Lords Sitting of 26 June 1807

THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH
—This day at three o'clock, his grace the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor, the earl of Aylesford, and earl Dartmouth, being robed, took their seats on the bench in front of the thione, and Mr. Quarme, yeoman usher of the black rod; was then dispatched to order the attendance of the commons, who forthwith, with the Speaker at their head, appeared at the bar. The royal commission, authorising certain peers therein named or any three or more of them, to open the parliament, was then read. After which, the Lord Chancellor delivered the following speech to both houses:
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"We have it in command from his majesty to state to you, that having deemed it expedient to recur to the sense of his people, his majesty, in conformity to his declared intention, has lost in time in causing the present parliament to be assembled ߞ His majesty has great satisfaction in acquainting you, that, since the events which led to the dissolution of the last parliament, his majesty has received, in numerous addresses from his subjects, the warmest assurances of their affectionate attachment to his person and government, and of their firm resolution to support him, in maintaining the just rights of his crown, and the true principles of the constitution; and he commands us to express his entire confidence that he shall experience in all your deliberations a determination to afford him an equally loyal, zealous, and affectionate support , under all the arduous circumstances of the present time. —We are commanded by his majesty to inform you, that his majesty's endeavours have been most anxiously employed for the purpose of drawing closer the ties by which his majesty is connected with the powers of the continent; of assisting the efforts of those powers against the ambition and oppression of France; of forming such engagements as may ensure their continued co-operation and of establishing that mutual confidence and concert, so essential, under any course of events, to the restoration of a solid and permanent
578
peace in Europe. —It would have afforded his majesty the greatest pleasure to have been enabled to inform you, that the mediation undertaken by his majesty, for the purpose of preserving peace between his majesty's ally, the emperor of Russia, and the Sublime Porte, had proved effectual for that important object; his majesty deeply regrets the failure of that mediation, accompanied as it was by the disappointment of the efforts of his majesty's squadron, in the sea of Marmora, and followed, as it has since been, by the losses which have been sustained by his gallant troops in Egypt. —His majesty could not but lament the extension of hostilities in any quarter, which should create a diversion in the war, so favourable to the views of France; but lamenting it, especially in the instance of a power with which his majesty has been so closely connected, and which has been so recently indebted for its protection against the incroachments of France, to the signal and successful interposition of his majesty's arms. —His majesty has directed us to acquaint you, that he has thought it right to adopt such measures as might best enable him, in concert with the emperor of Russia, to take advantage of any favourable opportunity of bringing the hostilities in which they are engaged against the Sublime Porte, to a conclusion, consistent with his majesty's honour, and the interests of his Ally.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
His majesty has ordered the estimates of the current year to be laid before you, and he relies on the tried loyalty and zeal of his faithful commons to make such provisions for the public service, as well as for the further application of the sums which were granted in the last parliament, as may appear to be necessary. —And his majesty, bearing constantly in mind the necessity of a careful and economical administration of the pecuniary resources of the country, has directed us to express his hopes, that you, will proceed, without delay, in the pursuit of those inquiries, connected with the public economy, which engaged the attention of the last parliament.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
"His majesty commands us to state to you, that he is deeply impressed with the peculiar importance, at the present moment, of cherishing a spirit of union and harmony among his people: such a spirit will most effectually promote the prosperity of the country at home, will give vigour and efficacy to its councils, and its arms abroad;

579
and can alone enable his majesty, under the blessing of providence, to carry on successfully the great contest in which he is engaged, or finally to conduct it to that termination which his majesty's moderation and justice have ever led him to seek, peace—in which the honour and interests of his kingdom can be secure, and in which Europe and the world may hope for independence and repose.'
The commmons then withdrew, and the lords adjourned for a short time to unrobe. Having again assembled, his Majesty's Speech was read by the lord chancellor, and afterwards by the clerk at the table.
The Earl of Mansfield roseto move the address. At a crisis like the present, he wished it had fallen to the lot of some noble lord more able and experienced than himself, to move an address to his majesty, he felt himself incompetent to the task and hoped to meet with the indulgence of the house. He did not come forward upon this occasion with any party views, and whilst he disdained to be the servile tool of any administration, so, on the other hand, he was equally inimical to a systematic opposition to the measures of government, whether those measures were injurious or conducive to the public good. Some parts, however, of his majesty's speech, had struck his mind very forcibly, and upon those he would briefly deliver his opinion. The circumstances which occurred respecting the proposed concessions to the Catholics, and the differences which on that occasion took place between his majesty and his late ministers, rendered it impossible, that those ministers could remain in office, and rendered an appeal to the people absolutely necessary. He rejoiced at the effect of that appeal, he rejoiced that addresses had poured in from every quarter of the country, evincing the most zealous and steady loyalty and attachment to his majesty's government, and to the constitution of the country, and whilst he regretted that any of those addresses should convey a censure upon many eminent characters, he should have still more regretted if no such addresses had been presented. It was greatly to be lamented that a subject should have been agitated, which of all others was the most likely to inflame and irritate men's ,minds; he hoped that that irritation would now he allayed and that union and concert would invigorate the hands of government, and strengthen the country. In alluding to one topic mentioned in his,majesty's speech; namely, the unfortunate events which had
580
taken place in the Sea of Marmora, and in Egypt, he did not wish to cast censure any where until those documents were before the house, which could enable it to decide; with propriety. He trusted, however, that in the mean time no attempt would be made to throw the blame upon the officers employed on those services. The events were most unfortunate; but he trusted they would only prove an additional incentive to our gallant soldiers and seamen, to efface their memory by splendid victories and brilliant achievements. He trusted, also, that the measure since adopted would have the desired effect, of inducing the Porte to adopt those measures which were consistent with her real interests. There was another topic in his majesty's speech to which he wished to advert, although it was rather addressed to the house of commons than to their lordships, inasmuch as it formed an additional argument for the address which he should move; he alluded to the wish expressed by his majesty, that they should proceed in those enquiries respecting the economy of the public money, which they had commenced in the last parliament. This was an additional incitement for their lordships to express to his majesty their loyalty and attachment, whilst it proved that there was not the slightest wish that those inquiries should be dropped, which had been interrupted by the dissolution of parliament. It was his most ardent wish that upon such an occasion, engaged as we were in war, carrying on a contest in which all the energies of the country were required to be exerted, and when, as in the present case, the speech from the throne was temperate and conciliatory, that there should be an unanimous vote. If that, however, in the present state of parties, and under the present differences of opinion, was not to be expected, he trusted that they would he at least unanimous in expressing their cordial, zealous, and loyal attachment to his majesty, whose mild and benignant government, and whose unerring discretion in the exercise of his royal prerogatives called loudly for that tribute to his numerous virtues. His lordship concluded by moving an address to his majesty, which, as usual, was nearly an echo to his majesty's speech. —The proposed address having been read by the lord chancellor,
Lord Rolle roseto second it. His lordship declared, that he came forward uninfluenced by any party considerations, and solely from motives of loyalty and attachment to his majesty. He condemned the conduct

