« AnteriorContinuar »
tem. But as long as the measures of the right honourable gentleman should be in force, no opinions of his respect, ing it should be suffered to impede its progress. As to the allusion of the noble lord to the part which he had taken on the question respecting neutrals, and the triumph he seemed to feel, because he had not, on coming into office advised the adoption of different measures, he had only to say, that he was then as fully convinced as before, that the measure of the noble lord was wholly inefficient. Having gone through the whole of the noble lord's state. ment, he trusted the House would be convinced that he had ma !e no case ont for his amendinent, and that they would therefore reject it.
Mr. Windhain offered himself to the attention of the House, in order to bring back the question to its real grounds. They were all agreed, as it was natural they should, about the prerogative of his majesty to dissolve his Parliament. The honourable gentleman, who seconds ed the address, therefore, had given bimself unnecessary trouble in discussing a question of which nobody entertain. ed a doubt. His nobile friend, in quo ing the opinion of Lord Somers, that the dissolution of Parliament during a session, is illegal, had adverted to the authority, to shew that if such a lawyer entertained such an opinion, the dissolution of Parliament during a session ought not to be resorted to wishout great justification. That was the ar. gument of his noble friend, and le maintained that it was a sound one. The question then before the House was, wliether the dissolution was founded upon wise or good grounds. It was to this that he objected, and was about to state the grounds of his objections. The question between annual and septennial Parliaments was a question only of degree, so was the question between septennial and perpetual Parliaments : but there was no rational pro, portion in the history of Parliaments, between a Parliament of four months, and a Parliament of four years. The right honourable gentleman had contended, that the arguinents urged in support of the former dissolution, applied with equal force to the late dissolution. But his noble frie:d had argued, that at the former period, a new crisis had arisen in the war. It was not a new war, but it was a renewed war; and it was, therefore, desirable that there should be a Parliament, which should continue for some time because it might be attended with inconveni;
ence, ence, that any change should take place .in the publio council of the nation, whilst such a contest continued. The doctrine of the right honourable gentleman went to this, that the Parliament should be changed until one should be found, that would accord with what he or any other person might please to state to be the opinion of his majesty ; according to this doctrine there should be a new Parliament with every new administration ; or as had been grandly and greatly said by him, who said every thing grandly and greatly, the late Mr. Burke, we should no longer choose Parliaments which might approve of ministers, but choose Parliaments to be approved of by ininisters. There might be a crisis wbich would require the exercise of this prerogative as that 'in 1781, when a difference between the two Hlouses threatened an obstruction to the progress of public business. He did not however say, that the measure was justifiable in that instance, though it might be defended on the ground of that disa. greement between the two Houses. For his part inc thought that the aristocracy had then received a blow froin which it had not yet recovererl. Ile should not say what might be the consequences, but certainly there was reason to tear, that the precedent would not be suffered to remain neglected, and the late instance shewed, that the principle is aggravated in each successive application. But he wished to know what was the expediency of the . measure in the late instance, when it produced all the in. conveniences of a general election, all the injury to private properties, and all the (letriment to public morals, which such an event is calculated to give rise t:). When all these inconveniences have been produced, there should be a good justification of the measure. If the protestant religion was in danger, that would be a justification of the measure : if the ministers thought it was in danger, that would be a justification of them. As to the cry of ịhe church in danger, he would reply to that by asking the ministers, whether they bclicved that themselves. The catholic emancipation had been the ground upon which the noble lord opposite had been able to carry the measure of the union with Ireland. That was the sole ground upon which he had consented to it, and that had bečn the great object of the great character, whose name had been so unfortunately for their argument, introduced by the gentlemen on the opposite side. The learned gentleinan op:
posite had not felt it necessary to raise any cry in the country, when this great man, whom he always represent. ed as the most fit to preside over the councils of the nation, had proposed a measure which was to overturn the consti. tution. But the gentlemen opposite knowing that the 'good sense of the country would speedily put down the senseless cry that had been raised, took advantage of it whilst it lasted. They made their hay whilst the sun shone. The title was ebbing from them, and they would soon have been left dry. Many of them must have the most sovereign contempt for the cry, and it was some revenge against their underlings who had propagated it with such zeal, that they should know the contempt in which they held it. Was not the House 'to take their opinion of government by the means by which they came into power? Would any body have thought that they should be ministers? Did any of themselves think it, they who had a short time before abdicated their offices? They could not havc entertained the idea till they took advan. tage of the cry to dissolve the Parliament. What was to be thought of a Parliament chosen