Images de page
PDF
ePub

to assure his Royal Highness, that whilst | House to have some distinct knowledge of

we most deeply deplore the unhappy continuance of his Majesty's indisposition, we entirely rely upon his Royal Highness's wisdom and princely virtues for the vigorous and beneficent exercise of those unrestricted powers, with which he is now invested; and that his Royal Highness may depend upon our affectionate attachment, and our constant and zealous support in all his measures, for the maintenance of the honour of the nation abroad, and of its happiness and tranquillity at home. Humbly to represent to his Royal Highness, that for the attainment of these objects, it appears to us to be essential, that the administration to which his Royal Highness may be graciously pleased to commit the management of his affairs, should be so composed as to unite, as far as possible, the confidence and good will of all classes of his Majesty's subjects.

"That in the present state of Ireland, it is, in our opinion, impossible that such general confidence and good will should be enjoyed by any administration, the characteristic principle of whose domestic policy, as well as the bond of whose connection in office, is the determination not only not to recommend, but to resist a fair and dispassionate consideration of those civil disabilities under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in that part of the united kingdom still labour, and of which they complain as most grievous and oppressive.

"That we therefore humbly express our anxious hope, that his Royal Highness may yet be enabled to form an administration, which, by conciliating the affections of all descriptions of the community, may most effectually call forth the entire resources of the united kingdom, and may afford to his Royal Highness additional means of conducting to a successful termination a war, in which are involved the safety, honour, and prosperity of this country."

Viscount Grimston said, he had heard the speech and motion of the noble lord with great regret, and he hoped and trusted their lordships would pause before they entertained the question, for, notwithstanding the caution and perfect forbearance exercised by the noble lord, this motion did impute some blame to an illustrious personage at the head of the executive government. There was something peculiar in the whole proceeding. He believed it was the general usage of that

the subject which was introduced before them as the ground of a specific motion, some distinct document on which to discuss it, and, under this impression, he would be of opinion, that their lordships would be justified in giving a decided negative to the motion just submitted to them, if he did not think that it would be more respectful to his Royal Highness and to the noble lord to meet it by the constitution of an amendment. He repeated, that it appeared to him, that some degree of blame was imputed to the Prince Regent for the manner in which he had conducted himself, and the line of conduct which he had adopted

The Earl of Lauderdale rose to order.He had heard the commencement of the noble viscount's speech with great pain, and must interrupt him. It was highly irregular in any noble lord to make any personal allusion to the personage at the head of the executive government of the country. Such a line of argument was perfectly disorderly, and he had even felt great pain in listening to the speech of the noble lord who had spoken first in the debate, although he had not interrupted him, because that noble lord had not mingled the subject with the matter of his speech after the commencement. But here was an allegation, that direct blame was attributed to the head of the government. He had never heard a grosser infringement of order, nor any thing more likely to influence their deliberations.

The Earl of Liverpool spoke to order. His noble friend had not charged any one with imputing blame to the Prince Regent. He had said, that the motion involved it, that it was the natural inference, and he had a right to make the observation to that extent. But what was the motion itself? Was it not founded upon a private letter? Was it not calling upon their lordships to debate upon a private paper?

Earl Grey said, that in the few words which he was anxious to address to the House, upon a question in which he was personally deeply interested

The Earl of Westmoreland asked if the noble earl was speaking to order?

Earl Grey declared that he was speak ing to the question of order. No point could stand upon more clear constitutional ground, than that the name of the sovereign should not be used to influence the debate in that House, but if it was to be alleged on the other hand that the act | of the sovereign could not be questioned in that House, although acting, as must always be presumed, by the advice of responsible advisers, there was an end of all freedom of debate. Had he understood any improper allusion or enquiry to have been made by his noble friend, he should have thought it his duty | to interrupt him; but his noble friend had taken no such course. He had said, that he only looked to the responsible advisers of the crown, and in so doing he had followed the line of his duty. But not so the noble lord who followed him-he saw with pain the course he had taken, and hoped that he would have pursued a more parliamentary line of argument; but not hav- | ing done so, he thought their lordships could not, with propriety, admit such language to be made use of. The question before their lordships was one which was distinctly in the cognizance of parliament, and which had been treated of by parliament in the best of times; and was neither more nor less than an expression of the sentiments of that House upon the inefficiency of the existing administration, to act beneficially for his royal highness the Prince Regent, or for the country; but upon the principles now introduced by the noble viscount, what was done by the sovereign only through the counsel of his responsible advisers, could never be arraigned, nor would the House ever have the power to call ministers to account for their proceedings. The noble earl (Liverpool) had complained that no documents were before the House on which to found a motion; but it was not necessary that there should. He did not understand the nature of such a necessity. The notoriety of the letters, and the general complexion of the administration, formed a sufficient ground for a motion; and he hoped their lordships would proceed uninterruptedly in the discussion, on the sound principles of parliamentary investigation.

