as a man. He had in idea heirs to the throne; the perpetuating of the line of his ancestors. Say that these were his views, but do not say that he was forced to marry, and do not tell us that he is to be pitied on account of his marriage; for we know, that, if he had chosen it, he might have remained single all his life-time.

66

he

he ought to be pitied on that account. But, besides the baseness, besides the cowardly insolence of the statement, it is false. If true, it makes nothing against the Princess, for, it is clear, that if there was force on the one side, there was force on the other. But, as far as relates to the Prince, it is not true; it is a direct falsehood, and the use of it can only tend to But, if the Prince is to be pitied, what shew what miserable shifts the calumniators shall we say of the Princess? If he is to of the Princess are compelled to resort to. be pitied because the nature of his situation The Prince was not, because he could not in life led to his marriage with a person be, forced to marry the Princess. The whom he had never seen, and with whose King has the power of refusing his consent" TEMPER" (dirty insinuation !) to any of the members of the Royal Fa- could have had no opportunity of bemily to marry; he has a negative upon their coming acquainted; if he is to be pitied choice in this respect; but, he has no on this account; if this plea is to be put power, nor have the Parliament and the forward in his favour (for as a plea this King together any power, to force any writer means it); if, I say, the Prince is member of the Royal Family to marry, to become an object of our compassion on under any circumstances whatever they this score; if he is to be held forth to the may be. It is, therefore, false; flatly people in this light, what shall we not say false, and it is an impudent falsehood, to for the Princess upon the same score? Did say, that the Prince was forced to marry not she marry a man whom she had never her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. seen? Did not she marry a man of whose This writer, when, for the basest pur- TEMPER" she could have no know poses, he was hatching this tale about force ledge from experience or observation? put upon the Prince as to his marriage, for- Were they not upon an equal footing in got, perhaps, what an imputation he was, this respect? Yes; and, besides, though indirectly, casting upon the King; "our he was not, and could not be, forced to good old King," whose example, as to edu- marry her, I do not know that it was not cation, though not as to other things, he is. in the power of her father to force her to so eager to cite. If the Prince was forced marry him. I do not know that it was in to marry, it was his father forced him, for, his power; nor do I know that he would as to the laws of the land they know nothing have exerted such power if he had had it. of any such power. If any body forced the But, it is possible that it might have been Prince to marry, it was his father, who so; and, I know, that, in the case of the made the treaty of marriage, and who ne- Prince, the thing is impossible. I know, ver consulted the Parliament about the that there existed no power to force him, matter, till he had so done. This was all and that to marry was an act of his own free in the usual way; the father's consent was will. His motives I am not presumptuous necessary, and it was given. It is likely, enough to attempt to point out; but, I intoo, that the match was advised by him; sist, that the act itself was the effect of his it is likely that it was very much desired own choice. The act of the Princess might, by him; but, I again say, that he did not, for aught I know, have been the same; but, because he could not, force the Prince to what I say is this: that if he be an object of marry. If he married a person whom he pity because he married a lady whom he had had never seen, he knew what he was never seen, she must, upon the same about. He was no chicken. He was 32 ground, be an object of pity, and an obyears of age. He had cut his wisdom ject of greater pity, on that score, because teeth long before the day of his marriage. the marriage removed her into a foreign He did what he did with his eyes open. I country and cut her off from all the condo not say that the Princess was, or that nexions of her youth, from all her friendshe could be, the object of his choice as to ships, and from the greater part of those personal affection, because he had never things that make life delightful. seen her; but, this I assert, that it was his choice, that it was his own free choice to marry her. He, doubtless, had higher views than those of vulgar gratification. He viewed the matter as a Prince, and not

Therefore, in whatever degree, the circumstance of marrying an unknown person. is calculated to weigh in favour of the Prince, it must weigh, in the same degree, at least, in favour of the Princess. But, to say the

tigated, the intercourse between the mo"ther and daughter has been allowed to "continue. The assertion therefore that it

66

ruth, it can have no weight, if duly considered, in favour of either, upon the supposition, that the marriage was as much an act of her choice as it was of his. They" is on such grounds the intercourse is reboth knew what they were about. They" fused is obviously a mere pretence. There were willing to make the sacrifice (if they" may be other grounds on which a father did make any) in order to secure great bemay deem it to limit a daughter's proper nefit to themselves and their families; and, "visits to the mother. Supposing the mo in talking about the pity due to the Prince's" ther of a violent temper, of coarse mansituation, the objects he had in view ought "ners and habits; capricious, boisterous, not to be overlooked. If we were to rea- "restless, ambitious, and vain; less inson in the way that this writer does, who "clined to the society of her own than of would be entitled to so much of our pity as "the other sex, and with them familiar beminers and well-diggers, a tenth-part of "yond the ideas of English decorum; whom get their brains knocked out, or are "though perfectly chaste in person and buried alive? The truth is, however, they" even in thought; supposing such a moare no more objects of pity than labourers "ther associating herself with her hus above ground. They calculate gains and band's enemies, making of them her dangers; and they freely choose to take the "confidants, and entering into the schemes latter for the sake of the former. No man "of the factious for the purpose of thwartcan force another to be a well-digger; nor "ing, exasperaling and traducing him; was the Prince of Wales forced to be a "supposing this mother to live separately husband. "from the husband, and on the worst "terms with him; let all this be supposed,

"in others, or of a temper and inclination "likely to make an undutiful child."

