state of things, the nation seemed, with one voice, to ask, why no change was, to be made in the pecuniary circumstances and the exterior appearance of the Princess of Wales, the wife of the Regent and the mohether of the sole heiress to the throne. The question was actually asked in Parliament; it was put to the then minister, Perceval, what was the cause of this marked slight to Her Royal Highness; and, finally, it was put distinctly to him, who had been intimately acquainted with all the facts, whether there existed any ground of charge against the Princess: to which he as distinctly answered, that there existed none.

conduct of the Princess of Wales. This was called, at that time, the "Delicate "Investigation," by which name it has ever since gone. The Princess was observed, at that time, and for sometime afterwards, not to go to court, as she had done before, which circumstance had the effect of producing an opinion to her disadvantage. Some months after this, however, she re-appeared at court; but, in the meanwhile, the ministry had changed, and the late Perceval and his set had become ministers. It was understood, also, that an account of the Delicate Investigation had been formed into A BOOK, had been printed, had been upon the eve of publication, had, all at once, just when the change of ministry took place, been stopped; and that, certain copies, which had escaped by chance, had been bought up by the supposed authors at an enormous price. What I state here as matter of mere report, will, probably, hereafter appear in a more authoritative shape; but, in the meanwhile, there having been such reports current is fact sufficient for our purpose; namely, to explain certain parts of the Princess's Letter, which, without such explanation, must appear unintelligible to you.

Now, my friend, you will observe, that this declaration was made by a man, who had been a minister at the time when the Princess was restored to court, and who, of course, had advised that measure. He, as a Privy Counsellor, was sworn to give the King the best advice in his power. Besides, he, at the time of his making the Declaration, was the prime minister, chosen by the Prince himself to fill that office. He was the man who directed the councils of the Prince, now become Regent with kingly powers. Therefore, his Declaration of the innocence of the Princess had deservedBearing in mind what has been said, you ly very great weight with the public, who will now have the goodness to follow me to then, more than before, seemed astonished, the period of the establishment of the Re- that, while the Prince was raised in splengency in the person of His Royal Highness dor as well as power, to the state of a king, the Prince of Wales. Hitherto the Princess the Princess, his wife, should experience had lived chiefly at a small mansion at no change whatever in her circumstances, Blackheath, upon, apparently, a very limit- but appeared to be doomed to pass the ed pecuniary allowance, which, by almost whole of her life in obscurity. The puball the public prints, we were told she par- lic did not seem to wish to pry into any faticipated with the poor and distressed per-mily secrets. They generously wished not sons of her neighbourhood. I do not know that this was the case. I cannot know it, and, therefore, I vouch not for the fact; but, I do know well that the fact was asserted in print, and that the assertion so often met the public eye, accompanied with a detail of the instances of her benevolence, that it was next to impossible that it should not have obtained general belief.

to revive past disputes. They were willing and anxious to forget all the reports which had been circulated. They wished to have no cause to suspect any thing improper in either husband or wife; and, therefore, anxiously wished to see the Princess placed in a situation suited to the rank of her royal spouse, by which means all doubts, the effect of all malicious insinuations and rumours, would, at once, have been removed.

When, therefore, the Regency came to be settled, and the Prince came to the possession and disposal of a kingly income, it In the articles, which I wrote at the was natural for the nation to expect to see time, recommending a suitable establishthe Princess placed upon a corresponding ment for Her Royal Highness, I was, I sinfooting; and this became the more a sub-cerely believe, no more than the echo of ject of observation, because, just at the same time, large sums of money were granted by the Parliament for the purpose of enabling the Prince's maiden sisters to keep their state in separate mansions, and to maintain separate establishments. In this

ninety-nine hundredths of the people of England. No such establishment did, however, take place; and Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, the wife of the Regent; she who, if the King die before the Regent, will be crowned Queen with

her husband; she who is the mother of our cess's Letter, that (at what time is not future sovereign, was left in her former mentioned), the Royal Mother's visits to comparative obscurity, even at a time when her daughter, or, rather, the interviews establishments were granted to the sisters between them, were limited, at first, to of the Prince; and this happened, too, you ONCE A WEEK; that they were afterwill bear in mind, while the prime minister, wards reduced to interviews of ONCE A the Prince's chief adviser, explicitly declar- FORTNIGHT; and that she now learns, ed, in open parliament, that there was no that, even this most rigorous interdiction ground of charge existing against Her Royal" is to be STILL MORE RIGIDLY EN"FORCED." Highness.

