65 men, who were duly qualified for the purpose by the well-known laws of the land. the obvious effect. -The next accusation And now, Mr. Perry, it remains for you, -In -You attempt it thus:-You say, that, as to the charge of High Treason, there was, indeed, no necessity for the warrant; but, that the warrant was necessary in order to enable the Four Lords to go into the MINOR circumstances contained in the Declarations against the Princess.—“Indeed!" For, I think, we may have our exclamations as well as you. Indeed! So, then, according to your ideas upon the subject, it was necessary, when a charge of High Treason was preferred against the Princess, to strip Four of the Privy Council of their official character, to take from them the qualification of magistrates for the time being, in order that they might, along with the charge of High Treason, inquire into certain minor circumstances!deed, Mr. Perry!-Now, it appears to me, that there was not, and could not be, any necessity at all for this. For, the charge of High Treason might have been first inquired into by the Privy Council; by that body, or any portion of that body, whose essential duty it was so to inquire, and who, in virtue of their office, were qualified magistrates for that purpose, And, afterwards, if it had appeared necessary to the King, he might have commissioned any of his servants to inquire into the minor circumstances. -If this had been the advice given to the King, we should have never heard of the petition of Sir John and Lady Douglas. They would have had no need to pray to be put into a situation to answer to a charge of perjury. And, it is for you, Mr. Perry, to show, why your friends, the Whigs, did not give the King such advice; it is for you, Mr. Perry, to show why the charge of High Treason was mixed up together along with the stories about Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Canning, and along with the insinuations relating to Bidgood's basons and towels; it is for to show why the charge of High Treason and the charge of flirting were messed up in one dish; it is for you to show the necessity of this; and this you must show before you will have proved yourself an useful advocate.- As to what you say about the " generous candour" of the Four Lords upon the memorable occasion referred to, you may, for aught I can assert, be very sincere; nor is it a point which I feel at all disposed to dispute with you; but, Mr. Perry, for there to be much of manliness in your praises, they must be bestowed where you are not well assured that no one you 66 will venture to contradict you. The objects quire to be taken particular notice of withof your praise, in this case, may or may not out delay.- -In the Common Council the merit it, in the opinions of different per- Address was brought forward by Mr. sons; but you can have no merit in utter- WAITHMAN, and seconded by Mr. FAing that praise; because you know, that, VELL. Nothing very particular passed, as in print, it will bring you no antagonist. the reader will see, except what arose from -Assertions, in such cases, have no an amendment, proposed by a Mr. JACKS. weight with people of sense. You should After the word "conspiracy," this genhave proved, that the Four Lords were go- tleman proposed to add these words: enverned by the most 66 generous candour” "tered into by persons admitted to her towards the Princess, a very fair opportu" society and confidence, and abusing it to nity for doing which is offered you in an "the destruction of her life and honour." answer, which yel remains due, to the De- -As the reason for this proposition, fence of Her Royal Highness, contained in Mr. Jacks is reported to have said, that, her Letters of the 2d of Oct. 1806, and "while justice was done to the Princess, 16th Feb. 1807.And here, by way of" injustice should, he thought, not be conclusion to this commentary, I think it "done to the Prince; and, that there was perfectly fair to observe, that the Morning" no evidence that could induce any one to Chronicle, which inserted all the matter against the Princess of Wales, HAS NE-" the conspiracy, whatever persons might VER INSERTED HER DEFENCE up to this hour. Call you this fair play, Mr. Perry? Call you this "Generous Can"dour?" The truth is, that that Defence does most powerfully attack the Whig mi-said, or who had insinuated, that the nistry; and to that I ascribe its being omitted. There was a sort of garbled summary of it published in the Morning Chronicle; but none of those parts reflecting on the Whig ministry were inserted. Thus it is that faction prevails over justice, and particularly with those exploded and degraded politicians, the Whigs, who are involved in such a labyrinth of inconsistencies and follies, that they really seem, at last, not to know when to open and when to shut their mouths.They are the outcast of the day. Nobody but their own expectants opens a lip for them; and, what deprives them of all pity, is, they show as much empty pride as at any former period. LONDON COMMON COUNCIL ADDRESS. COMMON HALL REPORT.. In another part of this sheet I have inserted the Report of the proceedings in the Common Council on the 22d of April, and of the Common Hall on the 23d of April.I have also inserted, in the same place, an account of the proceedings in the Borough of Southwark, and in the City of Rochester, and also an Address of a Meeting of the Freemen of the City of Bristol.