Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

not on this account disapprove of the last dissolution. He hoped the present ministers would establish their efficiency. The crisis was momentous. He hoped they would recollect that we were at war against the most formidable enemy that had ever threatened this country, the destruction of which he was meditating, no less on the banks of the Vistula, than if he were on the banks of the Seine. He hoped ministers were sensible of our peril, that government was fully impressed with the dangers, and had prepared measures to meet it. He would judge of them, not only by their measures, but by the weight they would have both at home and abroad. If they were deficient in any of these essential requisites they were unfit for the crisis, and ought not to continue in office. He would do to them as he would wish others to do by hun. He would judge them by their conduct. His party was the country and the king, and he felt it his duty, under all the circum stances, to resist the amendment.

The Earl of Selkirk declared his concurrence in the ob servations made by the noble viscount, and thought that the late dissolution of Parliament could not be reprobated on any principle that would not equally apply to that of last year. The inconvenience arising from a disso." lution must be balanced by the strength of the_reasons which required it. The noble and learned lord (Erskine) in comparing the present case with that of 1754, had alleged that there was no ground for the late dissolution, because the House of Commons had not, in the late case, come to issue with the government on any particular ques tion; but a very large proportion of the House had concurred in the expression of principles subversive of the constitutional prerogatives of the crown. Principles hnd been laid down and supported by very great numbers, which would reduce to an empty name the prerogative of the king in choosing his own ministers. It had been al-leged, that an unconstitutional pledge had been demanded of ministers, and that, without inquiring who had really been the advisers, their successors were to be held as responsible for that demand. The necessary conse quence from this doctrine was, that no other ministry could possibly accept of office constitutionally, which was as much as to say, at the King could not legally dismiss the ministers he actually had. This was a doctrine that went to subvert the constitution, and that distinguished Vol. 1.-1807.

F

those

[LORDS, those who hit from all former oppositions, When a set of ministers had, by their conduct, proved themselves unfit for their situations, a systematic opposition was jus tifiable; but the doctrines that had been maintained in the last Parliament would equally justify an opposition against the best ninisters as against the worst. When so great a proportion of the House maintained so violent a doctrine, he thought that even though they did not absolutely amount to a majority, a case had occurred that fairly might justify an appeal to the people. But though he thus considered the dissolution as justifiable, and should therefore vote against the amendment that had been proposed to the address, he could not extend this to an approbation of government in the conduct of the elections, and particularly in the cry of "no popery" that had been encouraged, for though ministers now disclaimed it, yet, circumstances were such that it seemed impossible for any reasonable and impartial man to doubt with whom the cry had originated; and he thought that their conduct in this respect deserved the reprobation of the Hou e and of the country.

The Earl of Rosslyn declared, that after the manner in which all arguments, and every attempt at argument, bad been already answered; after the luminous speech which their lordships had heard from his noble and learned friend (Lord Erskine), it would be impossible for him to add any thing further upon the subject. The question which was then under their lordships' consideration, however, was of such importance, that in justice to himself, he was compelled to declare his sentiments, and not suffer the question to pass with only a silent vote from him. A noble viscount opposite him (Lord Sidmouth) for whom he entertained the highest respect, had observed, that if it was justifiable to dissolve one Parliament at any period short of its statutable duration, we might, by parity of reasoning, justify all dissolutions of Parliament, whatever might be the extent of the Parliament's existence at the time when such an event took place. But he would ask that noble lord, and he would ask the House, if there was not, exclusive of the consideration of the length of time which the Parliament had been then acting, and the length of time which it was entitled, by regular course of law, still to act; he would ask if, exclusive of this consideration, there was not some difference to be discovered in the circumstances under

