Star.
London, England, 1812-03-20 00:00:00

. - . .
. . . ss
eletilanuleil et thee* civil dhahllitlet ender Shah 11.11444% , illiss n years rrperienee, be bad never Immo stay
limes Catholic subjects, to that pan of the united thedoes,
strniabourt and of which they complain as most grimes and
Oppressive.
" That we therefore humbly express our anxious hope that his
Royal Highness may yet, be enabled to form an Administration
which, by conciliating the affections of all descriptions of the
L
munity, may must effectually call forth the entire resources 1 word u
I skin so tinparliamentstry as for a Noble Lord to maki
a eonalment on a Newspaper, account. ease--
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE ,ealled the Noble
. and Learned Lord to order. With every respect for
' ,the Noble and Learned Lord, he must say that not a
uttered by him had any reference to the
ofthe United Kingdom, and niay afford to his Royal Highness,'
Question of order on which his Noble Friend had been
additional means of.conducting to a successful termination, a •
war in which are involved the safety, honour, and prosperity of interrupted.
'this country." I The LORD CHANCELLOR persevered in his
On the question being put ; declaration, that he would always object to any re-
Lord Viscount GRIMSTONE expressed his hope ferefice, in the debates Of that House, to the Prince
' their Lordships would pause and seriously reflect be- Regent. or to articles in newspapers.
fore they agreed to the motion of the Noble Lord.— Lord GRIMSTONE then proceeded. He expa-
Llt was one which, he thought, should be met with a tiated on the events which manifested the energy of
decided negative. It appeared to him to impute the existing Administration; particularly the capture
some degree of blame to his Royal Highness the i of the Mauritius, and of Java, and the expulsion of
Prince Regent for• the measure in question. The the French from Portugal. Their efforts had been
Noble Viscount was proceeding, when . I uniformly successful, and he was not one of those
The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose to speak to a who could attribute uniform success to chance.—
question of order. It was a principle in Parliamen- Under those circumstances, and being persuaded that
tary discussions that the name of the person at the no wish was entertained in the country for a change
head of the Government should not be introduced of Administration, he would move, as an amendment,
with any view of influencing the debate. The Noble to omit all the words in the Address, after the word
Viscount mid that some degree of calumny and ig indisposition," for the purpose of substituting
blame was imputed to his Royal Highness on the oc- ' others which the Noble Lord read, and which were
casion. It Nv as with pain he heard him so long : but to the following effect:
he must say the Noble Baron had imputed the blame i "We beg leave to express to his Royal Highness our grateful
only to the advisers of his Royal Highness; but here thanks for the wisdornand prudence with which he has exen
cased the Royal authority ; and to assure his Royal Highness
was an allegation of direct blame imputed to the, that we have observed with the greatest satlsraction the success
illustrious Person at the head of the Government.— of his Majesty's arms during his Royal Highness's administra-
This involved an attack against the established privi. • don of that authority, and the beneficial consequences which
leges of the House, which went to prescribe that the ; have resulted from the assistance afforded by his Royal Highness
name of the person at the head of the Executive Go- to his Majesty's Mies'
I "We rely on his Royal Highness's promoting, by every means
vetnment should not be introduced by any Member in his power, the interestsand glory of the Country, and the hap-
for the purpose of influencing in any shape the deli- piness of the People entrusted to his charge."
