Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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, *’