-Indeed, I must now limit my publications upon this subject to the mere insertion of the Address, Resolutions, &c. seeing that so many other matters of importance are pressing forward and demanding notice. -There have, however, some things passed in the City of London, which re suppose, that he was at the bottom of "choose to surmise."--Now, really, this does appear to me to have been as awkward an attempt as I ever witnessed in my life.-Pray, Mr. JACKS, who had Prince was at the bottom of the conspiracy? I have seen no such expression or insinuation in any Address, Resolution, or Paragraph. Nothing, at any rate, has appeared in print of this sort; and, it was for your exuberant loyalty to tell the world, that there were persons who might surmise such a thing! Never (and I have said it a thousand times) was there a man so cursed with friends as the Prince of Wales has been, and as he appears yet to be.—— To suppose the Prince to be capable of hatching, or abetting, so foul and detestable a conspiracy against the life and honour of any woman, and especially against his own wife, the mother of his only child, a defenceless foreigner; to suppose this is to suppose him to be all that is treacherous, cruel, and cowardly; it is to suppose him to be a disgrace to the human form; it is, of course, to degrade the royal authority in his hands, and to prepare beforehand an apology for any act, however disloyal or treasonable, that might be committed or meditated against him.--Do I go too far here? I am sure I do not; and, therefore, I must reprobate the motion, and more especially the speech of Mr. JACKS, who, whatever he might have heard from disloyal men in private; whatever malignant surmises he might have heard round his fire-side, might, surely, have stopped till he heard them in public, before he gave mischievous exposure to them by the means of such a motion and such a speech. 66 66 Nor has Mr. JACKS at all mended the mat- | back upon them, libelled him at a pretty ter by a letter, published the following day round rate; but, even the malice of a disin the GOURIER news-paper, in the follow-appointed faction, thrusted back from the ing words: "Sir,-Observing that very threshold of the Treasury, falls "few of the Morning Papers have given short of the ingenuity of the loyal Mr. any of the reasons which I assigned yes- JACKS, whose motion the Common Council "terday, in the Court of Common Coun- rejected by a vast majority.The Prin"cil, for addressing it a second time (fol- cess's natural desire to hear her innocence lowing Mr. Waithman), and none have proclaimed by the people has been amply "inserted the principal one, I beg leave gratified; she has also heard her well"to send you shortly, as nearly as I re- known accusers loaded with just reproba"collect, what I said-I stated, that I tion; and, if one could suppose her (which 66 never would submit quietly to have mo- I do not) to entertain any vindictive sen❝tives attributed to me which I did not timent towards her august spouse, even "avow; that my opinion on the utility of that feeling might be gratified by the result "addressing the Princess of Wales was of this proceeding of the meddling Mr. " unchanged, but for the sake of unanimi- JACKS. Once more, I say, no man ever 66 ty I should not oppose the motion; that had such friends as the Prince of Wales. "I should persevere in my amendment if -Praise of the conduct of the Princess; "I stood alone, from having overheard expressions of abhorrence of her perjured 66 during its being read to the Court, many and suborned traducers; vows of attach"Members loudly clamouring against its ment to her such were the topics of the "adoption, because it went to excuse the Addresses of the City of London; and, "Prince; that from having read The yet, in these addresses, Mr. JACKS, as he "Book' with much attention, I was not tells us under his hand, could discover no"able to see any evidence whatever to thing but à desire "to drag the Chief Ma"implicate' him in the conspiracy; and I"gistrate into the dirt," though that "Chief "was, therefore, the more strongly im-"Magistrate's" name was not once men"pressed with the conviction, that the great object of the addresses was to drag "the first Magistrate of the country into "the dirt.'- The words of my amend"ment were as follow:-After the word 66 conspiracy, ' entered into by persons "admitted to her society and confidence, "by basely abusing it, to the destruction "of Her Royal Highness's life and honour.' 66 66 6 -I am, Sir, your most humble ser"vant, J. JACKS.-White Lion-court, "Cornhill, April 23, 1813."