Lord Boringdon defied any noble lord in the House to mention a single word which fell from him, that tended in the remotest degree, directly or indirectly, to impute the slightest possible blame to, or to convey the most distant reflection on his royal highness the Prince Regent.

The Lord Chancellor, long as he had sat in that House, never felt more pain than in the course of this discussion; but hoped that, though it was likely he might trouble their lordships again, they would allow

him to implore their attention for a few moments upon the subject of order. When, by the indisposition of the sovereign, the executive authority was suspended, the estates of the realm had invested the Prince Regent with the power to exercise the functions of the state. From that moment, he should have thought, that the name of his Royal Highness would be mentioned in that House with the same respect as that of his royal father. But when on a former evening, he saw a noble lord stand up in his place, with a newspaper in his hand, proceed to ask questions of a mi. nister, about a private letter written by his royal master, he confessed his astonishment at what he conceived to be a most novel and unprecedented proceeding.

The Marquis of Douglas rose to call the noble and learned lord to order. The observations of the noble and learned lord were foreign to the subject, and appeared more like a speech than a decision on a point of order. If the noble and learned lord meant to make a speech on the question, he appealed to their lordships whe ther he was entitled to proceed at present?

The Lord Chancellor resumed, and contended that he was referring to a material question of order, with reference to this debate. He again reprobated the production of a newspaper for the purpose of asking, whether an article in it was a letter from the Prince Regent, and said, that if any confidential servant of his Royal Highness had given an answer to such a question, he would never again have entered the same room with that person for the purposes of confidential advice.

Lord Holland spoke to order, and arraigned the conduct of the noble and learned lord, in thus referring to a circumstance which had taken place a week ago, and which had no connection with the question of order. It was at the same time most unconstitutional to attempt to influence the debate by the use of the name of the Prince Regent.

The Lord Chancellor said he had been misunderstood, and begged to explain his meaning. He did not deny that any peer in that House had a right to make an motion he thought proper, with respect to the conduct of any administration; but what he meant to say was this, that he never would act so unbecoming the person placed on that woolsack, as to permit such language as he sometimes heard for he was bold to assert, in the face of all the noble lords present, that he had never witmentary experience, any thing so monstrous and disorderly as the production of a newspaper in that House. [Here his lordship was interrupted by loud and repeated cries of Order!]

nessed in the course of thirty years parlia- | the arms of the country had been so suc

The Marquis of Lansdowne never heard any thing so disorderly as the language made use of by the noble lord on the woolsack. After the observations of the noble mover, he did not expect such animadversions as had a direct reference to a subject already disposed of. It was the duty of every noble lord to insist on a strict adherence to the rules of the House.

The Lord Chancellor repeated, that he should always object to any observation being made in that House having a reference to his royal highness the Prince Regent, which, in the strict course of parliamentary proceeding, ought not to be applied to the King himself, whose repre

cessful, ought still to be required to guide the vessel of the state. He did not conceive those successes to be the effects of chance, but of the energetic policy of ministers. He believed that the country was of the same opinion, and did not wish for any change of administration at present. Such being his sentiments, he conceived that an Amendment should be made in the Address proposed, viz. to leave out all the words after the words, " His Majesty's indisposition," for the purpose of inserting the following:

"That we beg leave to express our most grateful thanks to his royal highness the Prince Regent, for the wisdom and prudence with which he has exercised in his Majesty's name, and on his Majesty's behalf, the royal authority in these realms. To assure his Royal Highness that we have observed during this period with the

sentative he was, and he should certainly | greatest satisfaction the uniform success

always protest against the production of a newspaper, or part of a newspaper pasted on any other paper, into that House in the course of a debate-(Cries of Order, order! Hear, hear!)

Lord Boringdon repeated his statement, that he considered the act of the Prince Regent as the act of a responsible adviser.

