Newspaper Page Text
l.\ I PERI AL P AUL lAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 25.
Cuuhs f he late Change in Administra it n,
( COVCLVDED.)
Sir, I have always considered, that a
minister in parliament acts in a clout 1-
capacity; he ac ts as a minister, and m
acts as an individual member of parlia
ment. As an individual member i>i
parliament, he may introduce or sup
port a measure, unconnected with go
vernment considerations. Such ms
the conduct of Mr. Pitt, on the propo
sitions for reform, and for the abolition
of the slave trade; the latter of which
has, God ! been at last effected,
and is a measure which, if there he no
thing else to distinguish the late gov
ernment, during the short period that
itJfts existed, will shed on it sufficient
liWre. But, sir, when a member of
administration introduces any measure
as u measure of government, it is most
clearly iris duty to be previously con
vinced, that he has the concurrence of
the cabinet, and the sanction of royal an
thority. I should indeed have thought
myself reprehensible in the highest de
gree, and deserving of all the foul re
proach that has been so lavishly be
stowed upon me, had I introduced the
measure 1 did introduce, without hav
ing ascertained that it had the con
currence of the cabinet, and the 1 sanc
tion of the k ing. 1 have before stated
that a doubt sprung up with regard to
the latter; it was therefore determined
that I, (lord Spencer being absent on
account of ill health) should write a
dispatch to the lord lieutenant of Ire
land, inclosing those clauses of the mu
tiny bill, in which the proposed mea
sure was contained, and restating, in
conformity with the sentiments ex
pressed in the dispatch which had been
sent to the communication of Mr. Elli
ott’s conference, that every commission
in the army was to be open to the Cath
olics.
This dispatch, sir, I wrote w ith as
much clearness as was in my power to
do. With the clauses it went to the
king on Monday; on Tuesday it re
turned from Windsor, without the
slightest hint of objection on the part
of ms majesty; and as 1 had been ac
customed to do, on receiving the royal
sanction, 1 immediately forwarded the
dispatch to Ireland. In the mean time,
sir, objections were started, merely in
point of form, to the mode of proceed
ing in this measure by clauses in the
mutiny bill, and on a reconsideration
of the subject, it was thought better
to introduce a separate bill. On Wecl
nesday 1 attended the levee at St.
James’s, and had my usual audience
ol nis majesty.—Alter tiie audience,
his majesty impure cl what business was
going ioiWurd that, day in the house of
common.,? 1 replied that the mutiny
bill Was to pass through one of its sta
ges ; and explain, dto his majesty the
reasons which had induced me to em
body the clauses for allowing the Cath
olics admission into the army and na
vy, in a separate bill. His majesty ap
piovcd ol this change, and then asked
me whether the bill was not tlx* same
as the Irish bill of 1793? 1 stated in
what the difference consisted observ
ing that it had been fully detailed in the
various dispatches previously submit
ted to his majesty’s inspection. Here,
sir, I must acknowledge, tlat his ma
jesty did express a general .lislike and
disapprobation of the measure; but
not m such a manner as to induce me
to conclude, that the reluctant assent
originally given by his najesty was
withdrawn, and that 1 wasuot empow
ered to introduce the bill. What eon
iirmed me in my opinion vas, that lord
Grenville had a subsequent audience
with his majesty, in which his majesty
did not make a single observation on
the bill. On Thursday or Friday, I
do not recollect which, 1 introduced
this bill into the house. Dicing the
whole of the week, although Hud ca
rious communications w ith hie majes
ty on other subjects, his inaj&ty did
not make the slightest objecti*i 10 the
11)::*', no:’ war, any intimation on the sub-
V‘3 revived from his majesty until
tl i \Wednesday follow ing, (at which
tin I was precluded from attending
mj/Juty in this house by a family cu
i if ily) when his majesty stated decid
ed.y Ins objection to any extension of
tlm provisions of the Irish act of 1793.
V*;:n that moment, wc were convinc
d t ut his majesty misunderstood the
subject, or rather, I w as convinced that
f had misunderstood his majesty. Hav
ing unfortunately introduced the mea
sure into the house of commons, in the
belief that I was sanctioned to do so by
the king, l immediately suspended
any further proceedings on the bill,
demanded an audience of his majesty
on the following day, and convinced
him that i had been misled, and that I
had misunderstood those gracious ex
pressions wlii< h he had used on the
subject on a former occasion From
that moment too, sir, it became the
most anxious consideration of minis
ters how to reconcile their public duty
with their respect for the feelings ofliis
majesty. \V e attempted to correct the
bill; but the objection ofliis majesty
was so extensive, that we found it was
impossible so to modify the measure,
as to remove that objection, and at the
same time leave it efficiently beneficial.
In this situation tve preferred abandon
ing the bill altogether. In doing this,
sir, 1 own that I made a most painful
sacrifice of all personal feelings to my
sense of public duty ; but this is a sa
crifice, which, however painful, 1 trust
I shall never hesitate to m„ke. We
therefore offered to withdraw the bill,
but at the same time we felt the ne
cessity of adding something to that
offer.
