The National Register.
London, England, 1808-10-30 00:00:00

100

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

on all occasions where their object is free and constitutional
inquirN.
That had this Court refrained from expressing to his Nlajesty
their feeling: at the huaiilialing termination of the campaign
in Portugal, they must have ceased to feel—to think—to act
as Briton:, and have sheivn themselves unsusceptible of that
patriotism so essentially nere-sary for the preservation of their
liberties—the maintenance of their national honour—and the
independence and security of his Majest:,.'s Crown and Do-
minions. _ . •

They cannot, therefore, sufficiently expre_•. concern,
that they should, by any suggestion', have .net with ob,tritction
and reprehension in the exercise of this undoubted and invalw hle
That eley particularly regret that his Majesty should have
been ::dvi,e•d to express a hope " that recent occurrences would
have convinced them that his Nlajety i, at all times ready to
institute inquiries on occasions in which the character of the•
country, or the honour Of his Majemy's arms is concerned ; and
that the interposition of the City of London could not he neces-
sary for inducing his Mnjesty to direct due inquiry into a trait,-
action, which 11:44 disappointed the hopes and expectations of
the nal ion."

Because it appears, that during the eventful period of the last
15 years, various enterprizes and expeditions have been under-
taken," in which the character of the country, and the honour
of his Majesty's arms, were concerned," which have grievously
failed, and "disappointed the hopes and expectations of the na-
tion." and into which, " due inquiry" has not been made. That
in one of the recent occurrences to which his Majesty's Answer
refers, it is not known es en at the present moment by whose
advice the Commander in Chief was appointed, or on what ac-
count such Commander was selected.
That during all these calamitous events, and wasteful profu-
sion of blood and treasure, the public hurthens have been pa-
tiently borne, nod his Majesty has not been called upon by " the
interposition of the City of London" (if their humble supplica-
tion must he so termed) to institute inquiries into these failures;
although it appears to them thnt such " interposition" might
have been hiejlly necessary and beneficial to the country, and,
by promnt;ng due inquiry," precluded the necessity of their
sate application.
That during these unhappy reverses, and while his Majesty's
iyhjects suhh►►itted to so many privations, the most shameful and
se:oil:dot's abuses and pectdations have prevailed, into which due
inquiry has not been made so as to bring to justice sucl► great
public delinquents.
That whoever advised his Majesty to put so unfavourable and
tanwat rantable 1 roustruction on their late Petition, has abused
the confidence of his Sovereign, and is equally an enemy to his
Majesty's and the just rights of People.
That they do not attribute guilt to oily one, much less do they
pronounce jedgment wit hoot previous ilivestigatiote They ask
fwrin.estigatiou, prompt awl rigid investigation, and the punish-
latmt nt• guilt wherever it may be found.
Mr. S. Dixon insisted that the Ans:c•er ought to ht• entered se-
parately, aeil asked the Recorder, betlwr this was tint the usual
practice? the Recorder replied, that it was the practice to
propose the Xlotion for entering the uswer separately first;
and if any thing was intended to be added, to move it as an
Amendment.—Mr. Waithmau observed, that be would contend
against all the Lawyers in We-monster Hall, that the Court
might do as it pleased, as there was no standing order t►u the
polo. This was at any rate an extraordinary occasion, and re-
quired an extraordinary proceeding.
Mr.Quin said, the answer ►vas to be regarded as that of the Mi-
glisters, since, constitutionally speaking, the King could do n►
wrong. It was then the answer of the Ministers, and he be-
lieved it might he considered as the, answer of the Noble Lord,
by whom it vets delivered. What strange crime did the
Noble Lord suppose the City to have committed by this inter-
position ? Other place-, however, in spite of his intended
check, hart chosen to partake 111 the guilt. Winchester had in-
tecposed—so • had Westminster, Berkshire, &c. In 1621 the
Parliament remonstrated with James the First, who had come
from Scotland replete with despotic notions, about the system of
policy which he pursued. The reply was, " that the Parlia-
ment ought not to interpose in any prerogative matter, except
the King was pleased to desire it." This prerogative extended
to all points of the King's public ditty. Such was the intim) or
the right of interposition under the Stuarts; and the Noble Lord
who delivered the answer appeared to have taken his ideas on
tae tubjl-ct from this source. The City or London. therefore,

OCT. 30.

