The Sun. — London, England, 1814-04-23 00:00:00

'Session of Parliament to the Throne, it is impos sible to.entertain a difference. _ The hopes therein • expressed of a successful resistance to the inordi-' • nate ambition and remorseless spirit,of conquest - of the enemy, liave - heen since realized by a series of stupendous events, and by a perseverance and • moderation On the part of our Allies :hat have at length stamped the indepeta of Europe, and, I trust, insured tor a long period the tranquillity of the civilized world. Most cordially too do ' 1 con t . cur with the eloquent panegyric pronounced upon, LoreWellingtonl whOse whole life appears to me to .been otre continued round of arduous and , heroic achievements.—(Hear, hear !).-The pas • . sage in the speech to which I wish particularly to refer, is that containing an allusion to the re solutions of the House, on: which a Bill for the relief of the - floniati Catholics was ordered to be 'brought in ; and I wish, in the first place, that those resolutions, - together with the preamble of the Bill, should now be read. • The Clerk having read them, the Noble Lord resumed— The, passage in the speech referri'nk. to thii Bill is as follows :—" Other momentous changes have . been proposed to our consideration ; adhering, however, to those laws by which the Crown, the Parliament, and ,1)e Constitution are made funda mentally Protestant, we hdve not deemed it exile - theta that those wbo acknoWledge a foreign juris diction should be authorised to administer the po,wers, and jurisdictions of this realm." Before I proceed to Make any remarks on the sentiments - here expressed, there is one general observation Of paramount impoftance, which I' am desirous of stating, as I shall afterwards submit it to the House, embinred in the form of a resolution . It is this, that it is inconsistent with theprivileges of this House, and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, to, inforM the Crown of any proceeding in the House relating to any measttre or proposal to which Parliament has not consented.—(.Hear, hear!).— . This is the main proposition which it is my inten • tioti to.. submit, and it must, in the first .place, depend upon the precedents, recorded either in our Journals or the Journals of the other House. Those which appear •of most obvious application, be eaUse most numerous and detailed, are the speeches .• delivered .on successive occasions, by Sir John" Cost, Sir Spencer Compton; Mr. Onslow, and Sir Fletcher Norton. The last-mentioned Speaker had . sometimes taken a wide view of the political relations, both foreign and domestic, in which the Country stood, but still,the only question to which his speeches have given rise, was whether his ex position of what had taken place was or was not correct. He was content with informing the -Throne of what had been done by. the House or out of the House, without communicating that whicf the House had refused to do.— No Speaker had left behind .him more remains or more specimens of singular oratory than • Sir Edward Turner, yet amidst all the rich variety which they present, I can find, no' reference to any subject which had been agitated in this House without ending in the adoption at some substan tive measure. The speecheS made during the reigns of William -and Anne, down to 1742, all participate in the same character. If we apply to other sources more ample but of less nnques • tionable anthenticity, we shall find, that the evi dence theyfurnish all illustrates the same principle, and tends to establiSh the same proposition. Recur ring, however, for the present, to a more remote era. I mean the reign of Henry VIJI. we select a peiiod fertile in the exhibition of Spetikers' speeches addressed to the Throne, but barren, with one il lustriouS exception, that of Sir Thomas More, in : develoinment of independent character and firm 'integrityon the.part of those who have left behind them these memorials. Indeed it is melancholy. to observe, that Whatever meanness could conceal, or flattery suggest, is to be found in these pro ductions, in one of which his Majesty is compared . to Solomon in wisdom, in beauty to Absalom, in strength to Sampson, and, finally, to that glorious Juminary, the sun-0 laugh). Through all this absurdity, pedantry. and degradation, however, there still appears to be one sanctuary that re .mained inviolate, one clear . line of demarcation that was never overlooked amidst .all the folly and prostitution of the day—that sanctuary was this House—this demarcation .was between what was said and What was done by it-- 7 -(Hear, hear). In the reign of Elizabeth, there was a Speaker, howeirer, (I ,mean Speaker Onslow), who in formed her Majesty that he. , was only the mouth of the House of Commons, and could only utter as they directed 7 -that it was his duty to speak plainly ani L s i mp l y ,, ,and to tell only the truth of what was done therein.— In 1677, the then Speaker (Fowler), who afterwards received the highest mark of con fidence that could perhaps be shewn.to an indi vidual, iii being elected Speaker to the Convention in 1788,- explicitly declared, that ; he could com municate to the Throne only 'that which he was commanded. In the first year of James 1. it was stated, by the Speaker, that no Bill had been pass,. ed by the Commons, because the King's word, was relied on. The institoce of Sir, Harbottle Grim stone was of a similar nature, Neither in these comparatively obscure cases, nor in those which are open to the fullest - investigation, can:be `covered, it is true, any instance precisely anal°. trOo to the present. The facts that distinguish the present instance, are, that former resolutions have heeii voted, that a Bill conforniable to themhas been introduced; read a second time, and the principle of it thus established. Undoubtedly in a most material point the application of it was_ altered in the Committee, but the Bill itself was never rejected, and 1 belieVe was in existence when the speech in .piestion was delivered. It was . under these cir- C-unistances, th a t t h at communication was made the 'I. hrone, and made by what purported to be the organ- or the collective Representative Body. --(Hear, hear, hear h).---Rut if the ex?-iple and authority of precedent be insufficient, la me ask, are we bound to decide by precedent alone are tve to aha tido!' m our own discr et i on , and voluntarily commit our prtviteges to doiibt, and accident, and mischance ? 11.io not wish to mix with this the discussion of. that :great question to which the words of the passage refer ; I wish to confine my self to the danger of the precedent they have esta blished, I wish to ask whether the original Mover of that question (the final success of which is to oe, I trust,' the cuusgaunatiou of his fame, the a pnre reward of . hiS virtues and his talents), anti cipated in the event of failure, that his failure must be mentioned to the Throne by a self-con- stituted authority ?—(llear, hear !) wish to ask whether the numerous body of petitioners at whose instanee be had brought for ward that discussion, expected that if they failed, their faihire must be recorded in the same manner, accom panied by the gratuitous comments of an unau thorised notification., 1 must repel the accusa tion conveyed in.the phrase "Fundamental Laws," against the supporters of that question, that they had any design of altering theth, _anal. think the Catholics hare some right to complain, that hay ing been long described as Papists and Roman ists, they are here designated as acknowledging a foreign jurisdiction. Are the limits and the na ture of that jurisdiction stated % No ! and I can not help thinking, that, in. times like the present, it would have been more wise *to have abstained from any topics of useless - irritation, to have re membered the language of Paley . , to •havencted in the genuine spirit of toleration; rather than to haVe boasted how much had been done for it.— How did we know that some future Speaker, avail ing himself of this example, may not conceive himself at liberty to make a rejected -measure the vehicle of sarcastic observation, and, by affixing a new denomination, to exercise new modes of'hos tility ! May he not select some opportunity where petitions have, after enduring a long and tedious suspense, begun .to derive consolation front the dawn of a brighter day, to add mortification to disappointment, and aim a fatal blowltt a mea sure t.do difficult 'to be carried, even with all the weight of Ministerial authority : -It is against the danger that I to guard—a danger threatening alike the right of petitioning and the freedbm of debate. It is to preserve these rights, in which the freedom . -of_ the -Constitution depends, that lam anxious. Obliterated as that freedom was during the rule of the Norman line, it has never failed' to re-appear during the intervals and re laxation of tyranny.. In the reign of Henry IV. during the contests on a 7 dispitted - succession, in answer to an address from the Speaker, that his . Majesty could not listen to any private informa tion of what passed among his faithful Commons, but could judge them only by their deeds, that King - replied, that he could not give credence to such informers, because the proceedings of that_ House were known by, acts of its collective body'. (Hear, hear !).