It will be said, perhaps, and it has been said, that, in not granting an establishment of a higher order to the Princess; in not enabling her to hold a court of her own, and giving her the necessary accompaniments of splendor; it has been said, that, in not doing this no law was violated. Very true; but, if this were a sufficient answer to us, to what a state might she not be reduced before the proper season of complaint would arrive? We are not talking about law: the question before us is a question of feeling; a question of moral propriety. For my part, I appear not as an accuser of any one in authority: my object is simply this: to inquire, whether the foul, the base, the malignant publications against the Princess of Wales do, or do not, admit of a shadow of justification. Justification, indeed, they cannot admit of; but, whether they admit of the shadow of an apology; and the answer to this question will naturally grow out of a consideration of the several parts of Her Royal Highness's Let

ter.

In entering upon this consideration, we must bear in mind, that the Letter treats of two subjects; namely, the treatment of the Princess herself, and the education of her daughter. These we must keep separate in our mind, or else we shall fall into a confusion which will prevent a clear view of the case.

The Princess complains, as to herself, that she is debarred from that intercourse with her child which it is natural for a mother to expect, and which mothers do usually enjoy. And, here, before I proceed further, you ought · to be informed, that, when the Princess went to live at Black heath, in 1796, she took her daughter with her; that her daughter remained with her till she attained the age of eight years; that she was then placed under the care of proper persons to superintend her education, and that her place of residence was chiefly at Windsor, the place of residence of the Queen, her mother going frequently to see her, and she going frequently to see her mother. It now appears, from the Prin

This, her Royal Highness says, has compelled her reluctantly to break a silence which has long been most painful to her. Her complaint is this:-That, at the time of settling the Regency, she was unwilling to obtrude herself upon the Prince with her private complaints; that she waited pa tiently, expecting redress from the Prince's own gracious condescension; but, that, having waited so long without receiving that redress, and now perceiving that the measures with regard to her interviews with her daughter, are calculated to admit of but one construction, and that construction falal to her own reputation, she has now resolved to give utterance to her feelings.

Whether the reasoning of the Princess be correct; whether the separation of her. from her daughter; whether the limiting of their interviews to once a week, and then further limiting them to once a fort night; whether, in short, the prohibition against a mother (any mother), seeing and speaking to her daughter at her pleasure; whether such a prohibition can admit of any construction not fatal to the mother's repulation, I will, my sensible and honest friend, leave you to judge. And, with regard to the Princess's maternal feelings, you will, I am sure, want nothing to guide you in your judgment further than the supposition, for a moment, of a similar prohibition laid upon yourself.

Upon this part of the subject I would not add a single word, did I not think it my duty to expose some of the unfeeling ruffians of the London press, who have, upon this occasion, assailed the Princess of Wales. In answer to her complaint of not being permitted to have a free intercourse with her daughter, the COURIER newspaper, of the 13th of February, makes the follow ing remarks:

-:

"The charge of separating a child from its mother, naturally engages the affec"tions of every parent; and her Royal

Highness knowing this, does not forget "to make a strong appeal to the passione" of Englishwomen. But to what extent is this charge founded? A visit once a

K 2

"week is changed to a visit once a fort-
"night. And how many mothers are
there who do not see their daughters of
"seventeen so often as once a fortnight?
"They must be callous-hearted jades who
"trust their girls to boarding-school; they
must be unfeeling monsters who allow
"their daughters, when of an age fit for
"marriage, to make visits to their friends
and relations with the view of forming
❝ connexions; and if this daughter were
to live under the protection of her grand-
"mother, her uncles, and aunts, nay of
her very father, the conduct must be
«barbarous indeed! But how inhumannuation had ever preferred against her.
"must it be to allow girls of seventeen or
eighteen to marry, thus placing it in the
"power of a hard-hearted husband to take
"a daughter to his own home, at a dis-
tance, perhaps, where the mother may
"not see her for months together, a priva-
❝tion, which, if any thing desirable is
to be had through the daughter's influ-
❝ence, is certain of raising loud lamenta
* tions."

It is a horrible case to suppose. One can
hardly entertain the idea without being
ashamed of one's human character. Still
the case is possible; but then the guilt, the
profligacy, of the mother, must be so cer-
tainly established, so far removed from all
doubt, as to leave no possibility of dispute
on the question. I do not take upon me to
determine in what degree the maxims, as
to this matter, may be different, when the
parties belong to royal families;,but we
have, in the Letter of the Princess, a most
clear and positive assertion of her inno~
cence, as to all the charges that base insi-

This, my good friend, is by far the most material part of her Letter, and it will, unless I am greatly deceived, be consider ed as more than a sufficient answer to the calumnies, which the panders of all the low, filthy passions have hatched and circulated against her. In the former part of her letter, she says, that she has been afflicted without any fault of her own, and that his Royal Highness knows it; but, she afterwards comes to this distinct and unequivocal assertion:

