could not be heard in Parliament, to appeal to his people. The late ministers appealed to the Parliament, and the king appealed to the people. The result had been a decisive confirmation of the propriety and expediency of that appeal, (the reasons for which ministers had fairly and candidly avowed) by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament. He had heard with the deepest regret the latter part of the speech of the noble lord, which he could not help saying was little calculated to unite the people, and might tend to excite discordant feelings, little appropriate to the present crisis. He regretted to hear the noble lord speak of a divided people; he denied that we were a divided people; whatever difference of opinion there : might be in Parliament, or in the country on political topics, they were all firmly united in the cause of their country, and would be firmly united against any enemy whom the country might have to encounter. With respect to the catholics of Ireland, he had no hesitation in saying, that the best policy towards them, and that with which they would be best satisfied, was fairly and manfully to avow, that no further concessions could be granted to them, than to raise expectations which could not be gratified. The conduct of that great minister, whose name had been often alluded to in the course of the discussion on this question, had been very different upon this subject to that of the late ministers. His right honourable friend, after the resignation of the administration in 1801, and upon a full consideration of this question, was fully convinced, that the agitation of it could produce no practical good, and that there was no chance of those concessions being carried, which he wished to be granted to the catholics. His right honourable friend, therefore, very wisely left the question in that state, he did not commit Parliament, nor did he commit the country. The late ministers, on the contrary, very unwisely committed both Parliament and the country by the agitation of this question, and even if it were a question of time (which he denied), with respect to the granting of these concessions, they had by the agitation of the question rendered it still more difficult in any future circumstances to grant these concessions. He was convinced, however, that there was that disposition amongst the people, whether those who enjoyed the most, or those who enjoyed the least, enjoyed more than the people of other countries, that there would be an union of effort and VOL. I.-1807.

N n

of

of energy to repel the attempts of our enemy, and that the danger of the country would rouse all, heart and hand, in its defence, forgetting all petty differences of opinion, and trivial disputes amongst themselves.

Earl Spencer conceived the question to be, whether the necessity which it was admitted had occasioned the breach of the law, was forced on his majesty's ministers, ar had been forced on by them. The noble lord opposite had said, that his majesty having reason to be dissatisfied with his former servants, had exercised his undoubted prerogative in choosing others in their stead, and that the old servants of the crown had thereupon come to Parliament with a statement of their case, thereby making an appeal to Parliament on the differences which had occurred between them and their sovereign, and that his majesty had, in these circumstances, been advised to take the sense of the people. A more unfounded, or a more erraneous statement than this, the noble earl conten:led, had never been made, as must be well known to the noble lord (Hawkesbury) himself. The fact was, that after certain confidential communications had taken place between his majesty and his late servants, in consequence of which a change in his majesty's councils had taken place, the new servants of the crown betraying the trust reposed in them, had given garbled and unjust representations in the newspapers, and otherwise, of the conduct of their predecessors, and of the circumstances which had preceded their dismissal from office. In this state of things a representa tion of the actual state of matters, and of the whole circumstances attendant on them, became necessary, to clear the characters of the late ministers from the obloquy with which they were thus unjustly loaded. In making this statement, they had been accused of bringing their sovereign to the bar of both Houses of Parliament. Such a charge, however, they disclaimed. Their only wish was, a vindi cation of their own character, and to bring forward to the bar of the Houses of Parliament and of the country, those persons who had given evil advice to their sovereign. As to the policy of our conduct towards Ireland, it was no. his intention to inquire, as that had been already so ably discussed by his noble friend (Lord Grenville). But if that part of the population of these kingdoms really did possess the loyalty admitted by the noble lord (Hawkesbury), he could not help thinking that they by no means experienced a

corre❤

corresponding return. He was convinced the time must and would come when the immunities now denied them would be granted. At a season so perilous as the present, we should look to every possible means of streng hening our exertions; but it was impossible that the catholics in Ireland could feel the same interest in the concerns of the country, till they participated in all the privileges of fellow subjects.

