the effect arising from it operate to deprive her Royal Highness of the sole real happiness she can possess in this world-that of seeing her only child; and the confidential Servants of the Prince Regent ought to feel ashamed of their conduct towards the Princess, in avowing to her Royal Highness their advice to the Prince Regent, that upon unauthorized and unfounded suppositions a Mother and Daughter should be prevented from meeting-a prohibition, positively against the law of nature. Lady A. Hamilton is commanded further to desire Lord Liverpool to lay this paper before the Prince Regent, that his Royal Highness may be aware into what error his confidential Servants are leading him, and will involve him, by counselling, and signifying such commands."

Here ended the correspondence.

The letter of the Princess of Wales having been referred by her husband to the Cabinet Ministers, and certain other Privy Counsellors, to the number of 21, to report their opinions thereupon to his Royal Highness, accounts of Cabinet-meetings on the subject continued for some time daily to be published; but, touching the nature, the form, and the object of those proceedings, the Princess of Wales being left to conjecture, her Royal Highness, on the 27th of February, addressed the subjoined letter to the Earl of Harrowby:

"Feb. 27, 1813.

"The Princess of Wales has received reports from various quarters, of certain proceedings lately held by his Majesty's Privy Council respecting her Royal Highness; and the Princess has felt persuaded, that these reports must be unfounded, because she could not believe it possible that any resolution should be taken by that most Honourable Body, in any respect affecting her Royal Highness, upon statements which she has had no opportunity of answering, explaining, or even seeing.

"The Princess still trusts, that there is no truth in these rumours; but she feels it due to herself to lose no time in protesting against any Resolution affecting her Royal Highness, which may be so adopted.

"The Noble and Right Honourable Fersons who are said to have been selected for these procedings, are too just to decide any thing touching her Royal Highness, without affording her an opportunity of laying her case before them. The Princess has not had any power to choose the judges before whom any inquiry may be carried on; but she is perfectly willing to have her whole conduct enquired into by any persons who may be selected by her accusers. The Prin

cess only demands that she may be heard in defence, or in explanation, of her conduct, if it is attacked; and that she should either be treated as innocent, or proved to be guilty."

Lord Harrowby replied to the effect, that a copy of the Ministers' Report, laid before the Prince Regent, had been transmitted the same evening to the Princess of Wales, by the Viscount Sidmouth.

The following is an extract from the Report referred to by Lord Harrowby:

"In obedience to the commands of your Royal Highness, we have taken into our most serious consideration the letter from her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales to your Royal Highness, which has appeared in the public papers, and has been referred to us by your Royal Highness, in which letter the Princess of Wales, amongst other matters, complains that the intercourse between her Royal Highness and her Royal subjected to certain restrictions. Highness the Princess Charlotte, has been

"We have also taken into our most serious consideration, together with the other papers referred to us by your Royal Highness, all the documents relative to the Inquiry instituted in 1806, by command of his Majesty, into the truth of certain representations, respecting the conduct of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, which appear to have been pressed upon the attention of your Royal Highness, in consequence of the advice of Lord Thurlow, and upon grounds of public duty, by whom they were transmitted to his Majesty's consideration. And your Royal Highness having been graciously pleased to command us to report our opinions to your Royal Highness, whether, under all the circumstances of the case, it be fit and proper, that the intercourse between the Princess of Wales and her daughter, the Princess Charlotte, should continue to be subject to regulation and restraint

"We beg leave humbly to report to your Royal Highness, that, after a full examination of all the documents before us, we are of opinion, that, under all the circumstances of the case, it is highly fit and proper, with a view to the welfare of her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte, in which are equally involved the happiness of your Royal Highness in your parental and royal character, and the most important interests of the State, that the intercourse between her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales and her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte, should continue to be subject to regulation and restraint.

"We hurably trust, that we may be permitted, without being thought to exceed

the

the limits of the duty imposed on us, respectfully to express the just sense we entertain of the motives by which your Royal Highness has been actuated in the postponement of the confirmation of her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte, as it appears, by a statement under the hand of her Majesty the Queen, that your Royal Highness has conformed in this respect, to the declared will of his Majesty, who had been pleased to direct, that such ceremony should not take place till her Royal Highness should have completed her 18th year.

"We also humbly trust that we may be further permitted to notice some expressions in the letter of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, which may possibly be construed as implying a charge of too serious a nature to be passed over without observation. We refer to words" suborned traducers." As this expression, from the manner in which it is introduced, may, perhaps, be liable to misconstruction, (however impossible it may be to suppose that it can have been so intended,) to have reference to some part of the conduct of your Royal Highness, we feel it our bounden duty not to omit this opportunity of declaring, that the documents laid before us afford the most ample proof, that there is not the slightest foundation for such an aspersion."

