Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

information to communicate. He had just told the House, that the additional 10,000l. given lately to the Queen, was given to her on no other ground, but on account of her own additional expences. Now, he would appeal to the House, if the right hon. gentleman had not stated the expence the Queen would be put to on account of the Princesses as a reason for the grant, and if he had not particularly stated the expence of the removal from place to place of the royal daughters, as likely to make a part of that expence: yet it would now appear, from what had been stated that night to the House, that the grant to the Princesses was to enable them to remove from place to place when they should think fit to do so. Grants of this sort ought to be put on an intelligible footing. Was it on account of the time of life of the Princesses? Then it could not be suitable to all of them, because they were not all of the same age. What, upon such a principle as this, the eldest ought to have had long ago, the youngest ought not, perhaps, to receive for many years. On these grounds he felt himself compelled to oppose the Resolution.

Mr. H. Thornton, though he felt himself inclined to support a separate establishment for the Princesses, considered himself called upon to oppose the grant at present. Some enquiry ought to take place, proving the necessity of throwing such an additional burden on the people. He could see no inconvenience in the House waiting till the report of the committee on the Civil List came before them. For his part, he wished to adopt the prudent precaution of waiting the result of the investigations of that committee, before he would venture to throw the whole, or any part of such a burden on the people. Mr. Wrottesley agreed with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that they ought to wait till the report of the committee was before them. He remembered well when the settlement of the civil list came lately under their consideration, that the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did state, as a ground for the House to vote the 10,000l. to the Queen, that the Princesses would remain with her. He would now ask him-had he this grant then in contemplation? If so, had he treated the House fairly? For himself he thought the right hon. gentleman had not acted in a candid manner towards the House.

Mr. Barham said, that he wished to put some questions to the right hon. gentleman, not as the confidential adviser of the Prince or his consort, but as the minister of this country. He wished to ask him in that capacity, why he had recommended an additional grant for the Princesses, and had entirely overlooked the person who was so much nearer to the throne than they were? He asked this question on public grounds, and he asked it of the right hon. gentleman, not as the adviser of the Prince, but as the minister of the country. He called upon the right hon. gentleman to state why no additional splendour was to be attached to the Princess of Wales, the wife of the Prince Regent.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Tierney said, he rose to ask the right hon. gentleman no question, for he saw that he was likely to get no answer; but he thought they were entitled to conclude, from the sullen silence of the right hon. gentleman, that he sanctioned with his approbation the separation between the Prince and Princess. (Cry of No, no, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) The right hon. gentleman cried No-then let him give his reasons for his present conduct. (Cries of No, and Hear!) The Princess Regent had not one farthing more assured to her than 5,000l. She depended on the bounty of the Prince for the other 17,000l. which might be withdrawn to-morrow morning at his pleasure. If the Princesses were to be made independent, why was she not made independent? She ought, undoubt edly, to be independent.-(Cries of No, no! from the ministerial bench!) The right hon. gentlemen say No, no!"-and I say, said Mr. Tierney, "Yes, yes!-I call upon them for their reason why she should not be independent? Both the right hon. gentleman and the lord chancellor must have informed themselves fully with respect to her conduct. If there was any thing in that conduct known to them, and unknown to the country, unworthy of her, the dignity of the country, and the dignity of the Prince Regent, required of the right hon. gentleman to bring forward an accusation against her." He wished an answer. If they could prove any thing against the credit of the Princess, parliament ought to take even that away from her which they now allowed; but if they could not, there was no reason why she should not be maintained suitably to her rank in the state. If the King were to die to-morrow, and she was to come to the throne, what would the right hon.

gentleman then do? Would there be no provision made for her similar to that which had been made for other queens of England? In the peculiar situation that the right hon. gentleman had stood, first as counsellor to the Princess, and now as minister and adviser to the Prince, there was no man capable of giving more information to the House. He wished to know why he had cast off one client to take a brief from another? He trusted that the right hon. gentleman was not the fomenter of the existing differences between the royal pair; and he really thought that he was bound, both to the country and his own character, to give some explanation of his conduct.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as for what he was bound to do from regard to the country and his own cha. racter, he should always judge for himself. He did not know in what capacity, or with what exact view, the right hon. gentleman came forward thus to question him; but he had no objection whatever to state, that neither in his capacity of counsellor to her Royal Highness, nor in any other character whatever, had he any charge against her Royal Highness, or the means of bringing forward any charge, and that he never meant to cast the slightest reflection upon her. He would say nothing further on the subject. As to this discussion, he had no delegated authority; no commands to propose an additional grant for the Princess of Wales. Nevertheless, if he could collect that it was the sense of parliament that such additional provision should be made, be made no doubt but that he would shortly be fully authorized to recommend it.

