Sivut kuvina

any cause, the Princess might still have had reason to complain of the hardship; but she would have had no ground whereon to found a new complaint of an aspersion upon her character. The Report, on the contrary, by bringing forward the documents of 1506, and also other documents and evidence as the cause of the restraint, certainly called for that reply which the Princess gave in her Letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons. She there calls for the interference of Parliament; she says that she has not been permitted to know who have been her accusers; that she has not been allowed to be heard in her defence; and that, while she is told in this Report, that certain documents and evidence have formed the ground of an opinion that her intercourse with her child ought to be subject to regulation and restraint, she is not suffered to know what those documents and that evidence are. Therefore, she throws herself on the wisdom and justice of Parliament; she earnestly desires a full investigation of her conduct during the whole period of her residence in this country; she says, she fears no scrutiny however strict, provided it be conducted by impartial judges, and in a fair and open manner, according to law; and she concludes with expressing a wish, which every just man in the world will say ought to be complied with; namely, that she may be TREATED AS INNOCENT, or PROVED TO BE GUILTY.

produce fresh inquiry. The resolutions were as follows:

MR. C. JOHNSTONE'S RESOLUTIONS. I. Resolved, That, from the disputes touching the succession to the throne, bitter public animosities, tumultuous contentions, long and bloody civil wars, have, at various periods of the history of this kingdom, arisen, causing great misery to the good people thereof, grief and affliction to the Royal Family, and in some cases exclusion of the rightful Heir. -That, therefore, loyalty and affection towards the Sovereign, and a just regard to the happiness of the people, call upon every subject of this realm, and upon this House more especially, to neglect nothing within their power to prevent the recurrence of similar calamities from a similar cause.——That it has been stated to this House by a Member thereof, who has offered to prove the same by witnesses, at the bar of this House, that, in the year 1806, a Commission was issued under His Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, authorizing and directing the then Lord Chancellor, Erskine, Earl Spencer, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Grenville, the then First Lord of the Treasury, and the then and present Lord Chief Justice, Ellenborough, to inquire into the truth of certain written declarations, communicated to His Majesty by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, touching the conduct of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.That the said Commissioners, in pursuance of the said authority and direction, did enter into an examination of several witnesses, and that they delivered to His Majesty a report of such examination, and also of their judgment of the several parts alleged against Her Royal Highness, which Report, signed by the four Commissioners aforesaid, and dated on the 14th of July, 1806, was accompanied with copies of the declarations, examinations, depositions, and other documents on which it was founded.

When this letter was read to the House of Commons the ministers were asked, whether they meant to propose the adoption of any proceeding upon it, or to enter into any explanations. This they declined upon the ground, that as a motion was speedily to be proposed by Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, relative to the Princess, it would be best to defer all discussion upon the subject till that motion should be made. The motion was made, in two days afterwards, and a very long debate took place; but, the moment Mr. Cochrane Johnstone rose to make his motion, another motion was made for putting out all persons in the gallery and shutting the doors. This measure might be very proper; but I wish you to observe, that Mr. Cochrane John-ness had been pregnant in the year 1802, stone expressed his disapprobation of it. in consequence of an illicit intercourse, and He, at any rate, did not wish to keep se- that she had in the same year been secretly cret any thing that might transpire; any delivered of a male child, which child had thing that might be said by any body. In- ever since that period been brought up by deed, as will be seen from his resolutions, Her Royal Highness in her own house, and a copy of which I am now about to insert, under her immediate inspection.—That he, like the Princess herself, wished to the Report further stated, that the Commis

-That it has been stated to this House, in manner aforesaid, that the said written accusations against Her Royal Highness expressly asserted, That Her Royal High

[ocr errors]