I am afraid, my friend, that the reading of this paragraph will give you a very bad "He who dares advise your Royal Highopinion of the people of England; for, you will naturally ask, "What a people "ness to overlook the evidence of my innomust that be, amongst whom any writer" cence, and disregard the sentence of would dare to give vent to such miserable" complete acquittal which it produced,❝ trash as this, and to call it an answer to "or is wicked and false enough still to "the Princess's complaint?" It is not of "whisper suspicions in your ear,-betrays an unavoidable separation that the Princess" his duty to you, Sir, to your Daughter, complains; it is of a separation easily and to your People, if he counsels you avoided; a separation, not arising from "to permit a day to pass, without a furdistance, or any other insurmountable ob- "ther investigation of my conduct. I stacle, but simply from the prohibition of" know that no such calumniator will ven"ture to recommend a measure, which a third party. It is not, as in the cases here cited, a separation growing out of a "must speedily end in his utter confusion. calculation of advantages and disadvantages," Then let me implore you to reflect on the but a separation without any compensation" situation in which I am placed; without to the party complaining. To her a sheer," the shadow of a charge against me, withunmixed evil, and that, too, of a most" out even an accuser-after an Inquiry grievous kind. It is not a separation, as" that led to my ample vindication-yet in the case of school, or marriage, of a tem- "treated as if I were still more culpable porary nature; but is of that sort, which," than the perjuries of my suborned traduif rightly represented in the letter, pro- "cers represented me, and held up to the mises no termination. It is, in one word, "world as a Mother who may not enjoy the forcible separation of an only child from the society of her only Child." her mother. No powers of description can heighten the fact, the bare naming of which is sufficient for any one who has the common feelings of humanity about him.

Yet, my friend, I do not say that there may not be causes, even in common life, to justify such a separation. We may suppose a case of a mother so profligate, as to render it prudent in the father to prevent her from having, access to her daughter.

Ditcounts. 4

There is no such thing as misconception here. This passage of the Letter will not be misunderstood. It asserts the perfect innocence of the writer; it challenges fresh inquiry even after acquittal; and it pronounces beforehand the confusion of those, who shall excite a doubt of her innocence; besides asserting, that her traducers were suborned and perjured. It is not in the power of words to express any thing in a

HALF

DIEC

REEPE

manner more clear and decided. The Princess says, that there is evidence of her innocence. In my opinion, there needs little more evidence, than this passage of her admirable letter. If we admit, that it is yet possible, that she may be guilty, we must admit, that a stronger proof of innocence was never exhibited to the world. In the first place, the writing of the Letter is her own act. She might hope, by an application to the Prince, to obtain leave to see her daughter more frequently; but, if she had thought it possible that any proofs of her guilt existed, I ask you, my friend, whether it is likely that she would have ventured to make any application at all to him, and especially an application founded entirely on an assertion of her perfect innocence, and accompanied, moreover, with the charge of perjury and subornation against those who had traduced her; against those who had laid the crimes to her charge? If, then, it be to set at defiance the suggestions of reason and of nature to suppose that such an application could proceed from a mind conscious of guilt, what an outrage is it to offer to the common sense of mankind to suppose, that the writer, if conscious of guilt, would have made the application public to the whole world; and thus proclaim, not only her own innocence, but the guilt, the black, the foul, the nefarious guilt of her enemies!

Had the Princess been possessed of greater power, or influence, now than she was in 1806 and 1807. Had she had a powerful party now on her side, then one might have supposed it possible for her to have a reliance different from that which innocence inspires. But, it is notorious, that she has no power and no influences that she has no party at her back, nor any political support from any quarter; and yet, she voluntarily comes forward and challenges fresh inquiry, accompanied with accusations of the most serious kind against her former accusers.

Unless, therefore, we can suppose it possible for a man in his senses, who has committed a murder, and who has luckily obtained an acquittal, to come voluntarily forward and petition the court for a new trial, all the evidences of his guilt being still at hand; unless we can suppose this possible, it appears to me, that we must pronounce it impossible that the Princess of Wales should have been guilty of any of the acts of either guilt or shame which have been laid to her charge, or insinuated against her.

So far, however, are the ruffians of the London press, who have attacked her Royal Highness upon this occasion, from reasoning in this way, that they hold it forth as proof of her guilt that she lives in a state of separation from her husband; or, at least, they tell her, that whether innocent, or not, she, if not living with her husband, must expect to meet with nearly all the consequences of guilt. 66 Rash, mis

"husband, still less if she publicly accuses " and traduces him. She may excite sym"pathy and compassion; she may gratify

