[Price 1s.

VOL. XXIII. No. 18.] LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1813.

641]

[642

"scruple to misrepresent the history, SUMMARY OF POLITICS. "though so recent in the memory of their MR. ALDERMAN WOOD and the CELE-"hearers. Thus Mr. Alderman Wood, in BRATED COMMISSION.I dare say that "addressing the Borough Meeting, said Mr. Wood, when he brought forward the" that important documents had been withAddress in the Common Hall, was not "held from the knowledge of His Majesty weak enough to imagine, that he should "in 1806, for he was sure, that if the affiescape the shafts of party malice. He," davits of Mr. Edmeades and Mr. Milis who has had some experience in such mat- "had been submitted to him, he would ters, must have laid his account with re- "not have issued the Warrant to the Four ceiving a due portion of the venom of the Commissioners for the Inquiry. Now hireling prints on both sides.His conevery reader of a newspaper knows, that duct was well worthy of their resentment," when the warrant was issued in May, and, accordingly, they have both attacked" 1806, those affidavits were not in existhim with great fury. The attacks of the "ence; they were produced by the ministerial prints I will not particularly no- "Princess in her Defence. So much for tice; but, there is one article in the Whig the accuracy of the patriotic Alderman! organ, the Morning Chronicle, that I can66 "But the tribunal," it seems, "was not let pass, it being at once so artful and ““unconstitutional." Indeed! Does not so malignant. The faction, from whom it" this intelligent Magistrate know that it is proceeds, is become so very low in the "an essential part of the duty of the Privy public estimation; it is fallen so far beneath" Council to institute an inquiry into every the serious notice of the ministry, that it" charge of high treason that shall come is now become what the Jews and Genoese" before them, and that in right of their are in Gibraltar, who, by their malice, by" office they are qualified Magistrates for the injuries which they slily do to the" that purpose? That they are bound to Christians, seek a compensation for the in- " examine on oath, and that, like the Grand sults which they want the spirit openly to "Jury, they may either send the parties to resent. Such is the state of that tower- "trial, or declare that there is no ground ing faction formerly called the Talents, and "for trial?-The tribunal, therefore, was of which faction the Morning Chronicle is clearly constitutional, since the main the mouth-piece. This circumstance" charge amounted to high treason. will, alone, account for the following jew-"" Aye, but the Commissioners went belike article, published in that paper on the ""yond the main charge." They could 26th of April.- -I will insert it entire, so not avoid it. For the purpose of inquirthat the author shall not have to complaining into the main charge there was no neof mutilation. The occasion, to which the cessity for a Special Warrant; it was writer refers, I shall more fully have to no- "their official duty to inquire into it as soon tice by-and-by. At present, we will first" as it came to their knowledge. But the take the article as it lies before us, and then "public know that all the declarations see, in a short commentary, what stuff it is made by Bidgood, Cole, and Fanny made of." The moderate part of the "Lloyd, as well as that of Lady Douglas, public must have read with no little sur- were submitted to His Majesty, and it " prise the language of some of the most "was on account of the minor circum"zealous advocates for the Princess of" stances contained in those declarations "Wales, who, not content with vindicat-" that the King thought fit, as Father of "ing Her Royal Highness from the asper-" the Royal Family, specially to enjoin four "sions thrown out against her since her" of his confidential servants to inquire into "acquittal, go out of their way to abuse "the truth of these allegations, and to rethe first Inquiry itself, by which she was 66 port to him upon the whole. The four "justified. In doing this they do not" Commissioners had, therefore, a Warrant