berations of the House. Lord DARNLEY characterised the amendment
The Earl of LIVERPOOL contended that his as a side wind, to get rid of his Noble Friend's mo-
Noble Friend did not state that any blame was cast I tion. •In opposition to the observations of the Noble
upon his Royal Highness eon the contrary, his Noble I Lords opposite, he conceived it to be strictly compe-
Friend had expressly declared that the motion of the 1 tent to any Noble Lord to bring forward such a
Noble Baron was not grounded on any public or oifi- question as the present, and particularly at such a
cial proceeding, but on a private letter (Hoar, hear !) critical period. He would not attempt to paint the
to his Royal Brother. dangers with which the country was threatened ; but
Earl GREY, in allusion to the question of order, , it was evident all Europe was united under one head,
said, that in a discussion in which his own political and with one arm, against her : and for aught he
conduct was so deeply implicated, he must regret knew, at that very moment the only power in the
that any introduction of the name of the Illustrious world which had hitherto been friendly to us, might
Personage alluded to should take place,son an occa- have declared hostilities. All these evils were
sion of such peculiar importance. With his Noble attributable to that very Administrat:an on which
Friend, he felt that nothing could be more inconsis- the Noble Mover of the Amendment had thought
tent with the privileges of the House, or more fatal proper to pronounce an eulogium. But it was not
to the freedom of debate, than an objection on the to our foreign relations alone that the attention of the
principle that the motion may affect the character, House ought to be directed. Let them look also at
the feelings, or the personal conduct of the individual home. I-le did not allude merely to the riots at
at the head of the Government. He by no means Nottingham, however alarming, nor the apprehend-
understood, that the Noble Baron who proposed the ed scarcity which, he trusted, might be found not to
address, had in any degree intended to apply his ob. exist, but to that most important consideration, the
servations in the way the Noble Lord opposite had state of Ireland. Adverting to the observation of the
asserted. The Noble Baron distinctly guarded him. Noble Mover of the Amendment, which had called
self on that point, and had stated, that while speak- forth the able and animated animadversion of his
ing of the public conduct of the Illustrious Head of Noble Friend, he asked whether it was to be tolera-
the Government, he never looked to any individual ted, that the name of the Sovereign should be made
than the responsible advisers of the Crown, who, he use of in that Assembly as that Noble Lord had yen-
properly stated, were answerable for the political tured to use it ? He trusted that the House would
conduct of that exalted person. This principle go. give him credit for the assurance, that even were his
verned the deliberations of the British Legislature Royal Highness the Prince Regent in a less elevated
in the best times of the Constitution. What the ' situation, no man would be more averse to impute
Nobleßaron proposed, was, in fact, neither more nor blame to his Royal Highness than himself. He spoke
less than a mode of expressing the sentiments of that only of his Royal Highness's advisers, and he main-
House, that the existing Administration was not cal- tamed that they were deeply culpable who had ad-
culated to act with advantage for his Royal Highnsss vised his Royal Highness to write a letter, of which
or the public. It went to cast no blame whatever only a small portion of the evils that must be conse-
upon that Illustrious Person—if so, it would be quent on it had yet sheen themselves. The greatest
impossible at any time to move an Address for a of these was, the disappointment of the just hopes and
change in the political advisers of the Crown. Upon expectations of the Catholics of Ireland. He said
this principle, he.must contend, his Noble Friend was this because it was a notorious fact, that the per-
fully justified in interrupting the Noble Viscount.— son at the head of his Royal Highness's Government
The assertion of the Noble Earl was in fact still more i had founded his political importance co a system of
connected with the real principle of order, namely, intokraece, and on his declaration that he would ne-
ver accede to the Catholic Claims. If the letter of
that the motion was founded upon no document, but
upon a private letter. All he could understand as his Royal Highness were at all intelligible,; assured-
-
strictly applicable to the real question before the ly meant that
House was, that it was no official document. The Lord LIVERVOOL spoke to order. The sup-
question was in fact one which went to a considera- posed letter to which the Noble Lord had just refer-
tion of the measures of tke existing Government. He ,red, was not a document before the House. It was
trusted, therefore, the House would proceed with the . not an act of State, or if an act of State, was not in
discussion, were it only on the principle of so far as- such a situation that it could be commented upon in
serting the undoubted privilege of Parliament. Parliament. As a private letter it could not bsl
Lord BORRINGDON defied any Noble Lord to noticed.
prove, that he had directly or indirectly attached the Lord HOLLAND agreed with the Noble Earl
slightest bl tine to the Prince Regent. that ins Royal Highness's letter was not a document
The LORD CHANCELLOR. thought the pre- before the House. But where did the Noble Ear:
learn the doctrine that a Peer of Parliament must not
sent an extremely delicate proceeding. He hoped he
might be permitted to implore the attention of the , allude to any paper that was not regularly before the
House to a few words on the subject. From the ! House as a document ? This was a monstrous pro.
position. As well might Noble Lords be interdicted
moment that an individual was vested by the Houses !
of Parliament, representing the realm, with the func- I from quoting from the Classics. Was Horace a do-,
y
tions of the Royal Authority, he thought it clear that Icument before the House, and was an Noble Lord
the name of that individual ought to be mentioned ' to be prevented from citing passages from that Poet
with preciselye confessed his astonishment when, on the same respect as the name of the because the House knew nothing of him ? (A laugh.)