It was in consequence of receiving a copy of this report through Lord Sidmouth, that her Royal Highness wrote the letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, which will be found at page 221 in this Number. The Princess also sent a duplicate of that letter to the Lord Chancellor, but his Lordship returned it inclosed in a letter to the following effect:

"That his Lordship found himself under the necessity of returning the letter of her Royal Highness, which he thought it his duty to advise the Princess, from considerations of propriety as well as safety, not to make public." The letter concluded with an intimation, that "by command of the Prince Regent, the visits of her Royal Highness to Warwick House were in future to be wholly discontinued."

To the above an answer was returned by the Princess of Wales, expressing "surprise at the manner as well as the matter of his Lordship's communication, and particularly at his care for the safety of her Royal Highness;" but intimating, that "his Lordship need be under no apprehensions on that ground, as the Constitution and laws of England were her safeguards."The letter concluded with an intimation, that" in future, her Royal Highness expected to receive no more letters from the Lord Chancellor, except when signed by his

Lordship in his character of one of the Privy Council."

The result of all these transactions has been the publication of all the documents relative to the investigation of her Royal Highness's conduct in the year 1806, which will be found in another part of this Number.

Our readers will observe, by our report of Parliamentary proceedings, that in the discussion which took place on a motion introduced into the Commons House by Mr Cochrane Johnstone, the complete acquittal of the Princess of Wales from all charges of criminality was allowed by all parties; and her principal accusers, Sir John and Lady Douglas, were stigmatized by Lord Castlereagh as perjured and degraded persons. In consequence of Lord Castlereagh's speech on that occasion, he received the following note from Sir J. Douglas:

"Major-General Sir John Douglas requests to know from Lord Castlereagh, as a man of honour, whether he, in his place in the House of Commons, on Friday evening, declared his wife to be a perjured person, and upon what ground he founded his accusation."

The object of this note was to obtain from his Lordship out of the House, an avowal of the language he had used in his place as a member; but which was disappointed by the following note from his Lordship to Sir John, in answer :

"Lord Castlereagh deems it his duty to decline giving to Major-General Sir J. Douglas any explanation of proceedings in which he has felt himself obliged to concur when acting by his Majesty's command in discharge of his functions as a Privy Counsellor, or in the explanation of them to the House of Commons."

A similar note was sent by Sir John to Mr Whitbread, with the same view; to which he returned the following answer :

"Major-General Sir John Douglas's question to Mr Whitbread is founded upon words attributed to him to have been spoken in his place in Parliament; Mr Whitbread is therefore under the necessity of declining all answer to that question."

In consequence of the publication of the evidence of Lady Douglas, Mr Whitbread gave notice of his intention to move for an address to the Prince Regent, praying him to order the prosecution of Lady Douglas for perjury; but when the question came to be discussed on the 17th instant, being informed that no such action would lie, for an oath taken before Privy Counsellors, he substituted a motion for the prosecution of the printers of two London Newspapers,

who

to the Princess. This motion, however, was negatived without a division; there appearing a general disposition in the House if possible to let the affair drop altogether. The discussion on this occasion tended (if further confirmation had been necessary) to establish and confirm the complete innocence of the Princess of Wales.

The London papers contain the following account of an affecting interview which accidentally took place between her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales and her daughter the Princess Charlotte, on the 8th instant: "As the Princess of Wales was returning in her carriage down Constitution Hill, her Royal Highness observed the Princess Charlotte in her carriage, passing along Piccadilly towards Hyde Park. The Princess of Wales immediately ordered her coachman to turn about, and, the horses proceeding nearly at a gallop, overtook the Princess Charlotte's carriage in Hyde Park, near the bridge. Their Beyal Highnesses threw themselves through the windows of their carriages, affectionately embraced, and continued in earnest conversation for about ten minutes. A considerable number of spectators were very soon attracted to the spot, and several ladies who were present shed tears at the affecting nature of the interview. When their Royal Highnesses had separated, the Princess Charlotte was observed, on continuing her ride, to be in high spirits, and apparently highly gratified at the opportunity she had enjoyed of an affectionate interchange of endearment with her Royal Mother."

LIBEL ON THE PRINCE REGENT.

On the 2d February the Messrs Hunts, of the Examiner, London Sunday Newspaper, were brought up for judgment in the Court of King's Bench, for a libel on the Prince Regent, when they were 'ordered to be confined two years; one in Cold-bathfields prison, and one in Horsemonger-lane prison, and fined £.500 each, and to find securities for their good behaviour.

