stances of the case; from which he drew the same conclusion as on a former occasion, namely, that the king had reluctantly assented to the bill in the first instance; that he supposed it at that time to contain nothing more than the provisions of the act of 1793, and that his majesty had explicitly declared he never would go further than that act. His lordship passed an eulogium on lord Howick, and a high panegyric on the conduct of the duke of Bedford in the government of Ireland, placed, as his grace has been, in a situation of considerable difficulty; and after some observations on the government of lord Camden, which, he contended, was good, and that the acts of barbarity and injustice which took place during that noble lord's administration did not arise out of his system, his lordship concluded by declaring, that he must oppose a proposition, the tendency of which went to attach blame to the sovereign, or to infringe his prerogative.

The earl of Lauderdale appealed to their lordships' own recollection, as to what had been the conduct of parliament in the best times of our history. Did not parliament then consider, as indeed it was an acknowledged principle of our constitution, that the legal and ostensible advisers of the crown were alone responsible for every thing that was done by the monarch? And when the king thought proper to take an act entirely to himself, by giving a certificate under his own hand, as an indemnification to ministers for their conduct, did not parliament maintain, that it was an addition to his crime, that he had thus surrendered his own responsibility? Let noble lords consider then for a moment,

if it be not equally criminal, at least in some considerable degree culpable conduct in the present ministers, that they have at least virtually assumed the management of public affairs, on a condition, that they will not, if the protection of his majesty's crown and the salvation of the empire depend on it, presume to mention to their royal master, perhaps the only topic that it was their sworn duty to advance, and strengthen by their recommendation? Would not a forbearance to urge a topic that might possibly be most es sentially interesting to the general welfare of the sovereign and his people, be highly criminal in the servants of the crown? If his majesty's late ministers had given a pledge of the nature that had been demanded of them, would they not then have given up the exercise of their own judgement, for which alone they could be deemed responsible; and would they not for such a base surrender of their own responsibility be justly liable to impeachment?-If his majesty's present ministers have denied the admission of such a principle as this, they, unquestionably, when the change in his majesty's councils was occasioned by a refusal to fetter their judgement for ever after, and seal up their lips upon a particular question-when this was known to be the case, and when it was not attempted to be denied that the principle upon which such a refusal was given was truly constitutional, most unquestionably those noble lords who succeeded his majesty's late ministers in of fice ought to have declared themselves, and let their sovereign know what was their opinion on this great constitutional question. If they did so, it was a matter that N4

could

could easily be proved, that they did so in so many terms. If they did not so declare themselves, they accepted of office with at least the implication of a pledge of the amount that had been spoken of, and were highly culpable; but if they entered on office with a positive stipulation, they were guilty of a crime in the eyes of the constitution, for which they are answerable to parliament.

Lord Mulgrave denied that the .confidential advisers of the crown had a right, on every occasion, to act strictly according to their own opinion. This was in a great measure to be regulated by circumstances; and if, on such a question as that which was now the subject of their lordships' consideration, the servants of the crown should happen unfortunately to differ in opinion from their royal master, it was their duty to retire. It was a general maxim in the British constitution, that the advisers of the crown should give such advice according to the best of their own free and unbiassed judgement; but human institutions were not so perfectly whole and entire that there could not be the least exception to such a general principle. Several other noble lords spoke at length both for and against the question: after which

Lord Grenville rose and observed, that, late as the hour was, he must state as shortly as he could the grounds on which he would support the present motion, which must, in his opinion, be voted for by every man, unless he was contented to go away with the impression that the constitution was completely overturned. He did not say that their lordships must feel themselves bound to vote for the first part of the motion, though he

was grateful to his noble friend who proposed it: but he must say, without affectation, that he regret ted the dismissal of the late ministry, because they had a system in train which was working for the best interests of the country. He said nothing of himself, but only looked at the talents of his colleagues, whose unwearied exertions and enlightened views afforded the best hopes to the country: but if he regretted the loss which the country would sustain from their dis missal, he felt that regret doubled when he considered by whom they

were succeeded. He did not mean any disrespect to them individual, ly, but looked at their system, the grounds of their conduct, and the unconstitutional doctrines which they held.

With regard to the origin of the difference between his majesty and his late ministers, he would not enter upon it, as he had stated it before, with the permission of his sovereign; and he felt it the less necessary, because that statement had not been shaken by any thing now said, though some attempts had been made, as on a former occasion, to garble and misrepresent, by taking detached parts of it. Upon a fair view of all the circumstances connected with this transaction, he was satis fied that no candid man would see any thing to justify, or even excuse, the reproaches so liberally heaped upon himself and his col. leagues. With the question now under discussion, however, that transaction had no connection whatever. For, when the period did arrive that misunderstanding as to the bill referred to was found to exist, and the bill in consequence was abandoned, the proposition was made which called for this motion, As to the dilemma puț respecting

respecting this abandonment, he begged to make one short observation. A noble lord on the other side (Mulgrave) had asked why the bill abandoned should have been at all proposed if not necessary, and, if so necessary, it should have been abandoned? But he would beg that noble lord to put the dilemma to some of the persons connected with him, to those who seceded in 1801, but particularly to put it, for instance, to lord Castlereagh, who had so particularly pledged himself to the catholic question-who had, in fact, brought that question from Ireland with him. With regard to the coronation oath, he would ask, whether there could be any man in that house who had front enough to maintain that after the Irish act had been sanctioned, which allowed the catholics to hold certain commissions, it would be a violation of that oath to allow them to hold the rank of generals? The idea was quite untenable, as indeed, in his judgement, was every other proposition which would impress an opinion, that to concede to the claims of the catholics would at all interfere with that general system which the coronation oath bound the king to maintain. The noble lord, after a variety of profound observations, which we regret that the limits of our plan do not allow us to follow, reprobated in strong terms the artifices resorted to by ministers and their adherents, to excite a fanatical spirit in the country. He showed, that so far from the present ministers being uniformly approved of by Mr. Pitt, as a noble lord (Mulgrave) stated, that that illustrious person had on many occasions marked very particularly his disapprobation of the greater part of

them, and quoted the instances in which he condemned the conduct of some of them, particularly lord Hawkesbury when presiding at the foreign department. The noble lord remarked upon the explanation which he had laid before the house with respect to the catholic bill, and the pledge required of himself and his colleagues, and concluded with stating, that from the manner in which the present administration was formed, and the persons of which it was composed, he could not think of giving it his support.

