H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

pressure of business, by a parliament on the eve of natural death. Mr. Tierney stated, that there had never been an accession to the crown, without some communication to parliament, of a nature very different from that which had been made in the present instance. It had always been usual to say something of the feelings of the new monarch, and of the course of policy which it was his intention to pursue. In the present case, the House had only been drily told, that his majesty's government found it convenient to send them about their business as soon as possible. Mr. Brougham stated, that he believed he might safely assume, that this was the first time in which a communication of any sort, respecting the duration of parliament, had been made to the House; but he was quite sure that it was the first time when a communication, so precise and specific, had ever been made from the crown to parliament, announcing its approaching dissolution. The dissolving of parliament was one of the most sacred prerogatives of the crown, and, as often as any attempt had been made in either of the deliberate branches of the legislature to approach or interfere with that privilege, the answer uniformly given by the ministers had been, "that parliament was not competent to broach or to entertain the question of its own existence." This was a matter on which the crown alone was to decide, in the exercise of a constitutional discretion. Without at all denying the general right of parliament to examine and question the advice given by the ministers, with respect to the

exercise of that discretion, he must contend, that with the crown, and the crown only, it rested, to dissolve parliament, without observation or discussion. This being the case, they, therefore, under the present circumstances, found themselves placed in a new and strange situation. They were called on to entertain a question of a most novel kind, namely, the propriety of the intended dissolution. For himself, individually, he was not, in any way, averse to a speedy dissolution of parliament; but, he supposed it had been well considered to what a degree of inconvenience the public would be subjected by a general election, all over the country, in the very middle of the assizes; and also, that no opportunity was given to the judges of delaying the assizes, on this occasion, as had been done when the last general election took place. place. For himself, he had no objection to the dissolution; he thought frequent parliaments were beneficial and refreshing to the constitution; but the real motive for postponing the discussion of the civil-list at present, was, because it was thought more politic to bring it under the consideration of a new parliament, than before a parliament which was on its death-bed.

As the motion of ministers, approving of the intended dissolution, was carried, all that remained for them to do was, to provide for the public exigencies in the interval that would elapse before the meeting of the new parliament. Accordingly, the operation of the Mutiny-bill was extended from the 24th of April to the 24th of June, and the requisite financial arrangements

were carried into effect by votes of supply. By these votes there were granted to his majesty, first, a sum not exceeding 2,000,000l. to pay off Irish treasury bills charged on the supplies of 1820, and unprovided for; secondly, a sum not exceeding 50,000l., to enable his majesty to provide for such expenses of a civil nature as did not form a part of the ordinary charges of the civil-list for the year 1820; thirdly, the sum of 200,000%., towards satisfying such annuities, pensions, or other payments, as would have been payable out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or out of the civil-list, in case the demise of his late majesty had not taken place before the 5th day of April, 1820; fourthly, a sum not exceeding 200,0007. nett, towards defraying the charge of army services in Ireland for the year 1820; fifthly, a sum not exceeding 600,0007, towards defraying the charge of army services at home and abroad, except in Ireland, for the year 1820.

On the 24th of February, lord Lauderdale brought these votes under the consideration of the House of Lords, as amounting to a breach of privilege. The practice of parliament was, that the votes of supply, passed by the House of Commons in the course of a session, should come up to the Lords for their assent, in the form of an appropriation bill; and the Commons themselves had, in 1784, declared it a high crime and misdemeanor for any officer of the crown to apply money to any branch of the public service without an act of parliament. On this principle lord Lauderdale maintained, that the

Commons, in voting sums for the public service, and also sums for the payment of annuities under the Civil-list act, which, in fact, expired on the death of George III., had assumed a power of making and suspending laws; and that the previous communication of the intention of the crown to dissolve parliament, instead of justifying what had been done, only rendered the precedent more dangerous. He concluded with moving three resolutions. The first embodied the votes of supply; the second declared, "that the Commons House of Parliament, informed by his majesty's message of the intended dissolution of parliament, have, in these resolutions, attempted to appropriate money to be paid for services subsequent to the dissolution, which can only legally be effected by an act of parliament appropriating the supplies voted; and that they have further, in a most unprecedented manner, assumed the power of providing for, and authorising the payment of, certain pensions and annuities, subsequent to the dissolution of parliament, which, by law, are declared to be at an end." The third was, "that, under these circumstances, we feel it our duty to declare, that, though we regard these proceedings as derogatory to the privileges of this House, and of Parliament, yet we are induced, by a sense of the state in which public business is now placed, to forbear from any immediate proceedings, and to declare that we will concur in indemnifying those who may pay money, or otherwise act under these resolutions, which we must nevertheless deprecate, as threatening the subversion of the best

and wisest principles of the constitution of our country."

Lord Liverpool justified, or rather excused, the Commons, on the ground that, in practice, the sums wanted for the various branches of the public service were always applied under the authority of the votes of the other House; and that, frequently in a long session, half the money was expended, before the Appropriation bill was brought up. Though, therefore, he saw no necessity for coming to any resolution upon the subject, yet, to meet the views of those who might think otherwise, and to assert the privileges of the House, he proposed to substitute for the latter two of lord Lauderdale's resolutions, a vote, declaring that the Lords, from the state of the public business, acquiesce in the resolutions of the House of Commons, though no act may be passed to give them effect.---Lord Liverpool's amendment seemed sufficient to protect the privileges of the Lords, and was carried.

Gross corruption had been proved to have taken place in the boroughs of Grampound, Penryn, Barnstaple, and Camelford; and the House had appeared to lend a favourable ear to a proposition for punishing them by the deprivation of the elective franchise. It was, however, impossible to carry a bill for that purpose through the usual stages, in so short a session of parliament as the present. Even if the justice of the principle of the measure were conceded, still it would be requisite to establish the alleged criminality by clear evidence before the Lords as well as the Commons; and the parties, who were to be bereft of so valuable

a privilege, would be entitled to be heard by counsel in their defence, and to have ample time and opportunity for disproving or palliating their guilt. On the other hand, it was conceived that the dignity of parliament required, that these boroughs should not be allowed to return members, after proceedings had been commenced with a view to their disfranchisement. It was thought, that, if they were allowed to send representatives to the ensuing parliament, there would be an inconsistency in disfranchising them for their previous corruption. To avoid this imaginary inconvenience, a bill was brought in by lord John Russell, to prevent the issuing of writs to these boroughs, till the meeting of the next parliament. It passed the Commons, though not without expressions of disapprobation, even from members inclined to look with a favourable eye upon any measure tending to operate as a species of parliamentary reform. It might be proper, said Mr. Brougham, to legislate on this business hereafter, when they had time to view the question in all its complicated bearings; but it seemed strange to say that they had evidence to deprive a borough of its franchise pro hac vice, and not for ever. The circumstance of the representation of these boroughs being filled up, could not operate as a bar to legislation on the subject; nay, it would be better, constitutionally, that the question of their disfranchisement should be discussed, when their members, who might be supposed to act as their attornies, were present.

Mr. Calcraft disliked the bill, for a prudential reason. He thought that the Lords would

never consent to condemn and punish four boroughs without evidence of their guilt, and he, therefore, proposed that the House should address the crown, to suspend the Issuing of the writs-a specimen of the unthinking facility with which the assertor of popular rights will, for the paltry advantage of gaining a particular point, consent to make the most valuable privileges of the people dependant on the pleasure of the crown. Though Mr. Calcraft did not show much acquaintance with our constitution in the course of procedure which he recommended, his prediction that the measure would fail in the House of Lords, was verified by the result. It was there strongly opposed by the chancellor, by lord Liverpool, and by lord Lauderdale, as both unnecessary and unjust. It was unnecessary, because the approaching election could throw no impediment in the way of any punishment, which it might afterwards be thought expedient to inflict. The members who might be chosen for these boroughs at the next election, could not occasion more inconvenience than the four who were actually sitting for them in the existing parliament. It was, likewise, unjust, because it pronounced condemnation without evidence, and without hearing the accused in their defence. Lord Caernarvon, indeed, endeavoured to get rid of this fatal objection by analogical reasoning; contending, that the boroughs would, by the proposed bill, be placed in a situation entirely similar to that of an individual who is committed for want of bail. That commitment, how ever, is defensible only as a necessary means of compelling the

