641: experienced, should be clouded with ingratitude; or that his grey hairs should be brought down with sorrow to the grave. As to their administration, the close of which was so much regretted, by what measures was it marked? It lasted about thirteen months, and during that short period they had violated the feelings of the leading descriptions of the country. They violated the feelings of the EastIndia Company, against whose remonstrances they would have sent out a governor-general, almost unanimously disapproved of by the court of directors. But this, nevertheless, they gave up, like their bill; and although they at first contended that not a moment's time should be lost in sending out a governor, the person they at length fixed upon did not go for nearly twelve months afterwards. They next violated the feelings of the volunteers, and received their generous patriotism with indifference or contempt. The shipping interest was treated in the same manner; and they closed their career of vexation by violating the feelings and the conscience of their sovereign. His (Lord Castlereagh's) honourable friends and himself had come into power by no intrigue; but they should possess no public virtue, there would not be a spark of loyalty or patriotism in their breasts, if they did not stand forward on this occasion to support their sovereign. The places were at that time completely vacant: nothing, in fact, but a most inordinate love of place, could have induced his majesty's late ministers to have clung to office so long as they had done, under all the circumstances of the case.

Lord Howick observed, that after all that he had already said upon the subject, he should have remained silent during the discussion of that night, had it not been for some of the observations which had been made by the noble lord who had just sat down. In the first place, it surely came with a most peculiar ill grace from that noble lord to speak of clinging to office, when it was a matter of such general notoriety that that same noble lord was always anxious to have two, or even three, strings to his bow. The noble lord had displayed a most extraordinary degree of anxiety, a most peculiar tenderness for what he called the feelings of the East India Company (in what breast those feelings resided it was difficult to tell), but the House would recollect, that that noble lord was not all times so delicate about touching those feelings of which he now spoke with such extreme kindness and such tender sympathy. Surely the VOL. II. 1806-7. 4 N

noble

noble lord could not already forget the substitution of a letter of praise and approbation instead of one containing expressions of censure and disapprobation on a noble lord who had at time the chief management of the company's affairs! On the subject of the volunteers, some general expressions relative to the regular forces had been misinterpreted and misquoted; but no one was ever yet so bold as to deny that his honourable friends, at all times, did honour to the motives of that meritorious body. As to the shipping interest, he must only reply, that all that he knew of as a public measure connected with that interest, was the American intercourse bill; a bill which gave a precise legal determination to an act which was almost constantly performed contrary to law. But, as to the last part of the noble lord's allegation; that his majesty's late ministers had endeavoured to force the king's conscience; he would, in the first place, give a broad denial to the charge; and, secondly, he must refer the House to the act of withdrawing the bill, which was in itself the most unequivocal evidence that they had acknowledged by action, what he would always most sincerely acknowledge by words, that, whenever a difference of opinion should unfortunately hap pen to arise between him and his majesty, that in such case his own opinion must unquestionably be wrong. But then, after that acknowledgment was in duty given; when an unnecessary and an unconstitutional pledge was demanded; a pledge, the impropriety of which was acknowledged by every member of the House but one, was it according to the true spirit of our constitution, to say that his majesty had been ill advised? If the House then be almost unanimously convinced of the unconstitutional exercise of the royal prerogative, must they have their lips sealed; must Parliament remain a silent spectator of incroachments on the constitution, which may threaten the liberties of the people, or the personal safety even of the monarch himself, and not a member of that House must dare to express his disapprobation of the conduct of those who had given such dangerous advice, lest some noble lord most eminently conspicuous for patriotism and loyalty, or some learned chancellor of the exchequer, should start up and say: "This is the act of the king, and to meddle with it is to bring the sovereign to the bar of the House!" Really ti.is is unbearable; that a member of the British Parliament cannot cali in question, in such terms

as

as the constitution has authorised, an act of royal prerogative, but that some person may strip off the veil with which the sacred person of majesty is covered by our constitution, and then lay the blame at the door of him who censured only the evil advisers of the crown.

But this is not the only instance in which an English Parliament is attempted to be kept in awe; a right honourable secretary of state has mentioned the name of the king in Parliament, with a view to influence the decision of that House. At other periods of our history, such words, if any one should dare to utter them, would have been taken down, and the member would not have been suffered to proceed. The noble lord remarked on the peculiar grace with which the charge came from the noble secretary of state, against the explanation which he had lately felt it his duty to make relative to the catholic question, after the conduct pursued by Mr. Pitt, in conjunction with that noble secretary in 1801. For when the resignation then took place, the cause of it arising out of the personal sentiment of the king, was very generally understood. The ministers who resigned had not, to be sure, made any public explanation of the cause of their resignation. But he would put it to the noble secretary, to his colleagues, and to the House, whe ther if the ministry who succeeded him had taken any measures to misrepresent his conduct and raise an outery against his character? Whether if the chancellor of the exchequer had in a public address thought proper to accuse him of an attempt to endanger, if not to overthrow, the church establishment, Mr. Pitt would not have come down to the House with all the thunder of his eloquence to vindicate his character and overwhelm his opponents? As to the measure recommended by an honourable gentleman relative to an arrangement of tythes in Ireland, he would assure that honourable gentleman that such a measure should have his decided support, as should the other measure referred to for promoting the education of the poor. Adverting to the doctrine maintained by some gentleinen, that this House should not interfere with his majesty's prerogative in the choice of his ministers, it would go to this, that however exceptionable any set of ministers might be, that House was bound not to express any sentiment upon them. If such a doctrine were admitted, the consequences might be extraordinary indeed, and we might possibly have some of the extravagances of ancient Rome acted in

4N2

this

this country, and a horse might be set up for a minister. With regard to the assertion, that upon those cabinet meetings which took place upon the subject of the catholic bill, such members were excluded as dissented from it, was totally incorrect. For the fact was, that all the discussions which took place relative to that measure, all the cabinet meetings were full up to the period at which the dissention arose in consequence of the bill exceeding the "act of 1793. From that time forth there was no other meeting as to that point than that of the ministers who were friendly to the measure, who assembled to deliberate upon the course best to be pursued respecting it. But they never so met as a cabinet, and the minutes of their proceedings served to shew that. Of course no principle of exclusion, such as that ascribed to himself and some of his colleagues, ever did exist. Indeed no proceeding was taken by those among his colleagues, who assented to the proposed measure relative to the catholics, which was not made known to those who dissented, and fully open to their examination. For the last dispatch sent to Ireland, authorizing Mr. Elliot to give that answer to the catholics which had been objected to, lord Grenville told one of the dissentients (Lord Sidmouth) he might see it if he wished before it was sent off. There was, therefore, no concealment whatever from the king or any of the ministers, Lord Sidmouth did himself communicate to his majesty all the grounds upon which he disapproved of the measure. With respect to the motion before the House, he had no hesitation in distinctly stating, that he would support it; be cause, among other reasons, he thought the present ministers unworthy to hold their places: still, however, if they should be able to retain them, he would say, that it was not by any means his intention to give them any vexatious or harassing opposition, although he would of course feel it his duty to watch their conduct, with that constitutional jealousy which must be considerably heightened by the impression upon his mind, that they were totally undeserving of confidence.

Mr. Bathurst opposed the motion, expressing at the same time his regret, that the late ministers should have been removed, and his entire approbation of every part of their conduct, with the exception of that only which led to their removal: disapproving of that part, he could not consistently support a motion which implied an unquali

fied approval of all their measures. But he had another and a stronger objection to this motion, and that was, as he had stated on a former evening, in discussing a proposition of a similar character; that it would serve to put a négative upon the exercise of his majesty's undoubted prerogative, in choosing his own ministers.

Lord Percy said, he rose in consequence of what had dropped from the honourable member who had just sat down (Mr. Bathurst), to express his approbation of the original motion made by his honourable friend (Mr. Lyttleton). The measures brought forward by his majesty's late ministers, he could not but in general approve of. The act for the abolition of the slave trade, which has so lately passed, and the appointment of a committee for the reduction of sinecure places and fees, are measures which will ever reflect upon them the highest honour, and be attended with the greatest advantage to the country. He could not however avoid lamenting, that they should have introduced a bill into the House, for giving an extension of power to the Roman catholics; no man, he trusted, was a greater friend to toleration than himself, yet he could not help disapproving of any measure which would enable Roman catholics in this kingdom to hold the appointments of commander in chief, and master-general of the ordnance, as it has been usual for persons holding those situations, to have a seat in the cabinet, and the concession of such of fices, certainly goes to a great extension of power, but does not contribute to the free exercise of religion; but from what has lately dropped in this House, he understood the measure had been abandoned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Perceval) combated the notion, that the removal of the late ministers was the effect of a long and dark intrigue. If so, he contended that the evil spirit which conducted it must have found its way into the minds of lord Grenville and his noble colleague on the other side, and have urged them to press forward the bill which was the immediate and obvious cause of their removal. The right honourable gentleman also resisted the doctrine maintained by the supporters of the motion as to the idea that those ministers who accepted of fice were legally resposible for the change which led to the vacancies they occupied. He put the case of ministers being dismissed even from caprice, and asked whether other men were to refuse to succeed them, and the government

was