feel that I am conscientiously discharging my duty as a member of Parliament. I feel that I am actuated by a just sense of what I owe of patriotism to my country, and of loyalty to my king, without the one being diminished, or the other unconstitutionally exaggerated by that extreme personal attachment which I have ever borne to the most benign, the most paternal, the best, the most patriotic of sovereigns. I feel, Sir, that I am standing forward in defence of the due constitutional exercise of the prerogative of the crown against an attempted invasion, which if it were to prevail, might ultimately cause our government to degenerate into a tyrannical oligarchy, or a factious democracy, and we might then bid adieu to that blessed constitution, the glory of England and admiration of the world; we might then bid adieu to that enviable political existence, which is the honest pride, and forms the foundation of the conscious superiority of every Briton; we might then bid adieu to that invaluable inheritance handed down to us by such ancestors as no other people have to boast of; and we might soon be fettered by the galling chains of oligarchical despotism, or tossed in the boister ous whirlwind of democratic fury. I trust, Sir, that we shall avert such horrid evils, and that we shall prove by the vote of this night, that we consider the crown as now standing forward, in the most paternal and most patriotic manner, to support the best rights of the subject, by upholding a main pillar of the constitution the fall of which would involve the whole fabric in indiscriminate ruin. It only remains for me, Sir, to say, that I shall certainly vote most heartily against the present motion; and I must make an ample apology to the House for taking up so mach of their time, which might have been much better employed than in hearing me. I cannot sit down, Sir, without expressing the most grateful sense of the liberal indulgence with which the House has been so good as to honour me.

Mr. Orde, in the few words he had to say, proposed to follow the example of the honourable general, by abstaining from any discussion of the merits of the catholic bill. Though he had supported that bill, he thought the consideration of it wholly irrelevant to the present question. He was sorry his majesty's late ministers had consented to withdraw it, but that bill did not appear to him to have any thing to do with their removal from office. It was their re3 R2

fusal

fusal to give a pledge not to advise his majesty upon that subject, that had caused their removal, and if they had signed that pledge, there was no disgrace and reproach which they would not have merited. Such a pledge would have made the king absolute, and removed the responsibility of his ministers. He approved of the mea sures of the late ministers, and sincerely regretted their removal from office. But that regret might perhaps be lighter, if they had been succeeded by men of talents or abilities. But were not their successors the dregs of a disgraced administration? Were they not the persons who had held the seals of office for a few hours, on a former occasion, in their possession, and carried them back again in acknowledgment of their own imbecility? He wished the House to consider what might be the consequence of their administration to Ireland. If they continued to act upon the principles of the system upon which they had come in, their measures would lead to a separation of the two countries. Such would be the consequences of the administration of those who professed to come into office as the supporters of the constitutional prerogatives of the crown, and the existing establishments of the church and

state.

Mr. Whitshed Keene expressed his regret to be forced to a vote on the question, but felt compelled to vote against the motion, because he thought it amounted to an issue between his majesty and his late ministers, at the bar of that House. The catholic bill was wholly irrelevant to the question; but as it had been introduced into the discussion, he should say upon it, that though he was a friend to the most unlimited toleration, he would not consent to any grant of power to them.

Mr. Wharton objected to the motion on two grounds; the one, the words in which it was couched, the other, the line of argument which the honourable seconder had taken. He could not compliment the honourable gentleman on his discretion in intimating, that although ministers ought not to consider themselves as under the controul of the king, they ought to consider themselves as under the controul of the white boys of Ireland. The honourable gentleman by whom the motion had been seconded, seemed to ground his support on the idea, that when noble lords and gentlemen were called to the councils of his majesty, they had no power to retreat, but must continue in

office whether they would or not. Another point on which he opposed the motion was, that it was incompatible with the wisdom of the House to entertain the discussion of any abstract proposition whatever. Many abstract propositions might be considered incontrovertible, except when they were applied to new cases; and surely no case could be more new, than that an administration should lend its weight in Parliament to measures which had not only not received the concurrence of the king, but to which his majesty had expressed an absolute repugnance. He would suppose a plain and possible case; he would suppose that many years ago some hon. gentleman had moved an abstract resolution, that in any way to restrain the commerce of his majesty's subjects would be injurious to the country, and that it was the duty of Parliament to prevent such an attempt. Such a proposition would have been good abstractedly considered, and yet had not the legislature recently restrained and abolished one of the most important branches of commerce? No abstract proposition was more true, than that it was highly criminal in subjects to take up arms against the sovereign. But suppose that another King James the Second were to arise, would they not be justified in doing so? Any unconstitutional measure of the king to restore popery would justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable. Supposing that the king might have ministers, who, by advising that papists (acknowledging the power of a foreign potentate) should be admitted to the highest offices of the state, should tacitly declare the immediate ancestors of the king usurpers, surely in that case his majesty would be perfectly right in requiring from such ministers a promise that such advice should not be repeated.