581
of the late ministers towards his majesty, and deprecated an attempt to embitter the latter days of their sovereign by exciting agitation, and the most irritable feelings throughout the country. He declined entering into any consideration of the unfortunate events in the Sea of Marmora and Egypt, the necessary documents not being before the house; he could not help, however, deeply regretting that such circumstances should have occurred. He highly approved of that, part of his majesty's speech, which desired that the inquiries into the public expenditure should be resumed, and agreed with the noble earl, that it was an additional incitement for expressing their attachment to his majesty, which he hoped would be expressed unanimously.
Earl Fortescue rosefor the purpose of moving an amendment, when he considered the manner in which the last parliament was dissolved, and the speech which had been now put into the mouth of his majesty, his lordship said he could not avoid expressing his greatest surprize at the conduct of his majesty's ministers. The last parlialiament, beyond any other, had teemed, with measures of the greatest importance to the country, many of which were interrupted by its sudden and abrupt dissolution—a dissolution which had also been productive of the greatest inconvenience and distress to numerous individuals, from the interruption given to a great number of private bills. It had been urged by the supporters of the present ministers, that this inconvenience might be easily remedied by taking up those bills at the stages where they were left; but this operated to establish a principle pregnant with the utmost danger to the country, and he did not believe that the noble and learned lord upon the woolsack would defend the principle of resorting upon such an occasion, to a suspension of their standing orders. He could not forget the solemn mockery with which the Scots Judges were ordered to attend at the bar of the house, when it must be well known to his majesty's ministers that the bar would be, as it was, closed against them by the king's commissioners coming to the house to prorogue the parliament. Viewing all the circumstances under which the last parliament was dissolved, he could only consider that dissolution as a strong and arbitrary measure—a measure to which those ministers alone were entitled to resort who possessed the confidence of the country. What pretensions had the present ministers to the
582
confidence of the country? they had already been tried in the public balance and had been proved wanting. They had only received the accession of a gentleman, certainly highly respectable, who had quitted his own profession to embark in politics, and who had since chiefly distinguished himself by fulminating anathemas, not only against Catholics, but against all descriptions of meeting-houses, nay, even against Synagogues; in short, against every person who would not sign the test of the infallibility of the present administration. After the parliament was dissolved the most Jacobinical means were resorted to, to inflame and irritate the country, a cry of "no popery" was set up, commencing with an address to the electors of Northampton, bursting into open riot at Bristol and Liverpool, and extending over the whole country the most irritating and inflammatory influence. It was, indeed, fortunate that the horrors which were witnessed in the metropolis in the year 1780, had not been revived; but no exertions seemed to have been spared to produce that irritation, which only fell short of the same horrible results. The noble earl who had moved, and the noble lord who had seconded the address, had spoken much of their attachment to his majesty. He did not mean to dispute their attachment; but he trusted they would not claim a monopoly of loyalty and attachment to his majesty. He revered his sovereign as much as these noble lords could do; nor would he be outdone in that affection and attachment which were due to his majesty's public and private virtues. He could not, however, suffer himself to be blinded by that attachment into a neglect or compromise of the principles of the constitution; and when he saw these principles violated by the conduct of the king's ministers, he would endeavour to do his duty as a lord of parliament, by delivering those sentiments which, in his judgment, the occasion called for. It had been said that numerous addresses had manifested the sense of the people, but was it to be contended, that because addresses had been procured from chapters and corporations, that therefore they spoke the sense of the people. Considering the subject in these points of view, and upon the grounds which he had stated, he felt it his duty to move an amendment, which, if carried, it would then be for the consideration of the house as to the manner in which it should be incorporated. The following amendment was moved by his lordship: —"That by a long

583
experience of his majesty's virtues, we well know it to be his majesty's invariable wish, that all his prerogatives should be exercised solely for the advantage of his people. That our dutiful attachment to his majesty's person and government, obliges us therefore most humbly to lay before him the manifest misconduct of his ministers, in having advised the dissolution of the late parliament, in the midst of its first session, and within a few months after his majesty had been pleased to assemble it for the dispatch of the urgent business of the nation. —That this measure, advised by his majesty's ministers, at a time when there existed no difference between any of the branches of the legislature, nor any sufficient anise for an appeal to his majesty's people, was justified by no public necessity or advantage. That by the interruption of all private business then depending in parliament, it has been productive of great and needless inconvenience and expense, thereby wantonly adding to the heavy burdens which the necessities of the times require. That it has retarded many useful laws for the internal improvement of the kingdom, and for the encouragement and extension of its agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. And that it has either suspended or wholly defeated, many most important public measures, and protracted much of the most weighty business of parliament, to a season of the year when its prosecution must be attended with the greatest public and private inconvenience. And that we feel ourselves bound still further to submit to his majesty, that all these mischiefs are greatly aggravated by the groundless and injurious pretences on which his majesty's ministers have publicly rested their evil advices; pretences affording no justification for the measure, but calculated only to excite the most dangerous animosities among his majesty's faithful subjects, at a period when their united, effects were more than ever necessary for the security of the empire, and when to promote the utmost harmony and co operation amongst them would have been the first object of faithful and provident ministers. —The amendment being read,
Lord Boringdonsaid, he was sorry to find himself compelled to differ from the noble lord who had just sat down, and for whom, as a friend, he had the highest esteem. His noble friend had directed a considerable portion of his argument against the late dissolution of parliament. He did not wish to go at length into the circumstances which
584
led to that dissolution, the question having been so often argued. It was clear, however, to his mind, that the late ministers; placed themselves in that situation which rendered their continuance in office impossible, without an anomaly in the constitution before unheard of; namely, that of ministers remaining in office with opinions directly hostile to those of their sovereign. To dissolve the parliament was his majesty's undoubted, prerogative, for the exercise of which his confidential advisers were responsible. This principle was the same for whatever period the parliament had sat, and no preference could be given in the argument with respect to a parliament which had sat five sessions over one which had sat only two sessions, or to a parliament which had sat four sessions, over one which had sat only one session. He meant only to apply this to the dissolution of parliament resorted to by the late ministers. For the dissolution resorted to by the present ministers, there were urgent reasons of necessity. The friends of the late administration were sufficiently numerous in the other house to embarrass the operations of government, although not strong enough to bring themselves again into power. It, therefore, became necessary to appeal to the people, and this was rendered the more necessary by the irritation and difference of opinion which had been excited by the uncalled-for agitation of a question, calculated in an eminent degree to produce all those effects. Where, however, was the necessity for the dissolution resorted to by the late ministers in October last? the country was at that time quiet, there was no material difference of opinion upon any public topic, nothing in fact that could create the least necessity for a dissolution. It had been urged, that the rupture of the negociation with France was a sufficient ground for the measure. If this were so, then the rupture of every negociation in which the country had been engaged, would have been a sufficient ground for a similar measure; this, however, had never before been pretended. The arguments, therefore, of his noble friend, went much more against the dissolution resorted to by the late administration, than that to which the present ministers had had recourse. It had been said, that the cry of "no popery" had been raised by the present ministers, in order to raise a prejudice in their favour. He admitted that such a cry had existed in several places amongst the people; but, he denied that it had been raised by his majesty's ministers