Mr. Tierney contended, that it was when grants were making for all the other branches of the royal family, that a proposal for an increased establishment of the Princess of Wales might be expected. But the right hon. gentleman now gave the House to understand, that if they absolutely would have it so, why then he would abate something of his dignity, and comply with their desire so far as to recommend a grant to her Royal Highness. But in saying that he was not authorised, that he had no commands to bring forward such a measure, the right hon. gentleman was declaring, in other words, that he had not advised such a measure. He was glad, however, to have heard the right hon. gentleman state distinctly, that he knew no charge against her Royal

Highness as Princess of Wales. All he could conclude was, that as Princess of Wales, and wife of the Prince Regent, the right hon. gentleman and parliament knowing of no charge against her, she ought not to remain dependant on the pleasure of the Prince.

Mr. Courtenay said this was the first time, he believed, that the House had been called on to prescribe what Message ought to be communicated to them from the crown. He thought there was a delicacy with respect to the Prince Regent and the Princess of Wales, which the House ought not to lose sight of.

Mr. C. Adams considered this subject of the conduct and character of the Princess of Wales improperly introduced in the present question, and by a sort of side wind. Such a consideration was not before the committee, and he thought it unfair to hamper the right hon. gentleman in the way the right hon. gentlemen oppo site were attempting.

Mr. Whitbread reprobated the doctrine thrown out by the right hon. gentleman, that he felt himself called upon to give no advice, but that if the House should shew any disposition to provide for her royal highness the Princess Regent, he should feel it his duty to make the communica tion to the Prince Regent. The House had now heard from a person who was so well qualified to judge, first as counsel employed by her royal highness the Princess of Wales, and then afterwards as the minister of the crown, that the conduct of her Royal Highness was perfectly blameless. It was certainly a very great satisfaction to hear, that no imputation could be cast on the Princess of Wales. This was peculiarly satisfactory, as the right hon. gentleman could not forget that her Royal Highness once stood in his estimation as a person who had been stigmatized for impropriety of conduct, and that he published a Book for the express purpose of establishing her innocence, by the removal of those accusations. The right hon. gentleman would do well not to forget, however, that her Royal Highness still remained unvindicated. It appeared to him, that there was nothing improper in taking this subject into consideration at the present time, when every branch of the royal family, but the Princess Regent, was provided for. When the right hon. gentleman made a demand of an establishment for the unfortunate monarch, of so many lords of the bed chamber, and se

who so pointedly disapproved of what be termed catechising the right hon. gentleman opposite. So far from the questions which had been addressed to that right hon. gentleman being either improper, indelicate, or unparliamentary, in his opinion they were exactly the reverse of all these. When grants were proposed to be

mily, what could be more natural, or more directly in order, than to ask why another person, more nearly allied to the throne, was alone passed by? On every propo

many grooms of the stole (and be it remembered, that they could be employed only in giving accounts to his anxious subjects of the state of his Majesty's health, of which the public could get accounts only once in a month)-when the House saw large grants made to all the younger sons of his Majesty, and a grant of 9,000l. per annum asked for to each of the Prin-made to remote branches of the royal facesses; he would put it to them if that was an improper time to come forward for the purpose of claiming some provision for a person in that high and exalted situation in which her Royal Highness was placed?sition for a money grant, he had no hesi-When the House heard from a person so well acquainted with the subject as the right hon. gentleman, that her Royal Highness was not in anywise blameable, when they heard this from the very man who would have proved to the world in his book that she was innocent, he would again ask if this was an improper time to come forward with a proposal to parliament? It remained to be enquired, whether the funds already provided were or were not sufficient for that purpose.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that what he had stated with respect to the Princess of Wales, was, that neither in his situation as counsel to her Royal Highness, nor in any other character, was he conscious that there existed a ground of charge against her. He should always be prepared to make the same statement.

Mr. Lockhart was of opinion that the only question now before the House was whether the annuity now proposed was fit to be granted to the Princesses? He was clearly of opinion it was no more than what was demanded, and of course the resolution had his decided support.