LIBEL ON THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND. On the 5th inst. the trial of Mr White, jun. editor of the Independent Whig, for a libel on the Duke of Cumberland, charging him to be the murderer of Selis, and otherwise reflecting on his Royal Highness's character, came on to be heard at the Guildhall, city of London, before Lord Ellenborough. Considerable interest was excited, and at an

much crowded. After the case had been gone through, Lord Ellenborough very ably summed up the evidence, and the Jury found the defendant guilty. The trial lasted five hours. It is not yet known when Mr White will be brought up for judgment.

IRELAND.

The action brought by the Irish Catholic delegates against the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland (Downes) for arresting them, is at length decided in his Lordship's favour, af ter various arguments in the Court of Common Pleas, Dublin; Lord Norbury, Mr Justice Mayne, and Mr Justice Fox, being of opinion that his Lordship's conduct was legal; Mr Justice Fletcher was for the demurrer of the plainti's. Judgment was pronounced for the Chief Justice on the 3d February.

In the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, on Saturday, Feb. 6, came on the trial at lar, on an information ec officio by the Attorney General, of Hugh Fitzpatrick, printer, for a libel, contained in a work, intituled, "A Statement of the Penal Laws which aggrieve the Catholics of Ireland." The matter charged as a libel state, that "at the Summer Assizes of Kilkenny, one Barry, a respectable Catholic farmer, had been convicted and executed, after his innocence was clearly established.-The Jury, after a trial of several hours, brought in a verdict ofGuilty.

At a meeting of the Catholic Board in Dublin, on the 13th instant, the following resolution, was carried unanimously:

Resolved-" That we heartily congratu late our fellow-subjects of every religious persuasion in the British empire, on the late glorious and successful struggle of the Friends of Religious Freedom in the British House of Commons, from which we may confidently date the commencement of that harmony which is likely hereafter to subsist among men of all denominations and religions in this country, which must obliterate the remembrance of past injuries, and make Ireland as united as she will be unconquer able; and that, confiding in the wisdom and justice of the Imperial Parliament, that nothing will be required of us inconsistent with the integrity of our religion, no disposition towards conciliation shall be wanting, on our part to aid the benevolent views of the Le gislature."

SCOT

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.

ON the 15th of Feb. last, came on before

this Court the trial of Thomas Sommerville, innkeeper in Carstairs, accused of perjury. The crime charged against him was for emitting, upon oath, a declaration which was false, whereby he procured payment of a bill, that neither belonged to himself, nor had he given value for it. In this case, the prosecution was carried on at the instance of two private individuals, Ballantine and Twaddle, the acceptors of the bill alluded to. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-Sommerville had obtained possession of this bill, dated Millhill, March 31, 1806, bearing to be drawn by John Wilson, and accepted by the complainers, for £.43, this was indorsed by Wilson, and afterwards by Inglis, to Thomas Sommerville, his father-in-law; which bill, they, the complainers, never received any value for: in 1807, they were charged to make payment at the instance of Sommerville, to whom it was alleged the bill was indorsed by Inglis, when he was insolvent, and in jail; the process was carried on before the Court here, and in course of the proceedings, reference was made to the oath of Sommerville, as to the onerosity of the bill.

A number of witnesses were examined for the prosecution, and several also in exculpation. Mr Jeffrey afterwards was heard for the prosecutors, and Mr John Clark in reply. After which, the Lord Justice Clerk summed up the whole, and the jury appointed to give in their verdict next day at one o'clock, which they did accordingly, finding, by a plurality of voices, the libel proven, with the exception of the prisoner's knowledge of the state of Inglis's affairs previous to his incarceration. The Lord Justice Clerk then addressed the Jury, and stated, that seeing the verdict had been brought in by a majority of voices, he considered it right, for the satisfaction of that plurality, to inform them, that the verdict met with the unanimous approbation of the Court.

Their Lordships now severally delivered their sentiments on the nature of the crime, and the evidence adduced; and, after giving their opinions at full length, the Lord Justice Clerk pronounced the sentence of the March 1813.

Court, that the prisoner shall be taken to the jail of this city, there to remain for six kalendar months, afterwards to stand one hour on the pillory at Lanark, on the first market day after the expiry of the imprisonment, to pay £150 to the prosecutors whom he had defrauded, all the costs of suit, and to remain in jail until these are discharged.

After Sommerville was removed, Janet Jamieson, accused of uttering forged notes, was brought to the bar. She presented-a petition, craving for banishment, and the Public Prosecutor having given his consent, the Court pronounced sentence, banishing her from Scotland for life, under the usual certification.

PRESBYTERY OF EDINBURGH.

Agreeable to the resolution of a former meeting, the presbytery met on Monday the 1st of March, to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament against the claims of the Roman Catholics. Some papers, in the name of certain Catholics, craving to be heard by counsel, before the Presbytery should come to any decision on the subject, were communicated by the moderator, but the request was unanimously refused.