It is easy to see with what view this topic has been brought forward. The" and ample reasons will be found for the writer looks back to the time of the un- "Father's refusal of allowing the child to happy separation. He is, perhaps, of opi- " be educated under such an example with nion, that the world will look back to that "out ascribing that refusal to an opinion epoch too, as being the proper point whence" of the Mother's want of chastity. A woto start in an inquiry into the conduct of" man may be chaste in person, yet of the parties most concerned; and, conscious," manners and habits leading to unchastity apparently, that up to that moment, no one had dared to utter even an insinuation against the conduct of the Princess, he thinks it necessary to lay the ground of a cause of disagreement and separation. Hence his real motive for this pity of the Prince on account of his forced marriage; hence his insinuation against the "TEMPER" of the Princess, than which, surely, nothing ever was more insolent or more base; for, the sentence contains a charge against her Royal" Highness as to her temper. It is a new charge; for, until now, the Princess has always been spoken of as a person of the best temper, which, indeed, is pretty well proved to be the case by the attachment of her daughter to her, and by the silence," upon this head, of her bitterest enemies.

Having thus, under the guise of suppos ing a case, given what he evidently wishes to go forth as a description of the character of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, he next, in the usual manner of such calumniators, says, that he does not wish it to be so understood.

"It is not intended to assert or insinuate that this is a picture of the character af "the Princess of WALES. Her friends, personally acquainted with her, repre"sent her as mild and amiable in all respects. The picture is not drawn that it may be taken as a likeness of the Princess, but to show that there are other bad "qualities besides unchasteness which may In another of his articles this same wri- "justify a father in refusing his child's ter has the following passage, which merits "education to a mother; and still more particular attention, and ought to go forth" should that child be the heir presumptive to the world as a specimen of the brutality" to the throne, a personage for whom the by which the Princess has been assailed in British Constitution has specially prothe London news-papers." In her Letter,"vided." This is adding cowardice to ca"her Royal Highness complains, that the lumny. He drew the picture with a ma"limitation of visits to her daughter is an nifest intention of its being applied to her "impeachment of her honour, a revival of Royal Highness, and this latter part of the "the charges made some years ago. But paragraph is merely for the sake of avoid"since these charges were made and inves-ing a prosecution for libel, for which pur

pose, however, it is not sufficient, seeing that the real meaning of the writer can be mistaken by no man.

tions? Is there here any attempt to thwart, exasperate, or traduce her husband? If she has caused her complaint to be made public, from what has that arisen but from the refusal to listen to that complaint? Had her complaint been listened to, had she received redress, had she been permitted to see her child only once a week, we should never have seen the letter, because it is evident, that the letter never would have been written. With what justice, then, can she be charged with entering into the schemes of the factions for the purpose of thwarting, exasperating, and traducing her husband?

The truth is, that being conscious of innocence, her forbearance is something wonderful; and, it is not less true, that any longer forbearance must have made against her in the opinion of the world. That the Prince, now invested with kingly powers, has a right to direct his daughter's education, we know very well; but, this does not mean, that the mother is to be shut out from free access to the child. Her seeing her child could not have interrupted the course of her studies. I never yet heard, that a part of good bringing up consisted in excluding the mother from a sight of the child to be brought up. It is

Now, then, my friend, what a pictare is here given! And, observe, that this picture is intended to be applied to that same lady, who, in 1795, was received in England as an Angel bringing with her blessings, not only for the present generation, but for generations yet to come! Her husband was described as the happiest of mortals in possessing such a treasure; and, in short, there were no expressions of praise that our language affords, which were not employed' in the description of her person, her manners, and her mental endowments. For my part, I can know nothing of the Princess's manners; but, with the two pictures before me, and with a pretty good view of the circumstances under which both were drawn, I can have no hesitation in believing the picture now given to be a most foul and base attempt to disseminate falsehood. I believe the character of the Princess to be strongly marked with frankness and unreserve, but this, so far from a fault, is an amiable characteristic. More mischief is done by hypocrisy, in a day, than by the want of caution in a life-time. However, the cowardly writer (for cow-in vain to attempt to twist this prohibition ardice is the great characteristic of all the Princess's enemies) does not here venture to give countenance to the serious charges said to have been preferred against her Royal Highness. He charges her with caballing with her husband's enemies. Who are they? The persons who espoused her cause in the first instance are now her husband's ministers, chosen by himself. He chose them for his ministers after they had espoused her cause; after they had advised the King to restore her to court; and would he have chosen them, if he himself had not been convinced that she really was innocent of the things laid to her charge?

