rose, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, to submit to the House a motion for an Address to the Prince Regent, praying his Royal Highness to take such measures as might be best calculated to form an efficient administration. He was anxious to state frankly to the House, his motive, object, and the general grounds upon which he had felt it to be his duty to submit to them the present motion. He was anxious in the first place, to prevent, by the interposition of that House, the complete formation of a ministry then forming under circumstances that left no reason to doubt their incompetency to carry on the affairs of the country.

It was notorious that an administration was now upon the eve of being formed, which no disinterested man thought adequate to meet the exigencies of the times, an administration, which was so far from being able to conduct the government of the country, in any way conducive to the safety and prosperity of the empire, and their own honour, that it was to be apprehended, their continuance in power could only serve to plunge us deeper in those difficulties, from which they were utterly unable to rescue us. For himself he was free to say, that he thought it a more manly part, to resist in limine the formation of such a government, than to look idly on while it was forming, and afterwards commence a systematic opposition against it. A speedy and determined manifestation of public feeling might lead to the formation of an administration entitled to the confidence of the country. He was sure, that if the real sense of the people was conveyed to the Prince Regent through their constitutional organ, the House of Commons, praying for a government better calculated to meet the claims of the present awful crisis, he felt satisfied that if such an Address was carried, it must lead directly to the formation of a wise and capable ministry. He did not mean to pledge the House by their present vote to the support of all the measures of any government, however efficient or confided in; neither did he mean to pledge the House to oppose all the measures of even the present administration, were they to Continue. He meant merely to call upon that House to address his Royal Highness, praying him to form an efficient administration, thereby implying that the persons now about to be called to, and to be continued in the administration of public affairs, did not possess the confidence of the country. So far as to his object. He should now state the grounds on which he rested his present motion. Upon a subject of this kind, he thought that every honest man might well put three questions to his conscience; first, Whether, at the present crisis, an efficient government, possessing the full confidence of the people, was not at the present period absolutely necessary? The second question would naturally be, Did the present government possess that confidence? And the third question was, Whether all had been done that might have been done to form an administration efficient, possessing the confidence of the country?—On these three questions he appealed with confidence to the judgment of that House. As to the first proposition, he thought it would be a waste of time to say a word upon it. To enable us to continue our present struggle we must have a government in whom we could confide as a guide. As to the second proposition, it might certainly be thought by some more disputable, but in his mind it was equally as true and certain as the former. He admitted, and was proud to acknowledge the terms of personal friendship upon which he was in the habit of communicating with leading persons in the present government, and the relation in which he stood towards some of them; but that consideration, however strong, should not influence his conscientious judgment of their capabilities as part of the present administration. It would, however, ill become him, so circumstanced, to resort to any language that could indicate towards them any thing like an irritable feeling upon his part. He felt none—he thought, however, that they of themselves could not supply the place of that eminent person, of whom they had been so recently deprived by an act of unparalleled outrage. He never, in the course of his experience in that House, met with a man more formed to guide its proceedings with temper, good sense, and a conciliatory spirit, than the late Mr. Perceval,—but if the present government were not very strong, even with the aid of Mr. Perceval's great talents, they were certainly worse than weak without them. Neither was this in any respect a new question; it had been decided upon before; in 1803 the present government had been tried and found wanting. It was true, he might be told, that Mr. Perceval's administration was composed of the same materials, but then Mr. Perceval was there himself; he had been of late their chief, or rather, indeed, their only support. He should now pass to the third question—whether every thing had been done which might have been done to form a popular and efficient administration? He thought that little, very little, had been done towards the furtherance of an object so desirable. It was true that certain offers had been made to a noble marquis and a right hon. gentleman, on the floor, but they were of a nature so inadmissible by either that it was quite impossible they could have been acceded to. He complimented the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman on the manner in which they had severally conducted themselves throughout that correspondence, and though upon another subject he had been free of his censures in private, and should be equally so upon any opportunity that offered in public upon the conduct of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) on another occasion, yet he thought it but just to declare that, in his opinion, that right hon. gent. had, throughout a recent correspondence, conducted himself most creditably; and that the letter written by him to the earl of Liverpool, did equal honour to his head and to his heart. But the terms proposed were not to be acceded to. He (Mr. Wortley) had been an uniform opponent of the Catholic claims; but after the late discussion and division upon that question, he thought all further opposition vain. It was idle to attempt to form a strong administration, unless some- thing was done to conciliate the Catholics. The abandonment of such a question should never have been proposed as a preliminary condition. He thought, therefore, that upon the whole he was justified in concluding, that all had not been done which might have been done to form an efficient administration. If his present motion could have any tendency to do so, he should be much gratified. He was anxious to see an administration formed upon a liberal basis, calculated to comprehend the talents and influence of the country, and to promote its security and honour; and in the furtherance of so laudable an object, he trusted that right hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House would cautiously abstain from all language that could, by creating irritation in a certain quarter, tend to obstruct those arrangements which might otherwise be so happily concluded upon. Such language must be censured upon every account, and more particularly as holding up to the ridicule and abuse of the low and vulgar those whom it was their duty to respect, and to teach others to reverence. With respect to his motion, it came before them utterly destitute of any other influence than that derivable from its own merits. He had made it upon his own free motion. He had consulted with no one. Indeed, he was then actually ignorant whether his motion would be seconded or not. As one of the most fervent friends and greatest admirers of Mr. Perceval, he had come forward thus early, to show in an open and undisguised manner, that the government, deprived of him, could not be supported by all his friends. In doing this, he felt personal pain from his relation to the noble lord below him. For that noble lord he entertained the greatest private regard. If his conduct on the present occasion inflicted a pang on that noble lord, he sincerely regretted it; but it was a sacrifice which he made on the altar of public duty. He then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly praying, that he will be pleased to take such measures as will enable him, under the present circumstances of the country, to form a strong and efficient Administration."