Lord Hawkesbury replied to lord Grenville, and contended that the whole of the statement made by that noble baron, and of the debates to which that statement gave rise, were proceedings altogether irregular and unparliamentary. The noble baron had accused him and his colleagues, of being the first set of ministers who had shrunk from responsibility, and meanly endeavoured to shelter themselves under the wings of their sovereign. He would tell that noble baron, that he and his colleagues were the first ministry, who, in order to cloak their own misconduct and absurdities, had so strangely ventured to arraign the personal conduct of his majesty at their lordships' bar. He acted from a sense of duty and conscience in accepting a place in the present government; and as long as he was conscious of acting upon such grounds, he should never shrink from the responsibility, to whatever extent it might be carried, to which his official situation made him liable. He had always been averse from granting any further concessions to the catholics, and even from cherishing any such hope in their minds. It was that

hope

hope which kept Ireland in a state of continual ferment and agitation, and until it was laid asleep, there would be no permanent tranquillity in that country.

Earl Camden, the earl of Moira, lord Eldon, and the duke of Norfolk spoke; when the question was carried in behalf of the new administration by a majority of 81.

On the 15th Mr. Lyttleton, in the house of commons, brought forward a resolution of a nature somewhat different from that

moved by Mr. Brand, but evident ly with the same view of trying the strength of the new administration. The honourable mover concluded a short but very neat and perspicuous speech with moving, "That this house, considering a firm and efficient administration as essential

ly necessary at the present crisis, feels the deepest regret at the late change in his majesty's councils." The motion was seconded by Mr. Hibbert; a long and extremely warm debate ensued, which it is not necessary for us to detail, have ing given already such ample accounts of the debates in both houses on a similar subject, and which occurred only two days before. The division did not take place till halfpast six o'clock in the morning, when the numbers were 244 and 198, leaving a majority of 46 in favour of the new administra

tion..

On the 16th a vote of thanks was moved and carried in both houses, to sir Samuel Auchputy, and the officers, &c. under his command, for the skill and valour which they had displayed in the capture of Monte Video.

On the 17th, in the house of peers, the subject of the courts of

justice in Scotland was discussed ; and on the same day, in the commons, Mr. Whitbread's plan respecting the poor laws occasioned a long conversation: to these, with their results, we have already referred in a former chapter.

Of the remaining business of the session the most important part was the expulsion of sir Christopher Hawkins for bribery. A motion was also made and carried, for an address to his majesty, praying him to direct the attorney-general to and eighteen other persons of the prosecute sir Christopher Hawkins, committee of electors of Penrhyn, who had fixed the price for which their votes were to be sold, and who had invited sir C. Hawkins, by a deputation, to purchase them.

On the 25th the session and the parliament were put an end to by a speech delivered by the lord chancellor in his majesty's name, declaring that himself and the lords

commissioners were commanded to state, "That his majesty is anxious to recur to the sense of his people, while the events which have recently taken place are yet fresh in their recollection. His majesty feels, that in resorting to this measure, under the present circumstances, he at once demonstrates his own conscientious persuasion of the rectitude of those motives upon which he has acted, and affords to his people the best opportunity of testifying their determination to support him in every exercise of the prerogative of his crown, which is conformable to the sacred obligations under which they are held, and conducive to the welfare of his kingdom, and to the security of the constitution." The speech at large will be found among the Public Papers in another part of this volume.

CHAPTER

HE new parliament were day June 22. Having already in the commencement of the present volume given a pretty full account of all the forms used at the assembling of a new house of commons; of the mode of choosing a speaker, with various other interesting topics, it would be tedious again to go over the same ground. It will be sufficient to observe, that Mr. Abbot was re-elected speaker by the unanimous concurrence of the house. After this, and the swearing in of members in both houses, the parliament met on the 26th; when the lord chancellor, in his majesty's name, delivered a speech of considerable length, which will be found among the Public Papers in another part of the volume: an address was moved in the upper house by the earl of Mansfield, and in the house of commons by lord Newark, which, after debates of considerable length, was carried by large majorities, viz. in the house of lords, by 160 against 67, and in the commons 350 were for the address, and 195 against it. From this day the opposition could

form no expectation of displacing

which they had been charged with occupying not in the most honourable manner. By the votes on this question it was evident that the majority of both houses felt very differently on the subject. The debates were animated and interesting, but we feel that the limits, of our volume will oblige us to pass over these and others during the short session of about seven weeks, with merely laying before the reader the result, reserving the detail of debates to the great public questions which were discussed during the sitting of parliament.

June 27th, sir Samuel Romilly presented a petition from 130 persons confined for debt in the king's bench prison. They were ready, he said, to give up all their property to their creditors, who refused to consent to their being set at liberty on such terms. One hundred and twelve of the number had families dependent upon them for support, and the number of their children amounted to three hundred and forty-seven. The petition prayed a revision of the

laws