On a former occasion a desire had
been intimated, that nothing of the kind
should in future be pressed—other in
timations had been made of similar na
ture. We therefore thought it right
to reserve to ourselves the power of
expressing our opinion, and of sug
gesting to his majesty any future mea
sure that might seem to us expedient;
accompanied, however, with a respect
ful dec.arat.on, that all the members
of the cabinet were most eager to con
tribute every thing in their power to
his majesty’s personal ease and com
fort. 1 his pait ol our proceedings
sir, has been most shamefully repre
sented to the public. In falsely stating
that we wished to reserve to ourselves
the right of pressing the subject on his
majesty in future, it lias been omitted
to state, that our only wish was to sub
mit any measure which might seem
expedient to his majesty’s revision;
it w as omitted to state that we rcspect
iully assured his majesty of our earnest
desire to ragard his personal ease and
comfort, bir, in what situation should
w e have been placed, had we not re
tained the right ol expressing our senti
ments? 1 he bill introduced bv us must
be withdrawn. 1 certainly felt, that
without unnecessarily expressing his
majesty’s opinion, 1 might have as
signed sumcicnt public reasons tor
w undrawing the bin, on account of the
general opposition which had been
made to it, but, sir, was it possible,
consistently with my honor, and con
sistently w ith my sense ol duty to mv
colleagues, that 1 could refrain lroiii
declaring my ow n sentiments upon it ?
Besides m withdrawing this measure,
wc had naturally to look to a Cathode
petition, and to the pressing of the ge
neral question witn more eagerness
than ever on the consideration of par
liament. \\ as it not necessary in de
fence of their honor, that those who
had before supported this question
should again siaie their opinion upon
it ? and would it have been honorable,
would it have been fair, not previously
to apprise his majesty of that course
which we lelt it to be our clear and un
doubted duty to pursue ? Sir, I am
confident, that in making this appeal
to the house, I cannot be unsuccessful.
Let me put it in another point of v iew:
suppose, after some discussion, that
the measure had been abandoned ;
and suppose that on the presentation
ol die Catholic petition, we had freely
... ■ ”
stated our opinion without any pre
vious intimation to his majesty, what.
sort of charges would then l ave been
brought against us, by those w ho now*
accuse us of having made a candid ex
planation to his majesty of our senti
ments ? But to return, sir, to the histo
ry of that transaction. His majesty, in
reply, expressed his satisfaction at the
deference wc had shewn him, but re
quired us to withdraw the other part
of our sentiment, and give an assu
rance in writing not only that w c would
never again propose the measure in
question, but also, that we would ne
ver propose any measure connected
with it. Sir, us far as personal motives
operated in this demand, I am con
vinced that they were of the purest
description : for, during the short time
that 1 have had the honor of being in
his majesty’s service, I have had fre
quent opportunities of remarking his
majesty’s most gracious and benevo
lent affection for iiis people, and the
anxious desire by w hich he is urged
to promote their welfare —f Hear !
hear ! hear !) As far, therefore, sir,
as his majesty was concerned, I Can
have no doubt that in this demand he
was actuated by the most honorable
and conscientious motives alone. But
neither myself nor my colleagues being
able to assent to this requisition, we
stated to his majesty the impossibility
of our complying with it. The next
day his majesty, in the same gracious
manner that we have ever been accus
tomed to experience from him, inform
ed us that he must look out for new
servants. Two days afterwards I was
authorised to state this circumstance
to the house : and on Tuesday last his
majesty signified his pleasure that on
the following day we should resign our
office. This, sir, is a statement of
the w hole transaction, as far as it can
be stated, without reference to the va
rious documents that J have described.
I much wish that those documents in
an unmutilated state, were before the
house and the public; and if his ma
jesty will be graciously pleased to give
orders to his servants to produce them,
I, lor one, will be highly grateful.—
Those documents w ill bear me com
pletely out in the assertions, first, that
w e did not propose the measure to his
majesty without sufficient motive for
so doing ; secondly, that we did pro
pose the measure to parliament, w ith
out sufficient reason to be satisfied
that it had his majesty’s concurence ;
thirdly, that when we discovered his
majesty’s insurmountable objection
to the measure, w'e fulfilled our duty
by conceding it; and that in adding the
respectful request, to allow us the li
berty to state our opinions on that sub
ject, and to propose to his majesty any
future measure that we might think
expedient, accompanied with the as
surance of our anxiety for his majesty’s
personal ease and comfort; instead of
improperly -presing the question on
his majesty, we were simply doing that,
which, not to have done, would have
subjected ourselves to the reproach
of every honest and lionorable mind.
Sir, 1 shall be ready now, or hereafter,
to enter into any further explanation
that may be demanded of me. lam
sure the house will have the candor to
believe my declaration, that I feel not
the slightest disposition to complain.
