Star.
London, England, 1814-07-09 00:00:00

Lord in other respects, excepting that ho had gone a
little too far in leasling the House to believe that he
had consulted the Princess of Wales. One of his
(Mr. Tierney's) principal objections was, that the
Princess of Wales had. not been treated as a pee"
fit to be consulted. The Noble Lord had brought
down a parcel of papers and had given notice of
motion, but the wish of her Royal Highness eras never
asked, whether the sum should be larger or smaller
than what was proposede This might be thought
tke more extraordinary as the Noble Lord had never
before shewn any reluctance to pay sufficient respect
and reverence to the members of the Royal Family.
It was, no doubt, a new principle of action which the
Noble Lord did not understand, to see an individual
consulting the public interest instead of her own, in
refusing £15,000 a year, and he hoped this case would
not be drawn into a precedent hereafter to lead the
Noble Lord to make smaller offers than the actual
merits of persons interested required.
Lord CASTLEREAGH was of opinion, that it'
would have been hihly indecorous to have nego.
elated with her Royal Highness upon the extent of
the sum she required : he had, however. gone so far
as to mention the amount, and if t:.11 Princess of
Wales had felt any personal repugnance she would
have informed him of it in her note, instead of stating
that she considered it as an act of justice.—(Hear,
hear).—He was not to presume that what her Royal
Highness termed an act of justice to herself was, at
the some time, an act of injustice towards the public.
Since that period, however, it seemed that she had
been better advised, and that she had determined to

do injustice to herself rather than do injustice to the
public. As to his having given a wrong colour to
the recent discussions by asserting that money was
the object, all that he had argue) was, that such
must be the resultf since Parliament could only inter-
pose by pecuniary relief. (Hear, hear.) Such in
common sense ought originally to have been the mo-
tion, and the House would never have been troubled
with subjects ctistressing to itself but doubly painful
to the various branches of the Royal Family.
Mr. TIE RNEY observed, that he had disthctly
stated, on a former debate, that he had had no pri-
vate communicatio❑ with the Princess of Wales ; be