I can conceive it possible, that a person, accused of a crime and conscious of guilt, may put on a bold front, may affect to laugh at his accusers and their accusation. Indeed, this we see daily done by criminals" taken, unfortunate woman!" (say they of every degree. But, mark the distinction in the COURIER of the 18th of February) in the cases. This is the conduct of per- "In this country no wife can command the sons accused of crimes; and not of persons "respectful attentions of society, due to her coming forward with demands for redress." station, if she lives separately from her If the Princess had been accused afresh at this time; if some proceeding had been going on against her; then, indeed, I should have allowed, that little weight ought to revenge; she may be injured and innohave been given to these bold assertions of "cent in the highest degree; but still the innocence. But, her case was precisely the "countenance of her husband is the unalopposite of this. No one was moving ac- "terable channel through which the attencusations against her; her conduct was not a "tions of the world can permanently flow subject of discussion any where; she was upon her. She may have friends to console the beginner of a new agitation of the mat- "and caress her, every one may acknowter; she must have known that her former" ledge the injustice of the treatment she accusers were still alive, and, without" meets, and pity her condition; but so doubt, still as much her enemies as ever; severe are the rules of society, and for and, she could not possibly see, in any of the best purposes, that she is coldly rethe political changes that had taken place,"ceived, and as conveniently avoided as any thing to operate in her favour, but, on" may be, until at last she becomes dishe contrary, many things to operate against" gusted, with public company, and finds er, in a revision of the investigation. "her only comfort in retirement. Impeach

ment by the husband entails three-fourths "of the external consequences of guilt in this world, though no internal disappro"bation may follow."

we to look for any accusation preferred by the Prince against the Princess? I have never seen any such accusation, and I do not believe that any such accusation exists even to this day. The Princess asserts, in her Letter, that there is no accuser of her. I implicitly believe what she says. It is not possible to believe, that she would, in so solemn a manner, have made this assertion, if it had not been true. And, if what she here asserts be true, what does the man deserve, what punishment does not that man merit, who has thrown out these insinuations!

This article in the COURIER, as well as the one cited before, was signed K. B.: who the real author was I know not; but, sure I am, that his heart is the seat of the most odious tyranny; a tyranny so base and cowardly that it is impossible to express one's detestation of it in terms sufficiently strong. He confines his maxims to this country, which, if he spoke truth as to the maxims themselves, would be some comfort to the rest of the world; for, certainly, any thing But, though the Prince has never imso dishonourable to the understandings and peached, or accused, the Princess, this Mr. hearts of a people was never before promul- K. B. has done it. It is done in a very gated. Somebody, I forget who, has call-low way, to be sure; but it is done, and ed England a heaven for women and a hell a very curious accusation it is. Having for horses; but, if what this calumniator spoken of the refusal of the mother to see of her Royal Highness asserts were true, her daughter, he proceeds thus :—“ This the saying might be reversed, or, at least," may be hard; but the same policy which we may safely say, that the lot of our four-"takes the child from the mother, gave to legged fellow-creatures would be by far the "the husband the wife. These things are best of the two. But, his assertions are as not regulated by common rules, and should false as the intention of them is foul. In "not be judged by common feelings. If this country, as in all others, except, per"the mother is to be pilied for seeing her haps, in the states of Africa, an innocent "daughter but once in the fortnight, how woman, injured by her husband, is always," much more should the father be pitied amongst those who are acquainted with the" who was FORCED to marry a Lady facts, not only an object of compassion but of the attentions of the world; and what is more, we are just enough, in general, to Cascribe to the husband his full share of any indiscretions, into which the temptations, almost inseparable from the nature of her situation, may lead her. So far from acting upon the doctrine of this writer, from whom, I dare say, all the properties of manhood have long ago departed; so far It is not easy to discover why the " same from acting upon what he calls our "severe policy" that leads to state marriages should rules of society," we make large allow-produce a prohibition against the mother ances for the conduct of wives notoriously seeing the daughter more than once in fourill-treated by their husbands, and do not teen days. But, laying this aside as unexpect that a woman is to shut herself up worthy of further notice, we are here, for in a hermitage for life, because," though the first time, introduced to the hardship, "innocent in the highest degrec," an ef-imposed upon the Prince, in forcing him fete or capricious brute of a husband, having, perhaps, first pocketed her fortune, may have driven her from his house.

This may serve as a justification of our manners and rules against the doctrine of K. B. in its general application; and, in applying it to the particular case before us, let me ask this gentleman (for, I dare say, he calls himself one) where we are to look for" impeachment by the husband." I do not mean, nor does he mean impeachment in the technical sense of the word; but, I quean, accusation; and, where, I say, are

"whom he never had seen, and of WHOSE "TEMPER he had no opportunity to "judge." This last insinuation is quite worthy of the source whence it proceeds; quite worthy of the source whence came the doctrine, that the reputation of the wife is to be blasted merely by the fact of her having been driven from the husband's house.

to marry; and, we are told, that, so hard was his case, that he is more to be pitied on account of it than is the mother on account of her being deprived of the sight of her daugh ter.-This language is somewhat differens from that which was contained in the Addresses of 1795, on the occasion of the marriage, and in the Answers to those Addresses, wherein the Prince expressed his happiness at the event. It is rather hare, seeing all that passed then, for the Princes to be told, in the Loudon prints, that tle Prince was forced to marry her, and that