into a part of a system of education; for, the sole interpretation that it will admit of is that which the Princess has put upon it: namely, that she is unfit to be trusted in the presence of her daughter; and this being so manifestly the case, I put to any man of a just mind, what must have been the conclusion, if the Princess had any longer forborne to complain? I put it to any man, what he would have thought of her, if she had remained silent under such circumstances? Yet is she, by these base pandars of the press, charged with caballing and intriguing with her husband's enemies; she is charged with obtruding herself upon the public. They seem, really, to think her something less than a worm. Something that either has no feeling, or that ought to suppress every feeling the discovering of which is inconvenient to her hus band. This is a state to which no human being ought to be reduced; and, it is a state to which no man, worthy of the name, would wish to reduce any thing bearing the name of woman.

She is charged here with entering into the schemes of the factions, for the purpose of thwarting, exasperating, and traducing her husband. And, where is the proof of this? This charge, like all the others, is false. Se complains to him in private, that she is not permitted to see her only child; she boldly asserts that there is no just cause for this severe affliction on her; and, her complaint not being attended to, she makes her letter public, in order that But, if it be part of a system of educathe world may not suppose, that the prohi- tion to exclude the mother from the child, bition is founded on any misconduct of her's. how comes it, that the Queen was never Is this entering into the schemes of the fac-shut out from her children? And how

comes it, that she is not now shut out from her grand-child? Why is the grand-mother more fit to have the care of the child than the mother herself? The writer, before quoted, whose malignity can be traced to only one source, expresses his fears of the Princess Charlotte being initiated into German manners. "What education," says he, "does the young PRINCESS re"quire? Is it lessons in German morality? "Are we not sufficiently Germanized?_ "Must we Germanize our females in manners as our fops are Germanized in dress? "What should we do; set the example "before the young PRINCESS of a dutiful "wife, or of one who could go repeatedly "to the Opera, where she was applauded in "reproach of her husband, and he was "hissed in her praise: of one who can en"danger the raising of the public indigna"tion against him, on grounds so shallow "as those of the letter in question? Un"fortunately the PRINCE and PRINCESS live separately, on the worst terms. "This state of things can only have arisen "from what the PRINCE thinks sufficient cause, and to give up the government of "his child to a Person whose conduct he "himself impeaches, would be to confess himself conscious of being wrong, of be"ing highly criminal in living separately from the Mother,"

66

the eye of the public, tacitly acknowledge herself in fault? The Prince, behold, is, by this writer, justified in excluding the mother from the daughter, lest by allowing the intercourse, he should seem to confess himself conscious of being wrong in living in a state of separation from his wife. But, the mother, oh she is to hold her tongue, she is even to shun the light, she is to look no one in the face, she is to do nothing to convince the world, that she is not in the wrong; she, though innocent, is to act the part of an acknowledged criminal; and, because she does not do so, she is to be called an undutiful wife! She has now, it seems, "endangered the raising of the public indignation against her husband." And how? Only by publishing her appeal to himself. That is all she has done.. She has complained to him of her treatment; and, if the publishing of this complaint exposes him to the danger here spoken of, she is not to blame; or, if she be, so is every man who makes known to the public any grievance under which he labours. If her complaint, as contained in her letter, be well founded, it will and it ought to produce an effect in the public mind; if it be ill-founded, let it be answered; let it be shown to be ill-founded. She makes certain assertions. She says, that perjured and SUBORNED accusers have Now, if there be danger in German man-been brought against her; she says, that ners, why are so many Germans introduced she has been fully acquitted of all the into our army, and why have they, in Eng-charges preferred by them; she says, that, land, the command even of English troops? But, why was not this perceived when the marriage took place? Did not the Prince and the King know, that the Princess was a German woman? Nay, is not the Queen, the King's wife and the Prince's mother, a German woman? And yet, behold, this man can discover no danger in her manners or precepts. Is the Queen less a German, is she less a foreigner, than the Princess? To what miserable shifts are these assailants of her Royal Highness driven! Nothing more clearly shows the weakness, the miserable weakness, of their cause.

