Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Chan

cellor of the

could not but be jealous of rights, of which they were the guardians and trustees for their conftituents: but ftill it was not neceffary, that at this moment a manifefto fhould be published; the House fhould firft proceed, and having come to a decifion, then it might not be improper to publish the whole of the proceedings.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid that he wifhed not for any delay but he thought, that in fo ferious a matter, the Exchequer. Houfe ought not to act with any thing like precipitation. The question was at laft put, and it paffed in the affirmative without a divifion.

Lord Beauchamp.

Mr. Fred.

Lord Beauchamp moved that the report be taken into confideration on Monday next. This paffed alfo in the affirma tive..

Mr. Fred. Montagu then moved, "that the House at its Montagu. rifing do adjourn to Monday next."

The Earl of

Surrey.

Mr. Dundas.

Lord Maitland.

Mr. Steele.

The Earl of Surrey obferved, that while the prefent Minifters remained in office, for good or for bad purposes he would not fay, and while they and their friends were thus putting off business from day to day, the whole bufinefs of this country was at a stand, to the ruin of the public.

Mr. Dundas infifted, that when he moved for the printing of the reports, he did not do it with an intention to delay bufinefs, but to obtain neceffary information.

An uninterefting converfation occurred on the fubject of delaying the public bufinefs, and accufations were made from both fides of the Houfe on the matter. Adjourned to Monday.

February 16.

Lord Maitland introduced a converfation relative to Lord George Lenox having vacated his feat in Parliament, by accepting the Conftablefhip of the Tower, on which he moved, that a copy of Lord George Lenox's commiffion be laid he fore the House.

Mr. Steele, and fome others, endeavoured to prove, that the office of Conftable of the Tower was a mere military em ployment, and therefore did not fall within the meaning of the ftatute, there being an exception in favour of military promotions. Befides, Lord George Lenox's commiffion had not yet been made out; the warrant had been only figned by his Majefty, directed to the Attorney or Solicitor General; therefore, allowing even that he ought to vacate his feat on accepting that office, as he had not yet received his commiffion, he ought not to be precluded from voting.

After

[ocr errors]

After various obfervations by Captain James Luttrell, Mr. Pitt, Lord North, Mr. Pelham, &c. Lord Maitland's motion was changed to the following: "That a copy of the warrant, appointing Lord George Lenox's commiffion to be made out, as Conftable of the Tower, be laid before the House; as alfo a copy of the commiffion of the late Conftable, with a lift of the various fees, &c. &c. independent of the falary of 1000l. per annum, specified in the warrant, be longing to that employment." This motion was agreed to. And as heavy penalties attach on members voting on a queftion after their feats have been vacated by accepting a place of civil emolument under Government, Lord George's friends declared the noble Lord would not vote in the House during the investigation, whether the office of Conftable of the Tower is to be confidered as a civil or military employment. The order of the day was then called for, and after a few words from Earl Nugent on the point of order,

1

Lord Beauchamp rofe to move his propofitions, in confe- Lord Beas quence of the refolutions of the other Houfe. Now, he faid, champ. that the Report of the Committee appointed to fearch the Journals was in every hand, they would be able to inform themselves fully on the rights of the House, with regard to their control and guardianship of the public boards. The refolution of the Houfe of Lords was, as he had already stated, of a nature so truly alarming, that they could not fit ftill and obferve it in tame acquiefcence. At the fame time, it was not his wifh nor defign to bring forward any propofition which fhould divide the two Houses, or create diffention between them. Perhaps the other House had not been equally cautious and confiderate; or elfe, when they referred to a refolution on their Journals of the 27th of February, 1704, declaring it to be illegal in either of the branches of the Legiflature to fufpend the operation of an act of Parliament, they would have turned to the next page, where they would have found a refolution declaring, that it was the duty of the House, in cafe of any difference of opinion on any point refolved by the other Houfe, to defire a conference, in order that they might learn the reasons upon which the House had acted, before they proceeded to give their opinion on the matter. This, he faid, he fhould have expected from the nobleness of the House, as the means of preventing difcord and divifion between the two Houfes. It was not the bufiness of either House to pass abftract refolutions. The tendency and intention of all their proceedings fhould be manifeft. This, he believed, he might venture to fay was a duty' which