sioners first examined on oath the principal informants, Sir John Douglas and Charlotte his wife, who both positively swore, the former to his having observed the fact of the pregnancy of Her Royal Highness, and the other to all the important particulars contained in her former declaration, and before referred to,' and that the Report added, that the examinations are annexed to the Report, and are circumstantial and positive.That the Commissioners, after the above statements, proceeded in their said Report to state to His Majesty that they thought it their duty to examine other witnesses as to the facts in question, and that they stated, as the result of such farther examination, 'their perfect conviction that there is no foundation whatever for believing that the child now with the Princess is the child of Her Royal Highness, or that she was delivered of any child in 1802, or that she was pregnant in that year,' and that the Commissioners added, That this was their clear and unanimous judgment, formed upon full deliberation, and pronounced without hesitation, on the result of the whole inquiry.That the Noble Lords composing the Commission aforesaid had not, and could not, in that capacity, have any legal power to pronounce a judgment or decision in the case; that the matter of charge submitted to them as a subject of inquiry amounted to a charge of high treason, a crime known to the laws, and, therefore, triable only in a known Court of Justice; that if, as Justices of the Peace, (a character belonging to them as Privy Councillors), they were competent to receive informations and take examinations regarding the conduct of Her Royal Highness, they had no legal power in that capacity, nor in any other capacity that could be given to them, to pronounce an acquittal or a condemnation upon the charge referred to them; for that, to admit them to have been competent to acquit, is to admit them competent to have found guilty, and this would be to admit their competence to have sent Her Royal Highness to an ignominious death, in virtue of a decision founded on selected ex parte evidence, taken before a secret tribunal.

That the whole Report, as far as it relates to the judgment of the Commissioners, (if the making of it be not an unlawful act), is, at least, of no legal validity, and, in the eye of the law, leaves the question of the guilt or innocence of Her Royal Highness where the Commissioners first found it; that the depositions and examinations upon oath (supposing the Commis

sioners to have taken them in their capacity of Justices of the Peace) possess a legal character; but that no legal decision has yet been made upon any of the important facts stated in these depositions and examinations, and that it has not yet been legally decided that the fact positively sworn to, of Her Royal Highness having been delivered of a male child in the year 1802, is not true. -That in any claim to the succession to the Throne, which, by possibility, at least, may hereafter be set up, by any aspiring personage possessed of great power, the circumstantial and positive evidence of Sir John Douglas, and of Charlotte his wife, if again called for, would still retain all its legal character and weight, while it might happen, that the evidence on the other side might, from death or other causes, be found deficient; and that there can be no doubt that if it should hereafter be made to appear, that the facts sworn to by Lady Douglas are true, and if the identity of the male child so born should be proved, he would be the legal heir to the throne, notwithstanding any assertions, or any proofs, relating to the alleged illicit intercourse of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.That, therefore, the honour of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, the sacred right of the Princess Charlotte of Wales, the safety of the throne, and the tranquillity of the country, do all unite, in a most imperious call on this House, to institute now, while the witnesses on both sides are still living, and while all the charges are capable of being clearly established, or clearly disproved, an ample and impartial investigation of all the allegations, facts, and circumstances appertaining to this most important subject of inquiry.

II. RESOLVED, That an humble address be presented to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, requesting that His Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to order, that a copy of a Report made to His Majesty on the 14th day of July, 1806, by the then Lord Chancellor, Erskine, Eart Spencer, Lord Grenville, and Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, touching the conduct of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, be laid before the House, together with the copies of the following written documents annexed to the Report, namely,

The Narrative of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, dated the 27th of December, 1805.

Two written Declarations, or Examina tions, of Sarah Lampert; one dated Chel

Deposition of Sir Francis Milman, dated 3d of July, 1806.

Deposition of Mr. Lisle, dated 3d July,

tenham, 8th of January, 1806, and the other [ the 29th of March, 1806.

One of Mr. Lampert, baker, Cheltenham, same date with the last.

Four of William Cole, dated 11th January, 14th January, 30th January, and 23d February, 1806.

One of Robert Bidgood, dated Temple, 4th April, 1806.

One of Sarah Bidgood, dated Temple, 23d April, 1806.

One of Frances Lloyd, dated Temple, 12th May, 1806.


Letter from Sir Francis Milman to the Lord Chancellor, dated 4th July, 1806, Deposition of Lord Cholmondeley, dated 6th July, 1806.

The debate upon these resolutions, appears to have been of great length; but as the galleries were shut, a mere sketch of it has gone forth to the world. That sketch, however, (which I have inserted below] will shew, that, in whatever degree the different speakers might vary in their opi nions as to other points, they were all perfectly of accord, that there existed no grounds of charge against the mother who was restricted in her visits to her only child. The Honourable mover of the re solutions said there may exist doubts, as to the innocence of the Princess; if not at this time, there may hereafter exist doubts with regard to that innocence; and, therefore, while all the witnesses are alive, while all the testimony is forth coming, while all the means of proof are at hand, let us inquire, and for ever put an end to these doubts, and to the possibility of doubt. No, no, no, said the ministers, the innocence of the Princess is so clearly established; all the charges against her so manifestly void of foundation, that inquiry is not only not ne cessary, but that to inquire would be doing injustice to the Princess, by seeming to allow that there are persons in the world who still entertain a doubt of her innocence.