Viscount Grimston was anxious to be understood as not at all intending to bring the person of the Prince Regent into the debate. He had merely conceived the spirit of the motion to turn that way, and there was nothing which he would more deprecate. The Address proposed by the noble lord did certainly impute blame to the ministers of the Regent, for which

that has attended his Majesty's arms, in so many and such important operations; and the beneficial consequences that have resulted from the aid and assistance afforded by his Royal Highness to our allies. That we rely with the utmost confidence on his Royal Highness's constant and earnest endeavours to promote by every means in his power the honour and welfare of the country, and to provide effectually for its security and prosperity."

The Earl of Darnley expressed his own and the country's acknowledgments to the noble lord who had brought this import- im ant subject under the attention of the House. In expressing his decided opposition to the amendment suggested, he should not by any means feel himself

there appeared not to be the slightest | shackled by the assertion, that it was dis

foundation. He looked to their proceedings, which must be, after all, the great standard of their qualifications for the situation which they held; and he must acknowledge, that for men so incapable as they were represented, they had done some very peculiar and very fortunate things. His Majesty's arms had been eminently successful under the administration of the present ministers, during the time that the Prince Regent had been at the head of the government. During that time the country had to boast the conquest of the islands of Mauritius and of Java, the total expulsion of Massena and the French from Portugal, the repulse of the enemy at Tarifa, and lastly, the capture of Ciudad Rodrigo, Ministers, under whom

orderly to allude to publications in the news-papers of the day. Any peer of the realm had a distinct and indisputable right, even without the statement of a single ground, but the notoriety of existing facts, to submit any proposition he deemed expedient, more especially at this most critical period, surrounded as the nation was with dangers, some of which were of our own creation. He would not detain the House by impressing upon them a due estimation of the talents and means of the enemy with whom we were contending, or the near prospect of a war with the United States, into which we were about to be plunged by the destructive counsels of the present ministers of the Prince. would not dwell upon the alarming insur

He

[ocr errors]

subject which he thought was generally admitted to be irregular. The letter alluded to was not a document before the House. If it were an act of state, it was not regularly brought before the House so as to entitle any peer to comment upon it. It merely bore upon the face of it the character of a private communication, of which no notice could be taken. If it were necessary to the motion of the noble lord, it ought to have been moved for in the customary mode.

rections in our manufacturing counties, or upon the scarcity of provisions by which the people were threatened. They were matters of minor importance compared with that subject before which all others sunk into insignificance, he meant the Catholic claims. Here we saw onefourth of the population of the empire in a state of neutrality, (to say the least of it) who might be united heart and hand against the common enemy. Under such circumstances, was it to be tolerated, that a noble lord should be interrogated upon what specific foundation he rested a motion which had for its object to interpose a shield between Great Britain and her destruction? The noble viscount (Grimston) had violated the most acknowledged principle of debate, and with no other view than improperly to influence the discussion, had introduced the name of the sovereign (for the Regent to all intents was no less,) telling the House that it was in opposition to his wishes. He did not intend to throw any imputation on the sacred character of the Regent, from whom, for a long series of years, he had received the most gracious attention; but thus much he would assert, that who ever advised his Royal Highness to sign the letter transmitted intermediately to his noble friends, recommended an act, the baneful consequences of which had hitherto been very partially experienced. The noble viscount had entered upon a very wide head of argument, but had anxiously avoided the most dangerous part of his ground, the question of Catholic Emancipation, for he well knew (and indeed who did not know?) that the person now at the head of government had risen, had stood, and had expressed his determination to stand, upon a system of intolerance; and that those who acted with him must be guided by similar views. If then the welfare of the nation depended | by some of his Majesty's ministers, who

upon concession to the Catholics, (which few were bold enough deliberately to deny,) was not this a sufficient motive for acceding to the Address proposed? With regard to the Letter of the Prince Regent, it was impossible in discussing this subject, not to advert to it. He wished to be as perfectly respectful in his language as he was in his feelings, but if that letter meant any thing, it meant this

The Earl of Liverpool interrupted the noble lord by rising to speak to order. He wished, he said, to prevent the noble earl from making further progress on a

