they had taken. That the case ought to be tried by the whole privy council; and after the discussion which the Princess had provoked, if she should then be injured she would have herself alone to blame.

Against the motion it was argued, that the mode of proceeding adopted by its supporters was altogether absurd. The first resolution was, in fact, Unsupported by any proof. The second resolution called for those very papers, as matter of information, on which the first resolution was founded. The only object of the information demanded, was to persuade the House that such serious doubts existed as to the succession to the throne, as required the interference of parliament. It were needless to enter into any detailed enquiry as to the powers of the privy council acting as a tribunal in their proceedings on this subject; but it was evident, that they were fully competent to enquire, 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 if the commissioners were not competent to decide upon the charges against her Royal Highness, the House of Commons was certainly not the proper tribunal for deciding on such a question. If 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. That if any unfortunate disputes existed between the branches of the royal family, a discussion in the House of Commons could serve only to augment the evil and widen the breach. The only solid ground, therefore, on which parliament could proceed, was this, that doubts were

created as to the succession of the crown. But in the present case, there was not the smallest doubt entertained upon that subject. The commissioners in 1806, from their known character and high legal qualifications, were certainly fit persons to decide upon that question; and they had decided; and no doubts remained on their minds that required parliamentary interposition. They did not make an enquiry into the weight of the evidence of Lady Douglas, as compared or contrasted with that of other witnesses; but they had 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 the question was afterwards referred to confidential servants of his majesty, who gave a solemn judgment, confirming the report of the first commissioners. The supposed doubt respecting the succession was therefore rebutted by the authority of the commissioners of the first cabinet; and also by that of the subsequent cabinet, to whom the matter was referred, and who confirmed the judgment. If any doubt remained, a case might exist as to the question of succession, which it might be the duty of parliament to examine; but after all these authorities, would it be rational for parliament to interfere? Would not such interference rather serve to create doubts, where no doubts existed, and give countenance to suspicions contrary to the repeated declarations of all parties, that no case whatever had been made out to require any such interference on the part of parliament?--It was perfectly true, that there had been no prosecution entered against Lady Douglas; her evidence was taken by the commissioners in the

discharge of their duty; and it should have been stated, in candour, that the first cabinet recommended that no proceeding should be instituted, 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 difficulties in the way of establishing it by legal evidence, and therefore they did not advise a prosecution.--The present cabinet had acted deliberately and conscientiously in the business, and had given their opinion, that there were no reasons why her Royal Highness should not be admitted to the presence of the sovereign, agreeeably to the recommendation of the former cabinet.-It had been 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, which was, to have the evidence reduced to writing, for the purpose of submitting it to legal consideration. Then his Royal Highness felt it to be his duty to communicate the circumstance 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.-There was no necessity for pursuing the subject of this discussion any further. It could not be properly brought forward, except on the presumption that some doubts existed relative to the succes sion of the crown. But no such doubts did exist. Parliament, by acceding to such a motion as that now proposed, would become an instrument in grati. fying that taste for calumny, which was so prevalent at the present mo. ment. The motion was negatived without a division.

In consequence of the measures adopted by the Princess of Wales, and of the discussions excited in the

House of Commons, the whole proceedings of 1806, including the evidence of the witnesses, soon appeared in the public prints. This result was at once disagreeable and unexpected to herself and to her advisers. Sir John and Lady Douglas, the chief wit nesses against her Royal Highness, whose evidence had been entirely discredited by the commissioners of 1806, ventured still to maintain the truth of what they had asserted on oath. They accordingly presented a petition to the House of Commons, praying that they might be again examined before a competent tribunal, that if the falsehood of their evidence were established, they should be punished with the pains of perjury. This circumstance, together with the publications alluded to, and some rumours as to a further examination of Lady Douglas, induced Mr Whitbread to bring the subject once more before the House, in the shape of a motion for an address to the Prince Regent for the punishment of the persons who had contributed towards this insult on the royal family and outrage on the public morals.