Mr. Ellison agreed, that the only question now for the consideration of the House was, the propriety of the grant now proposed to the Princesses. Whether an additional establishment should be made for the Princess of Wales was not a question before the House. He must deprecate the manner in which the right hon. gentleman, (Mr. Perceval) had been catechised on this subject.-It was unparliamentary, indelicate, and improper.-With family matters that House had nothing to do, and in at all interfering, gentlemen might widen, instead of healing, any breach which unfortunately at present existed.

Sir J. Newport rose to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and (VOL. XXII.)

tation in declaring it to be his decided conviction, that it was not only the right, but the duty of the House, to catechise the right hon. gentleman. On the subject which had been so repeatedly alluded to this night, there was, in his conception of it, something extremely mysterious, which required being accounted for; particularly, he thought the House was entitled to know from the right hon. gentleman, why he, who had been the advocate for her Royal Highness, should now have been converted into the person who was to withhold from her that justice to which she was entitled. He wished to ask too, whether the Book which the right hon. gentleman had at one time prepared for publication, had had the printer's name affixed to it, as was required by law, or whether, as had been reported, it was. printed in the right hon. gentleman's own house? He repeated, that he thought the House entitled to know on what ground the right hon. gentleman, who had formerly been so loud in declaring the innocence of her Royal Highness, abstained from reccommending that she should be placed in that rank in the country to which she was justly entitled?

The Resolution was then put, and agreed to without a division, and the House hav ing resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

BILL RESPECTING MEMBERS WHO BECOME BANKRUPTS.] Mr. Thompson moved the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Wroutesley thought that it would be a hard case, in times like the present, for any man, who, by accident, might become a bankrupt, to be compelled to vacate his

seat.

Mr. H. Smith could not see why persons who had suffered so severe an execution as an act of bankruptcy, should be more hardly punished than those who auf(L)

fered a less severe execution, but who were equally unable to pay their debts. The law ought to apply generally, or not at all. In the present situation of the country, the mere circumstance of becoming a bankrupt did not, in his opinion, render a man unworthy of a seat in that House. He trusted some consideration would be had for those whose bankruptcies were attributable to misfortune alone; and he declared that he had known more instances than one of bankrupts who had evinced by their conduct the highest sentiments of honour.

Mr. Lockhart thought great credit was due to the hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill into the House. So far were the provisions of it from imposing a particular hardship, that the various existing statutes, if they were strictly interpreted, would in his opinion disqualify a bankrupt from retaining his seat, and would authorise a motion for a new writ in the case of a bankruptcy. Now the proposed measure did not go to an immediate removal; but left the possibility of ultimately retaining the seat. He did not doubt that many bankrupts entertained sentiments of high honour; but such an argument as that, on that account alone, they should not vacate their seats, went against all qualifications whatever.

Mr. W. Smith contended, that the legislature had wisely declared, that a member of the House of Commons should have a certain qualification, that he might be independent of any corrupt motives. A bankrupt necessarily declared himself not worth a shilling, and were that the sole ground of objection to a bankrupt's retaining his seat in parliament, he should think it amply sufficient.

Mr. Wynn observed, that the 300l. a year qualification required by the statute would be now equivalent to 1,000l. He thought it necessary to maintain the law of qualification in point of property in the elected as well as in the electors.

Mr. Lamb observed, that the Qualificacation Act provided, that a member should have a certain qualification when he took his seat, but further it did not go. He could not give his consent to a Bill which appeared to him to trench upon one of the first rights of the subject, namely an eligibility to sit in that House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed that the existing law was anomalous for Irish members becoming bankrupts, vasated their seats, while English members

did not; but the hon. gentleman who brought in the Bill, had introduced provisions from the Irish act, which were not applicable to the English law of bankrupts. To equalise the situation of the members of both countries in this respect, the law must be embarrassed with many provisions of a different nature. At present, the Bill appeared to him to be extremely defective. An interval of six months was allowed by it after the bankruptcy, before the exclusion of the bankrupt from the House. In the course of that time, either by gift, bequest, or his own exertions, the bankrupt night become better qualified than when he originally entered parliament. On the whole, he thought it better to reject the Bill, than to admit it with all the embarrassing provisions with which it must necessarily be attended.