H Sovereign.
If the Noble Lord still contended .that it was disor-
a late occasion, a Peer of that House read a let-' derly to allude to any paper, the existence of which
ter from a Newspaper, and then asked a Noble I was a matter of general notoriety, let him shew the
Friend of his, if that letter was actually from his ! Parliamentary Order in which that prohibition was
Royal Master? Such a proceeding, to say the least I expressed.
of it, was most novel: and he would take the liberty I Lord MULGRAVE supported the objections of
to say, that if any man in his Royal Highness's his Noble Friend to the reference to a paper which
Councils had given an answer to such a question, he was not a document before the House, which was
(the Lord Chancellor) would never have entered ; not a paper of state, but which merely purported to
the Council-room with that individual again. He he a private letter from his Royal Highness to his
', was firmly persuaded— I brother. If the Noble Lord persisted in alluding to
The Marquis of DOUGLAS spoke to order. He , this letter, he would take the sense of the House on
put it to the Noble and Learned Lord, whether he the point of it, and endeavour to determine whether
was confining himself to explanation? If not, he sub. the name of the Prince Regent should thus be bast.
mined to the decision of the House how far the Noble died about ?
and Learned Lord had a right to proceed. I Lord GREY wished the Noble Earl who had
The LORD CHANCELLOR replied, that he called his Noble Friend to order had more accurately
certainly had not been confining himself to expla. : defined his objection. If the Noble Earl meant to
nation, not having before spoken. He was arguing say that ieewas disorderly to introduce the name of
on the-general subject of debate, and he repeated the Regent for the purpose of influencing the debate, i
that ' in that proposition he entirely agreed with him.—''
Lord HOLLAND spoke to order. If there was Rut if the Noble Earl maintained that it was disore '
one order of the House more clear than another, it derly in his Noble Friend, in illustration of a discus-
was that when a Noble Lord called another Noble sion like the present, to quote from a letter, in print,
Lord to order, hesshould not himself be disorderly with the signature of the Prince Regent, although
in doing so. The Noble and Learned Lord's obser- that letter was not immediately before the House,
•vations were not at all to the point of order. from that proposition he must utterleedissent. Where
• The LORD CHANCELLOR contended, that he would the Noble Earl find the 'Order of Parliament
was strictly in order, and observed that he would in which such an allusion was interdicted ? The'
never again act in a manner so unbefitting one who present question was not whether Ministers were re-
sat on the Woolsack, as to permit so much to be said sponsible for that letter e • When that consideration
as he had recently permitted, without calling to order should come before the House, he would state his
the Noble Lord by wham it was uttered. He did reasons for being convinced that they were so respon.
not allude to the present debate, but to what had sible, and that tba 'Lion was actuoslitY made by
taken place on a late occasion, and he declared that their advice. But Pganat was before the House at

that moment, %els to deterrnine wtedier.tie pbt toy
Noble Lord had a right to cite a paper not before
the House in the illustration of a preposition ? The
fact was, that it was every day's practice. How
many papers were there mentioned by the Noble
Lords opposite, in debate, which were net documents
before the. House ? For instance, in proposing ta.uks
to Lord Wellington, for his splendid services in the
Peninsula (and no one entertained a higher opinios
of the value of those services than himself),the Noble
Earl had cited Lord Wellingtca's dispatches ; yet
those dispatches were not before the Hous-. How
frequently were the Berlin and Milan Decrees sea.
tioned in debate ? Yet those Decrees could never be
produced as documents on the table. Thrrir nutoiiety
was always considered a sufficient ground for a •
ng
upon them. Supposing the letter in question Were a
private letter, yet as it was a matter of nescsict.7,
that it touched on topics of great public interest, his
Noble Friend had a right to refer to it. -lithe moo
tion before the House was tor the production at
the letter, would not the Noble Mover have a rigkt
to read it, in order to show that it was material
Ito produce it ?
Lord MULG RAVE was anxious tbat there sltonlA
not be a repetition of the scandal of 1607 on the ia.
guiry whether the pledge of his Majesty was ,costi.
tnional or not ? lie repeated his objections to as,
reference to the letter.

Lord GREY declared that he v. a; yet to learn
that the proceedings of 1801 were consid: red a Tits.
lation of the order of Parliament. If the Nobk
Lord meant that the publication of Cabnet Minutes
was scandalous, that 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 use
whole of his paper which contained it, if he chose..
