Imágenes de páginas

viewed the evidence against the Princess as being, from beginning to end, a tissue of perjury and subornation. How great, then, must her danger have been! And, shall it be thought degrading to the Citizens of London to express their pleasure at her escape, and also to express their abhorrence of the perjured and suborned accusers?

presumptuous enough to attempt to meddle between man and wife; and the anecdote of Alderman Curtis, though full of characteristic wit, was not at all applicable to the point. The Address was not stupid enough to take off, or to hint at, a restoration to conjugal felicity. The Address was no humdrum thing from Doctors' Commons, talk

-The object of an Address is to expressing about marriage vows and excommunication. It was called an attempt to force the parties to a reconciliation. It does not appear to have contained even a hint of the sort; and all the speeches in opposition to it seem to have been made, to have been got up ready prepared, upon the presumption it would contain some complaint about there being two beds for one married couple. Upon any other supposition the speeches are incomprehensible; for not one word does the Address appear to have contained upon the subject of reconciliation.

the sentiments of those who pass it. There is no immediate practical effect contemplated; and to ask what good such an Address can do, is to challenge the propriety of all the Addresses that ever were presented in the world. Plain, sound sense said, that this was an occasion for the people to express their sentiments; a love of truth, a love of justice and fair-play; compassion for a suffering and friendless woman; the sentiments natural to husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers; all the good, all the kind, all the generous feelings of the heart, rose in an unanimous clamour against the objections of Mr. Sturch, who, though Mr. Waithman called him his excellent friend, and spoke of his great exertions in the cause of liberty in Westminster, will, I imagine, not fail to profit from the lesson he that day received. Indeed, I cannot help thinking, that he must have been, in some sort, pressed into the service. He has long been an active man in Westminster, and, being so, he seems to have thought, that there was no necessity for his interference in the City of London, where he did not reside; and, it is, on his own account, greatly to be lamented, that this particular occasion should have been selected for a departure from his usual course.- -We now come to the speech of MR. WAITHMAN, who evidently started under the pressure of the discouragement given by the fate of the speech of Mr. STURCH. He confessed, that he was one of those, who had in vain endeavoured to dissuade Mr. Wood from his purpose; and, it will not fail to strike the reader as a little singular, that, in this respect, Mr. Waithman should have earnestly laboured to the same end as Mr. Alderman Alkins; and, if Mr. Waithman profits from his ill-success upon this occasion, he will in the end be a gainer; because, it will teach him to avoid such unnatural co-operations in future.——Mr. WAITHMAN observed, that this was not the way to accelerale redress and promote reconciliation; and, he afterwards said, that the object

Mr. Wood very judiciously confined himself to applause of the conduct of the Princess and abhorrence of her perjured and suborned traducers, leaving the question of reconciliation, and all other matters between the illustrious parties themselves, totally untouched upon. reason, then, was it that Mr. Waithman With what chose to represent the object to be reconciliation and harmony ?had been the real object, in what way does -However, if this this gentleman think it could have been more likely to be attained? The Address sealed the innocence of the Princess; it declared the conviction of the Citizens of London, that she was innocent, and that she was worthy of their admiration and loyal affection. Was this likely to "widen

the breach," Mr. Waithman? Do you think, that the Prince would be less disposed to a reconciliation, because the Citizens of London had shown, that they honoured and admired the Princess? If you do, you must suppose His Royal Highness to have a most singular taste.Waithman went further, and said, that this -But, Mr. was not the way to accelerate redress. By redress he, of course, meant a removal of the obstructions to the visits between the Princess and her Daughter, together, perhaps, with some steps relative to an establishment. And why, pray, why, should not this Address tend towards the producing of the desired effect? Supposing such an effect to have been its ultimate aim, why should it not tend towards the produc

[ocr errors]

was reconciliation and harmony.- -Beg-ing of it? The Address appears to conging his pardon, the Address professed to tain not a syllable calculated to offend either have no such object. The Address was not the Prince or his Ministers. It appears to

contain not a hint calculated to sting the | he reproved the Livery for being wanting

in the same way; and, I cannot help think-
ing, that his observation, that "he did not
"desire the Livery to submit to his opi-
"nions if they thought their own beller,”
would have been full as well omitted; for,
it appears to me, that the bare idea of a
possibility of their submitting to his opi-
nions upon any other ground, or from any
other consideration, than that of a convic-
tion of the correctness of those opinions,
must appear extremely degrading to the
body whom he was addressing. -But,
as to the opinion itself, of which we have
last spoken; namely, that the Address
was unnecessary, because the whole nation
entertained the opinions expressed in the
Address. As to this opinion, I say, how
will it square with the conduct of Mr.
Waithman upon former occasions, and how
will it square with reason and common
sense? Let Mr. Waithman look back to
the Common Halls where he has been the
proposer of Addresses and Petitions, and
he will find, not only, that the Halls were
assembled because the general feeling of
the nation went with the sentiments in-
tended to be embodied into the Addresses
or Petitions, but that, on almost every oc-
casion, those who have supported those
Addresses and Petitions have boasted that
they had the nation with them, an asser-
tion which has not unfrequently found its
way into the Addresses and Petitions them-
selves. But, now, behold, an Address
is unnecessary because it only expresses the
sentiments of the whole nation!
Common Sense ever before suggest such an
objection to a Common Hall, or to any
body else possessed of the faculty of rea-
soning? When, at the time of the Gin-
tra Convention, and at that of the Walche-
ren Expedition, Mr. Waithman came for-
ward with Addresses to the King, what
would he have said to any one, who should
have objected to the addresses as unneces-
sary, because the whole nation entertained
the same sentiments as those contained in
the Addresses? In short, adopt this new
maxim of Mr. Waithman, and you have
left no rational mode of seeking redress but
that of open resistance by force of arms; for
when the general sentiment of the nation is
not for a demand of redress, it is clear,
that it will not be granted to the applica
tions of a few; and, if it be, then, im-
proper to demand redress when all the na-
tion are of a mind, it follows, of course,
that the only way left of obtaining redress
is, that of physical force.--Into what


pride or to wound any feeling of either.
It simply pronounces an opinion of the
wickedness of the conspirators against the
Princess, and of her own innocence and
worthiness; and, I should be glad to know
from any one holding the opinions of Mr.
Waithman, what he could imagine more
likely to lead to final redress.—If Mr.
Waithman means to say, that to ask for
redress by means of Addresses is not the
way to obtain it; if he means this as a ge-
neral proposition, I should be glad to know
what may have been his views in the nume-
rous addresses which he has brought for-
ward in Common Halls? Did he not ex-
pect thereby to accelerate redress? Yes,
surely, or else we must attribute to him
motives, which were certainly foreign from
his heart. And, if he, by means of Ad-
dresses, has so often entertained the hope
of accelerating redress, upon what ground
can he now say, that Addresses are not cal-
culated to answer that purpose?- Mr.
WAITHMAN reproved the Livery for not
paying respect to Mr. STURCH'S remarks,
which, he said, flowed from a well-inform-
ed understanding. I will not quarrel with
the grammar
of the phrase, which may
have suffered under the hands of the Re-
porter; but, before Mr. Waithman reprov-
ed the Livery thus, and applauded Mr.
Sturch's sentiments, he should have consi-
dered, whether he himself was prepared to
back those sentiments with his own; or, at
least, he should have made up his mind not to
oppose the Address upon grounds precisely
the contrary of the grounds of Mr. Sturch.
This latter gentleman said, the ques-
tion was premature, that it was not ripe
(which is the same thing); he wanted more
evidence; he wished to wait for additional
light; and, upon these grounds he opposed
the Address. But, Mr. Waithman, who
had reproved the Livery for not paying
respect to these sentiments of his excellent
friend, so far from thinking the question
unripe; so far from wanting more evidence
and more light, thought the Address un-
necessary, because "the whole nation was
"united in one sentiment that Her Royal
"Highness was as innocent as her accusers
"were guilly" so that he opposed the
Address because the question was over-ripe,
and because there was no more light to be
thrown upon the subject.Considering,
therefore, how widely he differed from his
excellent friend; considering how little
respect he himself paid to that friend's sen-
timents, he should have been cautious how

[ocr errors]


inconsistencies, into what absurdities, men plunge themselves, when once they are, from whatever cause, induced to quit the straight path!Mr. Waithman, as if not content to differ completely with Mr. Sturch as to the grounds of opposing the Address, and as if resolved to deprive his friends of all possible means of defending his consistency upon this memorable occasion, seems to have gone out of his way as it were for the deliberate purpose of differing from himself. -What the Devil (for I must ascribe it to some supernatural agency); what the Devil, I say, had he to do with the proposing of "a Resolution "declaratory of the complete acquittal of "the Princess of Wales," after he himself had objected to the Address; after he himself had declared the Address unnecessary, because "the whole nation was united in one sentiment that Her Royal Highness "was as innocent as her accusers were "guilty!" Could such a proposition

I would fain have forborne to express these sentiments; but they are extorted from me by the love of that truth, which was never yet, under any circumstances, sacrificed or disguised to ultimate advantage.WM. CURTIS and SIR JAMES SHAW and MR. ATKINS all allowed, and indeed, most explicitly declared, that the Princess was innocent; and had been most cruelly and foully treated; but, they said, that this being notorious to the whole nation, any proceeding on the part of the Citizens of London was unnecessary; and they, therefore, moved to dissolve the Hall. conduct, though I disagree with them in -Their opinion, was perfectly consistent. They thought, that it was a matter with which the Citizens of London ought not to med


-But, Mr. Waithman, while he thought the Address unnecessary, because the whole nation were agreed as to the innocence of the Princess, yet proposed a resolution of his own as being necessary to declare that very innocence!This was so palpably inconsistent, that it was impossible it should escape the observation of any one

have originated in any thing short of the dle. Therefore, said, let us separale. suggestion of some malicious demon, bent upon the destruction of this gentleman's well-earned fame ?—The Address was, it appears, much too delicate as well as too dignified to entertain even the idea that a doubt of her Royal Highness's innocence had ever existed in the minds of those who were addressing her. It sets out (if the above substance of it be correct), with as-present; there was such a manifest desire suring Her Royal Highness that the senti- to take the thing out of the hands of Mr. ments of the City of London towards her Wood; there was, in short, so evident an have never undergone any change; it then unfairness, to say nothing of the folly, in reprobates those who have conspired against the attempt, that the Livery appear to her; it next expresses admiration of her have resented it in a very decided manner; forbearance and magnanimity; and it con- whereupon, as if to make bad worse, Mr. cludes with expressing a hope that the na- Waithman is reported to have said, that tion will be happy under the young Prin-" he was sorry, that his well-weighed opicess, who will have had the advantage of "nions were in opposition to the general such a mother's example.--This Mr." sentiment so hastily adopted." And how Waithman would, it seems, have turned did Mr. Waithman happen to learn, that into a verdict of acquittal; or, rather, into this general sentiment had been hastily a sort of vulgar congratulation upon an adopted? The persons present had all escape out of a court of justice.— Ac- had the same time and opportunity that he quittal! The word itself, as applied to had had of forming their opinions upon the Princess, is an insult. When and every thing relative to the case of her Roywhere and by whom and for what was she al Highness the Princess of Wales; and, ever TRIED? And, if never tried, how as to the simple point, whether his resolu can she be said to have been acquitted? tion was to oust Mr. Wood's Address, there required little more time to decide upon that than is required to decide upon a choice


-It is not, however, with the words that I am displeased so much as with the tendency and manifest spirit of the propo-between ugliness and beauty. Besides, sition, the object of which clearly was to mind the convenient doctrine that this reget rid of the Address proposed by Mr. proof implies. The proposer must, of Wood; or, in other words, and to speak course, generally have weighed his plainly, to defeat Mr. Wood. I remem-sition before-hand; so that, if his propober a little poem, which I have not read sition does not go down, he can always,


since I was about 12 years old, but the two first lines of which have frequently occurred to me through life:

"Envy, eldest born of hell,
"Cease in human breasts to dwell!"

But, in sober sadness, did Mr. Waithman imagine, that the Livery were to wait in the Hall all day in order to show respect to his well-weighed opinions? Or, did he presume that they were to go home and come again after having, out of respect to him, taken time to consider and to weigh his weighty proposition? There is something so absurd in all this, that, really,

with as much propriety and modesty as interpolation of the Courier's reporter; for Mr. Waithman, accuse the assembly of it does hold forth such an aristocratic idea; hastily rejecting what he has well weighed. it is so hostile to the well-known rights of the Livery of London; it has its birth in a sentiment so congenial with the practices of corporation encroachments, borough cor. ruptions, and all the means by which popular representation and the people's rights have been undermined and destroyed; it implies so much contempt for the judgment and virtue of the people, and so much arrogance in one who owes all the little poli

speaker's head was gone at the time when
he uttered it.—I am happy to perceive
that I am drawing fast to a close of Mr.
Waithman's speech; for it gives me sin-
cere pain to be compelled to notice in it
these unaccountable inconsistencies.
hoped, he said, that the Livery would pre-
serve its character for purity and wisdom.


one is almost tempted to believe, that thetical power he has to their voice; and it is, besides, in such direct contradiction to the whole course of the political life of Mr. Waithman, who has called, I believe, more Common Halls than any other man now alive, and who has repeatedly been the cause of putting upon record declara tions of Common Halls, that the Livery ought to be received by the King upon the Throne as well as the Common Council, that I really am filled with astonishment that he should have said any thing liable to such an interpretation; and I must say, that I shall not be able to bring myself to believe it, until I have better authority than that which any news-paper can give.

-These qualities are of a nature widely different, and should not have been thus joined by what grammarians call the copulative conjunction. The Livery may be pure and wise; but, they might be wise and not pure. Purity may exist without wisdom; and wisdom may exist without purity; at least, this may be the case in the usual sense of the words, and the sense in which they are here employed; because, if wisdom is to embrace the quality of righteousness, then Mr. Waithman has made use of it superfluously.Taking it for granted, then, that he meant purity as the contrary of corruption, and wisdom as the contrary of folly, I would, if I had been present, certainly have taken the liberty to ask him how he had been able to discover any thing of the nature of corruption to be practised or accomplished through the means of the Address proposed by Mr. Wood; and how it was likely that the Livery should lose its character for purity by agreeing to that Address. And, I




would also have taken the liberty to ask Letter of Lord Moira to the head Freehim, whether folly appeared more conspicuous in that Address than in a proposition to declare, in the shape of a resolution, the innocence of the Princess, when, by the rejection of the Address, such a declaration had been previously declared to be wholly unnecessary.I am truly grieved to observe by the report, in the Courier, that Mr. Waithman said, that he thought the Address, if proposed at all, ought to have been proposed in the Common Council and not to the Livery at large. say, I am truly grieved to observe this, and I would now fain hope, that it is an

March 23, 1813. My dear Sir,-The difficulty of taking down, with accuracy, in the House of Lords, what is said by any individual, as the reporters are not allowed to make notes, has occasioned the account of what passed there yesterday to be incorrect in many of I am thence anxious to detail the papers. to you the substance of the explanation given by me, that you may communicate


-I have now gone through all the material parts of this debate. To be obliged to make remarks such as I have made upon the speeches of Messrs. STURCH and WAITHMAN is by no means pleasant; but, what I have said the case imperiously called for, and I am satisfied that I have done no more than what strict duty demanded at my hands.

WM. COBBETT. Bolley, 7th April, 1813.


it to our Brethren of the Lodge, whom I had requested to suspend their opinions on the subject till I might feel at liberty to enter upon it. I thought it expedient to separate the matter into distinct heads, that each of the misrepresentations I had to combat may be answered the more precisely.. I never happened to be at Belvidere, or in its vicinity, in the whole course of my life. It follows that I could not have sought there any information respecting the Princess's conduct. But the negative does not only apply to that place. In no one instance have I ever spontaneously endeavoured to obtain particulars respecting Her Royal Highness's behaviour; and I should certainly have declined such a function had the Prince requested it of me, which I am persuaded never entered the most distantly into his contemplation. It is not in his nature to prompt so vile a practice. When any matter has been referred to me, or any communication has been made to me in an authentic and formal manner, my oath, as one of the Prince's Council, bound me to such examination of the point as I might think the honour and interest of His Royal Highness required.

all in the neighbourhood, and that it was entirely unnecessary for his Royal Highness to notice it in any shape. The servants had been desired by me never to talk upon the subject; Lord Eardley was informed that his conception of what had been stated by the servants was found to be inaccurate; no mention was ever made by any one, not even to the Lords who conducted the inquiry, three years afterwards, of the particulars related by the servants, and the circumstance never would have been known at all had not the legal advisers of the Princess, for the sake of putting a false colour on that Investigation, indiscreetly brought it forward. The death of Kenny, in the interval, tempted them to risk this procedure. Jonathan Partridge having been known at the time when he was questioned to be devoted to the Princess, from his own declaration to the steward, no one can doubt but that Her Royal Highness would the next day be informed by him of his having been examined. The measure was most offensive, if not justified, by some uncommon peculiarity of circumstance. Yet absolute silence is preserved upon it for so long a period by Her Royal Highness's advisers; a forbearance only to be solved by their being too cautious to touch upon the point while Kenney was alive.—-3. The interviews with Dr. Mills and Mr. Edmeades did not take place till between three and four years after the examination of Lord Eardley's servants, and had no reference to it.-Fanny Lloyd, a maid servant in the Princess's family, had, in an examination to which I was not privy, asserted Dr. Mills to have mentioned to her that the Princess was pregnant; a deposition which obviously made it necessary that Dr. Mills should be subjected to examination. This happened to be discussed before me; and it was my sugges tion that it would be more delicate to let me re-request the attendance of Dr. Mills at my house, and to have him meet the magis trate there, than that publicity and observation should be entailed by his being summoned to the Office in Marlborough-street. Dr. Mills came early, and then it was immediately discovered that it was his part

2. Two of Lord Eardley's servants were examined by me in London, in a spirit very different from what was slanderously imputed by the Princess's legal advisers.Lord Eardley had given to the Prince an account, absolutely uninvited, and no less unwelcome, of meetings between the Princess and Captain Manby at Belvidere, which his Lordship had represented (from the report of his servants) as having caused great scandal in the neighbourhood; his Lordship had asked an audience of the Prince, who had no suspicion of his object, for the purpose of stating the fact, and exonerating himself from any supposition of connivance. When the Prince did me the honour of relating to me this presentation of Lord Eardley's, expressing great uneasiness that the asserted notoriety of the interviews at Belvidere, and the comments of the neighbours, should force him to take any public steps, I suggested the possibility that there might be misapprehension of the circumstances; and I eu-ner, Mr. Edmeades, who had bled Fanny treated that, before any other procedure Lloyd, though the latter (knowing the Prin should be determined upon, I might send cess's apothecary to be Dr. Mills, and imafor the steward (Kenny) and the porter gining it was that apothecary who had bled (Jonathan Partridge) to examine them. her) had confounded the names. Dr. Mills This was permitted. I sent for the servants was therefore dismissed, without being exand questioned them. My report to the amined by the Magistrate; and he was begPrince was, that the matter had occasioned ged to send Mr. Edmeades on another mort very little observation in the house, none at ing. Mr. Edmeades came accordingly, and

« AnteriorContinuar »