under such circum. stances ? What would the people think of it, who wanted a Parliament independent of the government? What would they think of it, who sought the overthrow of the government by the destruction of the Parliament? What was to be thought of a Parliament, when a minister threatened that he would dissolve them, unless they should wote with him? a threat from not the magnitude, but the audacity of which, he at that time shrunk, tbough he and his colleagues afterwards acted upon it. The Parliament was dissolved, and they represen'ed the late ministers as having attempted to force his majesty's conscience. They sent them to the country to be torn to pieces. Thank God, no such event had taken place. The good sense of the people had rejected the cry. The experiment had produced the contrary effect from what was expected. The cry had only prevailed in distant places, where there was not time to reinove the delusion. I had not produced any effect in any of those places where the popular voice returned the members, neither in the city of Westminster, Middlesex, Yorkshire, nor Norfolk.' Tho e who had contrived to come into power by such means as the present ministers, were unfit to hold it. He declared it to be essential to good government, that jobs should be inquired
which hacreate and tains that advicarowed ada
into, and severely animadverted upon. He condemned and deprecated the unwise and illiberal p licy, which proposed to quiet the minds of the catholics of Ireland, by an unqualified declaration, that nothing further would be granted to them. The united wisdom of Burke, Pitt, and Fox, had concurred in approving an opposite system. If he were to say, which he thought safer and more just, to re-enact all the penal statutes that had been repealed by the good sense and liberality of the present age, or to stop short in the gradual and necessary progress to total emancipation, he should not hesitate to declare as his opinion, that it would be attended with more mischief to stop short at the present point. He contended, that the king could in no instance be constitutionally supposed to act without advisers. In the instance of the dissolution, however, the present ministers were the avowed ad. visers, and their conduct in giving that advice, evinced a determination to create and take advantage of a public delusion, which had in part produced the desired effect, but which the people already repented of, and endeavoured to correcs, according as time afforded the means of reAection and inquiry. It was folly to imagine, that because the danger that had lately threatened us was removed for the moment, it would not again return. Buona parte having accomplished the subjugation of the other powers, would return upon us with increased means and increased fury, in a manner that would require all the resources of the country, and all the talents (a loud laugh), to effect the public preservation. He did not mean “ All the Talents" in the sense in which the expres. -sion had been cried abroad, but seriously, including the talents of the honourable gentleman opposile, and the whole country. The allusion to events that had taken place, was as the right honourable gentleman explained, not meant to convey any censure. If there should appear to be roon for any blaine, he hoped inquiry would fix it where it ought, and where he trusted it would rest.
General Craufurd spoke at some length in justification of the change of ministers. The late ministers had brought his majesty before his late Parliament to answer for that change, and a great portion of that Parliament, though very far from a majority, having aken part against bis majesty, an appeal to the people to decide between his
majesty and his fate ministers, was determined upon, The people had been proved true to the call, and he hoped the House of Commons would acquit itself duly and honourably to the crown and to the people. He had supported the late ministers from a high opinion of their tro lents, though not an exclusive opinion. He condemned them for attempting to force themselves on the crown, by compelling the crown to dismiss them. Oh! sublime patrio:ism, ending in political suicide and confessed selfmurder and body politic.
Sir Harry Njildmay rose to vindicate his character from aspersions which the noble lord, who had sat opposite to him, had cast upon it. The noble lord ought in propriety to have communicated to him his intention of countenancing the scandaloiis libels uttered against him and his honourable friend (Mr. S. Bourne), in the newspapers. Without such notice, it was not so handsome to mention them seriously in the House. He gave notice, as it had been already his intention to do that night, that'on Mon. day he would move for an inquiry into the whole of tbe circumstances of the transaction alluded to, between him and the government. The result of the inquiry would shew there was no foundation for the scandalous insinua. tions uttered against them. · Mr. Denis Browne, thought the change of ministers right, on the simple ground that his majesty did not ap: prove of the principles, or measures, of the late ministers. He defended the dissolution of Parliament, as a wise and proper appeal to the people upon the change of ministers, otherwise, we should have a Parliament attempting to impose ministers upon the king. He hoped his majesty in resisting all unconstitutional attempts, woald always have the unanimous support of his people.
Lord Cochrane hoped, that as each party charged the other with making jobs with a view to influence the elections, the conduct of both, in this respect would be inquired into. He boped some third party would arise which would keep aloof from selfish interest, and sinecure places. Unless they acted upon different principles he would not support either of the present parties.
Mr. Grattan tbought the conduct of the late ministers, with respect to the catholic question, was unjustly censured by those opposite. He could not agree that the late mi. nisters had deserled the public cause in their conduct with