The Sun.
London, England, 1812-03-20 00:00:00

and more de eloping.--His Lord,b;i) concluded by

moving,

" That` an Humble' Address. •be presented to his RoYal-
IliAltriessite Prince. Regent, to ,•ssure his Royal Highness-,
that whilst we 'must deeply deplote the unhappy contind..
atice of hislNdajeAy's indispOtition, we entirely rely upon
his Royal'7flighhess's witoutn,"4nd Princely:virtues, for the
vigorous arid beneficent exise of those urre,tricled gxiwers.
with which h. is now invested; arid that hii Royal High-
ness may depend upon our affectionate attacinnent, and cur
constant and zealous support is all his mos-tires, for the
-titaiiiteriarnid'of—i he r of the riat.loti. abroltd, and of its
happiness and tranquility at hone.
' Humbly to represent to his Royal. Highness, that fort
the attainment of these objects, it, appears. to its. to to essen-
tial that the administration, to which his Royal Highness
tray be graciously 'pleased 'to commit the management of his
aftarrs; should lie so cOntpo..cd as to LIM re, as far as posSible,
the confidence and good s ill of all the classes of his Majesty's
subjects.
That in the present state or Ireland, it is, in our opinion,
impossible that such iseneral contiikiice and-good will should
be enjoyed by any atiminiStration, the chara&eristic principle
of whose domestic. policy, as ;Nell as the bond of whose cliff-
iitetion in office is not only not to recommend, hut to resist a
fair and dispaisionate consideration of those civil disabilities
under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, in that'
part of the United Kingdom, still labour ; andof which they
complain as roost grievous and oppressive.
" That we therefore humbly eN7press our anxious hope
that his Royal Highness may yet be enabled to form an ad-
ministration,•which, by cpnciltating the alr.ctloits of all de-
scriptions of the community, may most.erieetually (3:41 forth
the'entirefesourCes of United Kinqioni, ilea may afibrd
toll's Royal Ilighnets`additional means of conducting to a
successful termination, a war in which are involved the
saiety, honour, and prosperity of this Country."

On-the question being put,
Lord Viscount GR.OISTONE, rather in a low tone
of voice,- repressed his hope. their Lerdships, would
pause and seriously. refleet,
/before hey agreed to
the ,motion` of the Noble Lord. It'was one which,
he thought, should be met' with a decided neget,i e.
It appeared to him to iilipute some degree of blame
to his Royal -Higliness-Tthe Prince Regent for the
measure in question. :the Noble Yocount was
proceeding, when—
The Edrl of LAUDERDALE. rose "to speak to a
question of order. It was a princil le iu Parlia-
mentary discussions that the name of_ the person at
the head of the Government should not be intro=
duced with any view of influencing the debate.--
Tee Noble Viscount said that some degree of ca-
lumn and blame was imputed to his Royal High.
ness on the occasion. It, was with' pain he heard
turn say so; but he must say the Noble Baron bad
impuied the blame Only to the advisers of his Royal
Highness ; ,but. here was an allegation of dired
blame imputed to the Illustrious Person at the head
of the Government. This involved an , attack
against* the established privileges of the House,
which went to prescribe that the name of the per-
son at the, head (1.. the Executive Government
should dot he introduced by any Member for the
purpose of influencing in any shape the delibera-
tions of the House.
The' Earl of Level:root. contended that his Nos
ble Friend did not state that any blame was cast
upon his Royal Highness ; on the contrary, his
Noble Friend had expressly declared that the mo-
tion of the Noble Baron Was not grounded on any
public or official proceeding, but on a private letter
to his Royal Brother.
Earl GREY, in allusion to the question of order,
said, that in a discussion in whiclehis own political
condud was so deeply implicated, he must regret
that any introduction of the name of the Illustrious -
.Personage alluded to should take place on an occa-
sioni of such peculiar importance. With his Noble
friend, be telt that nothing could be more incon-
sistent with the privileges of the House, or more
fatal to the freedom of debate, than an objedion
on the principle- that the motion may affe& the
charaaer; the feelings, or the personal condud of
the individtral at the head of the GoVernment. He
by no means understood,' that the Noble Baron who
proposed the. address had in any degree intended to
apply his observations in the way- the Noble Lord
opposite had asserted. The Noble Baron distinCtly
guarded himself on that point, and had stated, that
while speaking of the public condud of the Illus-
trious Head of the Government, he never looked to
any other individual than the responsible advisers of
the Crown, w ho, he properly stated,were answerable
for the political condud of that exalted person.—
This principle governed the deliberations of the Bri-
tish Legislature in the best times of the Constitution.
What the Noble Baron proposed, was, in fad,
neither More or less than a mode of 'expressing the
sentiments of 1114 House, that the existing Admi-
nistration. was not calculated to ad with advantage
for his Royal Highness or the public. It went to
cast nu blame whatever upon that Illustrious Per-
son—if so, it' would be impossible at any time to
move an Address for a change in the political ad-
visers of the Crown. Upon this principle, he must
contend, his Noble Friend Was fully justified in in.
tereuptipes the Noble VikOutil.—The ussertion of
the Noble Earl-`was in faer still more cooneded
with the real principle of order, namely, that the
motion was founded upon no document, but upon a
private letter. All he could understand as strictly
applicable 'to the real question before the House
was, that it was no official document. The question
was in fact one t hich went to a consideration of
the 'measures of the -existing Government. He
trusted, therefore, the House would proceed with
the discussion, were it only on the principle of
so far asserting the undoubted privilege or Parlia-
ment.