had, however, advised, that her Royal Highness
should not accept £.5t),000: it was very likely to ap-
pear to the Noble Lord an extraordinary proceeding,
and, no doubt, he would not have advised it. When,
however, the Noble Lord talked of the indelicacy of
making a bargain with the Princess of Wales, he
seemed entirely to forget one of the documents he
had laid upon the table, in which the income t.f her
Royal H.ghnesi was reduced to £17,000. The :mg-
mentatinn made by the liberality and justice of Par-
liament was, no doubt, very acceptable to the Prin-
ces of Wales; but it was no less creditable to her
Royal Highness to have had so much consideration
for the situation of the public.
Lord CASTLEREAGH remarked, that. at the
time the document just referred to was signed, it was
absolutely necessary that there should be some under-
standing ; the parties also were the Prince and Prin-
eesa of %Vales. It did, however, nor become the
Minister of the Crown, in subt.itting a propos il to
the liberality of Parliament, to make the amount of
the vote the subject of negociation with iacess
of Wales.
Mr. WHITBREAD begged to be allowed to say
a few words open what had fallen from the NAL!
L0r..1. The Pain:ess of Wales had not b.en treated
even fairly by him : he had said a great deal regard-
ing the supposed change in her determination regard-
in. the .4'50,000 upon advice with her friends. He ap-
wared to have forgotten that the late Mr. Perceval
had ben one of her ;advisers ; that he had written an
elaborate defence from charges which had long been
concealed, but at length were published; he had for-
gotten also that once her Royal Highness had had
the benefit of the advice of Lord Thurlow, and more
recently of Lord Eldon. hid the Noble Lord mean
to say, that because some of her friends were dead,
'and others no longer continued to be her friends, that
her Royal agliness was to be left entirely without
counsel and assistance ? It might, by him, be deem-
el hardihood, bat Mr. Whitbread boldly avowed that
he had advis:d tile Princess of Wales regarding the
letti r she had written to the Speaker. Did the Noble
Lord mean to assert, that in the discussions in which
Perceval partook his object was money ? If it
were, then inde:d, the same charge might be brought
against bitn, Mr. Whitbread. Had the advisers of
the Regent, who recommended the letter to the Queen,
stating that his Royal Highness would meet his wife
neither in private or public, money in their contem•
plation ? It they had Mr. Whitbread would allow that
his o.j..ct was and had been entirely pecuniary. What
was the true cause of all these painful and distressing
discussions as the Noble Lord termed them ? Injus-
tice and indignity to the Princess of %Vales. Not a
word regarding an increase of income would have
been uttered had it not been provoked and com-
pelled by the conduct, or rather misconduct, of Mi-
nisters. Tee insult was the ground of complaint,
and he (Mr. Whitbread) declared that the fi-
nances of the Princess of Wales had never entered into
his contemplation : every man, not only of feeling,
but who was almost destitute of feeling, must have
been struck by the forlorn, destitute situation of her
Royal Highness, and the vote of Parliament was not
so important from the sum as from the recognition it
contained, that she was taken under the protection of
Parliament. • He contended that the letter sent to the
Speaker was the most respectful mode of informing
the House of the determination she had maie, and
the real fact was that her Royal Highness had mis-
taken the purport of the Noble Lord's communica-
tion, and had at first imagined that as early as the
29th ult. a vote of some amount or other had actually
been agreed upon in the House. In her reply she had
never reflected upon any sums ; she had accepted the
principle which, on the part of Parliament was an act
of Grace, and nn the part of the Crown an act of jus-
tice. It was but fair to state that the instant the re-
duction was suggested it received the hearty concur-
rence of her Royal Highness, and she felt grateful for
this assistance, waving no right and clogged with no
condition. There was, at least,something invidious and
unhandsome in what the Noble Lord had thrown out
on a former Right, that in proportion to the smallness
of rite sum received was the necessity of introducing
into the Bill .% provision against the debts incurred
by the Princess of Wales. Surely such a threat was
unnecessary. when it was known that her Royal
Highness, even limited as was her present income,

did not owe a dulling : the insinuation that it was
possible, nay, probable, might have been spared, un-
less, indeed, the Noble Lord's experience in other
quarters had shown him that however enormous the
revenue allowed to an individual, the incurring o!
immense debts was still inevitable. Much had been
said to exonerate the House in future from hearing of
the case of the Princess of Wales. All he (Mr.
Whitbread) could say was, that he hoped no cause•
would be given for bringing it again under the notice
of Parliament. For his own part, lie did not feel
himself precluded firm asserting in his place the
cause of the Princess of Wales, or of any other indi-
vidual who had to complain of indignity or injustice,
whenever he should think it expedient. He felt happy
in the conviction that the House of Commons did riot
give, and tll►e Princess of Vs did not accept the
sum now voted as a compromise, barter, sale, or pur-
chase of any right of person) dignity of sta:iG:i, or
purity of character.
Lord CASTLEREAGH did not think that any
thing he had.ctid called for the warm expressions
employed by the Honaurzeale Gentleman : he still
maintained, that if the Princess of Wales had had
any objection to the re-30,00U mentioned in his note
of the .sth instant. it was natural that it should be
noticed in the reply. lie did not wish to refer to
any cireettistances that could excite controversy or
irritation, lint whatever might be remarked of the
advice given by his late Frientlt Mr. Percey4l, it
could not be denied that lie had given rige strong
proofs that he did not think it tic that the family di!
ferences of the Royal Personages in questinn should
he agitated in Parliamont :--he hoped that the
Honourable Member would in future Ite of the
same sentiment. With regard to the sum, it the
Honourable Member had ot iginally thought that an
augmented income was necessary, it WAS a great
pity that Parliament bad not arnved at that conclu-
sion betore any ot the painful deliberamns had taken