Lord Holland said, that he wished the noble earl had condescended to state how such an allusion was disorderly, or what order of the House it violated. It was very easy for any noble lord to get up and say, "this is not in order, or that is not in order," but he thought it was necessary for them to do something more, and shew what order of the House was violated. That it was disorderly to introduce the name of the sovereign in a manner to influence the decision of the House, was a thing which every body knew; but how it was disorderly to allude to any paper, merely because it was not a document already before the House, was a point which he wished the noble earl to explain. If he meant to say, that any of the standing Orders of the House was violated by so doing, he wished that he would have that Order read which he said was violated. As to the noble earl's supposition, that it was disorderly for a noble lord in his speech to allude to any matter of general notoriety, or to any paper that was not absolutely made a document by having been regularly laid upon the table of the House, he believed that such an idea was perfectly novel. If this were to be the case, a noble lord would not be allowed in future even to make a quotation from the classic authors. If he were to attempt it, he would be immediately called to order

would exclaim, "What do we know of the classics, were they ever laid upon the table of the House ?" No more quotations must ever be made from Virgil, or from Horace; or the noble peer who ventured such quotation would be told, that Virgil and Horace were no regular documents,that they were not state papers, and that it was unparliamentary to quote from them. He wished that the noble earl would point out what order of the House had been violated in the allusion of which he complained.

Lord Mulgrave maintained, that the ob

jection of his noble friend, was to the in- ❘ sions; and yet the Berlin and Milan de

crees never were, and indeed could not have been laid on the table of that House, so as to make them such documents as the noble earl required. But this was said to be a private letter. What then? Did the noble earl mean to say, that even a private letter, if it were a matter of general notoriety, and of great importance to the public, could not be alluded to in that House ? Supposing that the motion had been different, and that, instead of the Address which his noble friend had moved, his motion had been for the production of this letter, could it be contended for, on any principle of common sense, that it was unparliamentary to state the substance of a letter, the production of which any noble lord thought proper to move for? If the noble lord really wished to take the opinion of the House on this point of order, he hoped that he would put it in some shape in which it might be discussed.

troduction of the name of the person exercising the sovereign authority. The other side of the House assumed a great deal too much when they asserted, that the letter published had been signed by the Regent, since there was no proof of the fact; at present it appeared only to be a private letter, which had been published in the newspapers. If the subject were pressed he should take the sense of the House upon it. Earl Grey requested that the noble lord who spoke last, if he really meant to take the opinion of the House, would state accurately and clearly what the proposition was. If it were upon the point whether or not the name of the Regent should be introduced into debate, undoubtedly he should vote with the noble lord without a moment's hesitation; but if the question were, whether the letter which had appeared in the public prints, bearing the signature of the Regent, could with a view to support a motion, or to illustrate an argument, be quoted in debate, he should vote against the noble lord with as little hesitation. The objection made by the noble lords opposite was differently stated by each of them; and indeed it seemed to arise from an utter confusion of ideas upon one of the most plain and simple principles. The introduction of the name of the Regent, and the reading of his letter were matters totally distinct, excepting in the opinions of the opposite side of the House. The practice of every day shewed, that his noble friend (lord Darnley) was perfectly in order. How many papers were constantly alluded to and made the subject of discussion in that House, which never were, and some of which never could be made documents, in the manner which the noble earl had mentioned? At different times, when the House had been called upon to vote their thanks to lord Wellington, (and he would take this occasion of saying, that he believed no noble lord felt more strongly than he did, the great merit of that gallant and most distinguished general,) how frequently did ministers themselves detail to the House the dispatches of lord Wellington, which were certainly not documents in the sense that the noble earl now wished to understand the papers that were to be alluded to in debate; and yet, had any objection ever been made to this as disorderly and unparliamentary ? How often had the Berlin and Milan decrees been alluded to in that House, and been the principal topic in long discus-House. He was not surprized at the fre

Lord Mulgrave said, that he well remembered the proceedings of 1807, the effect of which seemed calculated to throw a scandal on the sovereign himself. The question then was, whether a certain pledge required from ministers by his Majesty, was constitutional or unconstitutional? The recurrence of that scandal he would use his utmost exertions to prevent. The course he should pursue, if the subject were pressed to a vote, would be first to have it decided whether the name of the Regent should be introduced into a discussion. Upon this there could be no dispute, and the next enquiry would be, whether it were regular to read in debate a letter from a newspaper with the signature of the Regent (which might be a forgery,) and upon which it had not been ascer tained whether ministers had given any advice to the personage whose name it purported to bear.

Earl Grey remarked, that the precedent of 1807, just cited, was a most unfortunate one for the noble lord, inasmuch as in that case had been done exactly what the noble lord was this night contending against. If, indeed, the noble lord meant to say, that the publication of cabinet ministers was a scandal, it would be for the friends of the noble lord to justify their conduct in this instance.

The Earl of Darnley resumed, and maintained that if he so pleased he could, with perfect regularity, read not only a part, but the whole of the newspaper to the

« PrécédentContinuer »