ought not to interpose unless his NiajPsty was pleased to dt,he
it ! But it ought to be recollected, that these despotic priuei-
ples drove the Stuarts from the throne. had 'Magna Charts
had the Bill of Bights, and the other great documents securing.
our liberties, been forgotten ?. Had the Noble Lord looked at
the first of William, where the right to petition was recogu6t.,l?
In the reigns or Henry and Elizabeth, even while the Constiet-
. lion was ituatiin.; between life and death, the answers ivere less
in,ulting than that now read, Even Charles the First had treat-
ed the Hemonstraece of the City of London with more respect.
To keep the truth from the ear of the Sovereiv was the surest
way to bring a (;overnment into contempt. This had lately
been exemplified iii the ca.,e of Spain. We ought to learn ‘‘ii-
doin from experience. The Ministers received flattery with
smile,, hut turned tip their noses at the truth. It became the
Court, however, to have a due sense of its own dignity, and to
act as became the Itepre:,entatives of the City of London; iMt
with a view of pleasing any Ministers, but w ith a sinqle e c
the common weal. This he hoped it would do on the prowin
occasion. The whole of the 111otion of his worthy Friend had
his hearty concurience.
_

Mr. S. Dixon opposed the Resolution. A great deal hat?
been said of the dignity of this Court ; hut was not the
dignity of the Sovereign also to he consulte ? This Conrt had
exereked its right in petitioning, and his Majesty had al,o ex-
ercised his right in the answer which he had thought proper
to give. lie ,hnuld move, therefore, by way of amendment,
that the rest of the Resolution after the words " inserted un
the Journals," he left out.

The Recorder here again read the original and amended Re-
solutions, in doing so, he by a lapsus described his lajestv's
Answer as " grievous" instead of "gracious," and thereby or,
easioned considerable laughter in the Court.
Mr. Alderman Birch wished the Court to consider the subject
fully and deliberately, and not come to any hasty or intemperate
resolution, which the' case would not warrant. lie knew as well
as any Member of the Court, that his Majesty's subjects had
undoubted right to address their Sovereign upon any subject,
awl at any time they might desire ; hat he also knew, that it
was the vereign's undoubted prerogative to give whatever
answer he might please. That was a doctrine sufficiently under-
stood, and if it were not admitted, would be highly prejudicial
to the country. lie knew of cases having occurred, and he
thought such might occur again, where the Citizens of London
had presented addresses full of insult and abuse ; and if his Ma-
jesty should not be at liberty to make a discretionary answer,
the most important branch of the Constitution would virtually
become annihilated. In his opinion, the answer made to the ad-
dress could be viewed in no other light than as emanatiag fre:n
the Sovereign personally; and their censuring it would not tend
to discredit Administration but his Majesty.
Mr. Deputy Goodhehere said he considered the answer of his
Majesty to the City Address, as being highly injudicious, im-
proper, and uangerous. When one and all ought to be united
to fill one heart and nme hand, as an independent nation, the City
of London had been loaded ss ith insult and degradation.
Mr. Alderman Cr-ntic did not question the right of
his Majesty to return what answer lie chose to such addresses as
that Court, or any other Body, or number of individuals, might
present to him. All he contended for was,
the right of that
Court to state the sensation which they felt on receiving' au
answer, such as the present to any Address which they might
have presented to his Majesty. The Address to which the an-
swer in question had been returned, was not to be tre/ited as if
it had been the Address of' a Faction, or of a short majority.
It was the unanimous Address of that Court, breathing a senti-
ment unanimously adopted throughout the country. The affront
thrown on the Court, therefore, in the answer which had been
made to it, was uncalled for and unnecessary.
Mr. Waltham!) contended, that it was a fundamental
principle iu the British Constitution, '$ that the King can do on
wrong," the Ministers must, and always did, take the respon-
sibility of all the Sovereign's public acts upon themselves. Be
said, that the Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dixon)
was generallycautious not to get beyond his depth, and that on subjects where-
on he was incompetent to advance reason, he never condescended
to attempt it. The worthy Alderman (Birth) had that day ap-
peared in a new character, by attempting to reply ; hut lie
it
trusted that, a,: it was his first attempt, and from the manner
which he had managed it, so it would be the last. Few men,
he said, had the assurance In maintain, that the King was his
;it'd it' the principle were nowt admitted, thrli-
berties of England are extinct. Such was the doctrine thatr
rained the monarchy of Spain. lie was auxious that a ViCbtl° •