Lord BORRV.:GDON defied any Noble Lord to
prOve that Itz! had directly or indite fly attached the
slightest blame to the Pt ince -Regent.
The Lord CHANCELLOR thought the present an
extremely delicate proceeding. He hoped he
might be permitted to implore the attention of the
House to a lew words on the subjea. From the
moment that an individual was vested by the Houses
of Par{imperil, representing the realm, with the
functions of the Royal Authority, he thought it

clear that the name of that individual ought —to be.
mentioned with precisely the same tespea as the
name of the Sovereign. He confessed his astonish-
merit when, on a late occasion, a Peer of that
House read a letter from a newspaper, and then
asked a Noble Friend of his, if that letter was ac-
tually from his Royal Master. Such a proceeding,
to say the least of it, was most novel ; and he
would take the liberty - to say, that it any man in
his Royal Highness's Councils had given an answer'
to such, a question, he' (the Lord Chancellor),
would never have entered the Council Room with
that individual again. He was firmly persuaded—
The Marquis of DOUGLAS spoke to order. He
put it to the Nob!e and Leatued Lord, whether he
was confining himself to explanation ? 11 not, be
submitted to. the decision of the Homo how tar

the Noble and teamed Lord bad a right to pro-
ceed.

Tile LORD CHANCELLOR replied,. that he cer-
tainly had pot been confining hirnelf" to explana-
tion, not having before spoken. He was arguing
on the general subject of debate, and he repeated
that-L.

Lord HOLLAND spoke to order. If there was one
order of the House more clear than another, it was,
that vi,hen a Noble Lord called another Noble Lord
to order, be should. not himself be disorderly in doing
so. The Noble and Learned Lord's observations
were not at all to the point of order.

The Loin CHANCELLOR contended, that he was
striEtly in order, and observed that he would never
again ad in a manner so unbefitting 'one who sat
on the Woolsack, as to permit so much to be said
as he had recently permitted, without calling to or-
der the Noble Lord by whom it was uttered. He
did not allude to..the present debate, but to what
bad taken place on a late occasion, and he de-
clared that doling thirty years experience, he had
never known any thing so unparliamentary as (or.a
Noble Lord to make a. comment on a Newspaper
account, an,l—