1 can entertain but one feeling with re
gard to the gracious and benevolent
disposition with which his majesty is
animated, and so far from endeavoring
to lessen the respect and attachment
that is felt for him, no man will be
more ready or anxious than myself to
increase it. Indeed, sir, I should be
most ungrateful were these not my
feelings; for during the short period
that 1 have had the honor of being
in his majesty’s service, I was honored
with repeated marks of his approba
tion ; and on quitting his service,
his majesty, satisfied (with the ex
ception of this single measure) with
what he was pleased to term my faith
ful and diligent discharge of my duty,
conferred upon me the high reward of
his approbation. Sir, having conclud
ed my statement, I shall abstain from
entering into any argument upon it.
i win i.us. ask rapt to shew how incon
! sistent with our honor it would have
been to have given a pledge on a point,
in which, above all others, it is most
essential tlac a minister should be free.
I will not atttmpt to shew that we should
have acted most criminally, as well as
most unconstitutionally, had we a
greed to giec that pledge. I leave the
statement to the candid and dispas
sionate consideration of the house and
the publfc. If any one think, that out
of that statement, a discussion can a
l isc, whqu those persons by whom the
late administration had been succeed
ed, return to their seats in parliament, I
shall most cheerfully engage in that dis
cussion. lam therefore anxious that
the adjournment should be as short as
possible; and had hoped, that Mon
day se’nnight, by which day the new
writs maj w ith ease be returned, would
have been a proper time for the re-as
sembling of parliament; but the dif
ference of two days is so small, that it
is scarcely worth contending for, and
1 shall therefore agree with the honor
able gentleman’s motion, only stating,
that should any gentleman think prop
er to bring this subject into discussion,
I am desirous that the earliest possi
ble day should be selected for that r>ui*.
pose.
FOR THE EVEXIXG LEDGER,
Messrs. Everitt k Evans,
I OBSERVED in the Museum, of the “fth
instant, an article which is there marked as in
serted “by request.” It is on the case of Mr.
Scliiidge, and is an extract from the Port-Fo
lio, with an introductory paragraph by the Edi
tor of the United States’Gazette, into which
paper it had been copied. I neither know the:
editor of the one paper nor of the other ; but
some of the principles and doctrines of both
these productions appear to me to be of such
a dangerous tendency as to call for the repro
bation of all those who wish well to civil go
vernment, or the happiness of society. They
certainly appear to have been dictated more
from the imitation of political Jet lings, and re
sentment, than from the cool and deliberate
operation of patriotism and philosophy, in
minds abounding in both. It is well known,
that when the brain is once boated with the
fumes of what is called politics, every object
presented to the mind is distorted and shaped
according to the model of its then disturbed
and irregular fancy. Sound judgment is laid
aside ; the barriers of common sense are inva
ded, and even the sacred distinctions of tight
and wrong are no longer considered or regard
ed. Every thing must give way to our preju
dice, and whatever withstands or it is
deprecated and abused.
The Port-Foiio is a paper which, I believe,
is regarded as one of the best productions ofits
kind that is circulated in the states ; and as its.
author is looked upon to possess considerable
abilities, I think it the more wonderful that he
should have been so misled as to have bleach
ed, or circulated, the opinions he has done. But
politics, politics ! like the passion of love, often
drives the best of heads and hearts, not only
into inconsistency with reason and discretion,
but with one’s own cool principles of thinking
and of action. Such I conceive to have been
the case with the writer of the present produc
tion ; and the supposition seems confirmed by
the frequent and- fiat he tic calls to party, with
which almost every sentence of it abounds.
For my part, I care as little for the one side of
state controversy as for the other, and look up
on the terms Democrat and Aristocrat with as
much indifference as Mussulman and- Hindoo.
When I find piopriety of action and indepen
dence of sentiment, steadiness of conduct and
integrity of heart, I admire and respect it, let
the person or people who display it be who
they will ; and I equally abhor the contrary,
in whatever situation or station it may be found.
These ought to be the sentiments of every up
right and honest man, of which these states,
I sincerely hope, and believe, are far from be
ing destitute.
V hen I preface this much, I am far from
meaning that censure is attachable to rver./’
sentiment of these productions. On the con
trary, 1 most heartily accord with these writers
in many respects ; and, particularly, that it is
highly improper to inflame the public mod
with representations of facts that are in the
course of judicial discussion, as it often may,
ard docs, have the very worst effects on those
concerned. But why stigmatize democracy
for it r Do none but democrats do such things ?
Will not the foolish and the wicked of every
party do the same ? V hy brand it with the
term profligate, and say that this is attached to
its nature ? I contend, that there is no more
profligacy in democracy, than in any other sys
tem of go\ eminent. As tending to make the
lowerjclasses of the people more important, we
have the authority of ancient history and the
instance of this country before our eyes, to
say, that it is rather a check to it and favorable
to virtue. To s?.v otherwise, would not only be
to contradict the truth, but even to libel the
constitution of the country ; for cn these very
principles is it founded. ’ As I know of no oth
er system of government, nor is amq !■- \ ■
recognised in the cHliiv'-i trorid, *’