« PreviousContinue »
own good intensions every body was convinced of, but in whose Ministers that House had no considence. That it had ever been an established and understood maxim, that Ministers ought not to remain in office, who had not the considence of that House, was to be proved by a referehce to the most remote periods of our history. So long ago as the reign of Henry the Fourth, when the nature of our Constitution was but little known, an application had been made to that monarch from Parliament, for the removal of certain of his Ministers, when Henry, with the spirit of a British King, had said, "He knew of no crime his Ministers had committed, but it was enough for him that his Commons desired their removal -t he would therefore dismiss them his service* or any other of his Ministers of whom his Commons disapproved." This answer, which would have done honour to a monarch in more modern tiipesyt when the constitutional privileges of that House, as the representative of the Commons of England, were so much better understood, clearly evinced how essential it had ever been considered that there should exist a mutual considence between that House and the Ministers who were entrusted with the executive government. With regard to the argument that stopping the supplies would be attended with confusions and distractions, that depended entirely upon His Majesty's Ministers; good Ministers, who wished well to the peace and quiet of their country, would always prevent them, by resigning before that House had proceeded to such a vote. Upon this ground he was convinced it was, that Lord Camelford had two years ago acted, when he proposed stopping the supplies, but the Ministers of that day knew their duty too well to susfer such a motion; they prevented it by a timely resignation.
Having amply discussed the consideration of withholding the supplies, he observed, that it had been stated in the course of the debate, that the unpopularity of the late Ministers arose' from three circumstances; from the Receipt Tax, from the India Bill, and from the Coalition. With regard to the former, it was a good tax, and it was evident that the right honourable gentleman thought so, by his voting for that bill, in support of which he had not chosen to say one syllable: why the right honourable gentleman had given a silent vote on that occasion, the House, he doubted not, were sufficiently aware. But popular or unpopular as the Receipt tax might be, every body must admit that a tax largely productive was necessary, and vfo better tax had yet been proposed in its stead.
Vol. XIII. B'b The The East India bill alsp had been another ground of odium and of obloquy; the House would recollect, that he had opened that bill as a strong measure, and had expresily stated, that the enormity of the abuses could alone justify so violent a remedy. This bill had been much complained of without doors. Why ? Because the people had not understood il. An honourable gentleman (Governor Johnstone) had said in a late debate, "What, cannot the people tell when charters are invaded? Do they not know when their rights ate taken away ; when their books, their papers, their warehouses, their property, are seized on? Undoubtedly they could, and undoubtedly they did." But this was only to understand the remedy, and not to know the complaint. The complaint was known to that House, and that House by a considerable majority decided that the extent of the mischief justisied the violence of the cure. Thus the patient who was to undergo an amputation, might fay to his surgeon, "Don't cut off my leg, the pain and anguish of the operation are excruciating." The surgeon alone could tell whether the amputation was necessary. So the people without doors saw that the remedy the India bill applied was a harsh one, but they knew not the extent of the abuses that made such a remedy necessary. That remedy, as he had already said. was approved of by a most respectable majority of that House, and lost by a majority of the other. Not by a respectable majority however, because if ever there were circumstances which rendered a majority less respectable at one time than another, those circumstances had attended the majority of the other House, in procuring their decision against the Ipdia bill. The bill had been lost by about a majority of eight. How that majority had been obtained was a matter too well known to render his enlarging upon it necessary. That bill, however, need no longer be the subject of dispute, because although he was not, nor could he be supposed to be willing, to leave the patronage, that had given such alarm, to the unreserved disposal of the right honourable gentleman, as an honourable and respectable member (Mr. Marsham) had stated, yet be had brought his mind to that point upon the subject, that there could scarcely be an arrangement os the patronage suggested, either by that right honourable gentleman or any other enemy of the former bill,' to which he did not think he could consent. With regard to the Coalition, much, he observed, had been said against it in every debate, and it had been renewed in that. He had upon former occasions expressed 2 himself
liimself fully upon that subject. He had not, he said, been "unaware of the effects, nay of the obloquay that might attend that measure, when it was first meditated. It had been undertaken upon both fides with caution, it had been deliberated -upon with anxiety; nay, he was not afraid to fay, it had been begun with all that diffidence and doubt natural among persons, who had long differed upon great public topics; hut from the moment it was decided and determined upon, he would venture to fay that there never had existed any thing but mutual confidence, mutual faith, the most perfect concord and firm reliance on each other's honour. There had not been in it any of that undermining jealousy, that secret and hidden distrust which he had known exist, where there were strong reasons to suppose that mutual intercourse and agreement would have been productive of faith and honour. Had the last Administration been suffered to remain, he was confident it was that strong and vigorous Administration which was calculated to have carried into effect those plans that were absolutely necessary to the present situation of this country. He recollected to have seen a beautiful speech of a near relation of the right honourable gentleman over against him, in which, in order to discredit a coalition formerly made between the