585
It were absurd to suppose that such a ridiculous cry could have been set up by his majesty's ministers, and the state of the elections abundantly proved that it had not been. If ministers had wished to raise such a cry, surely it would have been easy to find persons who would have been instrumental to such a purpose in Yorkshire, in Middlesex, and in other places. His noble friend had passed over in silence, the events which had taken place before Constantinople and in Egypt. He did not wish to discuss now the unfortunate results of those expeditions; but he could not help calling to the recollection of their lordships, the triumphant tone in which a noble lord (Kinnaird) of considerable talents, whom he regretted was not now a member of that house, spoke when a rumour reached this country, that the Turkish government had acceded to the terms proposed. That noble lord spoke of the Turkish empire being at the feet of Britain, and asked to whose wisdoms and to whose policy we were indebted for so glorious an event? He would now ask to whose wisdom and to whose policy we were indebted for the unfortunate consequences of those expeditions? He could not conceive any occasion on which unanimity was more desirable than the present, and in that house more peculiarly, where it had not been the practice to move amendments to addresses, for he found that in the course of 25 years there were only three instances, namely, in 1801, in 1794, and 1795, where amendments were moved. He thought that a period like the present was one, when they should least of all deviate from the practice of the house, more peculiarly when the united energies of the country were required to combat an enemy, who had owed his successes more to the divisions amongst his opponents than to the skill or valour of his troops.
Lord Hollandsaid, he felt some difficulty upon the present occasion, not in answering the arguments of noble lords on the other side, but, after what he had heard, in doing it with that decorum which he owed to their lordships. If the arguments of the noble lord who had just sat down, were to be adopted as the rule of conduct in that house, then all freedom of debate was at an end, and their lordships would have nothing to do but to re-echo every speech which the ministers for the time being chose to put in to the mouth of his majesty. Such doctrines were the most dangerous and unconstitutional he had ever heard. Be objected also most strongly, to the introduction of
586
the king's name, and the king's opinions, into a debate in that house, as they bad been upon this occasion. A noble lord (Rolle) had talked of embittering the latter days of his majesty. Gracious God! my lords, is it to be endured, that debates in this house are to be thus attempted to be influenced? if these opinions are to prevail, there is an end of the liberties of the people. What may be the consequences? My noble friend (lord Grenville) may, on this principle, say, with respect to the expedition to Constantinople and to Egypt, that it was the king's will; that it was the king's opinion that such an expedition should be sent. If such a principle is to be allowed, it is impossible to say where it can stop, until it has destroyed the privileges of this house and of parliament, and sapped and undermined the constitution itself. The noble lord has spoken of its being the practice of this house not to move amendments to addresses. During the few years I have been in parliament, it has been my misfortune (as probably the noble lord would call it) to be the greater part of that time in opposition; and, if my memory does not greatly deceive me, there are several more instances of amendments being moved to addresses than those quoted by the noble lord. But in what way, my lords, can this argument of the noble lord operate against the constitutional privilege of this house, to offer those sentiments to the throne which we conceive to be called for by our duty to our country? The noble lord, in speaking of dissolutions of parliament, has only stated that which was obvious, namely, that it is the king's undoubted prerogative to dissolve the parliament, and that his ministers are responsible for the exercise of that prerogative. The noble lord then went on to argue as to there being no preference between dissolving parliaments at different periods of their existence; but will it he contended for a moment that there is no difference between dissolving a parliament that has sat five years, and one which has sat only so many months? If the principle is good for any thing, it goes to this, that a parliament ought not to be dissolved at all, but be allowed to sit its full seven years; for the. same arguments which the noble lord has applied against the dissolution resorted to by the late ministers when the parliament had sat four years, would apply to a parliament that had sat six years, and are decidedly against the dissolution of the last parliament, which the noble lord has nevertheless defended.

587
After hearing the defence set up by the noble lord for the late dissolution, I am surprised when a noble secretary of state (lord Hawkesbury) so eloquently declaimed against the dissolution of the preceding parliament, that the noble lord did not then rise to answer his arguments. The noble lord has, however, had recourse to a sort of argumentum ad hominem, in attacking the dissolution resorted to by the last ministers, but his argument decidedly makes against the point he intended to prove. The noble lord states, that at the time of that dissolution there was no irritation of the public mind, no material difference of opinion. Why, then, was not that the moment for an appeal to the people? The noble lord then states, that at the time of the last dissolution there was great irritability and collision of opinion. Is it not then clear, that that was a most improper period for a dissolution of parliament, when, instead of a cool and dispassionate appeal to the people, it could only be an appeal to their inflamed prejudices and passions? But my lords, is there no difference between dissolving parliament in the recess, and in the midst of a session? The opinion of one of the greatest men this country boasts, I mean, lord Somers, was, that to dissolve parliament in the midst of a session, was, if not absolutely, at least almost, illegal, and I will not allow for a moment that a prorogation for a day, followed by a dissolution, can make the slightest difference. It is a mere evasion. The noble lord having used an argumentum ad hominem, I may also be allowed the same kind of argument, and I call upon the noble duke now at the head of his majesty's counsels to take into his hand the speech now put into the mouth of his majesty, the speech delivered from the throne in the year 1784, and the amendment then moved in the other house of parliament, by Mr. Burke, which had the entire concurrence of the noble duke. If the noble duke can devote his attention to the subject, he will find those constitutional principles most ably and eloquently enforced in that amendment, which have now been so flagrantly violated. We were told in the speech put into the mouth of the king on the prorogation of the last parliament, that that was the most convenient time for putting a period to the business of parliament. It is impossible for me to apply that expression to this assertion of the ministers which it deserves. The most convenient time! when business of the utmost importance was interrupted, when
588
there was no appropriation of the public money! And, my lords, I should wish to know whether the public money has not been, in consequence, illegally appropriated. My lords, these measures tend to make this house a cypher in the constitution. The great opulence which centers in this house contributes largely to the supplies, and the only hold we have upon them is the appropriation act. Supplies are not now raised as they formerly were; and the arguments which formerly justified resisting the supplies will not now justify them. Ministers have the supplies in their hands from the nature of the taxes; and if they can appropriate them, too, without coming to parliament, what security have we that parliaments will be assembled at all? My lords, these daily growing infringements of the constitution demand our most serious and earnest attention. I, who think the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished, am a friend to frequent appeals to the people, but not by means of dissolutions. Let parliaments, instead of septennial, he triennial, or I would not object to their being annual; let there be stated earlier periods for a recurrence to the sense of the people; but if parliament is to be threatened with dissolution—and I maintain that the entrance of that misguided monarch, Charles I. into the house of commons* was not a more outrageous violation of the constitution, than the threat used by a right hon. secretary of state, (Mr. Canning) in the late house of commons—then parliament becomes subjected to the will of the crown, as many would then weigh in the balance a seat which they may instantly lose, and a seat for six years, which will necessarily have an undue influence upon votes. The only objection I have to the late house of commons is, that they did not adopt those strong and energetic measures which such a threat imperiously called for. —With respect to the events which have happened in the Mediterranean and in Egypt, those with whom .I had the honour to act, as well as myself, are anxious that every inquiry should be instituted which can tend to elucidate the circumstances which led to those events; but when I look at that part of the speech from the throne which refers to these events, I cannot help observing that the penman of this speech, in his eagerness to censure the late ministers, has put into his majesty's mouth a strong
*See Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, vol. 2. p. 1009.

