Page images
PDF
EPUB

val, Mr.

Sir Samuel

As Mr. Perceval took a leading part in that de-1807. bate, and is now the prime minister of that admi- Mr. Percenistration, which was then put into power, it will Grattan, & not be irrelevant to the object of this history, to Romilly remark, that he laid it down as a political axiom, that nothing could be further conceded to the Irish Catholics, without danger to the establishment, and therefore he would never hold out any hopes to them. Mr. Grattan made a long and impressive speech in reply to Mr. Perceval: a single passage of which will give the reader no very imperfect idea of its general tendency." The whole of that Right Hon. Gentleman's speech laid more stress upon the disposition of the late ministry, than on the principle of the measure. He kept out of view the nature of the difficulties it was likely to remove, and the value of the benefits, it was well calcaated to produce. But the House would recollect that the bill went to create a community of interests amongst those, who were involved in an

"sence of persons, who were well acquainted with the facts. "What must be the effect of the demand upon the late admi"nistration for a pledge against the Catholics of Ireland? Had "ever such a pledge been before demanded, as it related to any "of the inhabitants of the Empire? The right of the meanest individual to lay a petition at the foot of the throne has been The Tong established. But here was a restriction on the claims of millions. This was not a mere novelty; it was a prodigy, an "alarming appearance in the constitution. Only unbounded power, or unerring wisdom could impose such a pledge. What must the feelings of the Catholics of Ireland bc, when told, that the consciènce of the Sovereign is hermetically sealed against then?"

"

1867 identity of dauger: that it proposed to combine an integrity of principle: that whilst it conferred privileges on the Catholic subject, it imparted to the Protestant establishment, the best support against a great menacing enemy, with whom we cannot contend without the integrity of our popu lation." Of all the supporters of Mr. Brand's motion, Sir Samuel Romilly grappled the hardest with it's opponents. He firmly contended, that it was unconstitutional and contrary to the first duties of the confidential servants of the crown to re

strain themselves by any pledge express or implied from offering to the King any advice, which circumstances might render necessary for the welfare and security of the Empire, and this brought home the matter to an unanswerable point. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer so much dreaded the responsibility of such advice, that he exposed not only the existence of the secret cabinet, but left his Majesty to all the humiliation and danger of braving the constitution, by assuming to act in the most sacred functions of the state without any advice at all. Thus depriving his people of their constitutional redress against the mischiefs of weak or wicked measures. What could be more degrading to the Sovereign, and unmanly in the servant, than to receive the wages of service, and withdraw from his master the only shield, which could protect him from personal danger and insult? The words of Mr. Perceval, as quoted by Sir Samuel Romilly on this occasion were. "That to the best of his knowledge and belief, the King

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"had no adviser on the point of requesting the pledge. That he did not believe the King had any adviser: and he did not think, the country "would believe, that the King had any adviser on "that point." Sir Samuel Romilly insisted, that it was of the greatest importance to the King, that the doctrine of responsible advisers should be maintained. History had unfolded the evils resulting from the prevalence of a contrary principle. It had been asserted by the mover of the previous question, that Ministers had not entered into any pledge, that they would not give his Majesty any advice on the subject of the Catholics. Now as the late ministers were dismissed, because they refused this pledge, either the pledge on the part of the present ministers was implied, or they had deceived his Majesty; for it was not pretend ed, that his Majesty had any objection to his late ministers, except the difference of opinion, which occurred upon this subject.

[ocr errors]

1807.

Stafford's

On the 15th of April, the Marquis of Stafford Marquis of made a motion in the House of Lords of a similar motion in tendency, though of greater extent, than that of Mr. Brand's in the Commons. This* was meant

❤ The motion was expressed in the following words. This House, feeling the necessity of a firm and stable administration at this very important crisis of public affairs, resolve, that it is impossible to view, without the deepest regret, the change, that has recently taken place in his Majesty's councils; which regret is considerably encreased by the causes, to which that change has been ascribed; it being the opinion of this Ilouse, that it is the first duty of the responsible ministers of the crown to restrain themselves by any pledge, expressed or implied, from

the Lords.

1807.

as a trial of strength in the Upper House. It was warmly debated till seven o'clock in the morning, when Lord Borrington's motion for adjournment, was carried by a majority in favour of ministers of 81: 90 having voted for the motion, and 171 for the adjournment. This debate furnished some matter of peculiar importance to Ireland. Lord Hardwicke was the first on his legs to support the motion. He had recently been closeted with his Sovereign, and although much of their communications may have faithfully gone forth to the public: much also has probably been kept back, out of deficacy to the parties, whom its publication would have affected in a disagreeable manner. Whoever reflects upon the anxious ardour, with which the hoble Earl laboured throughout his speech to remove from the shoulders of his friends the imputation of intended imposition on the royal mind, will 'naturally (perhaps erroneously, certainly not rashly) conclude, that his Majesty had been advised, and that deception had been practised with full design. Lord Grenville having lately spoken so fully to the general subject, said but little on this occasion. That little however involved much with reference to Ireland. "With respect to the trite question, why he introduced the bill if not necessary, and "if necessary, why he abandoned it? He referred them to Lord Castlereagh, as more conversant

giving any advice to his Majesty, which, to the best of their judgment, in the course of circumstances they may think necessary, for the honor of his Majesty's crown and the security of his dominions.”

[ocr errors]

"with the solution of difficulties arising from tergiversation, and who had imported the question "from Ireland, for the carrying of which, he stood pledged to that country*."

1807.

ton's mo

Mr. Tig e's

A third and last, though a still more ineffectual Mr. Lyttlestruggle, was made to retain the ministers in their tion and situations for notwithstanding the new appoint- speech. ments, the old ministers held a language little short of that, which could only be justified by possessing the public confidence of the Sovereign. Mr. Lyttleton on the 15th of April, moved according to notice in the House of Commons; " That "this House considering a firm and vigilaut ad"ministration indispensible in the present posture “of public affairs, has seen with the greatest re

gret the late change in his Majesty's councils." This too was a long and heated debate. At seven o'clock in the morning on the division, the minister had an encreased majority: viz. 46: for the previous question 244, against it 198. "This debate brought forth more information concerning Ireland, than either of the two former. Mr. Tighe, who strenuously supported the motion, felt himself particularly called upon to take a part in that debate, as the county he had the honor to represent, was even in danger of having its tranquillity affected by the proceedings on some of the points, which were involved. The late ministers

[ocr errors]

It is not to be forgotten, that Lord Grenville was a co-operative leader with Mr. Pitt in that administration, of which Lord Castlereagh, then a secondary, gave the pledge on behalf of his principals.

VOL. II.

2 L

« PreviousContinue »