Lord Erskine said, that it was a fundamental principle of the constitution of this country, that no act could be done contrary to law, and for which the persons advising it were at the same time entitled to be indemnified, unless such breach of law was occasioned by an act of imperious necessity. If this was a case of that kind, God forbid that it should be resisted for a moment. No man could question the right of the king to dismiss his servants, or to dissolve the Parliament. These were undoubted prerogatives, but they were granted for very distinct purposes. If his majesty saw reason to question the conduct of his servants, he might dismiss them; or, if he saw reasons to doubt the Parliament, he might dissolve it, and take the sense of their constituents as to their conduct. But the law never intended, that both of these prerogatives should be exercised at one and the same time, and with reference to each other. It was never in the contemplation of the constitution of this country, that Parliament should be dissolv ed simply to accommodate a change in administration. This would be to consider Parliament not as a controul on the conductof government, but as an appendage to it, to be dissolved and changed to suit the different aspects which it might assume. The unjustifiable measures which in the mean time might be adopted, would in such a view of the case, be objects of little consideration to those by whom they were recommended. Having by the influence of the crown got a Parliament to their mind, they had only to begin their career by an act of indemnity for any measure which they might have taken against law, and without ne cessity. The arrival of such a period, he must consider as one pregnant with danger. It might be very well to talk of appealing to the sense of the people; what would the community think, however, when informed that there are a number of boroughs at the disposal of the very persons who advised this dissolution; and that there are others, the property of, or influenced by a number of in

Nn 2

dividuals,

dividuals, who, again, are under the influence of the crown? so that success is in such an appeal next to certain. But, still further, when they saw the seal of indemnity ready prepared for those who advised the measure, must they not be of opinion that the period was most dangerous? If any thing could add to the peril of such a situation, it was the state of things at the present moment, so awful, so unprecedented as it must be admitted to be. The only way at such a moment, to insure confidence and respect from the public, was for the government to shew itself prudent, and for Parliament to shew itself independent. That House could do much to effect this object. No person could dissolve them. They had it in their power by a single vote to check such an evil. To protect at once the crown and the people, and to make themselves beloved and esteemed, they had only to say, "You shall not, in dissolving the House of Commons, act against law. You had no foundation for dissolving Parliament, and we will not grant you an indemnity."

The Lord Chancellor maintained, that the proper question now before the House was, whether it was a right thing in ministers to advise his majesty to pass the order in council. Though ministers might be blameable in advising the dissolution of Parliament, still the House was bound to give them indemnity for the act now alluded to, if it could be vindicated. It was not fair by a side wind to come at a question which he, for one, was ready to discuss and to vindicate openly and fairly. Let the noble lord come forward with a special motion and charge on the subject of the dissolution of Parliament, and he should be ready to answer it. The noble and learned lord (Erskine) while he admitted the excellence of the British constitution, did not seem inclined to trust either the electors or the elected. It was to that House, which could not be affected by the dissolution, that he seemed to look. They could not be dissolved, and from them his lordship scemed to expect a redress of all the evils he supposed to exist. He desired of the noble and learned lord to look to the year 1805, when Parliament had been formerly dissolved; there had then been no embarrassing circumstances to render the dissolution necessary; there had been no votes of either House which indicated a wish to impede the measures of government; yet that ministry, of which the noble and learned lord (Erskine) formed a part, had chosen

to

to advise the dissolution of Parliament. He wished to know in what respect the present ministers were more to blame for having recourse to such a measure, than the late ministers had been esteemed. The inquiry into which the late ministers had forced the two Houses of Parliament, he considered the most unconstitutional proceeding in which the House had ever been engaged. The permission of his majesty to bring forward this statement, so far from mending the matter, made it infinitely worse. It was using his majesty's permission to drag him to the bar of Parliament. Such permission ought never to have been asked, and never to have been acted on. His majesty's conduct, however, had in consequence been made a subject of inquiry in both Houses of Parliament, in a manner which had never for merly been witnessed; and nothing, he presumed, could be more natural than, after such a discussion, to submit the subject to the sense of the country, while the circumstances were fresh in the recollection of the people. A firm and vigorous administration, it was admitted, was necessary for the country. He had no hesitation in declaring it as his opinion, that the present was as firm and vigorous as the late administration. It was his wish to render it as firm and vigorous as possible; and with this view, he had no hesitation in acknowledging, that he was probably one of the most strenuous advisers of his majesty to the dissolution of Parliament. His lordship contended, that so far were the acts of Parliament against Roman Catholics, from being calculated to exclude them from the pale of the British constitution, the only way to secure that constitution both to them and to every other class of subjects in the country, was to maintain these acts. Toleration and power were very different. The British constitution gave toleration to every one of its subjects; but the very nature of the thing rendered it necessary that power should be vested where it was most calculated to produce and to preserve the good of the whole. If persons who by refusing to qualify themselves for offices of power and trust, had still complete toleration allowed them, they had the benefits of the British constitution. With what consistency, however, he would ask, could the noble lord stop with the officers of the army and navy? why should not the immunity extend to the lawyer also, and to every officer in the civil government of the country? Granting all that the most zealous friend to catholic emancipation

could