Mr. Fawkes observed, that the importance of the ques tion was a sufficient apology for his obtruding himself on the attention of the House. There was no one who lamented more sincerely than he did the misconception which had lately arisen, between an august personage, and his constitutional counsellors. The late ministers acted rightly in withdrawing the bill which had been so often alluded to.. In abandoning the measure, they paid all the deference to the wishes and scruples of that august personage that was required. In doing that, they did quite as much as was necessary. Had they subscribed to the resolution that was proposed to them; had they bound themselves

themselves by an obligation so contrary to the received principles of the constitution; had they given a pledge of so novel, so extraordinary, and so unconstitutional a nature, they would have been lost beyond all hope of redemption: they would have relinquished all sense of honour and of shame, and have given a fatal blow to the liberties of their country. What would become of that great principle in our constitution, the responsibility of ministers, if such a pledge had been given? It was this principle which constituted one of the characteristic differences between the free British constitution, and the absolute governments of other countries. If ministers could not have free will and liberty of counsel, by what principle of justice, he would wish to know, could they be considered as responsible? He was alarmed, terrified he might say, at the language of the day. Such was not that which prevailed at the time of our great deliverer, when the great councils of the nation recommended to him to dismiss his Dutch guards, and when a refusal on his part might have re-produced those scenes which had once deluged the country with blood. The responsibility of ministers was one of the best safeguards of the constitution; and, that once destroyed, though the mace might lie on the table, still the essence of the constitution could not be said to be preserved, if the great land-marks were once gone, we should in vain look for the constitution. It was impossible to recollect the conduct of the august personage alluded to, without sentiments of gratitude and veneration; but on a question so vitally important as the present, he would not compliment away the constitution; he would not surrender that glorious inheritance which had been left to us by our ancestors, who, in former times, filled these benches with so much honour to themselves and advantage to the country. He felt himself obliged to the honourable gentleman who had brought forward this motion, for having afforded him an opportunity of recording his sentiments. During the short time he had had the honour of a seat in the House, he had given his feeble support to the late ministers, because he conceived they understood and pursued the interests of the country. He could not, without sentiments of gratitude, reflect upon what they had done, to lighten the burthens upon the shoulders of the people. The abolition of the slave trade was another measure which commanded his approbation. Their in

tentio.is

tentions to bring the population of Ireland and Scotland into the service; their measures of retrenchment and economy, the advantages of which were hourly felt in every department of the state; their disposition to heal the wounds of Ireland, and to conciliate the affections of that important part of the empire; all these were irresistible motives with him for giving them his support. The extraordinary change which was the subject of such general regret, would however not be unattended with some advantages. The country would learn from it, who they were among its representatives who would never abandon their own characters, or the people's rights. Though the late administration had lost their power, still they might' say with the gallant Frenchman (Francis 1.) "We have lost every thing but our honour." This was a consolation which ought and would support them. For himself, he had nothing to fear and nothing to hope from any administration. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him, by what set of men the affairs of the country were administered, so they were well administered. There was, he would admit, much shrewdness, great dexterity, and considerable talent among the present administration. But as to those great and commanding qualities which should characterize the government of a country, maintaining the pre-eminent situation that this did, they were removed from their predecessors to an incalculable distance. Thinking this, he could not give them his support.

Mr. Osborn would detain the House but for a very short time. He would leave to others who were better qualified to discuss it, the propriety of the measure, to the rash introduction of which the late ministers owed their dismissal. For himself, he was determined to give every assistance in his power to the maintenance of that constitution in church and state, in the principles of which he had been educated, and upon the religious observance of which he conceived the best security of that constitution to reside. Seeing no necessity whatever for the recognition of an ab stract principle of the nature proposed, he would endeayour to get rid of it by moving That the other orders

of the day be now read."

The original question and amendment having been read by the Speaker,

Mr. Bastard observed, that the misconception with re gard to the nature and extent of the measure brought for

ward