Star.
London, England, 1813-03-05 00:00:00

men Rent illghltees the Nano bt Wales Ma
the Princess Charlotte of Waled 'Mold or should not
be subject to refutations and restraints. ?
wHrrintEAD rose again; and after a re*
ohsertations read the Report of the Privy Council;
from a newspaper, which had eoine into his band
that evening. He remarked, that the public, though
they had now the Report, were yet unapprized of the
circumstances which had induced the Privy Council
to form their Resolution. It appeared to him to be
of material importance to the understanding of the
subject, that those documents should be laid before
that House. He thought it was hard to throw a
slur on the proceedings of the Princess of Wales, who
came before that House as a petitioner, and who had
no Privy Council to advise her, and to frame Re-
ports in her vindication. It was certainly the duty
of the Noble Lord to move for the production of this
Report, which, if that Noble Lord or some other
Member did not move for, he (Mr. Whitbread) in-
tended to do ; and indeid he should have done it al-
ready, had •the motion of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Cochrane Johnstone) been withdrawn.
Lord CASTLEREAGH could not suffer the
House to separate on this business, with an imputa-
tion
on the conduct of the Privy Council which did '
not attach to it. The criminality of her Royal
Highness the Princess of Wales was not the object
before the Privy Council. In the case of the crimi-
nality of her Royal Highness, the intercourse between
her and the Princess Charlotte of Wales, would not
have been an intercourse subjected to regulations
and restraints ; but would have been prohibited alto-
gether.
Lord 'STANLEY wished to know, whether his
Majesty's Ministers intended to take any other notice
of the letter received by the Speaker from her Royal
Highness the Princess of Wales ?
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, he should give the
accustomed notice, whenever he should have any in-
tention of submitting any motion upon tile subject.*
Lord MILT ON said, that as the Hon. Mover of
the original motion had abandoned, or more strictly
speaking, had postponed his motion sine die, he was
desirous of knowing whether the Noble Lord also in-
tended to postpone all proceedings on the subject of
the letter sine die ? He considered the present as a
very grave subject, and not of that trivial importance
which the Nohle Lord affected to represent it.
Mr. 'BENNETT intimated his intention, when-
ever the Gallery was cleared, to persist in his motion
of adjournment. He should repeat his motion, that
66 the House do now adjourn."
Mr. YORKE expressed his regret that the Ho-
nourable Member should persist in his resolution, '
which would tend to impede the progress of the pub-
lic business. He thought that the House ought to
mark their sense of such conduct. He had once been
himself a marked man, and had been nearly in dan-
ger of having his house pulled down, for clearing. the
gallery, for doing his duty. He would not hesitate
to say, that unless the House maintained that ancient ,
and indisputable right, Gentlemen had all better go
home to their respective counties and places of re-
sidence.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT trusted that the Honour-
able Member (Mr. Bennett) would exercise the power
lie held of moving an adjournment ; and that he
would not be deterred by the threats of any man,
however high in authority. He begged to remind
Gentlemen of a period, when a late Right Hon.
Friend of his (Mr. Fox) was exhausted by his appli-
cation to his public duties, some of those Gentlemen,
who on this occasion exclaimed against the question
of adjournment, had themselves repeated that ques-
tion, perhaps foerteen or fifteen times in the same
evening. If strangers were to be excluded from the
gallery, the consequence would be, that the public
would consider the House of Commons as a sort of
Secret Tribunal, sheltering itself from public opinion.
Mr. YORKE explained, that the reason assigned
for the motion of Adjournment, and not the motion
of Adjournment itself, wet the foundation of his
, complaint.
Mr. CANNING observed, that he had already
;hewn that he disapproved of the motion of adjourn-
ment, by voting against it ; which he should again do,
whenever it should he pressed to a division. The
motion for clearing the gallery, and excluding stran-
gers—with what propriety now made, he should not
decide—was founded on a privilege, the exercise of
which must ever be maintained, without any qualifi-
I cation, or question upon it ; or it would, in tact, lose
f its whole essense. The present motion of adjourn-
! ment he considered highly impolitic under all the
! circumstances: though he would admit that lie had
'himself again and again moved it, to the manifest
impediment of the progress of public business. He
had done so with the express intention of marking
his sense of the impropriety of proceeding on the par-
ticular business of the House, without due time for
deliberation ; conceiving that motion to be among the
lawful arms of a minority against an overbearing
majority. The attempt to restrain and limit the
power of clearing the House of strangers would, if
successful, destroy its independence as to the public ;
and any attempt to enter into a disquisition on the
motives, or on the disci etion of Members, in moving
the standing order, would destroy the independence
of the House within itself.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY explained the mo-
tives en which lie had, on a former occasion, moved
a question of adjournment. He did not make that
motion from the consideration of his having no au-
dience to hear his speech.
Lord CASTLEREAGH trusted that the House
would never be called upon to deliberate on the right
of any Member to move an adjournment. The mode,
however, in which that right was now exercised, was
different from any ever before recorded in the procee-
dings of Parliament. He would put it to the candour
of the Hon. Gentleman, whether it was a proper
proceedings'
Captain VYSE observed, that a Gentleman, in
milling such a motion took upon himself the respon•
sibility of involving the House in an unpleasant di-
lemma. An Honourable Member (Mr. Cochrane
Johnstone) had declared, that he had abandoned his
original motion because the gallery was cleared.—
He, for one, was therefore determined that it should
always be so, whenever this motion was renewed.
Mr. BENNETT enquired, whether, if he withdrew
his motion of adjournment, the Hon. Member (Mr.
Lygon) would also withdraw his motion for enforcing
the Standing Order.
Mr. OSBORNE recommended Gentlemen, who