seconded the motion.

opposed it, as unconstitutional to interfere with the prerogative of the crown in the formation of an administration. There was no instance upon record of the House having so interfered. They had interfered, when an administration had been formed, and found inefficient; but they never had come forward with their previous advice. It was their duty to watch over and controul the crown; but there was no doctrine in the constitution better understood than that they had no right to interfere with the crown in the nomination of its servants. The hon. mover grounded his motion on the inefficiency of the present administration. With him, he cordially agreed in lamenting, that all the abilities of all parties were not called into the service of the country, at a period when great abilities were so needful in the direction of the state. They knew, however, by communications that had been made in a manner to which he might allude, as they had been published to the world, the nature of the negociations on the subject of an accession of persons of acknowledged talent to the present government; and they were, through these publications, also aware of the grounds on which those persons had thought proper to decline the invitation. These grounds might be good, and the scruples which stood in the way of accommodation were entitled to respect; but this was no ground for censure on the existing administration. They had certainly, by an unparalleled act of atrocity, lost their greatest support, which loss they had attempted to remedy, by seeking the aid of persons whose political opinions were nearly the same as their own; but who would not concur with the proposal, unless certain questions were conceded to them. And what were these questions? Those which had received the sanction of that House, and he believed he might say of the country. The hon. mover founded himself on the supposition that the administration would be weak and inefficient for the purposes of government. For his part, he placed little reliance on this prophetic anticipation of what an administration was to be. He had seen administrations so prematurely denounced as weak and inefficient, conduct the affairs of the country with activity and vigour—while, on the other hand, he had seen others, with great promise of talents, energy, and weight, most miserably disappoint every expectation that had been formed of them. With these impressions, he could have wished to meet the present motion by a direct negative; but on consideration, he would rather adopt a middle course, and move, as an amendment, "That the other orders of the day be now read."

confessed, that he thought the House would not do their duty to the country, unless they acceded to the proposition of his hon. friend (Mr. Wortley); at any rate he was sure that it was not possible for them to agree to the amendment that had just been moved. The motion was founded on the ground of ministers not possessing the confidence of the people or of parliament, and opposed On the ground of its being an unconstitutional interference with the prerogative of the crown in choosing its own servants. But in the support of this latter argument he called for more than the mere assertion of his hon. friend. He, for one, considered it to be not only the province and right, but the absolute and bounden duty of the House of Commons to interfere whenever they saw measures about to be propounded, or an administration about to be formed, which were not likely to meet the wishes, or enjoy the confidence of the people. What was the situation of government at this moment? Having in vain attempted to enlist under their banners men whose talents and abilities they thought were calculated to preserve the relics of the last administration; to what conclusion must they themselves have come in common with the Honse and the country, but that they found themselves incompetent to the task of government, and had therefore attempted to ally themselves to persons of greater competency? Much to the honour of these persons, that offer of alliance had been refused; much to their honour, in his mind, because they had not refused on individual grounds, but on grand political questions on which they had declared it was impossible for them to agree with those now in power. Even if they had agreed, or could agree, to this junction, he would wish to ask the House if they would have been satisfied with an administration formed of such discordant principles, and of persons, some of them pledged for, and others against, the Catholic question? If any thing could destroy the confidence of the country (which it was so desirable to preserve) in great political leaders, it was the sight of unions formed, not on the basis of congenial political principles, as if it was for place only that they cared. He could not tell what might be the consequences of the present question, if carried, but he did hope to see an administration formed, in which all the parties who composed it would agree in the great points which engrossed the attention of the country. But a change of men was not sufficient, there must be a whole change of measures to enable a ministry to stand with security to themselves and with advantage to the public.

said, that he could not give his support to the motion of the hon. gentleman, under the specific form in which it was offered to the House; neither could he concur in the amendment of the hon. gentleman who followed him; for he saw no unconstitutionality in the proposed measure. But he was of opinion, that no change of men could give satisfaction or security to the country at large, without a change of system altogether. When he said that, he meant that there ought to be men who stood pledged or who would give a pledge to apply the national resources to national objects alone—men who would embrace that broad and enlightened principle of admitting into the service of the state and to the benefits of the constitution, persons of every religious persuasion, without regard to the tenets of their faith. But he was further persuaded (although in this persuasion he might not have many concurrent voices in that House) that if all this was not followed up by constitutional reform in the representation of the people in the Commons' House of Parliament, if this vital principle was not recurred to, no administration, however formed, would be strong enough to carry the country through the formidable dangers and difficulties by which it was encompassed. Without feeling any inclination to provoke a discussion which the House did not seem disposed to enter into, he would take a short retrospect of the mode by which the political situation of the country had been affected by the various administrations which had succeeded to each other, for the last 14 or 15 years. There had been one administration formed, for the purpose of including what were said to be all the talents of the country—there had been other administrations which seemed formed to exclude all the talents—there had been at the head of affairs some men of great and unrivalled abilities, among whom he might name Mr. Pitt, to whom however might, in his mind, be attributed all those perils which now menaced the safety of the country.—There had been also, within the period he mentioned, his great opponent, Mr. Fox, a man of no less ability in the administration of the government. In short, there had been administrations of every mixture, kind, and description, which could well be imagined, still however the same system had been pursued, and the dangers of the country had increased, together with its burthens, which were naturally followed by the complaints and dissatisfaction of the people. Recollecting all this therefore, he could see no benefit which was likely to arise from the motion of the hon. gentleman; he could not consider this recommendation of a mere change of men (for such it was) as a specific for the public grievances. Nor on the other hand could he concur in the arguments advanced by the hon. gentleman who spoke second in the debate, by admitting that the motion was unconstitutional, for, in fact, the great business of parliament was to act as the council of the throne, and to acquaint the illustrious personage who occupied it, with the true sense and feelings of the country, which those persons who surrounded princes, and frequented the avenues of a court, were not likely to do. Being then persuaded, that no partial change of administration could effect any good, while hampered by a system of corruption, which must effectually prevent any great or enlightened views from being carried into execution, he could not lend his support to a motion which fell short of the point that alone in his mind could effect the salvation of the country. If the question came before them, as one of mere attack on an administration about to be formed, he owned, that on that ground alone, he should not be inclined to support it. For, it would be fair to state, on the part of that administration—"You ought not to pronounce our inefficiency, before you have ascertained it by the policy we have adopted, of the measures we have pursued. Besides, you may have your preconceived notions on those points altered in our case, as has often happened before (and, indeed, if the administration lasted on its present footing, he entertained no doubt it would be found that the person of whom they had been deprived had not monopolized the ability of the cabinet, but that the noble lord opposite would, in point of ability, rise in the estimation of the country, when put to a fair trial.) Let parliament give credit to the Prince Regent, for the exertion of so much good sense and judgment in the choice of his ministers, and do not decide upon our capacities without some experience to justify your arraignment of his choice." Such language as this would be extremely fair and natural on the part of the gentlemen composing the new ministry, in answer to the arguments which might be urged in support of the motion of the hon. gentleman. But this was not the light in which he viewed the subject. He thought it incumbent on the House to call the attention of the sovereign to the situation of the country in all its parts. The state of Ireland, and the great pressure of the times, were the leading causes of dissatisfaction throughout the land, and it was necessary that the sovereign should know these things, and that the people should have some hopes of conciliation held out to them; and as there was no epoch more fit for such a purpose than the present, when a new arrangement was about to be formed, it was his intention to propose an amendment to the original Address. He did not mean simply to propose an address to his Royal Highness recommendatory of any particular persons, for he did not know but that the gentlemen at present in office were as good as any others, or that any benefit could arise from an alteration in that respect. It was, therefore, with a conviction of the necessity of a total change of system, that he felt it his duty to propose an amendment to that effect, which he should now beg leave to read—

informed the hon. baronet, that he would save him the trouble of reading his amendment, which, according to the rules of the House, could not be entertained at present, as the original motion was already covered by an amendment, which must first be disposed of.

said, that he was aware of that circumstance, and wished to read his amendment merely for the purpose of putting the House in possession of its purport. He then read his amendment, which proposed, that after the word "Administration," in the original motion, should be inserted "sensible of the expediency of a redress of grievances, of the application Of the national resources to national objects, of the extension of the blessings of the constitution to all classes of his Majesty's subjects, without distinction, of the adoption of conciliatory measures towards the people; and, finally, of the necessity of a full, fair, and free representation of the people, by a Reform in the Commons' House of Parliament."

complimented the hon. member who had brought this subject under discussion; observing that he had done it in a way that reflected on him the highest credit: but objected to the motion on the ground of its unconstitutional interference with the undoubted prerogative of the crown in the nomination of its servants. When they considered the complicated state of things, the infinite number of the relations and bearings which they had to each other, and that the greatest men had been often deceived in their calculations: when they had the result of such calculations before them, he thought that they should not presume on any grounds of personal or party motives to infringe on the great and fundamental principles of the constitution. It was far better to adhere to the principles of the constitution on all occasions than to violate them for the sake of a temporary advantage. In this he was confirmed by the result of whatever experience he himself had acquired, by the history, not only of his own, but of other countries, and by the opinions of many of the wisest and most eminent of men. He would not, therefore, presume to violate a great constitutional principle for any temporary benefit. His hon. friend had said, that it was more manly to bring the matter forward while the arrangements were pending: but to this he had to reply, in the words of an anonymous writer (Junius,) to a military character (sir W. Draper), who had replied to a letter of this writer, and put his name to the answer: "This was an instance of spirit; and if it had been an instance of any thing but spirit, he should have been inclined to follow the example." What was the utmost inconvenience that could result from waiting for the measures of the new administration? Some time would be lost—a week, or a fortnight. But were they to depart from a great constitutional principle for such an advantage as this? He was old enough to recollect, that 30 years ago the question, whether the House should have a previous negative on the appointment of the ministers of the crown, had been decided. It had then been determined, that it should not; and that it was only when either or both of the Houses of Parliament had had experience of some of the measures of ministers, that, if they could not confide in the administration, it became their duty to address the throne and express their judgment. The amendment of the ho- nourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) near him, was objectionable on the same ground. It was unconstitutional. The hon. baronet seemed to think that previous pledges ought to be required of ministers. This was not the part they had to act; they were not to call to the bar of the House the persons chosen, or whom they imagined would be chosen by the Prince, and interrogate them as to the opinions which they held, and the advice which they intended to give. The crown had first to do its part;—the House would then judge of the measures of the administration, and proceed accordingly. These were the old-fashioned principles of the constitution, under which this country had long flourished; and they were principles which, as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House, he would never abandon. But the hon. baronet had said, that a great man, acting upon such principles, had brought the country into its present difficulties. He had no wish to conceal the dangers to which the country was exposed: but the hon. baronet must remember, that the great man to whom he allnded had the confidence of the nation. If he were at a sea-port town, and saw a three-masted vessel come in after a hard-fought battle, torn and shattered, with a great proportion of her men wounded, and many dying, would it be fair in