dy Douglas's deposition, who swore to the pregnancy in 1802, remained uncontradicted. In what a state would the country be placed, if this proceeding was again to be called for, and the evidence of Lady Douglas produced; while that of witnesses on the other side, could not, from death or other causes, be obtained? It was, therefore, the bounden duty of Parliament to provide against such an event. He called to the recollection of the House, that no proceedings had been instituted against Sir John or Lady Douglas, for defaming the character of the Princess. He thought that the confidential servants of the Prince Regent ought to send the Princess copies of all letters and papers concerning her conduct since 1806, as far, at least, as it was alluded to in the proceedings on the late Report. A strict and impartial investigation of her conduct ought certainly to take place. In the task he had undertaken, he was actuated only by a conscientious sense of his duty as a Member of Parliament. After various other remarks, the Hon. Member concluded by moving two Resolutions. The first was of great length, recapitulating the contents of all the reports and papers concerning Her Royal Highness. The second was for an Address to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying His Royal Highness to lay the whole of the documents before the House, together with all other papers relative thereto. the Throne, as required the interference of Parliament. He should not enter into any detailed inquiry as to the legality of the Privy Council acting as a tribunal in their proceedings on this subject; but he would state, that he was perfectly satisfied, that they were fully competent to inquire, whether there were, or were not, sufficient grounds of charge for putting the Princess of Wales on her defence. The present motion, however, did not go to the extent of settling the question, whether any such proceedings were, or were not, necessary. But he must say, that if the Commissioners were not competent to decide upon the charges against her Royal Highness of being pregnant in the year 1802, the House of Commons was certainly not the proper tribunal for deciding on such a question.If, on the other hand, no actual criminality was imputed to her Royal Highness, that House was equally an improper tribunal for deciding on that question. If, again, every shade in the conduct of the Princess of Wales, from the highest degree of guilt down to the lowest levity, were to be considered, that House was not, certainly, the place where such matters should be discussed. He must also observe, that if any unfortunate disputes or disunions existed between any members or branches of the Royal Family, any discussion in the House of Commons could serve only to increase alienation, to augment the evil, and to widen the breach. The only solid practical ground, therefore, on which Parliament could proceed, would be, that doubts LORD CASTLEREAGH rose and said, he attached to the succession to the Crown. felt that he should act most consistently But in the present case there was not the with his duty in confining himself to expla- smallest doubt entertained upon that subnation, with respect to parts of the Hon.ject. The Gommissioners in 1806, from Member's speech, which would tend to their known character, and high legal quaguard the House against those false impres-lifications, were certainly fit persons to desions which it might otherwise excite. The mode of proceeding adopted by the Hon. Member was somewhat singular. His first Resolution was, in fact, even in his own view of it, without any proof. His second Resolution called for those very papers, as matters of information, on which his first Resolution was founded; as if they were matters of certain knowledge. He did not mean to urge it in the way of cavil against the proceeding, but surely if there were any grounds for the Resolutions, the second should have been the preliminary one; as the first, in its order, could by no possibility be adopted by the House. The only object of the information called for, seemed to be to persuade the House, that such serious doubts existed as to the succession to MR. JOHN WHARTON seconded the motion. cide upon that question; and they had decided, and no doubts remained on their minds that required the necessity of Parliamentary interposition. They did not make a comparative inquiry into the weight of the evidence of Lady Douglas, as compared with, or contrasted to, that of other witnesses; but they decided, that they had traced the whole history of the child so completely and satisfactorily, that no possible doubt could remain that it was not born of the Princess of Wales, but of another woman, named Sophia Austin. Nor, indeed, did this decision rest only on their Report, for it was afterwards referred to other confidential servants of His Majesty, who gave a solemn judgment, confirming the Report of the first Commissioners. The which was to have the evidence reduced to writing, in order to submitting it to legal consideration. Then his Royal Highness felt it to be his duty to communicate the charges to his Royal Father, with whom, and with whose Cabinet, and not with his Royal Highness himself, the whole affair had from that time remained. He could really see no necessity for pursuing the subject of this discussion any farther. It could not be properly brought forward, except on the presumption that some doubts existed relative to the succession to the Crown; and he trusted, that in what he had said, he had convinced the House that no such doubts did exist. Calling for further information, if agreed to, would only be the means of