Did the Noble Lords opposite disclaim having ad-
vised the letter ? He knew how much they depended
on their majorities, but nevertheless their political
existence might yet be terminated by a breath. They
had poisoned the Royal ear, and if they con:hated
the advisers of the Crown, would be the ultimate de.
stroyers both of the Prince and of the country. He
trusted that while it was yet time, the Prim ant
the country would be saved from the evils which
awaited them. At least no consideration should re,
vent him from doing what he conceived to be his'
duty on this important occasion. To revert to the
main subject : His Royal Highness had been advisee
to continue the Administration which bad sated
under his Royal Father. What was this, but toimply
that the Claims of the Catholics of Ireland were at
be resisted, not only at present, but at all tiniest
Under such circumstances, it was impossible for his
Noble Friends, without a complete sacrifice of their
principles, to return to the proposition which hid
been made to them, any answer, bat that which they
had returned.' In that answer his Noble Friends tfis.
claimed all motives of personal exclusion. For his
own part, he did not feel more attached to party
than any Noble Lord in that House. He thou*
he knew men of principle and.talent who ini&ht bo
selected from all parties. To skew his impartiality,
he expressed his regret that his Noble Friends had
not guarded thems?lves in their reply hem the ins.
potation which had 'peen thrown out *Oast it%
of being disposed totally to abandon the cease 616
Peninsula. The recollection of that cause compella
'im to lament, that at such a moment the Ceanwis
of the Sovereign should have lost the only mu sem
shed a lustre upon those councils, and whose meads.
ment to the cause of the Peninsda had hem •
warmly and so repeatedly expressed. The**
Lord concluded by declaring that he should loafer •
the original Address.
Lord MOUNTJOY declared k to be his "Wee,
that the Regent's letter was dictated by a slam
wish on the part of his Royal Highness to pits d
parties for the benefit of the country. After axis
positive refusal as that letter had experienced, brill
not think that there was any opening for as Wren
from the House on the subject.
Lord ERSKINE expressed himself at aloes 0
conceive what breech of order had occurred is any
reference to the Prince Regent's letter. Who a
Noble Lord had asked the Minister whether the
letter which was in general circulttion, purportiegw
be that of the Prince Regent, though GO doehtio
tated by his advisers, and containing nutter did*
most important kind, was authentic—whea their+.
nieter remained silent on the subject—but where hi
Noble Friend had risen to say that he had actvf
received and answered that letter, how was it pose*
that any Noble Lord could be supposed sot take*
complete liberty to refer to it in debate ? He repeated
his belief that his Royal Highness bad bees whist&
to write that letter. No man entertained Agnew
respect for his Royal Highness than himself—aolnla
would be more ready to accede to any wish doll
Royal Highness might constitutionally express. Si
there was one part of his Royal Highness's Wire
which he was persuaded never came from himself.--
It was that in which he declared that he had op►
dilections to indulge. His Royal Highness'seM,
I life had been one of predilections. The mew d
his Noble Friends he heartily approved. The nig
in which that answer was couched were 16:
spectlul, and evinced no disinclinktiou le de
which honour and principle would allow thin !s
do in compliance with the Prince's wishie. 1.1
Noble Friend had been invited to form s
ment, in conjunction with that existing. Vibowr
a proposition was made to Statesmen of s.
opinions to coalesce, it was a subject of mad
sideration. Different circumstances must
Mad
diff.rent decisions. The two MOS reert_jri
most celebrate coalitions were that of folt•
Lord North ; and subsequently that of Skov
with Lord Grenville. Let the House
circumstances of those periods. The great
differences between Mr. Fox and Lord
ded America. Lord North advocated cueruter,
Mr. Fox objected to it. But it was not itatar
potation of America, and therefore it 1!"1
,Ir-
essential political difference was removed. tbstl
Nos* and Mr. Fox coolest/J. Nonvidigt
fissiover, the union was foamed on hoscasehr
ciples, the people were hot pleased with it.
lherefore' consequently unattended it
effects. and ought to °pintas as a WarP;.
any attempt to form a Cabinet in
the sentiments of the nation at her
to the latter coalition, the chf''
between Mr. Fox tad Lord."'

~...,,i.-,---

Lrivivsm• r" .
•
• •