place.
Mr. WHITBREAD felt it impossible to refrain.
from adding a few words. He pat it to tile Noble
Lord whether, with his knowledge of all the transac-
tions of the parties, he did not think it would have
keen impossible to have avoided discussions like those
which had recently occurred, if that Book had lonn
publ•shed, which such great pains had been taken to
conceal ? It the Noble Lord meant to arraign him
for not having proposed the reduction of the vote in
the Committee, he must know that he had concurred
who!!y in what fell from his Right Honourable Filen('
(Mr. Tierney) upon the subject. As to the former
debts of the Princess of Wales, Lord Thurlokv, who
then advised her, had used the strongest expressions
to induce her not to accept ,E 12,000 per annum : the
had in tact told her, that if she did take it', she would
he a beggar, and the result proved the truth of his
assertion. He col-Au:fed by repeatieg his assertion,
that pecuniary considerations bad never operated
upon him, and his belief that it had never influenced
the Princess of
Mr. PONSONBY wislit...l to say a few wordi in
justification of the vote he had given: it was not go.
yernei by a consideration of the pecuniary situation
of the Princess of Wales, and consequently he had
never conjectured whether the sum was likely to be
more or less. He lamented boor, as be bad done
hefore, that the subject had ever come before ParFa-
ment, and be hoped that some steps would be taken
to prevent a recurrence of the evil. The House was
incompetent to enter into such questions, as whether
the Princess of Wales should or should not be received
at the Drawing-room ? The-only constitutional mode
of entertaining her case was by a grant of money.—
It was true that be telt considerable resentment at an
act of wanton oppression and unjust indignity offered
to her Royal H ghaess, and he was desirous of shew-
, ing, for one, his disappmbatien of that injustice and
indignity. These considerations, and these only, had
governed his vote.
The question was then put, and on the motion of
Loed Catrrt.saaaott, the Amendment of £35,000.
instead of d50,0)0 per annum, was introduced.—A
; Bill was ordered to be brought in to carry the Reso-
lution into effect.

PEACE OF ICELAND.
Mr. PEEL said, some time ago he had introduced
a Bill for the preservation of the Peace of Ireland,
which gave to the Government or the Magistrates no
new or eatraoreinary powers ; but he was curry to say,
that the examples that had been made of offenders
had only had a temporary effect ; and that new illegal
organizations and associations had commenced in the
disturbed districts. To suppress these, he would pro-
pose a measure (at least part of it) which had received
the approbation of the House in 1807. He was sorry
that a degree ot opprobrium had attached to that
measure which it did cot deserve. It was founded on an
Act of the Irish Parliathent of 1797, called the Insur-
rection Act, which allowed two Magistrates to transport
persons guilty of that offence. He proposed, Crerefore,
to renew all the provisions of that Act for two years
longer. The object of the Bill would be to euahle
the Lord Lieutenant to declare disturbed districts to
be so by proclamation, on the representation ot the
Magistrates. The inhabitants would then remain in
their houses from sun-set to sun-rise ; and if they did
not, witiout lawful excuse, they should be consi-
dered as disorderly persons, and liable to be trans.
ported for seven years. The trial by jury might be
dispensed with, and the Magistrates should be allowed
to enter houses by force, if refused admittance.—
When the state of Ireland was considered, he hoped
this measure would not be thought very severe; for
he was sorry to say, that all *other measures 11.td
failed to prevent the horrible atrocities committed in
that country. He then read extracts from several
Magistrates in Ireland, expressing their co:lvicti.,n of
the necessity ot the measure recommended by the
Hon. Gentleman. He asked the House to consider
the horror of the situation in which a poor indu:tri
ous creature must feel who knows himself a marked
v:ctim to one of those illegal agociati(ms. Was it to
be wondered at that his fortitude would I orsake hint,
and that he should join thefr assembly ? Let the
House not think that he was stating any imaginary
evil ; tor there was hardly a day passed that he .lid
not receive some accounts of such atrocities naviiig
been committed. • He was aware that this tneat,ute
would he branded as cruel and oppressive by thefac-
tious and turbulent. This was not, however, inten-
ded to operate against one sect, and not another.—
It was not necessary for him to state (nor ir.deed
would it be true) that there wits any extenSive con-
spiracy in that country threatening the existence .ot