"week is changed to a visit once a fortnight. 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 61 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 inhuman *must it be to allow girls of seventeen or "eighteen to marry, thus placing it in the 66 power of a hard-hearted husband to take "à daughter to his own home, at a distance, perhaps, where the mother may *not see her for months together, a privation, which, if any thing desirable is to be had through the daughter's influence, is certain of raising loud lamentations.' 66 I am afraid, my friend, that the reading of this paragraph will give you a very bad opinion of the people of England; for, you will naturally ask, "What a people 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 certainly 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 innecence, as to all the charges that base insinuation had ever preferred against her. This, my good friend, is by far the most material part of her Letter, and it will, unless I am greatly deceived, be considered 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 : "He who dares advise your Royal High "ness to overlook the evidence of my inno must 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 vena third party. It is not, as in the cases "ture to recommend a measure, which 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" to the party complaining. To her a sheer, unmixed evil, and that, too, of a most grievous kind. It is not a separation, as in the case of school, or marriage, of a temporary nature; but is of that sort, which," if rightly represented in the letter, promises no termination. It is, in one word, the forcible separation of an only child from" 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. situation in which I am placed; without the shadow of a charge against me, with46 out even an accuser-after an Inquiry "that led to my ample vindication-yet "treated as if I were still more culpable than the perjuries of my suborned tradu"cers represented me, and held up to the "world as a Mother who may not enjoy the society of her only Child.” 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 J own act. Had the Princess been possessed of 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 influence; 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. manner more clear and decided. The Princess says, that there is evidence of her inno-greater power, or influence, now than she cence. 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 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! 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, I can conceive it possible, that a person, at least, they tell her, that whether innoaccused of a crime and conscious of guilt, cent, or not, she, if not living with her may put on a bold front, may affect to laugh husband, must expect to meet with nearly at his accusers and their accusation. In all the consequences of guilt. "Rash, mis deed, 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 "husband, still less if she publicly accuses this time; if some proceeding had been go- " and traduces him. She may excite syming on against her; then, indeed, I should" pathy and compassion; she may gratify 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. "terable channel through which the allen"tions of the world can permanently flow upon her. She may have friends to console "and caress her, every one may acknowledge the injustice of the treatment she meets, and pity her condition; but so severe are the rules of society, and for the best purposes, that she is coldly re"ceived, and as conveniently avoided as is. No one was moving accusations against her; her conduct was not a subject of discussion any where; she was the beginner of a new agitation of the mat*ter; she must have known that her former," accusers were still alive, and, without" doubt, still as much her enemies as ever; and, she could not possibly see, in any of the political changes that had taken place, any thing to operate in her favour, but, on the contrary, many things to operate against her, in a revision of the investigation, 6.6 may be, until at last she becomes dis"gusted with public company, and finds "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 im so 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 pitied 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," amongst those who are acquainted with the 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"judge." This last insinuation is quite ascribe 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 froin 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 ill-treated by their husbands, and do not expect that a woman is to shut herself up in a hermitage for life, because, "though innocent in the highest degrec," an effete or capricious brute of a husband, bav ing, perhaps, first pocketed her fortune, may have driven her from his house. much more should the father be pitied "who was FORCED to marry a Lady "whom he never had seen, and of WHOSE "TEMPER he had no opportunity to 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. seeing the daughter more than once in fourteen days. But, laying this aside as unworthy of further notice, we are here, for the first time, introduced to the hardship, imposed upon the Prince, in forcing him 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 daughter.-This language is somewhat different from that which was contained in the Addresses of 1795, on the occasion of the marriage, and in the Answers to those Ad dresses, wherein the Prince expressed his happiness at the event. It is rather hard, seeing all that passed then, for the Princess to be told, in the Loudon prints, that the Prince was forced to marry her, and that he ought to be pitied on that account. as a man. He had in idea heirs to the But, if the Prince is to be pitied, what shall we say of the Princess? If he is to be pitied because the nature of his situation in life led to his marriage with a person whom he had never seen, and with whose "TEMPER" (dirty insinuation!) he could have had no opportunity of becoming acquainted; if he is to be pitied on this account; if this plea is to be put forward in his favour (for as a plea this writer means it); if, I say, the Prince is to become an object of our compassion on this score; if he is to be held forth to the people in this light, what shall we not say for the Princess upon the same score? Did not she marry a man whom she had never seen? Did not she marry a man of whose "TEMPER" she could have no knowledge from experience or observation? Were they not upon an equal footing in this respect? Yes; and, besides, though he was not, and could not be, forced to marry her, I do not know that it was not in the power of her father to force her to marry him. I do not know that it was în his power; nor do I know that he would have exerted such power if he had had it. But, it is possible that it might have been so; and, I know, that, in the case of the Prince, the thing is impossible. I know, that there existed no power to force him, and that to marry was an act of his own free will. His motives I am not presumptuous enough to attempt to point out; but, I insist, that the act itself was the effect of his own choice. The act of the Princess might, for aught I know, have been the saine; but, what I say is this: that if he be an object of pity because he married a lady whom he had never seen, she must, upon the same ground, be an object of pity, and an object of greater pity, on that score, because the marriage removed her into a foreign country and cut her off from all the connexions of her youth, from all her friendships, and from the greater part of those things that make life delightful. 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 66 truth, it can have no weight, if duly con- "tigated, the intercourse between the mosidered, in favour of either, upon the sup- "ther and daughter has been allowed to position, that the marriage was as much an "continue. The assertion therefore that it 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 be- " muy deem it proper to limit a daughter's 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 their brains knocked out, or are get 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 husabove 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; noring, exasperating and traducing him; was the Prince of Wales forced to be a husband. 8 66 supposing this mother to live separately "from the husband, and on the worst It is easy to see with what view this "terms with him; let all this be supposed, 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 withnion, 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 "in others, or of a temper and inclination one had dared to utter even an insinuation "likely to make an undutiful child." 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 supposing 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 of "the Princess of WALES. Her friends, personally acquainted with her, represent 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 thelumny. He drew the picture with a ma"limitation of visits to her daughter is an "impeachment of her honour, a revival of "the charges made some years ago. But "since these charges were made and inves nifest intention of its being applied to her Royal Highness, and this latter part of the paragraph is merely for the sake of avoiding a prosecution for libel, for which pur |