But, the Princess is here called an undutiful wife. And why, because she was, it is here said, applauded at the Opera in reproach of her husband. How was she to blame for that, or for the hisses, which he is here said to have received in her praise? She had not the power to restrain either the applauses or the hisses; and, as to going to the Opera, was she to refrain from doing that because she was separated from her husband, and thus, by shunning

if any one is still wicked enough to whisper suspicions against her, she wishes for a fresh inquiry. And, what answer has been given to this? Base insinuations only, by anonymous writers. This answer will not satisfy the world; this is not the way to answer a serious complaint, signed with the complainant's name.

Much has been said about the Princess having acted under bad advice; and it has been frequently stated, that she would have cause to repent of what has been called her. rashness. The news-papers have been filled with accounts of great councils of state held upon the subject of her letter; and of depositions and examinations, taken before magistrates. But, still, we see no answer to the bold and distinct assertions of her innocence; and, I say again, that those assertions are not to be answered by hints and insinuations of anonymous writers of paragraphs. In my conception of it, there never was a plainer case. The limitation of the Princess's visits to her daughter must rest for defence upon some ground of com.

plaint against herself. This all the world" House, I felt it to be due to the respect will allow. Indeed, this is allowed on all" which I owe to Her Royal Highness as hands. Well, then, she positively asserts, "well as to the House, not to take any step that there is no ground of complaint against herself, and, if any one suspects that there" is, she challenges fresh inquiry into her conduct. This challenge remains hitherto unanswered; and, until some sort of authentic answer be given to it, she may safely rest her case where it is.

on the receipt of it until I had fully ascertained its authenticity. I hope that so far I shall not be considered as having "failed in the discharge of the trust re"posed in me, or as having shown a dispo "sition to interpose unnecessary impedi"ments in the way of any persons who Before I conclude, I cannot refrain from "might wish to lay their cases before this "House. I am now enabled to state to expressing my hope, that the Princess will not resort to lawyers as advisers. Her" the House, that the Letter which I recase is too plain to require, or admit of, "ceived yesterday was authentic; and "with the leave of the House I will read the use of subtlety. I am far from supposing, that the gentlemen of the bar are, "to them a Letter which I have this day in the smallest degree, less honest, and "received from Her Royal Highness, enthey must necessarily be more acute and closing a dated duplicate of Her Royal discriminating, than the mass of men, But" Highness's original communication.-Is with full as much honesty as other men, "it the pleasure of the House that these and with greater faculties of judging rightly" Letters should be read!-(General cries than fall to the lot of men in general, they of Read, read!) are by no means to be preferred where politics, or political power, may intermix themselves with the matters in question. Other men are exposed to but the one old, vulgar species of temptation, the yielding to which becomes visible at once to all eyes; but, the Devil has in this country, at least, such a choice of baits when fishing" for a lawyer; he has them of so many sizes, adapted to such a variety of swallows and of tastes, and has, in every case, such ready means of neatly hiding his hook," that, when he chooses to set in earnest about it, I am much afraid, that very few of these gentlemen escape him.

The SPEAKER then read the Envelope, and the original Letter. They were in

substance as follow:

ENVELOPE.

"Montague House, Blackheath, "March 2, 1813.

"The Princess of Wales, by her own desire, as well as by the advice of her Counsellors, did yesterday transmit to "Mr. Speaker, a Letter which she was anxious should have been read, without delay, to the House of Commons, and "which she requests may be read to the "House this very day; for which purpose "Her Royal Highness encloses a duplicate."

In my next I shall enter into other parts" of the subject, and in the mean while, I remain

Your faithful friend,
WM. COBBETT.

DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL Letter.

Montague House, Blackheath, "March 1, 1813. "The Princess of Wales informs Mr. P.S. Just as I was closing my letter, the - public papers arrived, which contain, in the "Speaker that she has received from Lord report of the parliamentary proceedings of " Viscount Sidmouth a copy of a Report, the 2nd of March, the following important" made in pursuance of the orders of His matter, upon which I shall say a few" Royal Highness the Prince Regent, by "certain Members of His Majesty's Most .words, after I have inserted it. Soon after the SPEAKER had taken the "Honourable Privy Council, to whom it Chair, he rose and addressed the House to" appears, that His Royal Highness had the following effect It is my duty to "been advised to refer certain documents "acquaint the House, that yesterday even- and other evidence respecting the charac "ter and conduct of Her Royal Highness. ❝ing, as I was sitting in this Chair, a "Letter was brought me, which purported to be from Her Royal Highness the" "Princess of Wales. As the Letter was without date and signature, and as it" was given by an unknown person to one of the Messengers at the door of the

"

66

66

-The Report is of such a nature, that Her Royal Highness feels persuaded no person can read it without being sensible of the aspersions which it casts upon "her; and although it is so vague as to render it impossible to discover the tenour

66