--Now, supposing him to have heard the expressions here imputed to some members of the Court; supposing him to have overheard some of them say that they would oppose it, "be66 cause it went to excuse the Prince;" I do not, however, believe the fact, I disbelieve, wholly disbelieve this statement of Mr. JACKS; but, if, for argument's sake, we suppose it to be true, whose is the blame? Why, his, to be sure, who was the first to start the idea. From such friends the Prince ought most earnestly to pray for preservation.Mr. JACKS is the first man, the very first man, who has dared to refer to the Prince in the nefarious transaction. What could the worst enemy of the Prince have done worse than this? Who has given publicity to such an idea against him? His old friends, the Whigs, have, indeed, since he turned his tioned either in the Addresses themselves, or in any of the speeches of those who brought them forward or supported them. Why, then, I do and must say, that, under the guise of loyalty, Mr. JACKS has made a most daring attempt to vilify the character of His Royal Highness the Prince. -Here are It is, I think, high time for His Royal Highness to reflect upon the consequences of such conduct on the part of those who call themselves his friends; those who call themselves loyal men, to the exclusion of all others. the world told by Mr. JACKS, that he found that the Addresses of the people to the Princess were, in reality, meant as so many attacks upon the Prince; and that, even in the Common Council of London, in the Corporation of the first City in the kingdom, having proposed certain words, with a view of clearing the Prince from all share in the conspiracy against his own wife's life and honour, the said words were rejected! What a thing is this to proclaim to the world! And this proclamation is made, not by us Jacobins, but by a man, who is everlastingly boasting of his attachment to the throne and to the Royal Family.- -So, then (for I cannot help coming back to the charge), the processions to Kensington Palace and Montague House, accompanied by hundreds of thousands of old crazy Peg Nicholson were inserted in the Gazette; the Addresses to the Prince upon his becoming Regent were inserted in the Gazette; and," to come to close quarters," as Lord Milton would call it, the Addresses to the Prince, as well as those to the Princess, upon their marriage, and upon the birth of their child, were all 66 people; the shouts that rended the air, and that almost stunned the population for miles around; these, according to the Loyal Mr. JACKS, are not to be looked upon as testimonials of the Princess's innocence," so much as testimonials of the guill of the Prince! And this is what Mr. JACKS calls loyalty, is it! This is the way in which he shows his friendship to the re-inserted in this same official receptacle of presentative of the King? Mine is a very dif- the loyal effusions of His Majesty's subferent way. I say not a word about the jects, as the sure and certain channel to Prince; my loyalty forbids me to mix the posterity.Well, then, now let us hear name of His Royal Highness with that of what passed at the Common Hall of the the parties concerned in the transaction; City of London on the 23d of April, upon my loyalty tells me that I ought to confine the report of the fate of the loyal and afmyself to a defence of the injured wife; fectionate Address to the Princess of but, indeed (and that is quite enough to Wales; the long-calumniated, the injured, say of it), my loyalty is just the opposite of the outraged Princess of Wales." The that of Mr. Jacks.Now for the Report" Report of the proceedings was then read, at the Common Hall. -When a Com-when, in addition to what has appeared mon Hall has been held and has agreed" in the public papers, it was stated that upon an Address, after that Address lias" Mr. Tyrrel, the City Remembrancer, been carried up, it is usual for the Hall" had sent the Address and the Answer of to meet again, in order to receive the re- "the Princess to the Gazette writer, to port of those who have carried it up. "be inserted, as was the custom, in such The Common Hall met for this purpose on the 23d of April. What passed there as cases, and not observing them in the next Gazette, had written to Mr. Rawto the conduct of the Lord Mayor I shall" linson, the writer to the Gazette, to innot particularly notice. An account of it" quire the reason of their not appearing. will be found in the Report of the day's" Mr. Rawlinson returned an answer, that proceedings, which I insert below, and "it was not the custom to insert any Adwhich I must beg the reader to peruse with" dress in the Gazette which was not transattention, as being of considerable import-"mitted to him by the Principal Secretary ance. -But, I think myself called upon" of State for the Home Department. In to notice, in a very particular manner, a 66 fact which was brought to light respectconsequence of this, the Remembrancer "communicated by letter the circumstance ing the non-insertion of the Address of the "to Lord Sidmouth, and enclosed a copy Common Hall and the Princess's Answer," of the documents in question for inserin the London Gazelle. This is one of the "tion. Lord Sidmouth, in his reply, acmost interesting and most important facts" quainted the Remembrancer, that he had appertaining to the history of this affair;"not thought proper, in the discretional and, therefore, I shall endeavour to make" exercise of the