The supporters of the motion observed, that her Royal Highness was fully acquitted from every imputation of criminality. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the family divisions and differences, notwithstanding the unhappy transactions which had occurred, notwithstanding all that had been then brought before the public, to the great grief of every thinking man in the land, yet by judicious advice to both parties, by conciliation and submission from the one, and by affection and indulgence from the other, a happy period might have been put to these unpleasant and painful transactions. The malady was not at its crisis till lately; and kindness would have healed both it and the public feeling, so long and so cruelly lacerated. Can it be true then, it was asked, that those persons,

stigmatized in express terms as per jured and degraded witnesses, have been again examined? That from the 18th of February, down to the period when the debate took place, in which Sir John Douglas and his lady were termed perjured and degraded witnesses, examinations had been going forward of Lady Douglas, in the presence of her husband, as a credible and honourable witness? Were the king's ministers thus darkly searching for the discovery of evidence that might destroy the innocent? Was this the mode in which affairs of state of such moment were conducted? Did the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain lend him. self to those sinister and obscure proceedings? How anxious soever every one might have been, after the proceedings on a former night, to advise a dignified approach by her Royal Highness to the Regent, under the consciousness of acquitted innocence, in the hope that she would be met by the Prince with feelings of affection and kindness, yet after the disclosure of such proceedings, it was impossible that such advice should be given. Under all these circumstances, and after the lapse of a week from the period of that discussion, wherein it was admit ted, on all hands, that the Princess of Wales was completely acquitted of all criminality whatever, in two newspapers, simultaneously, appear the depositions of Sir John and Lady Douglas, whose testimony had been so strong ly reprobated. Since this period, and since the deposition of Lady Douglas was delivered, various publications of documents had been made in papers, in the habit of containing expressions not disagreeable to ministers, nor very unwelcome at Carlton-house. Upon one of these newspapers, called the Morning Herald, the public might fix; for whoever saw at the head of that paper the crest of his royal highness conspicuously displayed,-who

ever knew the habits of the reverend proprietor of that paper,-whoever knew that the reverend proprietor had been recently distinguished by honours and by church promotion out of the usual course of appointments of that kind,-whoever knew all this, and read the scandalous publications which had recently appeared in the Morning He rald, must conclude that they were not disagreeable in a certain high quarter. Through this channel, it was said, these disgusting documents, by which the public morals had been tainted, were issued. That after two cabinets had declared her Royal Highness guiltless, it should be thought necessary to reprint that testimony, which before its publication to the world had been acknowledged to be false and perjured, was surprising. After the evidence of Lady Douglas, followed in a train all the disgusting documents, the falsehood of which was known and acknowledged, and which, abominable as they were, had been put into the shape of a volume, bearing the name of the late Mr Perceval, by whom the press is said to have been corrected. That right honourable gentleman thought the Princess of Wales so grossly and so grievously injured, that for the sake of her vindication it was necessary he should submit these painful details to the people of England and the world; and he consequently prepared a comment upon it, to prove the falsehood of the story, and to expose the villainy by which it had been raised. Now, however, when Mr Perceval was dead, when her royal highness had no advisers remaining, when a series of years had elapsed, during which the public had been kept in a state of profound ignorance of facts which they sought to know with eager curiosity,-when the Princess had been declared innocent and blameless by two cabinets, and the witnesses against her were acknowledged to be perjured and degra

ded, then, and not till then, was the public eye polluted by these unfounded, these indecent statements. What was the object of the late Mr Perceval in wishing to submit these documents to the examination of the public? To prove the innocence of the Princess of Wales. What was the object of their publication now? To prove the guilt of her Royal Highness. After so many declarations of her innocence from all sides, these papers were brought for ward to deceive the public, and to lead to a base conclusion of her guilt Mr Perceval would have given them to the world to protect injured innocence, and now they were adduced in order to calumniate the very woman of whom he was the adviser, defender, and friend. What woman was ever before placed in such a situation? Was it possible for matters to rest here? Was not a decision imperiously called for? The sooner it came the better would it be for the crown and for the people. For how many long years had her Royal Highness suffered under surmises, insinuations, and accusations? It was eleven years since they were commenced, and she had not yet passed through this fiery ordeal. To whom was the delay to be attributed? The Princess of Wales had at all periods loudly claim ed public enquiry. In 1806, by the advice of Mr Perceval and Sir Thomas Plomer, she demanded a fair and open trial. It was granted. In 1813 she had again thrown herself upon the Prince Regent and upon parliament, insisting upon her innocence, and demanding to be tried. During all this time she had been deprived of the comforts to which her rank and situation entitle her, and excluded from almost every social intercourse, and from all maternal endearments. She wrote a letter to the House of Commons, claiming not mercy, not compassion, not protection, but-justice. "Try me," she said, "before a tribunal competent

