MESSAGE FROM THE KING.

HL Deb 18 February 1820 vol 41 cc1599-604

The Earl

of Liverpool moved the order of the ║ day for taking into consideration his majesty's message. The message having been read,

The Earl of Liverpool

said, if he had had any doubt on the preceding day as to the propriety of separating the question as to the calling a new parliament without delay, from the subject of addressing the king in condolence on the death of the late sovereign, that doubt would have been entirely removed by the remark made by the noble marquis, that such an intimation was entirely unprecedented; It was undoubtedly true that it was unprecedented, but it should be recollected that the situation in which they were placed was also unprecedented. It was not the case of the transfer of the Crown and all the administration of the government at once to a successor, but here the illustrious individual on the throne had administered the government for a considerable time, and was now called upon to do that in his own name and behalf, which he had hitherto done in the name and on the behalf of the late king. With regard to the question of dissolving the parliament, according to the common law of the land, the parliament ceased its functions on the demise of the Crown, and the act which passed for enabling the parliament to sit for six months afterwards, might be called an exception to that law. With regard to the motive for passing that act, it appeared to have been intended to provide against a disputed succession. But undoubtedly the act did not fetter the monarch, in the exercise of his prerogative, who might at once, if he pleased, exercise that prerogative by dissolving the parliament; it was merely a question as to the public interest or convenience. It was true, that with regard to the civil list, it had been usual for the parliament sitting at the demise of the Crown, to pass a measure for arranging the civil list; but this, which was a proper compliment to the Crown, there was no necessity to bring forward, when the Crown itself, as in the present instance, waived the immediate consideration of it. This, therefore, being put aside for the present, at the instance of the Crown, it must be obvious to every one, that there were circumstances connected with the knowledge that a new parliament must be called within a certain period, that rendered it inconvenient to proceed to any public business that was not absolutely necessary. These circumstances were matter of notoriety; and it was evident that it would be more for the public interest and convenience that the measures necessary to be brought forward should be presented to a parliament uninfluenced by such circumstances, and with their attention not distracted by considerations arising out of the contemplation of the near approach of the summoning a new parliament, and the preparations and arrangements necessarily consequent upon it. His lordship concluded by moving an address to his majesty, which was an echo of the message.

The Marquis of Lansdowne

expressed his surprise that the noble earl had not afforded any explanation as to the reasons or the motives for the sudden dissolution of the parliament. He believed it to be contrary to all precedent for the Crown to put to the consideration of parliament the question as to its own dissolution. It was undoubtedly true, that the king, in the exercise of his prerogative, might dissolve the parliament at the moment of its meeting on his accession; but when the question of a dissolution was put to parliament itself, they might, with perfect propriety, consider what had been the practice upon similar occasions; and when it was urged as a reason for now dissolving the parliament, that it would be for the public interest and convenience, it might be fairly answered, and this too on the authority of the noble earl himself, that the present was the most convenient period for entering upon the consideration of public business. When, however, this plea of convenience was urged, it would be found, upon looking back to the periods of the accession of our sovereigns, since the reign of William 3rd, when the act was passed, authorizing the parliament to continue sitting six months after the demise of the Crown, that at periods much more inconvenient than the present, parliament had continued sitting, and had, before their separation, uniformly passed the civil list bill. Thus, on the accession of queen Anne, in March, on that of George 1st, in August, of George 2nd, in June, and the late king in October, the parliament in each case continued sitting, and passed the civil list bill within a short period of the meeting. Why these precedents were to be departed from, the noble earl had not explained. Neither had he explained how the public service was to be provided for in the interval, or how the dignity of the Crown was to be provided for, the civil list bill having now expired. There was another consideration also of great importance; he alluded to the increase of the military force of the country, to the amount of 10,000 men. Agreeing, as he did, in the necessity for this addition to our military force, he considered it of the greatest importance, in a constitutional point of view, that the parliament should have an opportunity of taking into consideration such increase. Was it intended that only a short mutiny bill should be brought in, which would not afford any opportunity of considering the amount of the force? As he had been unable to discover any reason why the precedent in former cases should be in this instance departed from, he could not give his vote for the address.

