Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

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 Parlia, ment in the recess, and in the midst of a session? The opinion of one of the greatest men whom this country boasts, (I mean Lord Somers) was, that to dissolve Parlia ment 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, 1 may also be allowed the same kind of argument, and I' call upon the noble duke, now at the head of his ma jesty's councils, 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. [The noble lord read an extract from the amendment.] 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 as sertion of the ministers which it deserves. The most convenient time! When business of the utmost importance was interrupted, when 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 centres 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,

1

these

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, be 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 dissolutionand 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 honourable secretary of state, 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 scat 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 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 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,

but, my lords, look at the address to the electors of Northampton; look also at those newspapers which are understood to be in the interest and to have the favour 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 experient. 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, 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 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 Mulgrave observed, 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 of 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 de gree, with former measures agreed to by the same Parliament. Ministers had not then to fear any very formidable VOL. I.-1807. oppositing

E

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. He 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 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 manners. 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 them selves had set up that cry. The present ministry had nothing to do with it--[a loud cry of hear! hear! from Lord Grenville and others.] He then detailed the proceedings respecting what has been called the Roman catholic easure, and coatended 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) ·

(Holland) said, that it was an anomaly 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 on 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 in 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. He concluded, by declaring his concurrence in the address, without any amend

ment.

Lord Holland, in 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 enquiry into the whole conduct of the late ministry. He had only said, that the present censure was premature and inconsistent.

Lord Erskine said, that the observations of his noble friend (Holland) had called to his recollection the part which he himself 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 parliaments 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

Ę 2

« AnteriorContinuar »