Duke of Newcastle and a noble relation of his, with that force and brilliancy of imagination which he possessed in so eminent a degree, that coalition had been compared to the junction of the Rhone and the Soane. Whatever the effect and truth and dread of that comparison might have been at that time, and upon that occasion, he was not at all afraid of it then. He would not have admitted that great and illustrious person, were he now living, to have compared the late coalition to the Rhone and the Soane, where they join at Lyons, where the one may be said to be too calm, and tranquil, and gentle, the other to have too much violence and rapidity, but would have advised him to take a view of those rivers a hundred miles lower down, where after having mingled and united their waters, instead of the contrast they exhibited at their junction, had become a broad, great, and most powerful stream, flowing with the useful velocity, that does not injure, but adorns and benefits the country through which it passes. This was a just type of the late coalition; and he could ven-i ture to assert, after mature experience, that whatever the ene-t mies of it might have hoped, it was as impossible to disunite or separate its parts, as it was to separate the waters of those
fib 2 united. united rivers he had just mentioned. It had been mentioned that night, that it had been observed repeatedly, with all that applause that was due to so noble ari.d disinterested a conduct,, that though his noble friend had declared he would not retire to gratify the impertinent prejudices of any individual, yet he was ready to give way, whenever it should be necessary for the public good, and his retiring should be likewise 10 promote union, and obtain the desirable object, the formation of a firm, efficient, extended, united Administration. When the noble Lord had made this declaration, understanding him as he had understood him, his noble friend had acted a part highly to be applauded, because highly dignified and respectable. How different was the conduct of the right honourable gentleman over the way ? That right hon. gentleman, so far from following the example of his noble friend, who upon the first insinuation, that he was an obstacle to union, had declared his readiness to retire, the right honourable gentleman resists the repeated, and hitherto uncontradicted, declarations of that House, who had again andiagain asserted, that they had no confidence in him, and that it was incumbent on him to resign, before the honour of the House and the Constitution could be satisfied. The right honourable gentleman, with a sullen obstinacy peculiar to himself, resists, and'pretends that his honour and his feelings would be wounded, were he to resign, in obedience to that House, and agreeable to the invariable and uniform practice of the Constitution, from the glorious period of the Revolution to the present time. How was the honour of that right honourable gentleman concerned? How dared he put his honour in competition with the honour of the-House? Did the right honourable gentleman or any of his friends pretend to say> that his noble friend had disgraced himself by. declaring his readiness to retire, to make way for union * Was his noble friend's honour forfeited by the sacrifice he had offered? On the contrary, was it not purer, brighter, and more perfect than ever? Would the right honourable gentleman pretend to fay that what every body had praised and, honoured his noble friend for doing, when hinted by an individual, would injure or contaminate the right honourable gentleman, when done by him in obedience to the constitutional requisition ofi that House ? Understanding the noble Lord as he had understood him, understanding him to have meant that he would not quit a scene where he was so powerful, so useful, and so eminent^, that he would not leave a party so deservedly and so
independently attached to him, but that he would, if public tranquillity or impertinent prejudice required it, do all in his power to promote that tranquillity, he had acted a part highly praiseworthy, and that ought to be followed by all to whom there was any exception. But if his noble friend could be supposed to have meant,' by what he said, what he knew he had not meant, viz. "that he would relinquish all farther exertion in that House, that he would quit a scene in which he formed so material and important a character, there was no person who would blame such a conduct more than he should; because he knew that such a conduct would take away a great and principal mean by which a strong, vigorous, and effectual Government could alone be formed in this country." He proceeded to take notice of the addresses, upon which so much ftresf'had been laid in the course of the debate. An honourable and learned friend of his had in a late debate declared, fhat these addresses were procured by impostures, and the expression had been called in question, but in his opinion, with very little reason. His honourable and learned friend had not meant to apply the word impostures to the addressers, but to account for their having been- induced to address. When any person thought another acted in the wrong, he knew not a more.civil way of telling him so, than by asserting that he had been imposed on and deluded. Thus it was* usual, when bad measures were carried on by bad Ministers, to declare, that the Prince upon the Throne had been deluded and deceived, and it had never yet been held, that such language was either indecent or unconstitutional; he could not therefore conceive that his honourable and learned friend's expression had been such as conveyed any rudeness in it tq those who had signed any of the addresses lately sent up to His Majesty. That he disregarded the opinions of the people no man would imagine; it had been the business of his life to court popularity; but there were circumstances in which the people might err, and under such circumstances it became an act of duty to resist them. That he was ready to resist them, and he thought it right to oppose their madness, he had-already shewn by his conduct during the riots in 1780; and whenever they carried their passions, and prejudices to an extreme equally dangerous, he would endeavour to stem thetorrent, and, restore peace and regularity. The voice of the people ought always to meet with attention, though it did not always equally claim obedience; as persons who had a will of their own might be allowed to exercise- that will even