The Earl of Harrowby

observed, that it must be, in his opinion, obvious, that with all the preparations and arrangements that were making, with a view to a dissolution of parliament, which it was known must take place within a certain period, it was impossible for the members of the other House to pay that attention which was requisite to the measures to be proposed to them. As to any difficulty in providing for the public service in the interim, the course to be pursued was intended to be the same as in 1807 and in 1784, when a dissolution took place about the same period; and with regard to providing for the dignity of the Crown, though there might perhaps be some slight difficulty, yet it might readily be done by a vote of credit out of the remaining hereditary revenues of the Crown.

Earl Grosvenor

contended, that there was time enough to complete any measures that might be necessary, without dissolving the parliament, and objected strongly to the continuance of so large a standing army in time of peace. Was it for a purpose which ministers could not avow—was it to support themselves in administration, that this extraordinary burthen was to be continued in the present distressed condition of the country?

The Earl of Lauderdale

thought that great inconvenience would be found to attend the immediate dissolution of parliament. With respect to the consideration of the civil list, he thought it would be better that it should be arranged by parliament, instead of being submitted to the public—as it was, in effect, by being postponed until the general election had taken place. The House would recollect, that there were such things as instructions from constituents to their representatives, and that he thought should have suggested itself to the noble lords as one of the inconveniences attendant upon the course which they recommended. It had been said, that the civil list was to be provided for out of the hereditary revenues. But they would find, by the consolidated fund act, that the hereditary revenues were appropriated to make up the deficiencies of that fund, in the event of the king's demise.

The Earl of Caernarvon

said, his noble friend had shown, that if it was convenient at any time to continue the sitting of parliament, it was convenient now. But then it was objected, that members of parliament would have so much of their own business to attend to, they would neglect the business of their constituents. For his own part, he should have drawn a contrary conclusion. If there was any period when members of parliament attended more particularly to the business of their constituents than another, it was when they were about to be dissolved. In the present condition of the country, a strong ground should be made out to justify an immediate dissolution; and he had no hesitation in saying, that those who could give such advice without such a ground, had not done their duty either to the king or to the country.

Earl Bathurst

observed, that the whole business of the session was yet to be done, and contended that it would be impossible to get through it in time to prepare for a dissolution at the end of six months. With regard to the precedents alluded to, he would have their lordships to consider in what state the public business was on those different occasions. In those cases, there was no necessity for adopting the course which, under the present circumstances, appeared expedient. Besides, since the death of his late majesty, there had been more excitation throughout the country, on the prospect of the new elections, than probably existed at any former period. Perhaps there was not an instance known before, in which the same paper that communicated the death of the king contained an advertisement from a candidate for the representation of a county.

Lord King

said, that the immediate dissolution would bring them to May before the new parliament could meet, and he would leave it to the House to con- sider to what time the session must extend in that case. It was true that they had a balance of convenience and inconvenience to decide upon, but then there was uniform practice on one side, and that practice was, that after the demise of the king, parliament should proceed, with as little delay as possible, to the arrangement of the civil list. By dissolving now, they would leave the Crown without a civil list.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that according to the law of parliament in former times, on the demise of the Crown, the parliament was ipso facto dissolved. He did not mean to say that it was not right for parliament to have extended its own existence for six months after the demise of the king, as was done by the act of William 3rd. His notion was, that the enactment was properly made, with a view to the public interest; but by that act it was riot determined that the parliament should necessarily exist for six months after the demise—it was still left open to consideration how far the public convenience required that it should continue so to exist or not. If, on the other hand, they thwarted the purpose of dissolving parliament, by going on with business when the public convenience did not require it, they were the persons who took upon themselves to say that the Crown should not dissolve the parliament. If they threw obstacles in the way of the dissolution, they took upon themselves the authority of deciding the question; and therefore he would vote with his noble friends, not with a view to break in upon the prerogative of the Crown, but to prevent the prerogative from being interfered with.

The motion was agreed to.