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE called the Noble
and Learned Lord to order. With every respec=t
for the Noble and Learned-Lord, he must say that
not a word uttered by him had any reference to the
question of order on which his Noble Friend had
been interrupted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presevered in his de-
claration that be iaoold always object to.any refer-
ence, it; the debates of that House, to the Prince
Regent, or to articles in the newspapers.
Lord GLIIMSTONE' then proceeded. He expa-
tiated on_ the events which manifested the- energy
of the existing Administration ; particularly the
capture of the Mauritius, and cf Java, and the ex-
pulsion of the French from Portogal. Their ef-
forts had been uniformly successful, and he was
not one of th- se who could attribute uniform sac-
cess to chance.----Under those circumstances, and
being .persuaded that no wish was entertained in the
country for a change of Administration, hp would '
move, as an amendment, to omit all- the words in
the Address, after the word " indisposition," for
the purpose of substituting others which the No-
ble Lord •read, and which were to the following
effeet
" We beg leave to express to his Royal Highness our grate-
ful thanks tor the wisdom and prudence with which he has
exercised the Royal Authority; and to assure his Royal High-
ness that we have ohberved with the greatest satistadion the
success of his Majesty's arms during his Royal Highness's
administration of that authority, and the beneficial conse-
quences which have resulted from the assistance afforded by
his Royal Highness to his Majesty's Allies.
We rely on his Royal Highness's promoting, by every
means_in his power; the interests and glory of the-Couptry,
and the happiness of the People entrusted to his charge."
Lard DARNLEY charaeterised the amendment as a
side wind, to get rid of his Noble Friend's motion.
In opposition to the observations of the Noble Lords
opposite, he conceived it to be strictly competent to
any Noble Lord to bring forward such a question as
the present, and particularly at such 'a critical pe-
riod. He would not attempt to paint the dan-
gers With' which the country was threatened; but
it was evident that all Europe was united under
one head, and with one arm, against her ; and for
aught he knew, at that very moment the only
power in the world which had hitherto been
friendly to us, might, have declared hostilities. All
these evils were attributable to that very Admini-
stration on which the Noble .Mover of the amend-
ment had thought proper to pronounce an eulogium.
But it was nor to our foreign relations alone that
the attention of the House ought to be docaed.
Let them look also at home. He did not allude
merely to the riots at Nottingham, however alai m-
log, nor to the apprehended scarcity which, he
trusted, might be found not to exist, but to that
most important consideration, the state cf Ireland.
Adverting to the observation of the Noble Mover
of the Amendment, which had called forth the able
and animated animadversion of his Noble Friend,
he asked whether it• was to be tolerated,, that "the
mite of the Sovereign should be made use of in •
that Assembly as the Noble Lord had ventured to.
use it 2 He trusted the House would 'give hint
credit for the assurance, that even were his Royal
Highness the Prince Regent in a less elevated situa-
tion, no man would be -more aterse to iwpu'e
blame to his Royal Highness than himself. He
spoke only of his Royal Highness's advisers, and 'he
maintained !hat they were deeply culpable who had
advised hia Royal Highness to write a letter, of
which only a small portion of the evils that must,
be. consequent on it had yet strewn thetnselses.
The greatest of these was, the disappointment of
the just hopes and expeCiations of the Catholics of
Ireland. He said this because it was a notorious
fad, that the person at the head of his Royal High-
. tress's Government had founded. his political im-
portance on a system of intolerance, and on his de-
claration that he would never accede to the Catho-
lic Claims. 1f the letter of his Reiyal Highness
were at all intellig ble, it assuredly meant that-a-
Lord LIVEUPOOL spoke to order. The supposed
letter to which the Noble Lord had just referred;
was not a ckcument bafore the House. It was not
an of State, or if an aCt of State, was not in such
a situation that it could be commented upon in
Parliament. As a private letter, - it could not be
not iced.

Lord HOLLAND agreed with the Noble Earl, that
his Royal H;ghness's letter was, not a document he-
forelhe House. But where did the Noble Earl
learn the dot_irine, that a Peer of Parliament must
not allude to any paper that was not regularly before
the House as a document ? This was a monstrous
proposition. As len might Noble Louis be inter-
dialed from quoting from the CVlssics. Was Horace
a document before the House, and was any Noble
Lord to be presented from citing passages from that
Poet, because the House knew nothing of him ? If
the Noble Lord still contended that it w,s disorder-
ly to allude to any paper, the existence of which was
a matter Of general notoriety, let him spew the Par-
liamentary older in which that prohibition was ex-
pressed.
Lord MULORAVE supported the objeCtions of his
Noble Friend to the reference to a paper which was
not a document before the House, which was not
a paper of State, but which merely purported to be
a private letter from his Royal HiOutess to his
brother. It the Noble Lad persiSted in alluding to
this letter, he would take the sense of the House on
the point of order, and euddavour to determiue

ther the name orthe.Prince Regent should thus be
bandied about.

Lord GREY wished the Noble Earl who had
called his Noble- Friend to order had more accu-
rately defined his. objection. If the Noble Eart
meant to say that it was disorderly to introduce the
name of the Regent for the purpose of influencing
the debate, in that proppition he entirely agreed
with him. But if the Noble Earl maintained that
it was disorderly in his Noble Friend, in illusliatiOn
of a discussion like the present, to quote from a
letter, in print, with the signature of the Prince
Regent, although that letter was not immediately
before tire House, from that proposition he must
utterly dissent. Where would the Noble Earl find
the Order of Par,liaine:;t in which such an ailuyiort
W 35 inttrdiaed ? The p•esent question was not
whether Ministers were. responsible for that letter.
When that consideration should come befdre the
House, -he would state his reasons for being con•
vinced that they' were so" responsible, and that the
proposition was actually made by their advice.—
But all that was before the House.at that moment,
was to determine whether or not• any Noble Lord
had a right to cite a paper nut before the House
in the illustration of a proposition ? The fact was,
that it was every day's praCiice. How many, papers,
Were there mentioned by the Noble Lords opposite,
in debate, which were not documents before the
House ?. For instance, in proposing thanks le LORI
Welliegton; for his splendid services in the Penin-
sula, (and no,one entertained a higher oFinion of
the value of those services than himself ), the Node
Earl had cited Lord Ver,i!in,c;ton's dispatches : yec
those dispatches were not before the House. How
'frequently were the Berlin and Milan Decrees men-
tioned in .debate ?
.Yet those Decrees could never
be produced as documents on the Jable. Their no-
toriety was always considered a sufficient ground
for arguing upon them. Supposing the letter in
question were a priVate letter, yet as it was. a mat-
ter of notoriety, that it touched on topic sof gre,,t
public interest, his Noble Friend had.a right-to refer
to it. It the motion before the House was for the
production of the letter, would not the Noble
Mover have a right to read it, in order to shew that
it was material to vfoduce it ?
Lord MOLGRAVB was anxious that ,there should
not be a 'repetition of -the scandal 1807, on the In-
quiry whether the pledge of his Majesty was con
stitutional or not. He repeated his obje6tions to-
any reference to the letter.