which that House conftantly kept in view, and in all their resolutions conftantly practiced. In their late refolution to which they came, nemine contradicente, that a firm, efficient, extended, and united Adminiftration could alone put an end to the present diffenfions, and reftore harmony and give vigour to the State, every one faw at what it aimed; every one was able to explain its meaning, and acknowledge its force. Every one faw that it evidently implied that the prefent Adminiftration did not poffefs the qualities which that refolution declared to be effential in our prefent circumftances. The other fide of the House joined in the refolution, as well as they on his fide who propofed it, and in fo doing, they acknowledged and declared that the prefent Administration was not firm, was not efficient, was not extended, was not fuch an Administration as could reftore harmony or vigour to the State. Was the refolution of the Houfe of Lords on the 4th inftant equally perfpicuous? That refolution declared, "That an attempt in any one branch of the Legislature to fufpend the execution of law, by feparately affuming to itself the direction of a difcretionary power, which, by act of Parliament, is vefted in any body of men, to be exercifed as they fhall judge expedient, is unconftitutional." Had they attempted, by the refolution of the 24th of December, to fufpend the execution of the law? Had they affumed to themfelves the direction of a difcretionary power? No; they had barely affumed the right of giving a monition to the Board of Treasury in a matter which moft nearly concerned public credit, and the purfes of their conftituents. They had done this at a time which required their interfe rence, and when, if they had failed to give the admonition, they would, in his mind, have failed in the performance of their duty. One of their first and most ancient duties it was to watch over the conduct of the public Boards, and to give them fuch seasonable and previous advice, as they in their wisdom should think neceffary to the maintenance of the public funds, and to the prevention of heavy burdens on the people. They had always interfered with their advice. They had paffed monitory refolutions in terms infinitely more authoritative than a late refolution; and it was to be remarked, that even in the prefent moment, when the House of Lords feemed to watch their proceedings with fo jealous an eye, this was the only refolution to which they objected. All the other refolutions therefore which they had lately paffed, met with the approbation of the House of Lords. To prove that this exertion of their authority was perfectly legal and cuf

tomary

tomary, that it fprung from an unqueftioned privilege, the Committee appointed to fearch the journals, had made their report of a variety of precedents, fome of which went much farther than the prefent refolution. The Committee had been careful to take no precedent from any period of our history which might be called a time of violence; they had therefore omitted many which they might have brought forward; but thofe they had adduced would be refpected as precedents of authority which ought to guide that House. It was not his intention to call them to the confideration of. all the cafes in the report; but fome of them were fo re-. markable, and fo clearly adapted to the cafe now questioned, that he could not help drawing their attention to them. The first which he would mention was in the year 1628, a periòd of our history to which he was certain no gentleman would object. The refolution on the journals was,

"Jovis, 12 Februarii 1628.

"Mr. Shervyle reporteth from the Committee for tonage and poundage, that a great ftop to it, the detaining the poffeffion of the merchants goods, and the ftay of their proceedings, by injunctions in the Exchequer Chamber. That the Committee hath refolved to fend a meffage to the Court of Exchequer and a draught of it. . . .

[ocr errors]

"Upon queftion, a meffage to be fent from this House to the Court of Exchequer, to the effect of the draught now read. This to be done by four of the House: Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy, Sir Francis Cottington, Sir Nath. Rich, Sir Ro. Phillippes. This writing, with the papers annexed, to be delivered by Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy; and to report their answer."

The noble Lord faid the purport of the meffage was, that thefe injunctions in the Exchequer Chamber were exceedingly injurious. They ordered them to be taken off, and in confequence of this meffage the practice complained of was altered. Every body knew the perfons concerned in this famous interference. Mr. Shervyle was remarkable, as being of all other men in his day deeply verfed in the law and conftitution of the country. The noble Lord then related another cafe not in the report, after which he came to the refolutions extracted from the journals of the year 1680. In this year the Commons interfered, and gave their advice in two memorable inftances. The firft was with respect to anticipations of the revenue, and the refolution was as follows:

VOL. XIII.

Veneris,

Veneris, 7 die Januarii 1680.

Refolved, nem. con. that whofoever fhall hereafter lend, or cause to be lent, by way of advance, money upon the branches of the King's revenue arifing by cuftoms, excife, or hearth money, fhall be judged to hinder the fitting of Parliaments; and fhall be refponfible for the fame in Par

liament.

Refolved, nem. con. that whofoever fhall accept or buy any tally of anticipation upon any part of the King's revenue, or whosoever fhall pay fuch tally hereafter to be ftruck, fhall be adjudged to hinder the fittings of Parliaments; and shall be refponfible therefore in Parliament.

Here, he faid, there was as clear an interpofition of their opinion as could well be imagined, and it was by fuch feafonable and well directed cautions that that Houfe had been able, at all times, to guard the public purfe. The other precedent in the fame year was,

Luna, 10° die Januarii 1680.

Refolved, nem. con. that it is the opinion of this House, that the profecution of proteftant diffenters upon the penal laws, is, at this time, grievous to the subject, a weakening of the proteftant intereft, an encouragment to popery, and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom.

The noble Lord related the hiftorical circumftances of this remarkable exertion of their privilege, and faid he would not trouble them with any other remote cafes, but would mention two or three that came within the obfervation of themselves, as being paffed in their own time. He faid they must all remember them, and they were paffed with so much unanimity, that though fome of them, when read by the clerk, had occafioned fmiles from certain members, they were what he believed all fides of the Houfe would pay refpect to. One of them was moved by a learned gentleman on the Treafury Bench, (Mr. Dundas.) Those which followed one of the reports from the Commiffioners of public accounts, came from his noble friend Lord John Cavendish; and the laft from the prefent Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Those were the refolutions for the recall of Mr. Haftings, &c. and for the abolition of certain ufelefs offices in the Exchequer, which were made on the 28th of May and 19th of June, 1782.

2

Thefe

« PreviousContinue »