66

"to authorize them to go into all the par- has produced no proof of it; and, I cannot "ticulars, and they could not avoid the help thinking, that his citing so weak a "painful and delicate duty.In the dis- presumption is calculated to do the characcharge of that duty, we are persuaded ter of their Lordships no good. It seems "that all those who have taken the pains, as if he was hard pushed, which has always "as we have done, to examine their pro- a sorry look for the client in whose favour -Now for the "ceedings with accuracy, must acknow- the advocate is arguing."ledge that they were governed by the charge against Mr. Wood, who is here "most generous candour, and that they ac- called "the patriotic Alderman," and from "quitted themselves with the clearest con- what sort of feeling the reader will easily "science-the proof of which was made judge.The writer of the article says, "manifest by the result-for it turned out that Mr. Wood, at the Borough Meeting, "that they satisfied no one of the parties said, "that important documents had been "that were concerned."- While it is" withheld from His Majesty, in 1806; before me, I cannot help remarking upon " for that he was sure, that, if the affidavits this closing position; namely, that it is" of Messrs. Edmeades and Mills had been manifestly PROVED, that the Four Lords "submitted to him, he would not have is"sued the warrant to the Four Lords for acquitted themselves with the clearest conscience, by this fact: "that they satisfied" the Inquiry."For having said this, Mr. Wood is accused of misrepresentation. -I will not say that the accusation is as false as hell;" but, I do say, that substantially it is false.The fact, the very important fact, to which Mr. Wood referred, was this: The Warrant was issued upon certain written declarations, laid' before the King. Amongst these written declarations was that of Fanny Lloyd. Fanny Lloyd stated, in her declaration, that Dr. Mills had observed to her, that the Princess was with child, in 1802. Dr. Mills was called before Lord Moira, and he declared that what Fanny Lloyd had said was an infamous falsehood; for that he never had said so, nor thought so, and that such an idea had never come into his mind. Dr. Edmeades, his partner, said the same thing. And, observe, these Gentlemen were examined before Fanny Lloyd's declaration was laid before the King, and the declarations of these Gentlemen were NOT laid before the King.If the declarations of these Doctors had been laid before the King, would he have been in haste to issue the warrant? Would he not have seen enough to make him hesitate?

66

no one of the parties that were concern"ed."I wonder where Mr. Perry found the maxim on which this assertion is founded.Now, mind, I do not say, that the Four Lords did not obey the dictates of their conscience in drawing up the Report of the 14th of July, 1806; and, I am aware, that one of them has asserted, that insinuations to the contrary are as "false as Hell;" but, what I say is this: that Mr. Perry's PROOF is not worth much; for, that it is possible for a judge or jury to give satisfaction to none of the parties, and yet to act with great and notorious injustice. What does Mr. Perry think, for instance, of the conduct of the Monkey in the litigated case between the two cats? The judge, in that memorable case, could certainly give satisfaction to neither of the litigants, and yet it will hardly be contended, that, in swallowing the whole of the disputed property, he acquitted himself with the clearest conscience. How often does it happen, that injustice is done to a weak party at the suit of a strong party, and yet to see the latter dissatisfied? I have known a soldier receive a hundred or two of lashes upon the complaint of one who was dissatisfied that he did not get double the number; and yet, it was evident to me, that the man ought not to have been punished at all, and that what was given was given to please the complainant.So far from Mr. Perry's maxim being generally true, it appears to me to be, in cases of accusation for serious offences, generally false.

-And was not Mr. Wood's assertion substantially correct? The affidavits, indeed, of Drs. Edmeades and Mills were not made till after the warrant was issued; but, their declarations of the falsehood of Fanny Lloyd's declaration was made before the warrant was issued; and it was issued without the King being informed of the counter-declarations of the two Doctors. -At any rate, that which he cites as Change, then, the words "documents and PROOF of the clear conscience of the Four" affidavits," in Mr. Wood's speech, into Lords, is no proof at all. Their consci- the word "declarations," and he is correct ences might, for aught I know to the con- to the very letter: as his speech now stands, trary, have been very clear indeed; but he it is perfectly correct as to the spirit and to

The next accusation men, who were duly qualified for the purpose by the well-known laws of the land.

the obvious effect.
against Mr. Wood, is, that he called the
Commission "an unconstitutional tribu-
"nal;" and hereupon the Chronicle, in
calling him an "intelligent magistrate,"
asks him, if he does not know, that it is
"an essential part of the duty of the Privy
"Council to institute an inquiry into every
"charge of High Treason that shall come
"before them; and that, in right of their
"Office, they are qualified magistrates for
"that purpose. The tribunal, therefore,
"was clearly constitutional, since the main
"charge amounted to high treason.".
Reader, what is Mr. Perry at here? He is
no sot, and, therefore, one wonders that he
should, while he was contradicting Mr.
Wood, take such pains to show that Mr.
Wood was right!It really is surprising
to hear any thing so void of sense from such
a quarter.- -Why, yes, Mr. Perry, the
Alderman does know, that it is an essential
part of the duty of the Privy Council to in-
stitute an inquiry into every charge of High
Treason; he does know this, and, there-
fore, he naturally can see no reason why the
Privy Council did not institute such in-
quiry, and why the King was advised to
issue a warrant to four Privy Councillors,
which, as to this case, took from them the
capacity of Privy Councillors, and it is for
you to tell Mr. Wood why this was done.

