The National Register.
London, England, 1814-04-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

PRINCESS.CIi.IittOTTE PRINCE•OF ORANGE.

A Ah•mber. whose name we could not learn, wished to ask tie
Chancellor of the Exchequer. it' the report in circulation, respecting
de mat 630 of 'her Rival Highness the Princess Charlotte with the
Wreditary Prince of Orange, were well founded
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQvEn felt it incompatible with
his duty to give any unsxver to the question, till a communication
should be regularly made to Parliament upon the subject, by order of
the. Prince RiNent.
Mr. \V ittmit FAD thought the House of Commons had been treat-
cd with disrespect, and that it was extraordinary that the first coin.
mmication on this subject should come from a foreign Prince (the
Sostreign or the Netherlands). He trusted %v hen the communica-
tion should be made, it would -contain a recommendation to establish
0-rtain securities to prevent her Royal Highnesq from being taken
out of the kingdom, which might be attended with the most serious
consequences to this kingdom.
• STA itv.irrOk OP NORWAY.

Mr. WIIITRREAD Wished to know it' oar government had taken
to prevent intercourse with Not way, and consequently to
deprive that country of the means of obtaining provisions, with a
-View of obliging it to so! mit to the government of Sweden?
The CHANCFI.I.OIZ of the Ext-HEQUHT: observed in a low tone,
that the suisject was delicate, nod the eheuni.tiinees were peculiar;
but that the House were aware of the engagements of the treaty,
7itr. WllrninEAD —" Then the plan of starvation la really-
adopted.--Adjourned. •

FRIDAY, APRn 22.

TILE SPEAKERS' SPEECH AT TILE H.IR OF TILE IiOUSE OF

LORDS AT TILL CONCLUSION OF THE LAiT SESSIONS.•

. _
Lord Motirrrit, pursnant to . notice given- by Mr. Ponsonby,
rose, and commenced his speech by, stating that he was firmly as.
cured that the House would not attach any blame to him for bring-
iirg forward tlik:important gnestion at this advanced period of the
:t scion, when they considered that the reperted adjournments had
evunted the aitc [fiance of many' Members whose presence in
this case would be particularly essential. It was his intention to
lave brought it forward at the coinmenrement ut the Session, but
there gore, however, strong reason!: against such a proceeding-, of
which, he believed, the Members were in possession.. These were
rot the only obsracks, there • were ether impediments of greater
e-msideration—(ken:). When these cirenm,tanecs were eonsii;ered
by the House he. was sensible that. it would thrnish its• Mernber4
,with a sufficient apo!ngy. The noble Lbrd then proceeded to
t•ilie a retrospectivo view of the Address delivered to •the Prince
';'"get 44 the Bat u(thc,HoOse. of Lords at the close of last, Session

ri ••

• 1.;

APRIL

by. the Speaker of the House of Commons. -.Bill hefere be mild
enter into the minutes of that Address, he felt it a duty to refer to
the parts which alluded to the successes of our arms, " which
would overcome the inordinate. ambition of France, by the great
execution of the Allied Powers, and by that union of exertion
which had been so transcendently displayed by them."—(Hear,
hear !) The present object, to which he must call the attention of the
House, was qot to the it parts particularly, but to that part in which he
made an erroneous ,:tatement of the process of the Catholic Bill when
brought into that House, mid for the purpose Of giving all the :lim-
bers an npportimity of Leering the words of that Address,he should re-
quest that the Clerk would read it, and partirulerly those parts which
regarded the " Established Church" and e Military Catholic.'
[Here the Clerk of the Hoti>c read the Address, also Petitions re-
lative t 4, the Catholic Bill.] The Noble Lord .then proceeded to
state,- that he should make one oleservation, which he world con-
tend was constitutional, and net derogatory to any parliamentary
proceeding. This obseivation was, that the Speaker of the House
of Commons had no legal right or authority to present to the Crown
the proceedings of that House without full power and sanction
being given by the House for such a proceeding. Here he referred.
the House to the speech of Mr. Speaker Onslow in the year 1745,
and cited certain passages from it. He stated, that the Members
then differed as much in opinion with regard to the legality of the
proceeding, as he anticipated they would do on this occasion, The
Noble Lord then referred to many Gentlemen who had held tile
situation of Speaker of the House of Commons, and said he could
not select one who had anted compatible with the proceediegs
adopted by. the present Speaker at the Bar cf the House of Lords
last Session. There is a saertuary for the arts and sciences, and
there was also a sanctuary for the rights of the House of Commons,
and he should be guilty of great hgnstice to his Constituents were
he not to oppose any proceeding which appeared a violation of
those sacred rights. In a similar case of proceeding by Mr. Speaker
in the year 1667, what was the opinion be' Mm. Powell on that oc-
casion ? He observed, " that the Speaker's tongue, his ear, his
eyes, and his power, were the sole organ:' for the service of the
House." rie Gentlemen must be well aware that leave was g;ven
to bring the Catholic Bill into the House ; they must also be aware
that it was partly established ; and therefore the person who made
an'Address to the Crown relative to it had no right so to do, unless .
it had bee]) an order agreed to in that House. It was not his (Lord
Morpetles) intention to take up the time of the House longer than
was necessary (Hear, hear, from the Opposition) ; he only meant to
know the motives by which that gentleman was actuated ; he must
know that such power could not be given but by coustitutional'
authority. (Hear, hear!) The Roman Catholiec of England and
Ireland would not be abused by unauthorised ruhLesses or petitions
to the Croym They adhered to those laws which were provided
upon a constitutional basis; and he would wish to ask why such laws
should be violated ? lie would ask whether it would not have been
prudent to have abstaired from any thine likely to oppress a peo-
ple whose benefits were at present °bereft then. Although
the age in which we live was ill calculated to aflOrd them
the benefits they craved, yet it appeared an unfeigned desire
of the Speaker to tender their application articles of censorious re-
mark. lie, indeed, might think there. wee a degree of probability
in their success,. when indeed there was not an appearance of it.
The Speaker's proceedings might incur. the dissatisfaction (Wu mea.
sure hot already very popular, and such measures would render it
less so. It was for the prosecution and adoption of a principle
wide!' ought to be Immoveable, that• he brought the subject before
the House. There was a case in the reign of Heery IV. when the
King nor the Legislature would give credence to eich a proceeding.
The Noble Lord another instance in the reign of James I. He
would ask that Honourable House, it su application was made with-
out their authority, what would deer answer be under such cireums
stances? • What was the authority•oftlie• Parliament but to reserve
that fire Odell wee kindled by Mr. Burke. But it now appeared
to assume a practical air of inconstancy. He concluded by observ-
ing, that the cosiduct of the Speaker atethe bar of the House of
Lords was a violation of the authotityand priviieges of the House of
Commons, and in his opinion deserved the reprobetion of the Howe
by a vote of Censure. He then inoveeeee" That a special entry be
made, on the... Journals to the followiee, effect
That it be not drawn into precedent to infovm his Majesty at
the Bar of the Honseof Lords, or.eisewhere, of any.leill or Motion,
or. peoceeding relative 'thereto, unless the teme should be consented
to by thellouse." • • • •
The SPEARER adelressed. the '1 lowe in his" defence. He thought
iirfairnesS, the Noble Lord having be implication arraigned his con-
duet, ought to have brought forward a aireet) a distinct 'vbte of Cele

: