour of it injured wontau ?
' ..."
• hia ' • •
Mi. STEPHEN said he hid expreised diorite
probation of the puhlication in questioci
Mr. LASCELLES had thought that One of two
prOceedings would have flied proposed f..either the;
something should be done to bring her Royil.High.
ness before a public Tribunal, or that the same
should be done to those who we said to have titter.
ed preuries against her. He was surprised, however,
to fin thal•the only thing proposed was to reseal's
the Edddditoi, ker., of twe Newspapers. . •
. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished to say it
few, reithi; ,not on his pwn acct unt, but on that of
his excellent and lamented R.ght Hon. Friend. and
of his Right Hon. and. Learned Friend, Sir Vicar
Gibbi, who were with himself, the legal advisers of
her Royal Highness the. Princess of Wales at the
Period which had been so frequently alluded to during
the discussion.. It must be remembered that bar
Royal Highness's legal advisers were bound to con-
sider all the consequences that might result to her
from remaining silent on the subject of the charges
that had been preferred against her ; leaving Cho
Public in the dark relative to the secret inquiry di-
rected against her honour and her life. If they had
*diked her Royal Highness to rest, excluded from
fist Royal presentel-to rest, without communicating
to the Public a statement of the facts, would not that
have appeared to countenance the strong imputations
legainst her? On those grounds they gave her Royal
Highness the opinion which they had given r not in
ignorance of the objectionable nature of the publica-
tion, but with the conviction that it was necessary for
the honour and character of her Royal Highness, that
unless she were admitted to the Royal presence, the
whole should be submitted to the Pubitc ; that they
might judge of her innocence.
Mr. TIERNEY observed, that from what the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman had stated, it
appeared that the Book was intended ar a complete
defence of her Royal Highness; that three persons
were engaged in filming that defence, namely, the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, Mr. Percival.
and he supposed the Lord Chancellor. (" No I"
said the Attorney-General—Sir Vicary Gibbs.)—
Well then, said Mr. Tierney, Mr. Perceval, Sir 'lle.;
mas Plomer, and Sir Vicery Gibbs, were tlk legal
advisers of her Royal Highness, and they judged it
expedient, because there had been a secret inquiry,
that the innocence of her Royal Highness should be
made public. He would therefore again ask the
'Noble Lord whether there is not a secret inquiry
going on at the present moment? (Near, hear.)—The
Noble Lord did not dwell to answer; then he (Mr.
Tierney) must affirm that a iircret iaquiry is going on,
and after the declaration that the Hoe. and Learned
Gentleman had just made upon the subject of the
former secret inquiry, he sh,,uld be glad to know if
the Hon. and Learned Gentlenian could divest himself
of his political character, why he did not advise a
public explanation ? He Should be glad to know why
it was necessary et the time alluded to to suppress the
labours of these Legal Gentlemen by the payment of
a large sum, why those three great Lawyers were so.
tisied with the reception of her Royal Highness, at
Court? Did they imagine that the visits of her Royal
Highness at St. James's would have the effect of com-
pletely whitewashing her? He should likewise be
glad to be informed whether her Royal Highness her-
self suppressed the publication, or whether she agreed
to it under legal advice—but, for the sake of the as
he would agree to the latter. How was she
now treated ? The same complaints still existed ; nay
more ; she was not allowed what, in ordinary life,
every mother is allowed, access to her child. Would
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman suppress .he pub-
lication at the present moment, yet to-night be did not '.
even venture an opinion ? Had any thing new occur-
red in the inquiry which precluded him from giving
such advice ? Was not the inquiry grounded apse
the same sort of evidence ? It was with extreme
pain that he (Mr. Tierney) referred to the dis-
cussions, but matters were come to that pass that
it was necessary tiasift them to the bottom—(Hear,
hear.) It became necessary to ask the Noble Lord
whether any thing was going op against the Princess
of Wales?—lf he answered in the affirmative, then he
should not vote for the Motion of his Honourable
Friend. But the matter might be afterwards properly
enquired into by the House. He did wish the Noble
Lord to state the grounds upon which the present
inquiry was proceeding, bat whether it was prior or
subsequent to 1807. All that he insisted upon was,
that her Royal Mighness ought not to be suffered to
remain in her present situation. He was driven to
assume, that the inquiry was going on with the
knowledge of Ministers, for no sign nor gesture could
he obtain from the Noble Lord to satisfy his mind;
that the fact was so. But assuming as much, be
would ask, what right Mr. Conant, the Magistrate,
had to send for any of his Majesty's subjects for the
purpose of exafnining them, touching the conduct of
her Royal Highness ?..--(Hear, hear.)—Still more,
why, when the Privy Council was in full vigour, was
thee Gentleman, respectable certainly he was, per..
mitted to meddle with matters of State t Why was
he allowed to examine Lady Douglas, on matters
affecting in their consequences the succession to the
'throne ? Who gave Mr. Conant the authority ?
—These were questions which required answers---
With respect to the documents, it was true that he
could not, if on a Jury, find a verdict against the
Printer of any Paper fur the publicatioa of this
Libel,-.-bnt though this was his opinion, still be
thought it material to know from the Printer of
the Paper, from whom they received those dour,
menu. .-- It was true, that when called to use
Bar, they might not give such answers as should ins.
inediately lead to the discovery of the author, but the
Hause must call persons to the Bar, till they got at
the right person. The Right Hon. Gentleman con-
tended, that the House was bound to interfere and to
see that her Royal Highness had justice done her.-..
There had bent strange rumours abroad, that his
Royal Highness had taken counsel from bad advisers.
Would not tile wiaiiintous vote el this House pass