—This freedom, which ssas after wards confirmed by the 9th of that. Monarch, proves, that it was not of such 'modern date as some persons may suspect ; and that, although it may often have been suspended, it has never become extinct. It is asserted in that noble pro-• testation addressed to James 1. a Prince who seems to have been as ignorant - of -the age in which he lived as of the people' he bad come to govern, and who is said to have expunged it with- his own hand from our Journals. The same principle was maintained by the Long Parliament ; a -Parliament which, though it humbled the pride of Kings, undoubtedly dis graced. the cause of freedom, by cloSing, its exertions in outrage and blood. The Revo lution came subsequently, • to • give to it kits final confirmation, and established it, tc:editTase vigour and animation through all our futnre deli berations. Iris not for the purpose of • attacking an individual that thio cocstlon is., now bought forward—it is from an, earliest desire to watch, over the sacred. flame of constitutional jealousy, as it Was termed by Mr. Burke, a: jealousy of that Constitution with which we have long been bless ed, and which is now copied as a model for the infant liberties olother nations. It is to raise and maintain the spirit of Parliament, and to . defend thole privileges, without,which all other principles must be endangered, that I move this-Resolutioo : " That a special entry be made on the Journals to the fol lowing effect:— " That it be not drawn into-precedent to inform his Majesty' at the Bar of the House of Lords, or elsewbere,of any Bill or Motion, orproceeding relative thereto; nless the same should he consented to by the House." The SPEAKER having read the resolution of, the Noble Lord, addressed the House in a most dig nified and impressive Speech, of which the follow ing is but a feeble outline _ . _ 7 ` After the motion which has been made by the Noble Lord, implying, necessarily implying, a grave and serious charge of misconduct, in the ,Speecirmade by me at the Barof the House of Lords at the end of, the , last Session, the House -will not be surprised that I should be desirbus of offering myself to its attention. I should be sorry to be insensible to the course of proceeding which has- been adopted, so injurious to the character of the House j . but 1 shall abstain. from all c omment on this, and also on the great political question which was touched up on in my speech, but which we 'are not now called upon to discuss. Denounced as I have been in this HouSe, as the authentic expositor of its sentiments—as one whose conduct was objected to -on solid and constitutional grounds,--4 must Confess that I did expect, from the justice and plain feeling of the Noble Lord, that he would have brought forward a distinct charge against me for misconduct. But as the motion' of the Noble Lord is merely a prospective regulation, and, as I think, quite irrelevant to the case, nevertheless, as the resolution seems to be found ' ed on. the presumption of misconduct on my part, I hope I may . he allowed, with the leave of the House, to state why such an accusation is wholly groundless. ,For this pur pose there are two distinct, questions which I feel myself called upon to consider.' . . First, whether the proceedings of the House with, respect to the Roman Catholic Claims ought to have, been ad verted to in the Speech which I took occasion to deliver at the Bar of the House of Lords, Se cOndly, if these proceedings ought to have been noticed, .whether they were noticed in a pro per manner. As to the first of these ques tions, 1 humbly submit to the House, that act. cording to the practice of Parliament; all or any of the matters that have occupied the attention of the House during its Session, may' be noticed in , the Speaker's Speed* the occasion. At least it is so laid down in the work 'which we are accustomed to consider our Text Book in these matters. In the Journals of the House of Lords such speeches are uniformly entered. I . Hatsell's Precedents, to which re ference is usually made, we find it thuslaid down : , " It has not been unusual when the King is prclen! - en the Throne—indeed it has been custoinaiy - wi ' the Speaker presenting the Bills of Supply On last day 'of Session, for the Speaker to make a i ,peeeh a , t , the Ear of the House of Lords, either imipediatff.x. arising out of the subject matter of the Bill it;eYf t ;:or, ~ when at the close of the . Session, recapitulating