AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.
On the 20th of April, Alderman Newnham rose to ask the chancellor of the exchequer whether he intended to bring forward any proposition, for extricating the Prince of Wales from his embarrassing situation; and having received a reply in the negative, he gave notice of his intention to bring the subject before the house on the 4th of May. On a subsequent evening, Pitt requested the alderman to inform the house more particularly of the nature of the motion he intended to make; at the same time holding out a threat, apparently with the object of preventing it being brought forward. Nothing daunted, however, on the 27th of April, Alderman Newnham stated, that the motion he intended to make would be to this effect:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying him to take into consideration the present embarrassed state of the affairs of the Prince of Wales, and to grant him such relief as his royal wisdom should think fit, and that the house would make good the same.” An interesting conversation followed this announcement, in which Alderman Newnham was entreated to withdraw his motion, as being pregnant with inconvenience and mischief. Pitt observed, that by his perseverance he should be driven to the disclosure of circumstances which he should have otherwise thought it his duty to conceal; and Mr. Rolle, member for Devonshire, asserted that the investigation of the question involved matter by which the constitution both in church and state might be essentially affected. Fox, Sheridan, and other members in the confidence of the prince, declared that he wished for a full and impartial investigation of his conduct, and Mr. Rolle was called upon to explain the extraordinary language he had used. Rolle was silent on this occasion; and on the 30th of the month, when Alderman Newnham again brought the subject before the house, by stating that his royal highness wished him to persevere in his design, Fox called the attention of the members to his mysterious declaration. Looking Rolle full in the face, he said that he wished he had spoken more explicitly; but he supposed he alluded to a certain low and malicious rumour, a supposed marriage; a thing which not only had not happened, but which was even impossible. Rolle acknowledged that his allusions had reference to this rumour, and Fox then contradicted the report in the most unqualified language: the fact, he said, not only never could have happened legally, but never did happen in any way whatsoever, and had, from the beginning, been a base and malicious falsehood. Fox said, that he had direct authority from his royal highness for his declaration; and then another of the prince’s friends called upon Rolle to declare to the house that he was satisfied with these explanations. This he refused to do, and Sheridan rose and observed, that such a line of conduct was neither candid nor manly, and that the house ought to come to a resolution, that it was seditious and disloyal to propagate reports injurious to the character of the Prince of Wales. At this point Pitt interposed, by declaring that Sheridan’s, and not Rolle’s conduct was unparliamentary: adding, that those who exhibited such warmth ought rather to acknowledge their obligation to a gentleman who suggested a question which produced such an explicit declaration on such an interesting subject; a declaration which must give entire satisfaction not only to him, but to the whole house. Alderman Newnham still persisted in his intention to bring forward his motion, but Pitt seems to have considered that after such a declaration he had no further pretext for refusing the relief which the prince required. The result was, that an interview took place at Carlton-house between the premier and the prince, and the motion was withdrawn. Subsequently a message was delivered from the king to the house on the subject, which was followed by an addition to his annual income of £10,000 out of the civil list; an issue of £161,000 from the same source, for the payment of his debts; and £20,000 more on account of the works at Carlton-house. In making the declaration, however, which led to this result, Fox appears to have gone beyond the strict limits of his commission. Mrs. Fitzherbert continued to live with the prince, and she alleged, and her friends also alleged for her, that he knew that there had been a private marriage that was good and binding, in foro conscientiæ, whatever it might be by act of parliament. The lady would never speak to Fox again, and it is said, that she was only reconciled to the prince by his assurance that something should be done or said in parliament to save her reputation, by those very friends who had emphatically denied the marriage. Something was said by Sheridan, but he did not venture to unsay what had been said, or to affirm more than that another person who had been alluded to was without reproach, and was entitled to the truest and most general respect. With this Mrs. Fitzherbert seems to have been satisfied; and the society in which she moved, which was composed of persons that had great influence and almost absolute dominion over the world of fashion, seems to have considered her character and reputation as spotless as they were before. But thus much is certain, that, if the prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert were married, it was not legally. It is said that a ceremony was performed more Catholico in the town-house of her uncle, Lord Sefton; but if this report is true, such a marriage was expressly declared to be null and void by the law of the country. The terms of the Royal Marriage Act, moreover, “is explicit against such a marriage, and it is a matter of wonder how Mrs. Fitzherbert, who was not an inexperienced boarding-school girl, but a woman of experience, having been twice married before ever she met the prince, could have been led into the belief that her union with the prince was legal. Neither a Catholic priest, nor a Protestant clergyman, nor the functionary at Gretna Green, could make such a union binding, for the laws of the country could not be thus set aside. Conscience may have been satisfied, but after all, the marriage—if marriage there was—was both irregular and illegal.