duty of his office, to init very clearly understood to the whole circle of my readers, abroad as well as at home. The LONDON GAZETTE is an official publication of the Government; it is published under the immediate authority of the Government; the WRITER of the Gazette is an Officer of the Government. This publication contains all ProWhitehall, April 7, 1813. clamations; Orders of Council; Orders of" of this day's date, enclosing a copy of an "Sir, I have just received your letter the Lord Chamberlain; and, generally," Address from the Lord Mayor, Alderall documents, issued by the Government. Amongst other things it contains Addresses "Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, "men, and Livery of London, to Her to the Throne and to the Royal Family" with a copy of Her Royal Highness's from Corporate Bodies, Counties, &c.The Addresses to the Prince upon the kill-" order the same to be inserted in the "Answer thereto, and desiring that I will ing of Perceval, for instance, were inserted in the Gazette; the Addresses to the King" acquaint you, that in the exercise of the "London Gazette: in reply, I have to upon his escape from the pen-knife of poor "discretion which belongs to my official "sert the Address and Answer in question " in the London Gazette.”—The following has been published in all the London news-papers, as a copy of Lord SIDMOUTH'S letter to the City Remembrancer upon this memorable occasion. slurred over. -The many rumours of PRICE OF BEER. For the information of persons at a distance, it may not be amiss to state, that the personage, who here signs his name "SIDMOUTH," is the same, who was once called Mr. HARRY ADDINGTON. He is the son of a celebrated Doctor of that name; was, what is called, bred to the bar; became, during Pitt's time, Speaker of the House of Commons; was made Prime Minister when Pitt was turned out in 1801; was himself supplanted by Pitt in 1804; joined Mr. Fox, and was in place again in 1806 and 1807; was ousted with the Talents in 1807; and came in as Secretary of State for the Home Department at the death of Perceval in 1812. He has a house in Richmond Park, and was made a Viscount in 1804, by the title of Viscount Sidmouth. -Such is a short account of what the world knows of the personage, whose discretion has been exercised upon this occasion. -It is pity, that his Lordship did not think it worth while to give the City Remembrancer any reasons for the refusal. Since he did not think proper to do it, I shall not attempt to discover any, or, at least, to point out such as I think he is likely to have been influenced by. The reader will, perhaps, have very little difficulty in guessing what those reasons were. However, his Lordship's discretion having been his guide, others are free, I hope, to use their discretion as to publications under their control. I shall, upon this principle, use my discretion; and I hereby request you, Mr. M'CREERY, my printer, to insert the Address of the Com-time, is too well known to every one to need mon Hall to the Princess of Wales, together with the Answer of Her Royal Highness, in the front page of my Register, once every month, until the 7th day of April, 1814, which will be just one whole year from the date of Lord Viscount Sidmouth's Letter to the City Remembrancer; and for so doing this shall be your warrant and authority. -Given at Botley, this 27th day of April, 1813. SIR.- -The just remarks contained in your Number of the 23d Jan. pages 102 to 107-on the late necessary advance in the price of porter, encourage me to offer a few observations on the subject. And this, chiefly, with the view to draw attention to the actual and heavy duties paid by the common brewers, and which are but little known, and still less thought of by the public in general. At the time of the Peace of Amiens, the whole amount of the duty on malt was 10s. 6d. per quarter, and on porter and ale 6s. 4d. and on small beer is. per barrel of 36 gallons. The present duty on malt is 34s. 8d. per quarter, on porter and ale 10s. and on small beer 2s. per barrel. Hence the beer duty is increased more than 50 per cent. and the malt duty more than 200 per cent. since January 1802. The progressive increase in the price of barley, since that remarking on; and the contingent expenses of every kind attending the brewery (exclusive of malt, hops, and duties) are fully DOUBLED. This accumulation of burdens, together with the obstinate, unreasonable, and ill-judged averseness of the consumers to submit to a small advance in the retail price of the beer, has compelled the brewers to draw three barrels, or in some cases more, from each quarter of malt, of late years, instead of two barrels, with small afterwards, as formerly. Hence, the beer P.S. Want of time prevents me from duty amounts to as much as the malt duty, offering some remarks upon a publication on each eight bushels of the latter, and, in a Liverpool paper, respecting the trial consequently, the "brewer is taxed twice of Mr. CREEVEY for a Libel. It is a subject" as much for the same quantity of malt," of great importance, and ought not to be as the householder who brews at home. WM. COBBETT. |