MR. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE might well say that the day on which he made his motion was a proud day for him. It was

but it was a still prouder day for the Princess of Wales, who, at the end of seven years of calumny, of base parasitical slander, heard herself pronounced innocent and her traducers pronounced perjured, and that, too, by the chosen ministers, by the confidential Servants, by the advisers of the Prince her husband.

The King's Warrant for holding the Commission, dated the 29th May, 1806. Deposition of Lady Douglas, dated the 1st of June, 1805. Deposition of Sir John Douglas, dated the 1st of June, 1806. Deposition of Robert Bidgood, dated the 6th of June, 1806.

Deposition of William Cole, dated the 6th June, 1806.

Deposition of Frances Lloyd, dated the
7th of June, 1806.
Deposition of Mary Wilson, dated the
7th of June, 1806.
Deposition of Samuel Roberts, dated the
7th of June, 1806.

Deposition of Thomas Hikeman, dated
the 7th of June, 1806.
Deposition of J. Picard, dated the 7th of
June, 1806.

Deposition of Sophia Austin, dated the 7th of June, 1806.

Letter from Lord Spencer to Lord Gwydir, 20th of June, 1806.

Letter from Lord Gwydir to Lord Spencer, 20th of June, 1806.

Letter from Lady Willoughby to Lord Spencer, 21st of June, 1806.

Extracts from the Register of Brownlow-so, street Hospital, dated 23d of June, 1806.

Deposition of Elizabeth Gosden, dated 23d of June, 1806.

Deposition of Betty Townley, dated 25th of June, 1806.

Deposition of Thomas Edmonds, dated 25th of June, 1806.


Deposition of Samuel G. Mills, 25th of June, 1806.

Deposition of Hamit Fitzgerald, dated 27th of June, 1806.

This discussion in the House of Commons has, in the minds of all men of com. mon sense, settled the question. There are still some persons to throw out insinuations against Her Royal Highness; but these are so notoriously the panders of mean

Letter from Lord Spencer to Lord Gwydir, dated 1st of July, 1806.

Letter from Lord Gwydir to Lord Spen-hatred, cowardly malice, despicable imcer, dated 3d July, 1806.

Query to Lady Willoughby, and Answer, dated 8d of July, 1806,

Farther Depositions of Robert Bidgood, dated sd of July, 1806,

potence, and of every thing that is vile in man, aye, in the meanest of mankind, that no one pays the smallest attention to what they say.

Whether the parliament may think it



meet to adopt any proceeding upon the sub- of Labrador. Talk of LIBELS, indeed! ject; whether they may think it right, in What libels has she not had to endure? the way of address or otherwise, to inter-A month has not passed over our heads fere in behalf of the Princess, I cannot since the writers in the Courier and Times pretend to say, and they are a body far too newspapers poured forth libels against her, wise for me to presume to offer them any which no private person would have suf thing in the way of advice; but, I have no fered to pass without prosecution. They scruple to say, that I think it a fit occasion called her rash, foolish, and with an inso for the people, assembled in a constitutional lent affectation of compassion, pointed her manner, to prove, by some solemn decla-out as seduced and unfortunate. In short, ration of their sentiments, that they still they spoke of her in terms the most con retain that love of justice and that hatred temptuous, they affected to pity her for of false accusation, which were formerly having been so weak as to call for fresh inprominent features in the character of Eng-quiry into her conduct, which conduct they Jishmen. As to the precise way in which had the impudence unequivocally to describe they ought to do this, it is not for me to point as indecent to the last degree. Seven out; but, the way will not be difficult of these calumnies she has had to endure, to discover by men of proper feeling and of and, to her immortal honour be it spoken, just minds. It is now seven years since she has relied upon her innocence for the these calumnies were first circulated against support of her character, and has, in no the Princess of Wales; and, now, that instance, resorted to the assistance of the they are all shewn to have been false, now, law. She has wisely relied upon the neverthat we are fully able to estimate all her failing power of truth; she has relied also sufferings and her long forbearance, it (and I hope, for the sake of the character of would be a shame indeed, if there were the country, she will not here be deceived) none to be found amongst us to shew that upon the good sense and love of justice of we feel for her as we ought. The people the people of England. have not, indeed, the power to punish her traducers; they have not the power to replace her in Carlton House; they have not the power to give her admission to her daughter; but they have the power to shew to all the world, and to that daughter in particular, that they are lovers of Justice, and that they hold in abhorrence false accusers, cowardly and malicious calumni