defendant to submit to the sentence of the court, which, but for such a step, might be eluded by his non-appearance on the day of trial, or by his escape, before the verdict was given, or judgment passed. But how was the immediate suspension of the elective franchise necessary, in order to give efficacy to an act of parliainent taking away that franchise altogether, if, at any future time, such an act should be passed?The bill was finally lost by a majority of eleven.

Of all the subjects which came before parliament immediately after the death of George III. the most interesting was brought into discussion only incidentally, and was introduced neither by the ministers, nor by the acknowledged leaders of opposition, nor by the individuals, who, from their private or professional situation, were the most concerned in it—we mean the situation of the queen. At a meeting of the privy council, held on the 12th of February, for the purpose of making the proper alterations in the prayers for the royal family, the name of the princess of Wales was of course struck out; and in the new form, which was directed to be used, no notice was taken of her, in her recently-acquired character of queen. The legality of this proceeding was not contested at the time; not even was its expediency or justice called in question. Though it was a measure, which, in its very nature, involved the greatest notoriety, it excited no discussion in the House of Commons; it called forth no expression of public feeling in the country; it was not thought worthy of the reprobation of those public journals, which are usually most on the alert to discover assailable

points in the conduct of ministers. On the 18th of February, in the course of the debate on the royal message, Mr. Hume inquired, whether the annual income of 35,000., which had been settled on the princess of Wales, having now ceased, the same provision was to be continued to her; or, whether any alteration was to be made in it. Lord Castlereagh replied, that every pains would be taken, that no inconvenience should be felt in the quarter alluded to, from the dissolution of parliament; and though Mr. Brougham spoke immediately afterwards, and indulged in severe invective against all the ministers, and in bitter sarcasm against lord Castlereagh in particular, he never once touched upon the situation of the queen, nor upon the conduct which they were pursuing towards her. The other members of Opposition imitated his reserve. We have, therefore, a most convincing proof, that the opponents of ministers did not, at this time, conceive, that her majesty had hitherto experienced any harshness or injustice at their hands.

On the 21st of February, Mr. Hume, on a motion that the House should resolve itself into a committee of supply, again brought the subject under the attention of the public. He declared, that it was not his intention to find fault with the exercise of any power belonging to his majesty, for regulating the forms of the church in the performance of divine service; but he could not refrain from saying, that he was sorry to see the manner in which the queen was treated. Why was not an address of condolence, and of congratulation, voted to her majesty upon

the demise of the king, and the accession of her husband to the throne, as was the case with regard to the queen-consort of George II.? In what situation was it meant that she should stand? Was she to be left as a beggar upon the continent, or was she to depend for her subsistence upon the mere bounty of some person or persons in England? Her situation, he contended, entitled her to the attention of the House, and something definite, as to the means of her future provision, should be immediately stated.

In reply to Mr. Hume, lord Castlereagh expressed his regret, that any attempt should be made to press so delicate a question into discussion, and repeated his assurances, that the high personage alluded to, was not likely to experience any harshness or inattention.

Mr. Tierney observed, that the subject now brought under their notice, was one, respecting which he never would come to any vote, amidst the blind rumours and ambiguous expressions with which every mention of it was attended. He disagreed with the honourable gentleman who had introduced it; nor would he grant to a person labouring under a heavy cloud of suspicion, any portion of public money, until that suspicion was removed. It gave him much pain, and must excite regret in every properly constituted mind, to see this question brought forward. But where was the fault-who were the cause of its becoming the subject of attention in parlia ment? If there was any ground for crimination, no time ought to be lost in instituting an inquiry, and vindicating the monarchy of England from disgrace. He would

« TrướcTiếp tục »