589
condemnation of his majesty's government. I also find in the same speech a desire that union and harmony may prevail. This recommendation of ministers, under the circumstances in which it is made, brings to my recollection a story which is almost too ludicrous for this house. but which is so extremely applicable that I cannot refrain from relating it. Two persons in another part of the united kingdom having been at a fair, where less of that amusement had taken place than frequently prevails at fairs in that country, were displeased on their return that there had not been enough of what they called "rowing;" after consulting together a little, one of them said to the other, I will tell you a sure way of having a row, let us go back to the fair and preach up "peace and good order." The noble lord has denied that ministers have raised any cry of "no popery," but, my lords, look at the address of the new chancellor of the exchequer to the electors of Northampton; look also at those newspapers which are understood to be in the interest of government. My lords, in one of these papers it was observed immediately after the prorogation of parliament, that it was hoped the cry of "no popery" which had issued from the throne would be re-echoed in every quarter of the country. The noble lord has cast the cry upon the shoulders of the people; but the people in general have too much good sense to be duped by such a cry, and the ministers with all their efforts have failed in their experiment. Let me however, pay that tribute to the right reverend prelates who sit in this house, to which they are entitled, for that firmness and moderation, which, amidst the cry to which I have alluded, have uniformly marked their conduct. There is another part of the speech, my lords, against which I protest, as most unconstitutional. We are told that the Addresses to which my noble friend (earl Fortescue) alluded, as addresses from chapters and corporations, we are told that these addresses have expressed the sense of the people. Thus, after an appeal to the people, the new parliament are to be told at the outset, we do not want you to express the sense of the people, it has been already expressed by chapters and corporations, and riotous meetings. My lords, I feel myself called upon by every motive of public duty to support this amendment. We have heard this night of systematic opposition; but if ministers come into power upon unconstitutional principles, it is childish and absurd to talk of any other opposition than
590
that of an united body, firmly acting upon the principles of the constitution, and determined to resist by every constitutional means those who have no other title to power than faction and intrigue.
Lord Mulgraveobserved, that the great object of censure from the other side of the house, was the dissolution of parliament, the legality of which the noble lord (Holland) had questioned But this dissolution was not without good reasons; reasons which did not exist when the former dissolution in October last had taken place. Measures of the greatest moment, brought forward by the late ministers, had been passed by the parliament which was then dissolved, and these also incompatible, in some degree, with former measures agreed to by the same parliament. Ministers had not then to fear any very formidable opposition, nor any factious Tavern Meetings, to concert schemes to obstruct the operations of government; yet they dissolved that parliament. But before the late dissolution it was suspected that the noble lords on the other side, and their friends, would not shew an equal degree of moderation, and as far as experience had yet gone, the suspicion appeared to have been well-founded, and a dissolution became advisable. What was the ground of the dissolution in October? Was it the failure of the negotiation? Disgraceful and ridiculous as the conduct of that negotiation had been throughout, yet it was not perhaps so bad as people apprehended it was, when they saw that the expedient of a dissolution was resorted to. The noble lord then proceeded to compare the dissolution of 1784 with the late one. The dissolution of 1784 was founded on the best reasons of any he had heard of, except the last. The circumstances were, in a great measure, similar. The house of commons had then passed a measure pregnant with danger to the constitution, and when the king in consequence, thought proper to change his ministers. The junction of parties, formerly hostile to each other, enabled them to overpower the government. An appeal to the people then became necessary. Though in the late parliament the ministers had a majority, yet the opposite party had a number sufficient to embarrass the operations of government. A dissolution therefore became advisable. The cases were nearly similar, with this exception, however, that they on the other side who approved of the dissolution of 1784, censured the last. The cry of private influence had then been set up, and the noble

591
lord on the opposite side (Grenville) had considered that cry as ridiculous then, though he had now joined in it. But the noble lord now acted with different persons, and "evil communications Corrupt good man"ners." Then a dangerous measure had been passed by the commons, now an attack had been made on the personal conduct of the king. A great deal had been said about setting up the cry of "No Popery," but they themselves had set up that cry, The present ministry had nothing to do with it. The noble lord then detailed the proceedings respecting what had been called the Roman Catholic Measure, and contended that by that the late ministers had raised the cry which they now wished to shift from themselves to the present ministers. A noble lord (Holland) said, that it was an amomaly in the constitution that the king could think at all. Now the late ministers had declared their wishes to his majesty to explain their conduct, because they had seen a paragraph in a newspaper which they did not like. By this means they wished to lay the blame op his majesty, but at the same time they must, as faithful counsellors, have advised him not to comply with their request, because it was an anomaly in the constitution, that he should think at all. How could the noble lords reconcile this contradiction? He declared that he was unable to meet with such another attempt to bring blame directly upon the Sovereign in the whole history of the country. The noble lords on the opposite side also objected to the introduction of the allusions to the failure in the sea of Marmora and Egypt. But if we did meet with reverses, were these to be passed over in silence? If objects were undertaken without means, and if we were to be baffled by the weakest of enemies, were these things to be suffered to pass over like a morning Cloud? No, surely. The speech stated the facts, and they were facts worthy of notice. The noble lord concluded, by declaring his warm concurrence in the address.
Lord Hollandin explanation, said, that, what he had stated was, that the mention of the failures was evidently introduced as a censure on the late government, and therefore made his majesty censure his own acts. He had not deprecated but courted inquiry into whole conduct of the late ministry. He had only said, that the present censure was premature and inconsistent.
Lord Erskinesaid, that the observations of his noble friend (lord Holland) had called to his recollection the part which he himself
592
had acted in the year 1784 along with the noble duke opposite (Portland). He called upon the noble duke to reconcile his present conduct with what it had been at that period. Under the auspices of that noble duke he had drawn up an address to the king against the dissolution, and had assisted in carrying it to the foot of the throne. That address stated that the dissolution of parliament merely at the pleasure of every minister would be attended with the most dangerous consequences; that it was fitting that ministers should yield to parliaments, and not parliaments to them; that ministers would, by holding threats of a dissolution over the commons, afford them the strongest inducements to abandon the interests of their constituents, and that a mortal blow would thus be given to the popular branch of the constitution. How Could the noble duke reconcile his present conduct with these sentiments? The noble lord on the other side (Mulgrave) had said, that he and his friends had not set up the cry of "no popery," and that the dissolution was the consequence of a personal attack on the king. He desired that the speech respecting the dissolution should be read (this was accordingly read by the Clerk at the table). He now appealed to the honour of the house, to the English language, and to common sense, whether the cry of no popery did not run through the whole speech, and whether, as appeared from that, the pretended danger to the church, and not the explanation of ministers, was not the alleged cause of the dissolution? The late ministers had been grossly calumniated: they had been accused of disrespect to their sovereign, whom no man more deeply revered than he did, and of an attempt to deceive him. Under these circumstances, they had requested permission to state the facts as they really, were, not for the purposes of discussion, but merely to bring before parliament the true state of the case; and to clear themselves from a most foul and groundless calumny. The noble lord said, that they had abandoned a measure which they had stated to he indispensible to the security of Ireland. But there was surely some difference between What was highly expedient and what was essentially necessary. They had consented to give up the measure for the present, in deference to the feelings of his majesty, being convinced, however, of its expediency, and reserving the liberty of submitting to the king, for his decision, the same question, if it should