The business of the meeting was opened by Dr Ritchie, who urged the danger to be apprehended to our civil and ecclesiastical establishments, from the peculiar nature of the tenets of the Church of Rome, if the statutes of which the Catholics complain were repealed, and moved to petition Parliament against acceding to their claims. This.motion was seconded by Dr Inglis, and opposed by Dr Fleming, on the ground that it was entirely a political question, and with which, as ministers of the gospel of Christ, they had no connexion-he, therefore, moved that it should be dismissed.

Dr Brown, Professor Ritchie, Dr Inglis, and Mr Dickson, sen. spoke in favour of Mr Ritchie's motion, while that of Dr Fleming was supported by Mr Dickson, jun. Mr Andrew Thomson, Sir Henry Moncrieff, and Dr Campbell. After a debate, which lasted from 12 o'clock till seven in the evening, and in the course of which

much

Against this decision Sir Henry Moncrieff dissented and protested, for reasons which he immediately gave in, and to these Mr Andrew Thomson adhered. Dr Fleming dissented for reasons which were also given in, and to his reasons of dissent Mr Dickson, jun. adhered; and Dr Campbell dissented for reasons to be lodged in due time. A committee was then named to get the petition extended and transmitted to Parliament.

It must be observed, that the speakers on both sides, though they agreed in the motions which they severally supported, expressed various sentiments as to the grounds on which the Catholic claims should be conIceded on the one hand, or refused on the other; and as to the extent in which these claims might or might not be safely granted.

ALARMING FIRE.

Sunday night, the 14th of February, about eight o'clock, a destructive fire broke out in the fourth storey of Bishop's Land, north side of the High Street. On the first alarm, the engines belonging to the city, and the different Insurance Offices were brought to the place, and also two from Leith, and one from Leith Fort. They were kept playing most of the night, and succeeded at last in keeping the fire confined to the tenement where it began. Water was rather scarce at first, but afterwards there was a plentiful supply for all the engines, fourteen in number. The three upper storeys and garret are totally destroyed, the second and shop flat greatly injured, and the upper part of the tenement to the east was at one time on fire but it was soon got under. About two o'clock next morn

corporal in the 6th dragoons, whose exer tions throughout the night were conspicuous, ventured at the imminent hazard of his life to accomplish this purpose.

The Lord Provost and Magistrates, the constables ordinary and extraordinary, the police, firemen, &c. were early on the spot. The Coinmander in Chief, Colonel Gifford, Colonel Sir George Leith, and several other officers belonging to his Staff, were also present during the greater part of the night. General Lay, Royal Artillery, Captain Buc kle of the Adamant, Captain Manby, Captain Evatt, Colonel Graham, from the Castle, the Magistrates of Canongate, and Leith, and a detachment of the 1st regiment of Royal Edinburgh volunteers, together with many gentleman of the city, were also present, and distinguished themselves by their example and exertions. Detachments

from the 27th foot, and from the Ayrshire and Perthshire militia, and likewise a detachment from Leith Fort, were in attendance, and were of great service in preserv ing order and keeping the street clear. The engines were wrought with great effect, and the spectators of all descriptions were busily employed in bringing continual supplies of water. A poor woman, who had been delivered of a child the night before, had to be carried out.

The family residing in the house where the fire was first discovered, were at church when it broke out; so that it is not known how it originated.

The principal part of the building is covered in the Edinburgh Friendly Insurance, and most of the stock and furniture was also insured.

The property of Messrs Tennant and Company, wine-merchants, and Robert Scott, tailor, whose premises were destroyed, are fully insured with Messrs Thompsons and Company, Royal Exchange Assu

rance.

RENFREWSHIRE MILITIA.

dentially without injuring any person. The fire was not got under till after four o'clock on Monday morning, and about seven o'clock it again broke out, but it was soon after finally got the better of. Some of the firemen were hurt, but it is hoped not dangerously.

When the fire had nearly conquered the two upper storeys, Captain Manby, who, among many other distinguished characters, was present, strongly recommended the breaking of the windows below, in order to prevent its descending; but this advice, unfortunately was not attended to, although a

tiser.-Feb. 26.

PERTH. It had been confidently anticipated, from the clear, decided, and anxious opinion, pronounced by the great law officers of the Crown, on the claims of the militia substitutes, that the country should hear no more of the subject. It was therefore with surprise and pain that the inhabitants of this city witnessed, on Friday last, a sudden burst of mutiny among the Renfrewshire militia-a regiment which had hitherto united the utmost propriety of conduct with a degree of discipline excelled by few regiments