gratifying private curiosity, by making Parliament the instrument of procuring that gratification, that taste for calumny, which was so much the rage at the present moment. He should trust to the indulgence of the House, to explain farther in reply, in case other circumstances were touched upon, which might render farther explanations necessary: and he hoped that the House would not tolerate suspicions or doubts, where none whatever existed, by adopting the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. supposed doubt respecting the succession, was, therefore, rebutted by the authority of the first Commissioners of the first Cabinet; and also by that of the subsequent Cabinet, to whom the matter was referred, and who confirmed the same judgment. If any doubt found its way into the mind of Parliament, he would not deny, in the abstract, that no case might exist, as to the question of Succession, which it might be the duty of Parliament to examine; but would the Honourable Gentleman say, that after all those authorities which he had stated, it would be regular or rational for Parliament to interfere? Would not such interference rather serve to originate doubts, where no doubts existed; and give countenance to suspicions, contrary to the repeat ed declarations of all parties, that no case whatever had been made out, to require any such interference on the part of Parliament? The Hon. Gentleman himself had made his statement in such a manner as to shew that he entertained no doubts upon the subject: yet when neither he, nor any other Member, had any doubt respecting the legitimacy of the Succession, he called upon Parliament to legislate. It was perfectly true that there had been no prosecution entered into, of Lady Douglas: her evidence was taken by the Commissioners in the discharge of their duty; and the Hon. Gentleman should have stated in candour, that the first Cabinet recommended that no proceedings should be had, unless the Crown Lawyers deemed it advisable to prosecute Lady Douglas for perjury. A case was laid before them; and though they were satisfied as to the perjury, they, nevertheless, saw great difficulties in the way of establishing it by legal evidence, and, therefore, they did not advise prosecution. If he were so disposed, he might use some grounds of personal complaint against the Hon. Member, for he had transgressed the rules of his parliamentary duty, in stating that Mr. Perceval had prevailed upon the Cabinet to espouse the cause of the Princess of Wales. The Cabinet had acted deliberately and conscientiously in the busi-dressed a Letter to his Royal Highness, ness, and had advised that there were no reasons why her Royal Highness should not be admitted again to the presence of the Sovereign, agreeably to the recommendation of the former Cabinet, with whom, indeed, it had originated. The Hon. Member had stated with a marked emphasis, that Lady Douglas's evidence was given by command of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent. In this matter, the Prince Regent followed the advice of Lord Thurlow, SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY commenced by observing, that the Hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane Johnstone) had indulged himself in terms of such strong censure of the Administration of 1806, as to render it impossible for him to preserve silence. No man who knew them, would throw the slightest shade of disrespect or suspicion on the conduct of those four Noble Lords, who composed that Commission of Inquiry. With respect to himself, he had to say, that he was consulted by his Royal Highness, in his professional capacity, upon the subject; and was, he believed, se lected for that purpose, by the recommendation of the late Lord Thurlow, that he might give his opinion on this very delicate investigation. After having considered it with the utmost care and anxiety, he ad containing his sentiments on the matter, in December, 1505. After he gave that opinion, his Royal Highness took every possible means to ascertain what credit was due to the parties, whose testimony had been given. In the change of Administra tion which shortly followed, he had the honour of being appointed Solicitor-General; and in March, 1806, he received His Majesty's commands to confer with Lord Thurlow on this important business. was, therefore, of opinion, that the motion ought to be negatived. Lord Thurlow desired him to tell the Prince of Wales, that the information was of a nature much too important for his Roy- MR. WHITBREAD observed, that the al Highness not to take some proper steps Hon. Member who had brought forward in consequence. This he communicated to the present motion had stated his intention the Prince of Wales, and in a short time to him; and he had told him, that he afterwards, the facts as stated, were sub- thought his first Resolution could not be mitted to some of the King's Ministers. adopted. He, therefore, did not rise in An authority was then issued under the support of it, for he concurred in much that King's Sign Manual to certain Members of had fallen from the Noble Lord opposite; the Privy Council, to take up the investi- and thought that, at this period at least, gation of the whole of the case. Many no such motion should be entertained by meetings were held, and many witnesses the House, as might render it the vehicle were examined thereupon; and he (Sir S. of communicating to the public at large, Romilly) was the only other person pre- those matters which it was much better sent besides the Commissioners, at these should be suppressed. He must, howexaminations, which were conducted by ever, remind