593
appear to them, at a future period, to be absolutely necessary. But could this proceeding be the ground for dissolving the parliament? Were parliaments then to suffer for the conduct of ministers? What had the late house of commons done that it should be dissolved? In 1784, the house had passed a measure which was considered as obnoxious; but what had the late house of commons done? It had certainly not passed the Catholic bill, though the ministers had proposed it. Upon what principle, then, was it charged with the acts of ministers? The previous dissolution, in October, had taken place when parliament was not sitting, and when no public business was interrupted. It was a material object to have greater unanimity in times of great danger and difficulty, and the dissolution answered that purpose. How then, could the cases, he said, be parallel? Were parliaments then to be dissolved, always, whenever the king thought proper to change his ministers? If this was the case, if the threats of secretaries of state were to be held out in terrorem, and if parliaments were to suffer for the conduct of ministers, it was much to be feared that the consequences to the constitution would be of the most alarming nature. He was afraid it would be thought that the crown, from the greatness of the expenditure, and the consequent increase of offices, had too much influence in the choosing of the members, and that the constitution would be considered as degenerating fast into an absolute monarchy. He dreaded lest the house of commons might be placed in a situation where the representatives would find the strongest temptations to abandon the cause of their constituents, and become little better them appendages to the ministers of the crown.—The noble lord declared his firm conviction of the truth of christianity, and of its benignant and civilizing influence, although it had often been wrested to the worst of purposes. Of the melancholy effects of stirring up religious clamours, history afforded abundant instances. Was it, then, amidst the prevalence of a fanatical and unfounded cry, that parliament ought to have been dissolved? Ought advantages to have been taken of the agitations produced by an appeal to the worst and most violent passions of a misguided people? He did not observe his noble and learned friend, the chief justice of the king's bench (lord Ellenborough) in his place. But if he were in the house, he would have appealed to him, whether it was not the prac-
594
tice in his court to put off the hearing of a common cause, when the public mind was strongly agitated about the circumstances. How much more, then, was it necessary to have allowed the passions of the people to cool, before they should be called on to decide on a measure of this magnitude? There was a very marked distinction between the dissolution or 1784 and the last one. The last house of commons had done no one act that could call for it; it had not even expressed any bad opinions of the present ministers; except, indeed, its having passed a resolution against granting offices in reversion, or offices for life that had been usually held during pleasure, could be considered as such. His noble friend (lord Holland) had told a ludicrous story about a method for having a row. He also recollected a story that was somewhat in point. A person wishing to have a quarrel came up to another who was standing with his back to the fire and feeling very comfortable, and said, "You lie, sir;" "truly," said the other, "I did not speak." "No matter," said the quarrelling gentleman, "you lie, sir." So the last parliament stood with its back to the fire; it did nothing offensive, and yet it was dissolved. But if parliaments were to look with apprehension to ministers instead of ministers having a proper respect to parliament, then the house of commons was destroyed, and there was an end of the constitution. If, when the people Were so much burthened with taxes which they cheerfully paid when convinced that the public service required them, if in these circumstances they should be compelled to believe that they had no security in their representatives, what would be the consequences. Convinced that they had no safeguard against the exactions of ministers, no security for the proper application of the revenue, they had begin to think that their burthens were heavier than the public service required, and having no remedy for the grievance, they might be apt to become desperate. This was the origin of revolutions, and was a state of things which ought to be carefully avoided. It was ridiculous and unconstitutional to set the addresses of corporations and meetings against the opinion of the house of commons, which was the proper organ to convey the sense of the people to the crown. If these addresses were favourable, then they were held up as the sense of the people; if unfavourable, they were said to be seditious, and trials for such addresses might be recollected. If the ad-

595
dresses were not favourable, then the grapes were sour, and they could not eat them. He concluded by declaring his assent to the amendment.
Earl Grosvenorobserved, that the king's speech, instead of being previously read at the Cockpit as formerly, was now read at private meetings, so that noble lords could not be prepared, and therefore he thought it might not be improper to adjourn for twenty-four hours, in order to have time to consider the speech. He adverted to the conduct of the ministers since they came into power. Their first act was to have recourse to the assistance of lord Melville, notwithstanding the resolutions on the Journals of the house of commons. But that and other things dwindled almost to nothing in comparison with the unconstitutional act of dissolving the parliament. The present momentous crisis required a firm, an able, and an efficient ministry. Whether the present ministers came under that description, parliament must determine. But he thought they afforded but an unfavourable specimen of their future conduct, by shrinking from the responsibility of having advised the dismissal of the late ministers. It was a constitutional maxim, founded in wisdom, that the king could do no wrong; for if he could, what scenes of bloodshed must ensue before he could be brought to do justice. The parliament, he said, had done nothing that could require a dissolution. The reason alledged for it was, the expediency of taking the sense of the people. That, he contended, was the late ministers, and instanced the great county of York. His lordship then adverted to the accusations against the late ministers, for opposing the government. One would think, he observed, on hearing these, that this was some despotic government. The king had his prerogative, but the houses of lords and commons had their prerogative also; and there seldom had been an occasion on which it was more requisite for them to exercise it than the present.
Lord Sidmouthobserved, that if he had hopes before that unanimity would prevail on this occasion, he must now own he was afraid he was disappointed. But he did feel that unanimity was so important to the interests of the country in the present situation of affairs, that unless the address expressed opinions in which he could not concur, or contained unfounded accusations, he should feel himself bound in duty to support it. But, if noble lords really thought that
596
the dissolution of the last parliament was ill advised, he perfectly agreed that this was the most proper occasion for them to express hat opinion. He would go farther; something had been said here, and a great deal out of doors, about the impropriety of giving notice, that a division would certainly take place on the address. That clamour, he had no hesitation to say, was unfounded. If it had been stated that amendments were to be proposed in certain passages before the speech was fully determined on, and before the precise nature of it could be known, that indeed would have been indecent. But having in contemplation such an amendment as this, they might safely say beforehand that a division would certainly take place, because they might be assured that minister would not censure their own act. He thought it due to the noble lords, therefore, to state the impression made on his mind by this circumstance. He again stated, that he most strongly felt the necessity of unanimity. Their lordships were now in a different situation from what they were before, when it was matter of complaint, that an abstract proposition was brought forward, the effect of which, if assented to, would have been to annul the prerogative of the king, in the choice of his ministers. The fact of the advice had been there assumed, and censure was to proceed upon that. But the dissolution was an act of government, and the fact of the advice was certain. The only question, therefore, was, whether it was blameable? He had before stated his deep regret at the change of the ministry, and that regret he still retained; but that having been unavoidable, he thought the dissolution, in the state of parties, to be unavoidable also, and therefore warrantable and justifiable. He could not, therefore, say with the amendment, that the ministers, were guilty of manifest misconduct in this particular.—Much had been said about the agitations which had been produced in the country. He trusted he need not state that he would join in no party cry, that had deception and intolerance for its object. When he came into administration, in 1801, under circumstances not dissimilar, he had raised no cry about the church being in danger. Parliament was not dissolved till the year after, and not a word was said about danger to the church. The fact was, that the late events had peculiarly interested the feelings of the people. If the cry was raised for the purpose of making a stalking horse of the danger to the church, it was undoubtedly cen-

