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 bad seconded the address, had spoke much of their attach ment 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. Hie 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 at tachment, into a neglect or compromise of the principles of the constitution; and when he saw these principles violat.. ed by the conduct of the king's ministers, he would endea vour 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 chap ters 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 follow ing amendment was moved by his Lordship:

That by a long experience of his majesty's virtues, we well know it to be his majesty's most invariable wish, that all his prerogatives should be exercised solely for the advan tage 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 Par liament 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, and no sufficient cause for a fresh 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

expence,

expence, thereby wantonly adding to the heavy burdens which the necessity 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 has 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 infurious pretences on which his majesty's ministers have publicly rested this their evil advice; pretences affording ho justification for the measure, but calculated only to ex cite the most dangerous animosities among his Majesty's subjects, at a period when their united efforts 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 wise and prudent ministers."

The amendment having been read from the Woolsack,

Lord Boringdon 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 led to that dissolution, the question having been so often argued. It was blear, 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-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 con fidential 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 mibisters. For the dissolution resorted to by the present ministers,

D 2

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 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, although not in the course of this debate, that the tupture of the negotiation with France was a sufficient ground for the measure. If this were so, then the rupture of every negotiation 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. 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 in strumental 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 Constantihople 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 (we believe Kinnaird) of considerable talents, who 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

wisdom 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 twenty-five 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 among his opponents than to the skill or valour of his troops.

Lord Holland felt some difficulty upon the present occa sion, 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 into the mouth of his Majesty. Such doctrines were the most dangerous and unconstitutional he had ever heard. Hẹ objected also, most strongly, to the introduction of the king's name, and the king's opinions, into a debate in this House, as they had 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 he influenced? if these opinions are to prevail, there is an end of the liberties of the people. What may be the conse quences? 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 privi leges 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

T

amendments to addresses. During the seventeen 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 consti'ntional privileges of this House, to offer those sentiments o the throne which we conceive to be called for by our duty to our country? The noble lord, in speaking of dissolu tions 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 be contended for a moment that there is no difference between dissolving a Parliament that has sat five years, and one which has sai 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 ar guments which the noble lord has applied against the dissolution resorted to by the late ministers when the Parliament sat four years, would apply to a Parliament that had sat six years, and are decidedly against the dissolu tion of the last Parliament, which the noble lord has ne vertheless defended. After hearing the defence set up by the noble lord for the late dissolution, I am surprised that when a noble secretary of state (Lord Hawkesbury) sớ eloquently declaimed against the dissolution of the preceding Parliament, 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 late 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 this the moment for an appeal to the people? The noble lord then states, that at the time of the last disso lution there was great irritability and collision of opinion. Is it not then clear that that was a most improper period

for