Mr. Thompson declared, that his object was to preserve, as much as possible, the independence of parliament, and to prevent persons who possessed no qualification, from sitting in that House, and making laws for the community. No doubt there were honourable bankrupts, but nine cases of bankruptcy out of ten, were attributable to folly and imprudence. A country magistrate would look shyly at a justice, who presumed to sit on the bench and admister the law, after having paid his creditors a shilling or half-a-crown in the pound; nor did he think such a person much more fit for a legislator.

Mr. Giddy supported the Bill, on the principle that power and property ought never to be separated; and therefore, that all members of that House ought to be duly qualified by the possession of certain property. Nothing had tended more to injure that House in the public opinion, than that bankrupts and insolvent persons had been allowed to sit among them; and he was anxious to remove this stain from their character.

[ocr errors]

The House then divided, For the second reading 22; Against it 19. Majority 3.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 24.

BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES.] Earl Grey said, that a measure was then in progress through the other House of Parlia ment, which embraced a subject of the utmost importance to the country. From all that he had heard on the subject, he could view the measure in no other light than as a Bill for making Bank-notes a le

149]

Toleration Act.

gal tender. In his opinion, therefore, prior | to any discussion on the Bill, some information should be laid before the House, to shew how far, in the event of the measure having the effect he stated, the public could receive it, without some sufficient security being given-to point out how far the country could rely on that which was proposed to be introduced as a valid security. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to move for an account of the number of notes which had been presented at the Bank, for payment, within a specific time, and refused, on the ground of their being forgeries. If no objection were made to the production of this paper, he would move for it to-morrow. If, however, any opposition were likely to be manifested, he would postpone it till after the holidays. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that he would, at present, say nothing more about the Bill to which the noble earl had adverted, than that he was entirely mistaken as to its principle. When the measure was regularly before them, he should be ready to state his opinion fully. spect to the account for which the noble earl expressed his intention of moving, he was desirous, before such a motion was submitted to the House, to know, whether any objection against producing it, existed in the quarter from whence it must be derived; and, if any, what the nature of that objection was. That he might procure satisfaction on those points, he wished a short delay to take place. Probably, he should have an opportunity to-morrow, of acquiring that information; and, if so, he would communicate the result to the noble earl.

thority. He had heard some time since, that it was the intention of government to afford relief to those persons who were ex posed, by this new construction, to severe disappointment, by introducing a Bill into parliament for that purpose. He always thought, that any act of grace came best from the executive government; and, while there was any expectation that they would propose some measure of relief, he had waited, with great anxiety, to give any humble assistance which lay in his power, towards its completion. But, as they were now approaching the recess, and a considerable part of the session had elapsed, he wished to be informed whether it was in the contemplation of the noble lords opposite, to submit any measure to parliament, of the nature to which he had adverted. Because, if no such intention existed, it would be a matter of serious consideration, whether a proposition should not be made by some noble lord not connected with the government.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that the With re-question of construction had not yet been done with in the courts of law, for he understood that it was intended to have the decision of the court of King's-bench reviewed by appeal, or in some other way. When the question was completely settled in the courts below, then would be the time to bring before parliament whatever might be proper on the subject.

TOLERATION ACT.] Lord Holland said, that during the last session of parliament a Bill had been submitted to their lordships by a noble viscount (Sidmouth) whom he did not then see in his place, relative to the Dissenters, which, however, the House had not thought proper to adopt. Without meaning to state his own feelings and opinions, as they respected that Bill, their lordships must be aware that it had created a great sensation throughout the country, and that, in consequence, a new construction had been put on certain parts of the Toleration Act, different from any that had before prevailed, On that construction he would say nothing. It certainly would be indecorous for him or any other member of parliament, to animadvert on it, as having the sanction of judicial au

Lord Holland said, that the matter had been decided by the court of King'sbench; and what he wanted to know was, whether there was any intention on the part of government to bring in such a Bill as that which he had mentioned in the course of the present session?"

The Earl of Liverpool again asserted, that the question had not been altogether disposed of in the courts below. Some applications had been made to government for a Bill of this kind, but he thought it quite time enough to answer such questions as these, when the matter should be decided in the courts of law.

Earl Grey said, he understood the noble lord's opinion to be, that it was most expedient to let the business lie over until the disputed point was decided. It was a matter of great interest to a very large body of persons, and, therefore, it was highly important that they should be apprised of the decision as soon as possible. should be glad to know, supposing the recent construction of the act was upheld, whether, in that case, government con

He

« ÖncekiDevam »