to decide, and let that decision be final." "No," said the ministers, "you shall be tried, not before a public tribunal, but before the tribunal of the public. Every man, woman, and child in the empire shall read the evidence an against you." She demanded, "Let me be judged by my peers, and if guilty, let me be condemned and suffer." "No," replied the ministers, " you shall be tried by self-elected juries, not of your peers, in every alehouse in the kingdom. Your judges shall be the most ignorant of mankind, incapable of drawing legal inferences of guilt or innocence. We will expose you, degraded, unprotected, to the view of the curious multitude; you shall be stripped to the eyes of a gazing world." "Good God!" exclaimed a redoubted orator, (Mr Whitbread) in commenting on this subject, "is this the way that justice is administered in England, the country that boasts so much of the purity of its laws, and the excellence of its establishments? Is this the mode in which innocence is maintained against the poisoned shafts of calumny !"-After the decision of the four commissioners appointed by the king to make the necessary enquiries, and report thereon,-after the most unequivocal vindication of the Princess of Wales, as communicated in their report,-it appeared that a fresh examination took place into the evidence which had been completely disregarded and discredited. This new enquiry was managed by a noble person, who seemed desirous to give force to that which had been previously deemed of no validity. When the witness whom he had summoned before him said, “ I never believed the report, I treated it as the infamous lie of the day," what was the conduct of that noble person? In a very significant manner, he conveyed a notion to the person examined, that he (the noble lord) still did give credit to the report. He shook his

head most significantly, and appeared to disbelieve the strong testimony of the witness whom he had called before him. If persons who are the most enlightened retain their prejudices, and no means are left for vindication, how is innocence to be maintained? "Does it not become us as men," said the orator already alluded to," as lovers of justice, as representatives of the people, as supporters of the dignity and stability of the throne, when such crimes are attributed to one so near it, to bring the matter to a decision? Is it not our bounden duty to seek a speedy determination, for the sake of the governing authorities of the country? It is not the Princess of Wales alone who is shocked by such proceedings. Is not the Prince of Wales, her natural protector, shocked? Are not the morality, the virtue, and the loyalty of the people shocked? Is not the monarchy itself interested in the determination? Yes, we are all, both individually and collectively, shocked and affected in the deepest and tenderest points. It is totally impossible that the matter can rest in its present state. It is impossible, whether the rights and interests of the crown or of the subject are considered, that the matter can be deferred any longer. If the sentence of acquittal which has been pronounced, is to be set up as a bar against that crisis which appears abso. lutely necessary, can it be denied that there are people who, in opposition to the assertion of the innocence of the Princess of Wales, are at all times ready to shake their heads, and who cannot help thinking that there is something in it? It is high time that a thorough scrutiny should be instituted. It is high time that every circumstance, hint, and suggestion should be sifted in every way that human ingenuity can devise, for the purpose of doing justice, not to the Princess of Wales only, but to all who are impli

cated in the transaction."-In what situation, it was asked, is the succession to the throne placed? Lady Douglas had been again examined as a credible witness, not only by a magistrate, but she had been treated as such by the Lord Chancellor of England. The evidence of Lady Douglas had gone farther than to inferences from what she had heard in her conversations with the Princess of Wales; for she had positively sworn, that, to her knowledge, the Princess of Wales was not only with child, but was delivered of a male child. If so, the Princess of Wales was in imminent danger. If so, the Princess Charlotte was involved in danger. But, what was still more striking, Lady Douglas herself persisted, and offered in her petition to maintain, at every risk, the truth of her depositions. Why had nothing

been done to ascertain the truth of this

story? For if true, this male child, and not the Princess Charlotte, must inherit the throne, unless it could be proved that he was the offspring of an adulterous intercourse. On what authority did the acquittal of the Princess of Wales stand? On this :—Lord Eldon, as a lawyer, said, the greater part of the evidence was satisfactorily disproved, and as for the remainder, all men utterly discredited it. But these mysterious examinations still continued, and her Royal Highness found, that there was not, even in this country, any tribunal before which her guilt or innocence could be brought to issue. If she resolved to quit this country, she had now no father to go to; nor had she even her father's country to afford her an asylum. Soon after the period when these examinations had been conducted with so much acrimony against his beloved daughter, he had paid the forfeit of his life at the battle of Jena. She had, however, the consolation to know that her father had received all the papers relative to the