which a Parliament might be dissolved? He would ask, what interruption the business of the public had met with during the existence of the late Parliament? And knowing, as he did, and as he was convinced many of their lordships must have also observed, that the public business would, on the one hand, have been materially forwarded, if Parliament had been suffered to continue in the exercise of its functions, until at least the business of the session was at an end, he thought, as in fact he thought was just in all cases where a Parliament. was dissolved in the middle of a session, that it was the duty of ministers to adduce sufficient argument, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to justify themselves. for having advised the adoption of such a precipitate step; it was the act of his majesty's government, and the onus lay entirely with his majesty's servants. It had been said, however, in effect by a noble lord opposite, that Parliament was formerly dissolved upon nearly as bad ground as that upon which the dissolution of the late Parliament took place. But he would ask any one of their lordships if it was sufficient justification of their conduct for any one set of ministers to say to another, "You formerly adopted such a measure which was bad, and therefore we are now entitled to take another step, which is somewhat worse. Such an attempt at argument he was confident could have no weight in such an enlightened assembly as that which be was then addressing. And he must declare most unequivocally, that in his opinion no one fair ground of justification had yet been given to Parliament or to the coun try for the extraordinary advice which his majesty's present ministers had given to dissolve a Parliament that was faithful to the country, loyal to the sovereign, and in the midst of transacting most important business. But it might be said, that the church was in danger. That was a cry which had been raised too generally out of doors. He did not imagine that any noble lord would be bold enough to rise in his place as a peer of Parliament, and declare that he seriously thought there could be any dan ger to the established church from any measure that had been proposed immediately before the dissolution, even if it were carried into effect. But how absurd, how ridiculously reposterous must it appear to see that such an alrm was, endeavoured to be excited in many parts of the country, after that measure was withdrawn! It was

F2

a fact

a fact which still remained without a disavowal on the part of his majesty's ministers, and which was openly and publicly declared by many of their friends. At the same time he had too high an opinion of their lordships' libe rality and good sense to imagine that any one noble lord in that House, whether a member of his majesty's govern ment or not, ever once for a moment believed that at this day there was any danger to the church establishment to be apprehended in England. But there was still a circumstance respecting which he should be glad to be informed; he would be glad to know upon what ground it was stated in all the addresses to his majesty on this head, that the church and state were supposed to be in the most imminent danger? he was induced to ask for this information from his observation that these addresses uniformly came from places where ministers were known to have the greatest influence. In fact their zeal was so very cager in pursuit of addresses, that it was officially acknowledged in one instance that it outran the fact; an address was formally inserted in the London Gazette, from the college of the holy and undivided Trinity, in the city of Dublin, in support of this idle cry; but was it a fact, that the members of the university actually joined in that senseless clamour? No; that learned body. was too enlightened and too liberal to indulge in such a prejudice, as that with which they were attempted to be branded; and the same London Gazette, printed by the authority of government, was afterwards obliged to confess that no such address had been presented. Now that he spoke of public proceedings, he recollected, and it was a fact which must be known to many of their lordships, that an advertisement was printed in the public papers, signed with the name of his majesty's chancellor of the exchequer, thus adding the weight and influence of office to the authority which that Larned gentleman's own name brought with it. He did not yet know that this was contradicted, and while such a cry was suffered to be spread throughout the country without contradiction from those in whose name they were circulated, the prejudices of the people were wantonly excited; the people, in many instances, took no fime to consider more than if a cry of "Fire, fire," was raised; though this should be done at a time when there was no danger, still the people, if they heard the cry was raised by those whose duty it was to take care of their in

terests,

terests, might be apt not to consider or examine into the ground of the alarm, but betake themselves to any mean that was suggested to them as the most likely to insure their safety. At the same time when these alarms were spread without contradiction, he could not refrain from noticing the duplicity of which his majesty's ministers were guilty; whilst they themselves appeared to be thus engaged in exciting animosi'y amongst his majesty's subjects, they put it into his majesty's mouth that he recommended unanimity among all classes and descriptions of his people. With the noble viscount on the other side of the House (Lord Sidmouth) he must observe, that of those men his expectations were not equal to his wishes, that they might save the country at the present momentous crisis. He therefore supported the amendment.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire maintained that the conduct of his majesty's present ministers was strictly justifiable in having recommended the dissolution of the late Parliament. The Catholics would now see, that notwithstanding their cause was supported by a powerful and respectable party in this country, yet that the opi nion of their sovereign was against them, and that in that opinion he was supported by the general sentiments of the people.

Lord Grenville entered into the discussion of the great question of the dissolution of Parliaments. He shewed the marked and wide differences that existed between the circumstances of the dissolution in 1781, in 1787, and in May 1807. At the first period, a dispute between the two Houses, in which the one counteracted the other, made a positive necessity for a dissolution. In the second instance, the temper of the times was tranquil. There was no ferment, nor agitation, nor any thing to influence the minds of the people. And as, after an ineffectual attempt. to negotiate a peace, it was essential to make preparations for carrying on the war with increased vigour, it was a proper moment to recur to the sense of the constituent body, during a recess, when no inconvenience could arise from the measure. How different was the measure of the last dissolution, during a ferment of all the bad passions of the mind, artfully and wickedly excited; and done for the sole purpose of taking advantage of that ferment, bebause they knew that it would not last! The noble lord forcibly stated, the private and public calamities that were

thereby

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »