Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

868

which we hold and exercise in trust for the commons of Great Britain, and for their be nefit) shall be constructively surrendered, or even weakened and impaired under ambiguous phrases, and implications of censure on the late parliamentary proceedings. If these claims are not well founded, they ought to be honestly abandoned; if they are just, they ought to be steadily and resolutely maintained.

Of his majesty's own gracious disposition towards the true principles of our free constilution, his faithful commons never did, or could entertain a doubt: but we humbly beg leave to express to his majesty our uneasiness concerning other new and unusual expressions of his ministers, declaratory of a resolution "to support in their just balance, the rights and privileges of every branch of the legislature."

It were desirable that all hazardous theories concerning a balance of rights and privileges (a mode of expression wholly foreign to parliamentary usage) might have been forborne. His majesty's faithful commons are well instructed in their own rights and privileges, which they are determined to maintain on the footing upon which they were handed down from their ancestors: they are not unacquainted with the rights and privileges of the house of peers; and they know and respect the lawful prerogatives of the crown: but they do not think it safe to admit any thing concerning the existence of a balance of those rights, privileges, and prerogatives; nor are they able to discern to what objects ministers would apply their fiction of balance; nor what they would consider as a just one. These unauthorized doctrines have a tendency to stir improper discussions; and to lead to mischievous innovations in the constitution.*

*If these speculations are let loose, the house of lords may quarrel with their share of the legislature, as being limited with regard to the origination of grants to the crown and the origination of money bills. The advisers of the crown may think proper to bring its negative into ordinary use; and even to dispute, whether a mere negative, compared with the delibera. tive power, exercised in the other houses, be such a share in the legislature, as to produce a lue balance in favour of that branch; and thus justify the previous interference of the crown, in the manner lately used. The following will serve to shew how much foundation there is for great caution, concerning these novel speculations. Lord Shelburne, in his celebrated speech, April 8th, 1778, expresses himself as follows: Vide Parliamentary Register, vol. x.

"The noble and learned lord on the woolsack, in the debate which opened the business of this day, asserted that your lordships were incompetent to make any alteration in a money bill, or a bill of supply. I should be glad to see

That his faithful commons most humbly recommend, instead of the inconsiderate specu lations of unexperienced men, that on all occasions, resort should be had to the happy practice of parliament, and to those solid maxims of government which have prevailed since the accession of his majesty's illustrious family, as furnishing the only safe principles on which the crown and parliament can proceed

We think it the more necessary to be cau tious on this head, as, in the last parliament, the present ministers had thought proper to countenance, if nct to suggest, an attack upon the most clear and undoubted rights and privileges of this house.*

the matter fully and fairly discussed, and the
subject brought forward and argued upon pre-
cedent, as well as all its collateral relations.
I should be pleased to see the question fairly
committed, were it for no other reason, but to
hear the sleek smooth contractors from the other
house, come to this bar and declare, that they,
and they only, could frame a money bill; and
they, and they only, could dispose of the pro-
perty of the peers of Great Britain. Perhaps
some arguments more plausible than those I
the commons have an uncontroulable, unquali
heard this day from the woolsack, to shew that
fied right, to bind your lordships' property, may
be urged by them. At present, I beg leave to
differ from the noble and learned lord; for until
the claim, after a solemn discussion of the house,
is openly and directly relinquished, I shall con-
tinue to be of opinion, that your lordships
have a right to alter, amend, or reject a money
bill."

The Duke of Richmond also, in his letter to the volunteers of Ireland, speaks of several of the powers exercised by the house of commons. in the light of usurpations; and his grace is of opinion, that when the people are restored to what he conceives to be their rights, in electing the house of commons, the other branches of the legislature ought to be restored to theirs. Vide Remembrancer, vol. xvi.

By an act of parliament, the directors of the East India company are restrained from acceptance of bills drawn from India, beyond a certain amount, without the consent of the commissioners of the treasury. The late house of commons finding bills to an immense amount, drawr. upon that body by their servants abroad, and knowing their circumstances to be exceedingly doubtful, came to a resolution providently cautioning the lords of the treasury against the acceptance of these bills. until the house should The court lords then took otherwise direct. occasion to declare against the resolution as illegal, by the commons undertaking to direct in the execution of a trust created by act of par liament. The house justly alarmed at this re solution, which went to the destruction of the whole of its superintending capacity, and par ticularly in matters relative to its own province of money, directed a committee to search the journals, and they found a regular series of precedents, commencing from the remotest of those records, and carried on to that day, by

Fearing, from these extraordinary admonitions, and from the new doctrines, which seem to have dictated several unusual expressions, that his majesty has been abused by false representations of the late proceedings in parliament, we think it our duty respectfully to inform his majesty, that no attempt whatever has been made against his lawful prerogatives, or against the rights and privileges of the peers, by the late house of commons, in any of their addresses, votes, or resolutions: neither do we know of any proceeding by bill, in which it was proposed to abridge the extent of his royal prerogative: but, if such provision had existed in any bill, we protest, and we declare, against all speeches, acts or addresses, from any persons whatsoever, which have a tendency to consider such bills, or the persons concerned in them, as just objects of any kind of censure and punishment from the throne. Necessary reformations may hereafter require, as they have frequently done in former times, limitations and abridgements, and in some cases an entire extinction of some branch of prerogative. If bills should be improper in the form in which they appear in the house where they originate, they are liable, by the wisdom of this constitution, to be corrected, and even to be totally set aside, elsewhere. This is the known, the legal, and the safe remedy: but whatever, by the manifestation of the royal displeasure, tends to intimidate individual members from proposing, or this house from receiving, debating, and passing bills, tends to prevent even the beginning of every reforma tion in the state; and utterly destroys the deliberative capacity of parliament.-We therefore claim, demand, and insist upon it, as our undoubted right, that no persons shall be deemed proper objects of animadversion by tho crown, in any mode whatever, for the votes which they give, or the propositions which they make, in parliament.

We humbly conceive, that besides its share of the legislative power, and its right of impeachment, that by the law and usage of parliament, this house has other powers and capacities, which it is bound to maintain. This house is assured, that our humble advice n the exercise of prerogative will be heard with the same attention with which it has ever been regarded; and that it will be followed

which it appeared, that the house interfered by an authoritative advice and admonition, upon every act of executive government without exception; and in many much stronger cases than that which the ords thought proper to quarrel with.

by the same effects which it has ever produced, during the happy and glorious reigns of his majesty's royal progenitors; not doubting but that, in all those points, we shall be considered as a counsel of wisdom and weight to advise, and not merely as an accuser of competence to criminate.* This house claims both capacities; and we trust we shall be left to our free discretion which of them we shall employ as best calculated for his majesty's, and the national service. Whenever we shall see it expedient to offer our advice concerning his majesty's servants, who are those of the public, we confidently hope, that the personal favour of any minister, or any set of ministers, will not be more dear to his majesty, than the credit and character of a house of commons. It is an experiment full of peril to put the representative wisdom and justice of his majesty's people in the wrong; it is a crooked and desperate design, leading to mischief, the extent of which no human wisdom can foresee, to attempt to form a prerogative party in the nation, to be resorted to as occasion shall require, in derogation from the authority of the commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled: it is a contrivance full of danger, for ministers to set up the representative and constituent bodies of the commons of this kingdom as two separate and distinct powers, formed to counterpoise each other, leaving the preference in the hands of secret advisers of the crownsuch a situation of things, these advisers, taking advantage of the differances which may accidentally arise, or may purpos Limented between them, wi nave in their choice to resort to the one or the other, as may best suit the purposes of their sinister ambiɔn. By exciting an emulation and contest bet: een the representative and the constituent bodies, as parties contending for credit and influence at the throne, sacrifices will be made by both; and the whole can end in nothing else than the destruction of the dearest rights and liberties of the nation. If there must be another mode of conveying the collective sense of the people to the throne than that by the house of commons, it ought to be fixed and defined, and its authority ought to be settled: it ought not to exist in so precarious and dependent a state as that ministers should have it in their power, at their own mere pleasure, to

T

"I observe at the same time, that there is no charge or complaint suggested against my present ministers."-The king's answer, 25th February 1794, to the address of the house of commons. Vide Resolutions of the House of Commons, printed for Debrett, p. 31

acknowledge it with respect, or to reject it shrink from every service, which, however

with scorn.

It is the undoubted prerogative of the crown to dissolve parliament; but we beg leave to lay before his majesty, that it is, of all the trusts vested in his majesty, the most critical and delicate, and that in which this house has the most reason to require, not only the good faith, but the favour of the crown. His commons are not always upon a par with his ministers in an application to popular judgment: it is not in the power of the members of this house to go to their election at the moment the most favourable for them. It is in the power of the crown to choose a time for their dissolution whilst great and arduous matters of state and legislation are depending, which may be easily misunderstood, and which cannot be fully explained before that misunderstanding may prove fatal to the honour that belongs, and to the consideration that is due, to members of parliament.

With his majesty is the gift of all the rewards, the honours, distinctions, favour, and graces of the state; with his majesty is the mitigation of all the rigours of the law; and we rejoice to see the crown possessed of trusts calculated to obtain good-will, and charged with duties which are popular and pleasing. Our trusts are of a different kind. Our duties are harsh and invidious in their nature; and justice and safety is all we can expect in the exercise of them. We are to offer salutary, which is not always pleasing, counsel: we are to inquire and to accuse: and the objects of our inquiry and charge will be for the most part persons of wealth, power, and extensive connections: we are to make rigid laws for the preservation of revenue, which of necessity more or less confine some action, or restrain some function, which before was free: what is the most critical and invidious of all, the whole body of the public impositions originate from us, and the hand of the house of commons is seen and felt in every burthen that presses on the people. Whilst, ultimately, we are serving them, and in the first instance whilst we are serving his majesty, it will be hard, indeed, if we should see a house of commons the victim of its zeal and fidelity, sacrificed by his ministers to those very popular discontents which shall be excited by our dutiful endeavours for the security and greatness of his throne. No other consequence can result from such an example, but that, in future, the house of commons, consulting its safety at the expense of its duties, and suffering the whole energy of the state to be relaxed, will

necessary, is of a great and arduous nature, or that, willing to provide for the public necessities, and, at the same time, to secure the means of performing that task, they will exchange independence for protection, and will court a subservient existence through the favour of those ministers of state, or those secret advisers, who ought themselves to stand in awe of the commons of this realm.

A house of commons, respected by his ministers, is essential to his majesty's service: it is fit that they should yield to parliament, and not that parliament should be new modelled until it is fitted to their purposes. If our authority is only to be held up when we coincide in opinion with his majesty's advisers, but is to be set at nought the moment it differs from them, the house of commons will sink into a mere appendage of administration; and will lose that independent character which, inseparably connecting the honour and reputation with the acts of this house, enables us to afford a real, effective, and substantial support to his government. It is the deference shewn to our opinion, when we dissent from the servants of the crown, which alone can give authority to the proceedings of this house, when it con curs with their measures.

That authority once lost, the credit of his majesty's crown will be impaired in the eyes of all nations. Foreign powers, who may yet wish to revive a friendly intercourse with this nation, will look in vain for that hold which gave a connection with Great Britain the prefe rence to an alliance with any other state. A house of commons, of which ministers were known to stand in awe, where every thing was necessarily discussed, on principles fit to be openly and publicly avowed, and which could not be retracted or varied without danger, furnished a ground of confidence in the public faith, which the engagement of no state dependent on the fluctuation of personal favour, and private advice, can ever pretend to. If faith with the house of commons, the grand security for the national faith itself, can be broken with impunity, a wound is given to the political importance of Great Britain, which will not easily be healed.

That there was a great variance between the late house of commons and certain persons, whom his majesty has been advised to inake and continue as ministers, in defiance of the advice of that house, is notorious to the world. That house did not confide in those ministers; and they withheld their confidence from them for reasons for which posterity will

honour and respect the names of those who composed that house of commons, distinguished for its independence. They could not confide in persons who have shewn a disposition to dark and dangerous intrigues. By these intrigues they have weakened, if not destroyed, the clear assurance which his majesty's people, and which all nations ought to have, of what are, and what are no', the real acts of his government.

If it should be seen that his ministers may continue in their offices, without any signification to them of his majesty's displeasure at any of their measures, whilst persons conside rable for their rank, and known to have had access to his majesty's sacred person, can with impunity abuse that advantage, and emoloy his majesty's name to disavow and counteract the proceedings of his official servants, nothing but distrust, discord, debility, contempt of all authority, and general confusion, can prevail in his government.

This we lay before his majesty, with hu mility and concern, as the inevitable effect of a spirit of intrigue in his executive govern ment; an evil which we have but too much reason to be persuaded exists and increases. During the course of the last session it broke out in a manner the most alarming. This evil was infinitely aggravated by the unauthorized, but not disavowed use which has been made of his majesty's name, for the purpose of the most unconstitutional, corrupt, and dishonourable influence on the minds of the members of parliament, that ever was practised in this kingdom. No attention, even to the exteriour decorum, in the practice of corruption, and intimidation employed on peers, was observed: several peers were obliged under menaces to retract their declarations, and to recall their proxies.

The commons have the deepest interest in the purity and integrity of the peerage. The peers dispose of all the property in the kingdom, in the last resort; and they dispose of it on their honour and not on their oaths, as all the members of every other tribunal in the kingdom must do; though in them the proceeding is not conclusive. We have, therefore, a right to demand that no application shall be made to peers of such a nature as may give room to call in question, much less to attaint, our sole security for all that we possess. This corrupt proceeding appeared to the house of commons, who are the natural guardians of the purity of parliament, and of the purity of every branch of judicature, a most reprehensible and dangerous practice, Vor.. I.-24

S

tending to shake the very foundation of the authority of the house of peers; and they branded it as such by their resolution.

. The house had not sufficient evidence to enable them legally to punish this practice, but they had enough to caution them inst all confidence in the authors and abettors of it. They performed their duty in humbly advising his majesty against the employment of such ministers; but his majesty was advised to keep those ministers, and to dissolve that parliament. The house, aware of the importance and urgency of its duty with regard to the British interests in India, which were and are in the utmost disorder, and in the utmost peril, most humbly requested his majesty not to dissolve the parliament during the course of their very critical proceedings on that subject. His majesty's gracious condescension to that request was conveyed in the royal faith, pledged to a house of parliament, and solemnly delivered from the throne. It was but a very few days after a committee had been, with the consent and concurrence of the chancellor of exchequer, appointed for an inquiry into certain accounts delivered to the house by the court of directors, and then actually engaged in that inquiry, that the ministers, regardless of the assurance given from the crown to a house of commons, did dissolve that parliament. We most humbly submit to his majesty's consideration the consequences of this their breach of public faith.

Whilst the members of the house of commons, under that security, were engaged in his majesty's and the national business, endeavours were industriously used to calumniate those whom it was found impracticable to corrupt. The reputation of the members, and the reputation of the house itself, was undermine! in every part of the kingdom.

In the speech from the throne relative to India, we are cautioned by the ministers, "not to lose sight of the effect any measure may have on the constitution of our country." We are apprehensive that a calumnious report spread abroad of an attack upon his majesty's prerogative by the late house of comиs, may have made an impression on his royal trind, and have given occasion to this unusual admonition to the present. This attack is charged to have been made in the late parliament, by a bill which passed the house of commons in the late session of that parliament, for the regula tion of the affairs, for the preservation of the commerce, and for the amendment of the governarent of this nation, in the East Indies. That his majesty and his people may have

an opportunity of entering into the ground of this injurious charge, we beg leave humbly to acquaint his majesty, that, far from having made any infringement whatsoever on any part of his royal prerogative, that bill did, for a limited time, give to his majesty certain powers never before possessed by the crown; and for this his present ministers (who, rather than fall short in the number of their calumnies, employ some that are contradictory) have slandered this house, as aiming at the extension of an unconstitutional influence in his majesty's crown. This pretended attempt to increase the influence of the crown, they were weak enough to endeavour to persuade his majesty's people was among the causes which excited his majesty's resentment against his late ministers.

Further, to remove the impressions of this calumny concerning an attempt in the house of commons against his prerogative, it is proper to inform his majesty, that the territorial possessions in the East Indies never have been declared, by any public judgment, act, or instrument, or any resolution of parliament what soever, to be the subject matter of his majesty's prerogative; nor have they ever been understood as belonging to his ordinary administration, or to be annexed or united to his crown; but that they are acquisitions of a new and peculiar description,* unknown to the ancient executive constitution of this country.

From time to time, therefore, parliament

The territorial possessions in the East Indies were acquired to the company, in virtue of grants from the Great Mogul, in the nature of offices and jurisdictions, to be held under him, and dependent upon his crown; with the express condition of being obedient to orders from his court, and of paying an annual tribute to his treasury. It is true, that no obedience is yielded to these orders; and for some time past there has been no payment made of this tribute. But it is under a grant, so conditioned, that they still hold. To subject the king of Great Britain as tributary to a foreign power, by the acts of his subjects-to suppose the grant valid, and yet the condition void-to suppose it good for the king, and insufficient for the company-to suppose it an interest divisible between the parties-these are some few of the many legal difficulties to be surmounted, before the common law of England

can acknowledge the East India company's Asiatic affairs to be a subject matter of preroga. tive, so as to bring it within the verge of English jurisprudence. It is a very anomalous species of power and property which is held by the East India company. Our English prerogative law does not furnish principles, much less precedents, by which it can be defined or adjusted. Nothing but the eminent dominion of parlia. ment over every British subject in every concern, and in every circumstance in which he is

provided for their government according to its discretion, and to its opinion of what was required by the public necessities. We do not know that his majesty was entitled, by prerogative, to exercise any act of authority whatsoever in the company's affairs, or that in effect, such authority has ever been exercisec. His majesty's patronage was not taken away by that bill; because it is notorious that his majesty never originally had the appointment of a single officer, civil or military, in the company's establishment in India; nor has the least degree of patronage ever been acquired to the crown in any other manner or measure, than as the power was thought expedient to be granted by act of parliament; that is, by the very same authority by which the offices were disposed of and regulated in the bill, which his majesty's servants have falsely and inju riously represented as infringing upon the pre rogative of the crown.

Before the 1773 the whole administra year tion of India, and the whole patronage to offic there, was in the hands of the East India company. The East India company is not e branch of his majesty's prerogative administration, nor does that body exercise any species of authority under it, nor indeed from any British title, that does not derive all its legal validity from acts of parliament.

When a claim was asserted to the India territorial possessions in the occupation of the company, these possessions were not claimed as parcel of his majesty's patrimonial estate, or as a fruit of the ancient inheritance of his crown. They were claimed for the public. And when agreements were made with the East India company concerning any composi tion for the holding, or any participation of the profits of those territories, the agreement was made with the public, and the preambles of the several acts have uniformly so stated it. These agreements were not made (even nominally) with his majesty, but with parliament; and the bills making and establishing such agreements always originated in this house, which appro priated the money to await the disposition of parliament, without the ceremony of previous consent from the crown even so much as suggested by any of his ministers; which previous consent is an observance of decorum, not indeed of strict right, but generally paid when a new appropriation takes place in any part of his majesty's prerogative revenues.

placed, can adjust this new intricate matter Parliament may act wisely or unwisely, justly or unjustly; but parliament alone is competent

to it

« ZurückWeiter »