-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."In"deed!" 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 sto

-Yes, yes, Mr. Perry; Mr. Wood does know, "indeed" he does, that Privy Councillors are, in right of their office, qualified magistrates for that purpose: he does know this, and, therefore, it is that he wonders why a warrant, making the four Lords something other than Privy Councillors, was thought necessary upon this particular occasion; and he regrets it, because, as it appears, if it had not been for this warrant, the parties, who might swear falsely before the four Lords, would have been liableries about Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Canning, to prosecution for perjury; whereas, the effect of the warrant was to deprive the Four Lords, as to this particular case, of that very capacity which would have made it perjury to take a false oath before them.

And now, Mr. Perry, it remains for you, the advocate of the Whig ministry, to show why the warrant was issued; to show why the Privy Council did not perform that which you say was "an essential part of its 66 duty;" to show why (as Privy Councillors are, in right of their office, qualified magistrates for such a purpose) the Privy Council did not act in right of office upon this particular occasion; to show why, in short, any special warrant was issued to

and along with the insinuations relating to Bidgood's basons and towels; it is for you 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

will venture to contradict you. The objects
of your praise, in this case, may or may not
inerit it, in the opinions of different per-
sons; but you can have no merit in utter-
ing that praise; because you know, that,
in print, it will bring you no antagonist.
Assertions, in such cases, have no
You should
weight with people of sense.
have proved, that the Four Lords were go-
verned by the most generous candour"
towards the Princess, a very fair opportu-"
nity for doing which is offered you in an
answer, which yet remains due, to the De-
fence of Her Royal Highness, contained in
her Letters of the 2d of Oct. 1806, and"
16th Feb. 1807.And here, by way of
conclusion to this commentary, I think it
perfectly fair to observe, that the Morning
Chronicle, which inserted all the matter
against the Princess of Wales, HAS NE-
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-
nistry; and to that I ascribe its being omit-
ted. 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 parti-
cularly 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

quire to be taken particular notice of with-
out delay.- -In the Common Council the
Address was brought forward by Mr.
WAITHMAN, and seconded by Mr. FA-
VELL. Nothing very particular passed, as
the reader will see, except what arose from
an amendment, proposed by a Mr. JACKS.
After the word "conspiracy," this gen-
tleman proposed to add these words: "en-
"tered into by persons admitted to her
society and confidence, and abusing it to
"the destruction of her life and honour."
-As the reason for this proposition,
Mr. Jacks is reported to have said, that,
while justice was done to the Princess,
" injustice should, he thought, not be
"done to the Prince; and, that there was
"" по evidence that could induce any one to
suppose, that he was at the bottom of
the conspiracy, whatever persons might
"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
said, or who had insinuated, that the
Prince was at the bottom of the conspi-
racy? I have seen no such expression or,
insinuation in any Address, Resolution, or
Nothing, at any rate, has
Paragraph.
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 detest-
able a conspiracy against the life and ho-
nour 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.--

6

The Prin

cess's natural desire to hear her innocence proclaimed by the people has been amply gratified; she has also heard her well

tion; and, if one could suppose her (which I do not) to entertain any vindictive sentiment towards her august spouse, even that feeling might be gratified by the result of this proceeding of the meddling Mr. JACKS. Once more, I say, no man ever had such friends as the Prince of Wales.

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 COURIER 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. 68 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. "cil, for addressing it a second time (following Mr. Waithman), and none have "inserted the principal one, I beg leave "to send you shortly, as nearly as I re-known accusers loaded with just reproba"collect, what I said-I stated, that I 66 never would submit quietly to have mo❝tives attributed to me which I did not "avow; that my opinion on the utility of "addressing the Princess of Wales was "unchanged, but for the sake of unanimi86 ty I should not oppose the motion; that "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 "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 noable to see any evidence whatever to thing but a desire "to drag the Chief Maimplicate him in the conspiracy; and I"gistrale into the dirt," though that "Chief was, therefore, the more strongly im-"Magistrate's" name was not once menແ pressed with the conviction, that the tioned either in the Addresses themselves, great object of the addresses was to drag or in any of the speeches of those who "the first Magistrale of the country into brought them forward or supported them. "the dirt.'- The words of my amend- Why, then, I do and must say, that, unment were as follow:-After the word der the guise of loyalty, Mr. JACKS has "conspiracy, entered into by persons made a most daring attempt to vilify the "admitted to her society and confidence, character of His Royal Highness the Prince. "by basely abusing it, to the destruction "of Her Royal Highness's life and honour.' 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 over heard some of them say that they would oppose it, "be"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

-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