the princi p al objects which have employed the attention of the:Commons during their sitting." It is to the entries on the Journals of the Lords that we must refer for the substance of speeches• made on such occasions. The first instance of a speech of this kind upon record, is that, Of one in 1509, in the reign of Henry VIII. The next is that of . Mr. Speaker Lenthall, in 1641. There were many during the reign. of Charles 11. In 1689 there were but two ; 'but none• others during the reign of King William. From 1721 till the present time; there is no-pro 1 rogation speech .by any Speaker entered at' Telt length on the Journals of either House. ' In 1741 Mr. Speaker Onslow made several speeehes . at the Bar of the other House, on preseirting Bills of Supply ; and there were not less than fourteen speeches on such occasions by this Speaker, which embrace different topics that had engaged the attention of the Commons. Among the in stances which I have mentioned, in the entries of the Hotie of Lords, there are abundant proofs of the extension of .the usage at all times. Some of the earliest instances contain reference to the proceedings .of the House of Commons, not only relating , to Money Bills, but to various other measures. In the reign of Charles I. Mr. Speaker Leuthall's speech includes many topics besides ' the Money Bills which were presented at ,the time that it, was spoken. . Mr. Compton's speech in 1715 touched upon various subjects. And in 1741, Mr. Speaker On - slow, in his speech, takes notice of affairs that bad happened even out of the kingdom. Mr. Speaker Compton's speech contains observations ou the treaty of Utrecht ; and Mr. OnsloW touches on the conduct•of ' s ome naval officers in the Mediterranean. On a:par ticular examination of the speeches made. on such: occasions during the last century, it willbe Annul ' that they relate.not onlyto Money Bills, but touch on various public occurrences, both at home and abroad, even altho' these matters arc not brought to the consideration . of the Crown by Bills or otherwise. In 1746, the speech of the 'Speaker at the - Bar of the House of Lords aVindes to the TO luntary subscription . set . on foot by the people during the time- of rebellion';. and again entered $ into . the mischief to be apprehended -from further alliances. - Further, it was usual in:such speeches to` touch' upon questions agitated within the %valls -of this House, and concerning its privilegel. ,Vf;:- ter the Rebellion in 1745, the . Speaker-, in hiS speech, notices a Bill. which had beenisenS'sed in this House, relating to the internal regulation of the Highlands of Scotland, and not only mentions the proceedings concerning that Bill, but enters into a detail of the different opinions held upon .the subject, and this without fear of reprehen sion.-If, as•the Noble Lord asks, it be necessary - to bring a precedent nfany thing being said on such occasions as to. Bills Which had not been passed by the Muse, I would observe that there are only 11 of the speeches made on such occasions, that are preserved at length ; but that there are precedents for such a praotioe,, and them can be no.doobt an. the subject.. Such a doubt is without any just ground for its existence. Front the authority of 'Mr. Speaker OnsloW, it appears that on such oc casions it was perfectly allowable to extend to the notice not only of such. Bills as.hail been passed by the House, but to such as, although not pass ed, had engaged the attention -of the House. In 1758 a 4.11, relating to the Habeas Corpus ACt, was passed by the House of Commons, 'but was rejected by the • House of Lords. ! On this subject the Speaker Onslow touched, in a speech. which he had prepared 'to nuke =at the Bar of the House of Lords., but which he did not deliver on account of the Absence of the' King. - This 1 adduce as the authority of Mr: Speaker Onslow,-(Hear,,bear ! from the Oppo— sition Bench).---1 hope I may. be allowed to refer to a Speech on the records of the Parliament of Ireland, which hears upon this point. In 1792, in the Parliament of ,Ireland,a. Bill was brougbt in for the further relief of , the Roman Catholics; permitting them to occupy certain situations in the law, and allowing them to intermarry with Protestants. After the first and second reading of this Bill, and while It was in aCommitte, a Peti tion,was presented, in consequence of which The Bill was rejected. At the close of the Session Mr. 