597
surable. But that had been disclaimed, and he hoped, that the negation was well-founded. But much of the cry arose from an attachment to the established church, and an opinion that no further concessions ought to be made. Wherever that motive prevailed, he respected the cry, and he thought that it had afforded additional security to the established church, which, notwithstanding what a noble lord (Holland) had said, he thought intimately connected with the constitution. —There was no distinction in principle, he said, between the dissolutions of April and October. As to the inconvenience to the public business, the same thing had taken place in 1784, and as he had concurred in that, he could not on this account disapprove of the last dissolution. He hoped the present ministers would establish their efficiency. The crisis was momentous. He hoped they would recollect that we were at war against the most formidable enemy that had ever threatened this country, the destruction of which he was meditating, no less on the banks of the Vistula, than if he were on the banks of the Seine. He hoped ministers were sensible of our peril, that government was fully impressed with the danger, and had prepared measures to meet it. He would judge of them, not only by their measures, but by the weight they would have both at borne and abroad. If they were deficient in any of these essential requisites, they were unfit for the crisis, and ought not to continue in office. He would do to them as he would wish others to do by him. He would judge them by their conduct. His party was the country and his king, and he felt it his duty, under all the circumstances, to resist the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirkdeclared his concurrence in the observations made by the noble viscount who had just sat down, and thought that the late dissolution of parliament could not be reprobated on any principle that would not equally apply to that of last year. The inconvenience arising from a dissolution must be balanced by the strength of the reasons which required it. The noble and learned lord (Erskine) in comparing the present case with that of 1784, had alleged that there was no ground for the late dissolution, because the house of commons had not, in the late case, come to issue with the government on any particular question; but a very large proportion of the house had concurred in the expression of principles subversive of the constitutional prerogatives of the crown. Principles had been laid down
598
and supported by very great numbers, which, would reduce to an empty name the prerogative of the king in choosing his own ministers. It had been alleged, that an unconstitutional pledge had been demanded of ministers, and that, without inquiring who had really been the advisers, their successors were to be held as responsible for that demand. The necessary consequence from this doctrine was, that no other ministry could possibly accept of office constitutionally, which was as much as to say, that the king could not legally dismiss the ministers he actually had. This was a doctrine that went to subvert the constitution, and distinguished those who held it from all former oppositions. When a set of ministers bad by their conduct proved themselves unfit for their situations, a systematic opposition was justifiable; but the doctrines that had been maintained in the last parliament would equally justify an opposition against the best ministers as against the worst. When so great a proportion of the house maintained so violent a doctrine, he thought that even though they did not absolutely amount to a majority, a case had occurred that fairly might justify an appeal to the people. But though he thus considered the dissolution as justifiable, and should therefore vote against the amendment that had been proposed to the address, he could not extend this to an approbation of government in the conduct of the elections, and particularly in the cry of "no popery" that had been encouraged, for though ministers now disclaimed it, yet circumstances were such, that it scented impossible for any reasonable and impartial man to doubt with whom the cry had originated; and he thought that their conduct in this respect deserved the reprobation of the, house and of the country.
The Earl of Rosslyndeclared, that after the manner in which all arguments, and every attempt at argument, had been already answered; after the luminous speech which their lordships had heard from his noble and learned friend (lord Erskine), it Would be impossible for him to add any thing further upon the subject. The question which was then under their lordships' consideration, however, was of such importance, that, in justice to himself he was compelled to declare his sentiments, and not suffer the question to pass with only a silent vote from him. A noble viscount (lord Sidmouth) for whom he entertained the highest respect, had observed, that if it was justifiable to dissolve one parliament at any period short of its

599
statutable duration, we might, by parity of reasoning, justify all dissolutions of parliament, whatever might be the extent of the parliament's existence at the time when such an event took place, But he would ask that noble lord, and he would ask the house, if there was not, exclusive of the consideration of the length of time which the parliament had been then acting, and the length of time which it was entitled, by regular course of law, still to act; he would ask if, exclusive of this consideration, there was not some difference to be discovered in the circumstances under which a parliament might be dissolved? He would ask, what interruption the business of the public had met with during the existence of the late parliament? And knowing, as he did, and as he was convinced many of their lordships must also have observed, that the public business would, on the one hand, have been materially forwarded, if parliament had been suffered to continue in the exercise of its functions, until, at least, the business of the session was at an end, he thought, as, in fact, he thought was just in all cases where a parliament was dissolved in the middle of a session, that it was the duty of ministers to adduce sufficient argument, in the peculiar circumstances of tile case, to justify themselves for having advised the adoption of such a precipitate step; it was the act of his majesty's government, and the onus lay entirely with his majesty's servants. It had been said, however, in effect, by a noble lord opposite, that parliament was formerly dissolved upon nearly as bad ground as that upon which the dissolution of the late parliament took place. But he would ask any one of their lordships if it was a sufficient justification of their conduct for any one set of ministers to say to another: "You formerly adopted such a measure which was bad, and therefore we are now entitled to take another step, which is somewhat worse?" Such an attempt at argument, he was confident, could have no weight in such an enlightened assembly as that which he was then addressing. And he must declare most unequivocally, that in his opinion no one fair ground of justification had yet been given to parliament or to the country for the extraordinary advice which his majesty's present ministers had given to dissolve a parliament that was faithful to the country, loyal to the sovereign, and in the midst of transacting the most important business. But it might be said, that the church was in dan-
600
ger. That was a cry which had been raised too generally out of doors. He did not imagine that any noble lord would be bold enough to rise in his place as a peer of parliament, and declare that he seriously thought there could be any danger to the established church from any measure that had been proposed immediately before the dissolution, even if it were carried into effect. But how absurd, how ridiculously preposterous must it appear, to see that such an alarm was endeavoured to be excited in many parts of the country after that measure was withdrawn! It was a fact which still remained without a disavowal on the part of his majesty's ministers, and which was openly and publicly declared by many of their friends. At the same time, he had too high an opinion of their lordships' liberality and good sense to imagine, that any one noble lord in that house, whether a member of his majesty's government or not, ever once for a moment believed, that at this day there was any danger to the church establishment to be apprehended in England. But there was still a circumstance, respecting which he should be glad to be informed; he should be glad to know upon what ground it was stated in all the addresses to his majesty on this head, that the church and state were supposed to be in the most imminent danger? He was induced to ask for this information from his observation that these addresses uniformly came from places where ministers were known to have the greatest influence. In fact, their zeal was so very eager in its pursuit of addresses, that it was officially acknowledged in one instance that it outran the fact; an address was formally inserted in the London Gazette, from the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, in the city of Dublin, in support of this idle cry; but, was it a fact, that the members of that University actually joined in that senseless clamour? No; that learned body was too enlightened and too liberal to indulge in such a prejudice, as that with which they were attempted to be branded; and the same London Gazette, printed by the authority of government; was afterwards obliged to confess that no such address had been presented! —Now that he spoke of public proceedings, he recollected, and it was a fact which must he known to many of their lordships, that an advertisement was printed in the public papers, signed with the name of his majesty's chancellor of the exchequer, thus adding the weight and influence of office to the authority which the learned gent.'s own name brought with it. He did not yet know that

