The National Register. — London, England, 1808-02-21 00:00:00

g 114 showid 'tut be loidtkfors - NAT thousands a-year in addition to the present retentie of the Princes. In this view of the suhjett, the grant to their 114”al aighnesses may even be regarded as a saving to the notion. How nAturul is it fur other parents to gratify their feeliors h. Imparting the circumstances of their good fortune to their fa ▪ ? How crud aould it he to deprive a good father of this ;ratification beeause be is a King ? True it is that the circum stances of th people require amelioration. But the t ompara tive trifle which was bestowed upon the Princes, would hate feehly operated toward this mighty object. But the injustice and indelicacy of the complaints, u hick have been raised din this subject, are not apparent front them. considerations alone. When we compare the revenue, which is eqjo3ed by the junior male branches of the Ito al Family, with the incomes of a great proportionofour Nobility.and even ofour Gentry, we shall find that it is far from exorbitant. It is not in the first, it is, perhaps, not even in the second, rank of the reve ttues which are enjoyed by the leading men of the country. Their rank, however, is the highest of all ; and, by the received ideas of our country, it is understood and expected, that expentv Should keep pace w ith rank. A great e%pence, therefore, is not so much a matter of choice with the Princes, as a matter of necessity. No economy on their part could enable theta to prevent it. !nail public sub,.criptions, for objects of charity. or of utility, it is expected that the British Princes shall take Csr lend, a n d both in the frequency and the magnitude of their donations, give an example to the rest of the community. It is not computed how large a deduction is mule from their receipts in the course of a.ear on this sole account. From all these considerations, it does appear illiberal to criticise, with severity, the paternal generosity of his Majesty on the present occasion. Were it not for the sacrifices hieb the people are obliged to Make, in the maintenance of an ;Arduous contest ; were the ent:;:try in the full enjoyment of peace, and of the blessings, and riches, which it bestows, it would he far more beetuning a liberal Nation, joyfully to welcome the proposition of an in creased revenue to the sous of their Sovereign. This, indeed, We are fully convinced would be lite ease ; anti sere the pro ductive power:. of peive tojo)cd, for but a few years, we have *Ol a doubt, that a revenue, corresponding with the improved arm/btu:ices of the country, would be 'caddy palate& to the OBSERVATIONS ON TILE DOCTRINE OF MR. 'CANN kNG, ;Pm, th. Coriftrences betpoccts Crocistel Wadi anti dnsbaisatlar) On a Motion made by Mr. Abercrombie, in the Hilose of Commons, on bloodily, the 15th hut•. for the production of all the official coniinunications, which were mark by the Earls Rossiya and St Vincent to the Prince Regent of Poriugal, to ether with the, answers, Mr. Canning maintained, that all Confet cares between Crowned Heads and Dipinaratie Mini sters at their Courts, should he withheld Prow Parliament. •. lie was glad," he said, " that he now had ;in opportunity of " of making a stand against the practice of disclosing what " paved in congdetice between a British Minister nod a Foreign " Prince." The rte, in which this was understood by the House, appears, b tbe remarks of some of the opposite Speak ers. Mr. Windhi.•n cot.4ratialated the House on a new defender of etiquette. Mr. P,►wonby said, "in the best times of " English history, the conduct of persons in the highest stations, ". whether Prince or Minister, were openly, fairly, and baldly `• discussed in Parliament; it was only ut the must disgraceful , " periods that we find ghat „Imp 44%e shrunk fro n t (her pthr t licity ; Parliament was too easily led, by confidence, ie 0044 " woe, us a high pounding title." 'AL REGnTBR,. 9] Mr. Canning defended his opinion, by stating, that this mode of diplomatic intercourse had become extremely common in Centinental Europe. The diplomatic agents of France, hs said, not contented with communications, in the ordinary and official chiontel, pushed their way, even into the closets o f Princes, and obtained with them personal conferences. The Ministers of Great Britain, that they might not be treated as in.; ;*erior, hoisted upon similar privileges. It thus happened, that :ill the most important parts of diplomatic intercourse were in t lulled in those conferences. Kings and Emperors, however, Mould 110 t submit to have their private communications divulged in our Parliaments and Newspapers; and would, for that reason, deny our Ambassadors that access to their persons, which they granted to those of other nations. This doctrine, without doubt, was very unthinkingly advanced by Mr. Canning. It is opposed to the very office of Parliament. If all diplomatic intercourse, or the most important part of it, makes place in the closet or presence of Princes ; and if it be comes a received principle, that what is transacted in the pre sence of Princes is not to be iair! before Parliament, this is a scheme by which the communie.tion to Parliament of this species of intelligence is entirely cut off. No elucidation of the diplomatic transactions of Government can any longer he received by the Legislature. Let Ministers act wisely or foolishly, virtuously or criminally in their intercourse with foreign nations, the power of Parliament to controul them is at nn end. It is denied the proper information on which aJu went either of approbation or censure can be founded. Whst check upon misconduct would there remain? If it be so dial. cult, with all the helps which can be devised, to hind public men to their duty, what ruin must ensue when the most ins portant helps are voluntarily removed ? We were extremely happy to perceive, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented from this doctrine of his colleague. it is not, therefore, a Miuisterial doctrine. It was merely a batty concluyion of Mr. Canning, in which the rest Of the Mi nistry did not support him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "he did not go so far as his Right lion. Friend. lie ;Lc " knowledged it might be right sometimes to communicate to " Parliament even the conferences of Princes, but it ought to be " done, he thought, With taution." Does not that depend, however, upon the kind of the con ference ? May there out be many conferences with p r i n ce s , in which public inaltersare discussed with caudaur and wisdom, and where no caution is necessary in regard to their communica tion But the distinction between one kind of conference and another is.eqiially necessary in respect to those of lucre agents. as those of crooned heads themselves. There arc many of the communications between the Ministers of different countrie• which could not with propriety be laid before the Public, 111 feet it is the nature of the communication, and not the persna by whom it is made, that determines the propriety or the impro• priety of making it public. If we speak, of caution, we readily allow that caution is necessary in every part of public husirres,; but we believe there are few occasions on whieh it is less wee,- sary than in the communication of intelligence. Seldom, indeed, does it happen that any serious. litjury is sustained from that cause. It is en the other side that danger is most commonly funnel. Besides, we are confidently persuaded, that there ant very fcir occasions.on which a Prince could be offended by the communication of a couference of his coon, on which he would not be equally offeudial by the communication of the conference of his MinSster. What, on such an occiasion, is the :Minister, hut the mouth of the Plitt& ? hat shouldisflend the Prince iu divulging his own conference, if not the disclosure of improper intelligences bast this iudiscrctiou i equally injurious it' incurred is respect to the conferences of his idiuiuvv as twuryeti-iu rise spect to thew with himstif. i i