Lord GREY declared that he was yet to learn that
the-proceedings of 1807 were considerM a liolation
of the order of Parliament. If the Noble Lord
meant that the publication of Cabinet Minutes. was
scandalous,i hat scandal was attributable to the Noble
Lords opposite.
Lord DARNLEY resumed, and contended that he
had: a right to read not only the letter, 'but the
whole of his paper which contained it, it he chose.
ad the Noble Lords opposite disdain ,having
advised the •letier ? He knew bow much they
depended on their majorities, but nevertheless
their political existence might yet be terminate
by a breath. They bad' poi4oned ti;e Royal ear,
and if they continued tote ddk isers of the Crown,
would be the ultimate destroyers both of. the:,.
Prince and ,of the country. He trusted that
while it was yet time, the Prince and the cotto-
ny would be saved from the evils which await-
ed them.' A. least, no consideration should pre-
vent him from doing what he conceived to he tug
duty on this important occasion. To revert to tlt
main subject : his Royal Highness had been advised
to continue the Administration which had ser.ed un-
der his Royal Father. What was this, but to imply
that the_ Claims of the Catholics of IreiArul were lc?
be resisted, not only at present, hut at all times
Under such circumstances. it was impo,s'ble for
his Noble Friends, without a complete s,a, ritice
of their principles, to return to the proposi#.
tion which had been made to them, any answer
but that which they had returned. In th..t
swer his Noble Friends disclaimed all -motives of
personal exclusion. For his own part, he did nut,
feel inure attached to party, than any Noble Lord to
that House. He thought he knew men of principle'
and talent who might he seleCted from all patties.
To shew his impartiality, he-expressed his reg,re
that his Noble Friends had not guarded themselve*
in their reply-from the imputation which had been
thrown out against them, of being disposed totally •
to abandon the cause of the Peninsula. The reCel'
lthion of that cause compelled him to lament that,
at such a moment, the Councils of the Sovereign
should have lost the only man who shed a lustre lir
on those councils, and whose attachinent to cite
cause of the Peninsula had been so warmly ,and so
repeatedly expressed. The Noble Lord concluded
by declaring that he should vote for the original
Address. -

Lord MOUNTJOY declared it to be his opinion,
that the Regent's letter was dilated by a sincere
wish, on the pat of his Royal Highness, to unite 311.
parties for the benefit of the country. Alter such 0
positive refusal as that letter hvd experienced, he
did not think that there was any opening .fur an ad'.
dress from hat :House on the subjea.-
Lord Etis'isast expressed himself at,a loss to con'
ccire what breach, of. order had -occurred in anf
reference to the Prince Regent's letter. When
Noble Lord had asked the Minister whether the
letter which was in general circulation,•ptirportin4
to be that of the Prince Regent, though no doubt

dictated by his-advisers,•and containing matter of the
most important kind,, was authentic—when that
- Minister ceinained silent •on the subji-ct—but whet'
his Noble Fiend had risen to say thaviie itad actually'
received and answered that let ter, how was it pchsiblo
that any Noble Lord could tie supposed not to be IA
complete libetty-to refer to it in debate ? He repeated
his belief that his Royal Highness had been advised

to write that letter. No man entertained a greater.
respect for his Royal Highness than himself—no mall
would be more ready.to accede,to any wish that his
Royal Highness might constitutionally express•
But there was one pa of his Royal Highness's
letter which be was persuaded - never_ came trrU'
himself. It was that in which' he declared that he'
had no predilections to indulge. Hii Royal High
ness's whole life had been one of ptedil,Ctio►i9'
The answerof his Noble Friends he heartily ar
proved. The terms in which that answer woo
couched were respccltul,• and 'evinced no .disinchi
nation to do all which honour and principle would
allow 'thin) 16 do in compliance m ith the Prince's'
livishi:s. His Noble Friend bad been invited tO
iurrn a,Governarent, in conjuneton with that eV