601
this was contradicted, and while such a cry was suffered to be spread throughout the country without contradiction from those in whose name they were circulated, the prejudices of the people were wantonly excited. The people in many instances, took no time to consider more than if a cry of "fire, fire," was raised; though this should be done at a time when there was no danger, still the people, if they heard that the cry was raised by those whose duty it was to take care of their interests, might be apt not to consider or examine into the ground of the alarm, but betake themselves to any mean that was suggested to them as the most likely to insure their safety. At the same time that these alarms were spread without contradiction he could not refrain from noticing the duplicity of which his majesty's ministers were guilty; whilst they themselves appeared to be thus engaged in exciting animosity amongst his majesty's subjects, they put it into his majesty's mouth that he recommended unanimity among all classes and descriptions of his people. With the noble viscount (lord Sidmouth) he must observe, that of those men his expectations were not equal to his wishes, that they might save the country at the present momentous crisis. He should therefore support the amendment.
The Earl of Buckinghamshiremaintained, that the conduct of his majesty's present ministers was strictly justifiable in having recommended the dissolution of the late parliament. The catholics would now see, that notwithstanding their cause was supported by a powerful and respectable party in this country, yet that the opinion of their sovereign was against them, and that in that opinion he was supported by the general-sentiments of the people.
Lord Grenvillesaid, he had no doubt, that the authors of the speech that day delivered to their lordships were the authors or advisers of the dissolution of parliament. It appeared, that the authors of the speech bad some idea of shrinking from responsibility, because they had not only been guilty of a violation of the ancient forms of the Constitution, but had that night remained silent on the subject of their misconduct. A noble lord had said, that on examining the Journals of the house, he had not been able to discover, in the course of 25 years, more than three amendments to the address. But that noble lord had not explained the cause why so few amendments had been brought forward in the course of that period. He would, how-
602
ever, tell the noble lord: the minister who had framed or sanctioned the addresses for that period, had been careful to conciliate the good wishes of parliament. In this instance, however, all attempts at conciliation had been carefully avoided. The wording or composition of the speech, his lordship observed, instead of being of a conciliatory nature, was the very reverse. As to the speech of the lords commissioners, not that of his majesty, for he could not consider it in any other view—it was, in his lordship's opinion, of a most violent and acrimonious nature. It was any thing but conciliation. With regard to the dissolution of parliament, it was a measure which could not be too severely reprobated. The king's prerogative ought certainly to he freely exercised; but the secret advisers of a measure, for which there was no national necessity, deserved the severest censure. Some of the adherents of the present ministers had expressed a belief that the dissolution would pass without much censure; but his lordship always remained fully persuaded, that it was impossible men should not be found who would slim their utter indignation, nay detestation, of such an act; and that parliament was about to declare its disapprobation of the unconstitutional measure. Those who had no ground to justify the dissolution; but wanted some pretext for expressing their sentiments in favour of the administration, recurred to the parallel case of the year 1784, and therefore drew the conclusion, that as a dissolution had then taken place, a dissolution in the year 1807 was also justifiable. Such an observation was, however, erroneous in the extreme. A dissolution might be justified in the year 1784, and yet not be justifiable in the year 1807. In referring to the dissolution of 1784, an insinuation had been advanced against a noble relation of his (the marquis of Buckingham), now absent from the house. With regard to that noble marquis, his conduct had always appeared to him so pure and unimpeachable, that he might take it upon him to say, that there was no act of his life, of which he (lord G.) as a relative and a man would not be proud. Respecting the dissolution of the year 1784, and that of 1807, there was, as had already been shewn, a very wide difference. The grounds for the former dissolution arose from a serious difference between the two houses of parliament. It, therefore, became an indispensible measure. Was there a similar reason now? No. Had there existed any difference between the two houses, regard-

603
ing the confidence in his majesty's present ministers? No. There was no idea entertained of withdrawing public confidence from ministers. The alarm was therefore ill-founded. Was it not dangerous to expose parliament to the contempt or derision of the people, by a dissolution for which there was no cause, whether considered as to manner or time? Certainly. The more confidence the people reposed in parliament, the greater became the respectability of parliament. One noble lord had spoken in favour of annual parliaments; but such a dissolution as that lately experienced was even shorter than annual parliaments—scarcely half of that period. He was a friend to rational liberty, but he was an enemy, to every measure which would tend to the introduction of anarchy or confusion. Annual parliaments might in the minds of some men have their attractions; but he, for his part, was not friendly to such a system of representation. Annual parliaments would not only be troublesome and burthensome to the people, but by no means productive of the advantages which were promised from the imaginations of some projectors. He denied the truth of a noble lord's hypothesis, that the dissolution of 1806 was no more justifiable than that of 1807. If seriously and gravely asked what period he would sooner select than that of any other for the dissolution, he would answer, that of the year 1806, because the minds of the people were not in a state of fermentation from the agitation of any particular measure. From every view of the dissolution of the year 1806, he had not only no cause to regret it, but was confident the act was approved of universally. With regard to the postponement of the private business by the last dissolution, ministers had been guilty of a gross breach of faith with individuals. If ancient forms be necessary in the conduct of parliament, why was the latter taken by surprize? Why supersede the common usages of parliament? If forms or usages be outraged, there is not only an end at once of parliament, but an end of the responsibility of ministers. Such wanton abuse of power not only called aloud for condemnation, but also for reform. His lordship, among the enumeration of several acts which had severely suffered by the interruption in consequence of the dissolution of parliament, mentioned the measure which he had the honour of proposing for the better administration of justice in Scotland. It, had been universally acknowledged
604
by intelligent men, that abuses existed in the administration of justice there, which ought to be reformed. The bill to which he alluded, he proposed to submit again to the consideration of their lordships in the course of a few days. Let ministers then take care of their characters, for he would do his duty. Among other gross inconveniences which would arise from the dissolution, was the serious interruption or blow which the revenue of Ireland would receive. The bill for the management of that revenue expired on the 5th of July. The revenue must either cease to be raised, or those concerned in its collection, must be guilty of a violation of the constitution. Another criminal violation of law and the constitution arose from a certain act between America and this country being now about to expire: the duties, therefore, on shipments of goods from America to this country, could not by law be collected. Did ministers know that the act expired on the 1st of July? They ought not surely to plead ignorance, as a reference to the expiring acts on the journals of the house of commons would inform them of the serious fact. His lordship wished to learn how far, ministers would be justified in the collection of the revenue arising either from American goods, or in Ireland? It was not merely for refusing to pay ship money that Hampben sustained a trial, but to ascertain whether or not he lived in a free country. If acts of revenue be allowed to be suspended one month, why not six? If six, why not twelve months? Some might say, that they lived in a free country, but they might with some propriety affirm, when referring to these outrages of the law, that it was not so. These are the chief grounds, said the noble lord, on which I think that his majesty's ministers have been guilty of criminal misconduct. Has the outcry of "No Popery" answered the purpose of ministers? It certainly has not, for those who were deluded have returned to their sober reason. Have ministers been guilty of exciting these outcries and prejudices? We have not as yet heard any of them disclaim the charge. But the people have long ere now discovered the imposition upon their credulity. Therefore his lordship ironically wished to learn, how his majesty's ministers meant to acquit or justify themselves on the occasion? Had they acknowledged their faults or deceptions to their constituents? He wished to know if the Chancellor of the University of Oxford had written to his constituents, the members of