Besides the justice due to the Princess, we ought to consider the light in which we as a nation, shall appear, in this instance, in the eyes of the world. It will not be forgotten with what addresses, what speeches, what exhibitions, what acclamations of joy this lady was received upon her arrival in England. The world will not forget the praises we then bestowed upon her, and even the gratitude we expressed at her having condescended to become instrumental in the happiness of ourselves and our posterity: and, the world will not fail to remark, that the commencement of the calumnies against her, that the perjuries by which she was traduced took place in a very few months after her father was killed, and his successors bereft of their dominions! I will not impute even to perjured wretches the baseness of choosing such a time for the making of their attack; but the fact, as to the time, is as I have stated it; and most assuredly the change produced by the events here spoken of, in the circumstances of her family, must have great weight in the mind of every considerate person. The more destitute she is of the means of protection froin any other quarter, the stronger is her claim on the people of England; and I cannot help repeating my opinion, that if the occasion be suffered to pass without some testimony of public feeling in her favour, it will be a great and lasting reproach to this nation.


In the case of the Princess of Wales there is every thing to excite a feeling in her favour. In the first place, we see that it was owing to no fault of hers that her husband's palace was no longer her place of abode. In the next place we see false and infamous accusations trumped up against her, and the tongue of calumny let loose, while she was destitute of all the means of defence, having by her counsellors, been prevented from making public the refutation of charges, the substance of which charges, unaccompanied with any answer, bad gone forth to the world. Lastly, we see her denied the sight of her daughter except once in a fortnight, while even the advisers of the Prince declare her to be inDocent and her traducers to be perjured. Such is briefly the state of her case, and I say, for the whole nation to remain silent, for no part of the people to give utterance to any feeling for her would justify the opinion, that Englishmen have less sensibility than the half-frozen inhabitants of the coast

This interference on the part of the people is the more necessary, and at the same time more likely to be proper, as both the great political factions have left Her Royal Highness to her fate, or, rather, have, each in its turn, been her enemies. Nay, they have not only by turns disclaimed her cause; but they have both of them accused her of having resorted to the support of the "enemies of social "order and regular government ;" that is to say, men who meddle with politics without pocketing, or wishing to pocket, the public money. These are, in our country, called Jacobins and friends of Buonaparte; and to these men the factions, who fight for the pubiic money, have accused the Princess of resorting for advice and support. If this accusation be 'true (and I have no inclination to deny it), it appears that she has not made a bad choice at last. She has not been betrayed this time, at any rate. Until now her conduct has been an object of calumny with her enemies and of suspicion with many good people; but, by following the advice of the Jacobins, she has silenced the former and removed the doubts of the latter. If her husband were to take a little advice from the same source, it would, I am persuaded, be full as well for him. The -Princess has, in fact, made her appeal to the people. She has published her complaint. She has called upon the people for their opinion upon the merits of her case; and, though that opinion has been pronounced without hesitation in private, it wants, in order to give it its full effect, to be expressed in a public, solemn, and authentic manner.

In a future Letter it will give me great pleasure to tell you that this has been done; and, in the meanwhile, I remain your faithful friend, WM. COBBETT.

[blocks in formation]

lished; and I further say, that I think the public should wait and HEAR Sir John and Lady Douglas, before it makes up its mind as to the guilt of either of them.]

MR. COCHRANE JOHNSTONE then rose. His motion, he stated, originated entirely with himself, without any communication with other persons. He even did not know that he should find one Member to second it. He had transmitted to the Princess of Wales, and to the King's Ministers, a copy of the Resolutions he intended to propose. He then referred 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 required to do so. He read over the charges made against Her Royal Highness at the time, and many of the particular items of those charges, with the concluding Report. The Princess, he stated, had, on receiving 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 called upon to make a fair defence,-and to the parties not being credible witnesses. That Report was signed by the four Lords, Spencer, Grenville, Erskine, and Ellenborough. In March, 1807, a change took place in His Majesty's Councils, and Mr. Perceval then prevailed upon the King to restore the Princess to favour and she was accordingly again received at Court. Since that time no material change had occurred in her situation till recently, when she had received a communication from the Earl of Liverpool, by which she was informed, that her accustomed intercourse with the Princess Charlotte was to be abridged. This produced Her Royal Highness's Letter to the Prince Regent, and led to the late reference of the case to certain Members of the Privy Council. In his opinion, the four Lords Commissioners 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. La

« EdellinenJatka »