'Speaker Foster (whom although now present, I 'hope I may he permitted to name historically), thought it his duty to advert, ,in his speech, to a matter which he conceived to be of such im portance, and to state what he conceived to have been the motives by which the House had-be en influenced in its proceedings respecting that Bill ; and for that very speech he received the thanks of the Irish House of CoMmons. on the Same day.--- , On reviewing the whole question, I conceive that in such cases the Speaker is allowed - to refer to measures which have been discussed, Unlimited by ' any consideration As' to - their progress or failure. All are agreed as to the importance of the matter i on which I touched': I would uot, on such an oc- i ' easion, have passed it unnoticed, even if there had ! - not been any other Bill for the relief °t i the Roman Catholics before the House during that Session ; but in the same Session a Bill had been passed for the re- Het' of the Catholics, which had originated it') the HoUse of Lords. The notice of this Bill, which H I' conceived' to be my duty, necessarily brought: the %%thole question under consideration, anti involved I the proceedings of the Legislature upon it. As to the second question, whether, admitting that the proceedings of the House on the' Object of the claims of the .Roman Catholics ought to have been noticed by me, they weremoticed in .a 1 proper manner, I would submit to the Hodse that its proceedings were stated with truth and correctness. The question having been before the House, the large Bill not having ,been passed by it, but the one which had been introduced into the other House by the Duke of Norfolk having been passed; the words in which I stated the proceed - - I ings of this House were these :—" These are l not the only objects to which our attention has I been called ; • other m o m entous c h anges h ave ' been proposed for our considi_.:-azion. Adber-- lug, however, to those laws by w:ii,:li the Throne,' 1 • f ili s t h e Parliament, and tire Government P 0 coat - iffy are, made ftmdamentally ProteStao t ' t a have not consented to 'allow, that th? se t t if Y ',acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction 01°111 ; dir aathorised to Jtdiffinister the powers and jorirsar flops of this realm ; willing as. we are, tol e, !( lesS, and willing. as I trust we. ever sh ail 1 0 ,1 allow the largest scope to religious toleratiT ( iii , In the (stated division of this paragraph , i , t 1 , 15 0 0 ' tinctly , that the House did not tln°7 t ', 0 par ticipa i i ? 1., per to admit Roman Catholics to the Legislature. ,Could . less have been s ' t P,i • - conceive it to be a true narrative of the f 3ct 'ill t'i 'House went into the Commit - ice on the 11 ce consider the claims not to grant. '.l . he B il oil' tained a clause for granting ti t the Cath °lles P tical,power, and this was ,negatived in the i iti s I mittee. ' In- the paragraph w 1 which I have era I not said that. the Bill. It - »s , rejected; It 11 ,0 11 . states what the House did, awl what i i t " r li ° not do. It says. nothing respecting' vc ; lB ,. tier House- at some future time, and tto e ' a '', eferent circumstances; might think 100;5,111 do. So tar as it goes, _it states the rea°,,i'raa mentioning, that. the laws, require the .•• re the Legislature, and the Government, to be testant ; and that the Catholics admita (li ft Jurisdiction. I conceive it to be the slutY l f i% . is' A. Speaker to state, as - nearly as he can poss iu A S certain, the motives.. by which the He u i ,, se s i' actuated in such a case. The question t" c io ci l 'whether I have stated the motives of the 11114 .„' a ie of the House truly. This was the task "'ld had to • execute, and . by the execution of : 1„ 0 lam to be tried. There is one point svbi c ,tlii it has been adverted to, I - think it necess 3rl f l4 I should now say a few' words, though 9 tll-.,, ti'' I should certainly have deemed it q uite O r t i' ous—l mean .the assertion that the SPe gke sf IJ have no knowledge Of what has been don - ' "didr Honse, when .it is in a Committee. It is ' ll ! pc' . . to be present, and to take cognizance of -"-; ') ceedings of the Route while in a C o Mmitt ec t: ',o though indeed by the indulgence of the W l ': it' , absence of the Speaker is permitted. 13 '' t b' the more necessary that he should be pre se ';l l( cause when he takes the Chair, he may b c ia rl' upon to decide on sonic matter ; or he 1 '",, , 1 1 . called to the Chair, as' once happened to. " i i ' l' a ,' and called Upon on hiS responsibilityao s t _ lt r i e rl - "'', 'opiniori on aqtrestion Of order; lot what patsed. But even when a lii it 11 0' 4 comes - out of a Cormnittee, the proceid io 9 recorded on the Conunitte.e.Books, and t° teen the Speaker must have access. On such %0" nical objection, I shOuld have thopght t h ",att r ' -one in the least versed in. Parliamentary il ' t oc / would have attempted to found the l'',',o' ' 'of' 06 atgnment. As to what I said on 1 ;,. 