605
the University, acknowledging his mistake or delusion in giving them a false alarm? Had his majesty's chancellor of the exchequer written to his constituents of Northampton, acknowledging his error? Had he declared that all the hand bills of "No Popery," &c. were not sanctioned by his signature, but were forgeries? Had he assured his constituents, that no cause had ever existed for their fears and alarms? Had the Chancellor of the University of Dublin (the Duke of Cumberland) written to his constituents, acknowledging not only the forgery imposed upon him and the London Gazette, which had caused the strange erratum that some days ago appeared in that paper, but acknowledging also the delusion which had nearly frightened the members of that respectable University from their propriety ?—His lordship said he had been told that the Secretary of State had received an address conveying sentiments of a very illiberal nature, saying that the catholics ought not to be trusted with arms. He hoped it was not true that such a dangerous address had been presented from any incorporated body whatever. His lordship expressed his surprize how it could be possible for the noble viscount to mistake the import of that part of the speech in which mention is made of the expedition to Turkey; and he would put it to any noble lord whether he believed that the person who framed the paragraph alluded to, did it merely for the purpose of detailing the facts, or whether they did not believe in their hearts it was done for the purpose of misrepresentation? He was far from wishing to avoid inquiry and investigation. On the contrary, he wished ardently for the arrival of the period when whispers could be circuculated with comparatively as little avail as garbled publications. He desired only, in justice to the characters of those naval and military persons employed, that judgment should be withheld until their details of the transactions were before them. In prosecuting inquiry he would afford every assistance in his power. He wished that the whole subject might be brought under investigation without reserve, for he knew of none that was necessary.
Lord Sidmouth roseto explain. He said that he had read over the paragraph alluded to by the noble baron with the greatest care and attention, and he did not find one sentence which appeared to convey blame on the advisers of that expedition.
The Lord Chancellorpersisted that the
606
communication from the throne implied no censure on the conduct of his majesty's late ministers; while, on the contrary, his majesty's present government was stigmatised by the amendment, which accused them of manifest misconduct. He adverted to what had been said respecting the difference of one or two words in the speech which were in fact clerical errors, and not originally intended. No part of the speech called for a parliamentary approbation of the recent measure of dissolution. He was free to say, that it was undoubtedly the right of that house, when they thought such proceedings went upon constitutional grounds, to impute blame to those ministers who advised the act of dissolving parliament. But no question of that sort arose from the tenor of the speech. But on this head particularly the address meant to arraign the conduct of ministers. In the case of last year, there was no reason whatever, assigned for the measure of dissolution; though it was the more requisite, as the parliament before the last was dissolved after a proclamation had been actually issued for its meeting on a particular day for the dispatch of business. For the recent case, he only asked of the noble baron to support it on the same principle he had supported the dissolution in 1784. His lordship then adverted to those measures of the late ministers which more immediately led to the change. And particularly adverting to the ministerial change, he observed, if it were presumed that from the act of taking office, the present had advised the dismissal of the late ministers, then the former were responsible; but such a conclusion he was not disposed to admit. He concluded by saying, that the measure of the recent dissolution was warranted by the necessity of the case.
The Earl of Lauderdalereprobated the late dissolution additionally for the critical time in which it took place, which aggravated its injurious consequences. His lordship took occasion to advert to the indignity which had been offered to his royal highness the Prince of Wales, in the proceedings on the Scots Peers election, when the annunciation of his proxies were not received in the customary respectful manner. Had he fortunately been there, he should have noticed such a pointed omission in a proper manner: he added, that disrespect could not be shewn to any one branch of the royal family, without at the same time reflecting on the august head of it.
Lord Hawkesburydefended what he had

607
said in the last session against the dissolution of 1806; which, he argued, was called for by no necessity, nor was there any assigned. In the present, ministers proceeded upon great and important grounds. He admitted it was an extraordinary measure of the kind, and that it could be justified only by the special circumstances of the case, by the paramount considerations which would crush all the objections to it, and ministers were prepared to justify it on their responsibility. He expatiated on the primary duty of preserving the constitution of the country in church and state, as by a succession of laws established. He adverted to a publication not long since by a Roman Catholic in Ireland, (sir John Throckmorton) in which, among other points which shewed the views and dispositions of a part, at least, of the Roman Catholics of that country, a proposition was broached of the propriety and justice of appointing Catholics and Protestants alternately to the Bishops' sees in that country. Surely that was enough to induce the British government to pause, and seriously reflect as to its conduct with respect to them. He had a favourable opinion of the Irish; they were an open-hearted, liberal people, and had his majesty's late ministers candidly stated to the Catholic part of them at once, that beyond a certain point they could not concede, they would have been more pleased and satisfied with it, than with the line of proceeding they had thought proper to adopt. With respect to the conduct of his majesty, with regard to that great question, if ever the public opinion in this country was clearly pronounced, it was pronounced upon that occasion. There were some political considerations with respect to the empire, which should be immutable, and not subject to variation as subordinate laws; such were its religion and its constitution.
The question was then put, and a division took place, when there appeared, for the amendment—

Contents

56

Not Contents

131

Proxies

11

29

67

160

Majority for the Original Address

93

List of the Minority.

Duke of Gloucester

Earl of Clanricarde

Grafton

Conyingham

St.Alban's

Lauderdale

Devon

Darnley

Bedford

Moira

Argyll

Besborough

608

Marquis of Winchester

Ossory

Stafford

Viscount Hereford

Headfort

Anson

Earl of Derby

Baron De Clifford

Suffolk

Say and Sele

Thanet

St. John

Essex

King

Searborough

Monson

Albermarle

Blandford

Jersey

Stawell

Cholmondeley

Holland

Tankerville

Southampton

Cowper

Foley

Shaftsbury

Hawke

Fitzwilliam

Somers

Guildford

Braybroke

Hardwicke

Grenville

Spencer

Auckland

Leicester

Dundas

Grosvenor

Yarborough

Fortescue

Cawdor

Dorchester

Carrington

Carnarvon

Lilford

St.Vincent

Clifden

Rosslyn

Erskine

Oxford

Ponsonby

Breadalbane

Bishop of Oxford

Luc an