_Charing Cross, April 19, 1832._
The very morning this letter was published, we called on Mr. Place, who
repeated the substance of it to us, adding that Sir Charles Wetherell
had sent a person to him for his affidavit, which he REFUSED in a letter
to the learned knight, condemning the whole proceeding of criminal
information. Mr. Place read a copy of this letter to us, and promised he
would publish it if ever a _sufficient reason_ presented itself. It was
an admirable composition, and did credit to the liberality of the
writer's opinions.
As to the affidavits of the Duke of Cumberland and Neale, they contain
nothing but what other people in similar situations would say,--_they
deny all knowledge of Sellis' murder, and of unnatural conduct_. Whoever
thought of requiring them to _criminate themselves_? But affidavits,
from interested persons are not worth much. The notorious Bishop of
Clogher, for instance, exculpated himself in a criminal information by
an affidavit, and the result was, the man who published the _truth_ of
that _wretch_ groaned in a jail!!! Sir Charles, therefore, had no
occasion to boast of the Duke of Cumberland's _charitable_ mode of
proceeding against us by _criminal information_, instead of commencing
an _ex-officio_ action; for in neither of these modes of procedure does
the _truth_ or _falsehood_ of the charge form an object of
consideration. We are, therefore, _prevented_ by the Duke of Cumberland
and his adherents from proving the _truth_ of the statements we made in
"The Authentic Records" _in a court of law_; but where resides the
_power_ that shall rob us of the glorious LIBERTY OF THE PRESS? We are
the strenuous advocates of the _right to promulgate_ TRUTH,--of the
right to scrutinize public actions and public men,--of the right to
expose vice, and castigate mischievous follies, even though they may be
found in a _palace_! The free exercise of this invaluable privilege
should always be conceded to the HISTORIAN, or where will posterity look
for _impartial information_? In this character only did we publish what
we believed, and _still believe_, to be the _truth_ in our former work
of "The Authentic Records," and which we have considerably enlarged upon
in our present undertaking, merely for the purpose of fulfilling our
sacred duty, and not with the idea of slandering any man! If the Duke of
Cumberland had proved our statement _false_, we would have freely
acknowledged our error, as every man ought to do who seeks fairly and
honorably to sustain a noble function in the purity of its existence. We
know there are writers who seek, not to enlighten, but to debase; not to
find amusement, but to administer poison; not to impart information,
either political, moral, or literary, but to indulge in obscenity,--to
rake up forgotten falsehoods, and disseminate imputed calumnies! To
such, the sanctuary of private life is no longer inviolable; the
feelings of the domestic circle are no longer sacred; retirement affords
no protection, and virtue interposes no defence, to their sordid
inroads. Upon offences like these, _we_ would invoke the fiercest
penalties of the law. The interests of society demand it, and the rights
of individuals claim it! But our strictures and exposures are of a
widely-different character,--not if they were _false_,--but because
their TRUTH must be apparent to every unbiassed individual in this
mighty empire! With this conviction alone we stated them, and even Sir
Charles Wetherell himself said we "seemed to have no other motive in
stating them only for the purpose of stating them!" We are not disposed
to comment upon this part of the learned counsel's speech, as it proves
all we want to prove regarding our motives.
* * * * *
This year was not less remarkable for the king's family sorrows than for
public grievances. His majesty was nearly childish and blind. The queen
dreaded the ascendency of the popular voice in favour of the Princess of
Wales, and the Princess Charlotte exhibited a resolute spirit, which it
was feared would end to the unhappiness of the puissant queen. The
Princess Amelia suffered under indescribable sorrows, both bodily and
mental, which ultimately terminated her earthly career on the 2nd of
November.
Many representations were made to the public of the numerous visits
made to the Princess Amelia by the king, and their affecting final
interview. We believe we may, with truth, say those representations were
erroneous; for the king's malady was of too serious a nature to admit of
any new excitement, and the peculiar regard he entertained for this
daughter would not allow his hearing of her sufferings in any shape,
without feeling the most acute pain.
The Prince of Wales also still pursued the most dissipated rounds of
pleasure, making his very name hateful to every virtuous ear. The house
of royalty, indeed, seemed divided against itself.