1- r 0" tension of toleration,' the. subject betl i t' e lr • cessarily brought before the Sovereign by t 'V e ture of the proceedings, it was proper to st% i o'' opinion of theLegisi,atnre on the subject, tV c oo' so as the prerogativeof flit:Croy:an is much e t 'a., /1 tii',, j ed in whatever relates to the jurisdiction `-'0 0" t matter.. On the whole, I would observe tt l i 0 ' Speaker is entitled to address the 50ve1134,, ; ' tiny matters • that have been- discussed ''' House during its Session, with Out any relg t io t ,' the length of time they m `2- may have ocCupiedile. dc; ' tention of . the House ; and th at. where ii j , • notide ihe proceedings of the House, 11 e ° 6 o4 state the motives by which th e majority 5- Or' have been actuated in deciding the question' h al l ant horities have made the path of my duty p l i , ll ;4 o ' I hope that on their authority I have est 4v , • f l b r i I my vindication. As to the question !? - i t sre' 1 fore you, it is not ,for me to sway you r „,*1; ment upon it. The freedom of alehli t ; e o o. not be shackled by any historical st° 140 11 : 1 ' of the proceedings of the House. If th e k , f t' e , ' ' will take on itself to prescribe new rules ',"„ e l'' conduCt of its Speaker, and to circumseo'c V 4lutits within narrower limits than:they h av e il ' 3 V thertoheen confined, 'it will be- for yor e ' l e ' se' t ,' , I bi weigh the nature and consequences of t.,,,l'es;oe 0 i• regulations. lf it should . please the ti e , „* f ° l t enact them, it will then only temaio ;-, - 1 Speaker td conform to ahem with exact°l7;i°'; . . 1 must chneltule with my thanks for the a r f -t ' e p 0„ •i 'With. which 1 haVe been heard. I salt' ° o at'', e,eeding of the Houie in the matter of the . „ - are l ' , Catholic Claims forms . one of the most pr' a i ; 1 5 0 0 ; 1 features in the transactions of the last '-'" 1 09 1 and I thought' it my duty to notice 4 1 .!'''' 1 1 0 1 ' speech. If, by my conduct in this iastine e, f IV have incurred carat the indirect e.risltr e ~,,i° m tr ; House, I s)iall lament it as a indirect bravY '' . :l l '", tune.. But. 4 must say; that to my own cons.A L ;iit" I siitdl stand for ever acquitled in what ' b" t 1 done, not only as the. Servant of this tl O 05 ; ti' l from having. fulfilled my duty as a Reare se9 , 4 4, of the People:"—(Loud and confirmed elte-i;rl/ 'Mr. WHITEHEAD ' craving been sa Pa'' ti fit ,/ , alluded to, found himself called uon to ` l ' {l4 / . 141 , i In ti...! early part of the Session lie had t''' At( er , ki ri e• - -, i casinu to say that lie conceived that the ' ' e trO . had been an unauthentic expositor of the S e h e mentsaaf the House. As he had tail he fc ' r i'ef,' • would now.say it again --that Might } F }u " s •bi'' ) • Isonage had no authority to take - the liberty t s ot tli t E lie had taken when he delivered the sPe ecli h e 1" 5- „z ilar of the House of Lords at the end of t- ir ro c ' Session, being, as. he had described higise:3), be Servant of the Honse of Commons. A ss- -acs "l had transgrssed his duty. After tile 111:'• 91 , 'an'' Clint lie (Mr. Whitbread) ~ had wituesse“' c on' tvitnessed with unvaried, ti probation, I ' l3 art' (tact in the Ch a ir, h e , conceived that th i e . ive ar' , lent was not a tim e t o • p ay him coo l r i ,' a nti' which might b e d ese r ve d, ' I n arra igning +' l 0 0 0- duct,. lie wished it had been the. co nduct °f w'i rge titer. Ile bad 'complained that no dir ect e ., I t`' had been made against him ; but it occarftejas ;tint (Mr. W.) that he would not dise l ' lll ' s 1 10- , duty as a Member of th e H o ose of Cortnn°' l o ; ban less he arraign e d hi m f or his con duct. T i ' lly i 04 been referred'b!,:' him, as was anticipated Th e Noble 3.lloier, to some straaae _PreePtie l ' Es ,d be en treasures of Mr..o,naloW and Mr. Hatsell h ', oast' broagla before them, though he con' idercu rtia bt ' authorities as of consequence 0 133 the /;at'" lii , r . i .:S G p e ea n seemed 1 a t ) ( , ) , .think on :; tttwi t il l a i tt e l c : : 1 ep, : a r r . : c i te : l : l : i ! i t i l e za b n ad se s e o n m i opinion . f,t• Mr. Oaslour. Il e ~,la like to ', clo d, speech which bad been.prepared by hat which had never seen the light, and w ,,..,, 11 - c e ` 4 " pens 'not to have been applicable to t ; " ,t e c a - ty th e ra;stake telisiterl tat' have been, cogaw--