the Noble Lord of his exthe four Noble Lords mentioned, and he pression of his readiness to make explanatook down all the depositions. He must tions, particularly with respect to the declare in the most solemn manner, that no more recent parts of these transactions. If inquiry was ever conducted with greater the House dismissed this subject without impartiality, nor was there ever evinced a any farther explanations or proceedings, more anxious desire to discharge justly a the Princess of Wales would, in his mind, great public duty. With respect to the be grossly injured. Her Royal Highness propriety of instituting proceedings against complained to the House, of vague, and Lady Douglas, he should beg to state, that ambiguous blame thrown upon her, and the objections to the institution of such pro- demanded explanation at least. By the ceedings, did not arise from any doubts of common uncontradicted rumour, it ap the right of the Commissioners to adminis- peared that she had addressed a letter to ter an oath, as some persons had insinuated, the King, impeaching the proceedings of nor indeed from any doubt as to whether the four Noble Lords who were the Comthe facts sworn to were true or false, but missioners in 1806; and it should be refrom other circumstances. He was prepar-membered, that in so doing, she was uned to maintain, that the legality of the derstood to be acting under the advice of Commission, composed of certain Mem- Mr. Perceval. Lord Eldon, it was also bers of His Majesty's Privy Council, re- stated, approved of that letter. The same quired no other authority but the authority was said of Sir T. Plumer, now His Maof the King, directing them to inquire into jesty's Attorney-General, who, being prethe circumstances of a charge of High sent, could contradict the assertion if it Treason: and that it was not only their were untrue. He wished to know from right, but their duty to go into such inqui- the Noble Lord opposite, whether with ry. Ought a bill, for instance, to be sent the privity and knowledge of those persons, down, at once, to a Grand Jury of the and for the purpose of making Her Royal county of Middlesex, without any prelimi- Highness's innocence manifest to the nary proceedings? No man, he believed, world, a work was not printed, intended who was acquainted with the duty imposed to be published and circulated throughout upon the King's Privy Councillors, would England and Europe? When the Noble hazard such an assertion. It was their du- Lord talked of an appetite for slander and ty to inquire into all matters of a treasona- calumny, was he not aware that newspable nature, before they referred them to pers had lately teemed with paragraphs the regular tribunals for trial. In the recent and extracts, the tendency of which was ease, for instance, of Margaret Nicholson, to libel the Princess of Wales? Was not the Privy Council found the woman to be the public mind in a state of agitation insane; and no proceedings whatever were on this subject, which it was highly exinstituted against her. Sir Samuel Romil-pedient to allay? Nobody doubted that Lady ly argued at some length, in proof of the legal right of the Privy Council to act as a tribunal of investigation for the purpose specified, of which, he contended, no doubt could reasonably be entertained. He Douglas was a perjured person; but though that was not doubted, she still remained a competent witness: and, therefore, some check ought to be put to the propagation of ambiguous reports. It appeared that her her, and to receive her at once, in the manner due to her exalted rank and station in the community! But now, in 1813, was raked up the old evidence of 1806, by some of those very persons, in order to defame her, and punish her by additional restrictions! Ought she to submit to these imputations? Ought not that House to interfere? The Noble Lord, indeed, had observed, that any of her Royal Highness's legal advisers who chose to do so, might come forward in her behalf. There was a time when she did not want legal advisers, Royal Highness, finding the intercourse between her and the young Princess was restricted more and more, addressed a letter to the Prince Regent, which was twice returned unopened. At length, it seems, it was read to his Royal Highness, and the cold answer returned was, that Ministers had received no commaands on the subject. That letter at last found its way into the public prints; and then his Royal Highness, not as the Head of his Family, but as Prince Regent, by the advice of Ministers, summoned a Privy Council to consult what he should do: and the extraordinary advice when Mr. Perceval, and Lord Eldon, and of this Privy Council to his Royal High- others, were her legal advisers! But one ness was, not to refer to the present con- of them was now dead, and the others had duct of the Princess of Wales, but to the become mute! He had declared last night, evidence of 1806 or 7! Was there ever that if no one else did, he would stand up, advice so preposterous, and so cruel! The not as her advocate, but for the cause of levities of her Royal Highness in 1806 justice. She ought not to be the only were to be punished in 1813, more severely person in this country, so famed for its huthan was thought necessary in former years, manity, without a friend, or a legal adby increased restrictions and restraints viser. What recourse was left to her but Mr. W. then adverted to the opinion lately an appeal to the justice of Parliament ? given by the legal advisers of the Prince Her request to the Prince Regent was siRegent, which had but recently been made milar to that of Anne Boleyne to Henry the known, and which stated, that, according, VIIIth,- Prove me guilty, or admit me to their experience, cases not of graver im- to be innocent!' "The Speaker of the port might be sent to a jury. Here then, House of Lords has twice returned her it would appear, there must be doubts as to letter, as we hear, unopened. You, Sir, the succession to the Throne ! When the (addressing the Speaker) have, with great Noble Lord and his Colleagues framed propriety, submitted the letter which you their last Report, had they not all this have received, to our consideration. Suppose before them? If so, let the House see you had refused to present her petition! It what this Cabinet did, who, in 1807, pro- might have happened, Sir, that nobody nounced a verdict of entire acquittal on the else would have presented it. The Hopart of her Royal Highness, and who fast-nourable Gentleman, who is the mover of ened such serious imputations on her in this question, once gave in a petition,, 1813! By the advice of Lord Eldon and which he told me 135 Members had reMr. Perceval, as it was understood, the fused to present. This might have been Princess of Wales threatened publicity to the situation of the Princess of Wales.". the former proceedings, and then she was Mr. W. then moved as an amendment to re-admitted at Court. Her advisers must, the motion, that after the word that,' the at that period, have been fully persuaded following should be adopted: "An address of her innocence, or they never would have to the Prince Regent, praying that a copy recommended her to risk such a publication of the Report to which her Royal Highto the world. Mr. W. then commented ness had referred, be laid before the on the various circumstances connected with House." the transactions of 1807, when an unanimous opinion was declared, that all the particulars of the Princess's conduct, to which any character or colour of criminality could be ascribed, were either satis factorily contradicted, or rested on evidence under such circumstances as to render it unworthy of credit. This was a complete verdict of not guilty. The King had been previously advised to receive her Royal Highness, with a reproof for her unguarded conduct; but those ministers advised no reproof, and called on His Majesty to restore LORD CASTLEREAGH was sorry to trouble the House a second time, but trusted to their indulgence. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he was glad to find the question in his hands, as he had met it in a manly manner, and had put it on the true grounds, of an attack on the Ministers of the day. He denied that the opinions of the Members of the Privy Council who signed the minute were binding on all the Ministers of the day, who were not then consulted; or that he, as a Minister, could be viewed as any had, in that advice, the satisfaction of being joined by Mr. Perceval, who was not then in the Cabinet, but a professional He man. All he should say was, that he never discovered any just foundation for the charges made against the Princess. Certainly he was not one of her advisers now. The situation he held would probably have precluded him from that: but he had not been applied to, and he presumed her Royal Highness employed those in whom she had more confidence. party to the advice of Mr. Perceval, in his THE HON. MR. BRAND admitted the competency of the Privy Council in the but contended, case they had before them; that their report exposed the affairs of the country to much difficulty and danger. He made various animadversions on the speech of the Noble Lord, and concluded by observing, that if they refused to entertain the application of the Princess, they re-. fused justice to the first subject in the country. MR. STUART WORTLEY said, he felt warmly on the subject as a man of honour. He could not vote either for the original motion, or for the amendment: but yet he did not think that the Noble Lord had given a satisfactory answer to either of them. He was extremely averse to seeing the Royal Family dragged, year after year, before the House of Commons. He thought the Noble Lords, the Commissioners, went further, in the first instance, than the case seemed to require; and that they should have confined themselves to the criminal charge alone, with a view to the possible proceedings on which their advice was taken. The first report of some of the present Ministers advised the King to receive the Princess; and now this last Report raked up old documents, on which they had acquitted her Royal Highness before. If the Prince Regent had said, "As your husband, and as the father of your child, I choose to restrict you to visiting her once in a week," the public might have been satisfied with an arrangement which it was his right to make, if he thought fit. however, should have been SIR THOMAS PLUMER having been per-aware, that his own conduct, at those pesonally alluded to, hoped for a short indul- riods, when those accusations were going on against -, would not gence. He did not know whether he was accused of once being her Royal Highness's and he thought that the RFlegal adviser: whether it was for the ad- ought not to be insensible to the events vice he then gave; or for his now having which had taken place on the Continent. ceased to be one of her Royal Highness's legal advisers. In 1806, he waited on her at her request, and gave his professional advice. Had he done wrong in that? He should not disclose that evidence; but he MR. W. SMITH thought, that if a sister of his were treated as the Princess of Wales had been, he should feel extremely sore. He regretted much that he could not see very clearly how redress was to be af |