him to charge the officer who commanded the ship with these evils, instead of giving him the praise due to him, for the valour and skil with which he had conducted himself in a most difficult and trying situation? Yet such was the accusation of the hon. baronet against his departed friend. With regard to the question of reform, he had always been favourable to it; but he could not conceive how it was possible for any one to imagine, that a Parliamentary Reform could materially diminish the difficulties of the country. Still he was friendly to it, for clearing away some excrescences of the constitution, and conciliating the well intentioned of all parties. Perhaps it might be said, that this motion did not go to prescribe to the Prince whom he should choose, but to recommend the formation of a strong administration; but it was certainly fair to combine the motion with the speech by which it was introduced. It had been observed, that sufficient exertion had not been made to form an efficient administration. How did they, as members of parliament, know this? Gentlemen might have seen newspapers, and every one might attach to their reports what credit he chose, but surely these could not be made the ground for such a proceeding as this. Even on the most trifling occasions, members thought it necessary to call for papers as a foundation for their motions; and surely this rule ought not to be dispensed with in a case of this importance. He should therefore vote for proceeding to the orders of the day. For his own part he was perfectly ready to support any administration of whose measures he approved; and it was a great evil in our present circumstances, that gentlemen did not cast off their personal predilections, and combine together like the crew of a ship to fight her to the last. On both sides there were men who really loved their country; and he held him to be its best friend who acted upon the principle which he had stated.

rose to explain. He denied having made any invidious allnsion to Mr. Pitt, of whose abilities he had the highest opinion; and he also gave him credit for the possession of other good qualities. But he alluded to the policy he had pursued; and in the same way he had also alluded to Mr. Fox, and various other administrations, whose systems he condemned, rather than the particular men who were ministers at any of those periods to which he had referred.

perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Yorkshire, in the necessity of maintaining the constitution inviolate, and declared, that if he thought the motion in any way subversive of a constitutional principle, he would not support it, even if the temporary advantage were to be much greater: but he did not see that it was unconstitutional,—he was sure it was not without precedent, for that House to advise the sovereign upon the formation of an administration. He admitted that this interference was not to be resorted to frequently, or on slight occasions: but no occasion was ever more important than the present; and unless the principle was altogether denied, as it was prudently denied by the hon. member who spoke last, it must be allowed, that it ought to be acted upon. There were two grounds for the adoption of the motion; the first the danger of the country, the second the acknowledged weakness of those who were entrusted with the management of public affairs. No person doubted the dangers and difficulties of the country, both as to its external relations and its in- ternal condition. In speaking of the present administration, it would be a most disagreeable task to go from office to office, and point out the incompetency of individuals; and this task he should spare himself. It, indeed, was a matter of public feeling, and gentlemen could not but be, in some measure, aware of the sense of the public on this question. Even before the death of Mr. Perceval, it was objected that the administration was hardly strong enough; but it was then answered, that such was the ability of Mr. Perceval, and such his character, both in and out of the House, that it compensated for the weakness and inefficiency of his colleagues. They, therefore, who gave this reason for their confidence in the administration, would pay a poor compliment to the memory of Mr. Perceval, if they continued to place the same confidence in persons so little calculated to carry even their own principles into effect. With respect to the alleged attempt to procure an addition of strength to the administration, by bringing over a right hon. gentleman of great talents and eloquence, and also a noble marquis, a member of the other House, he considered it in much the same light as the attempt made for the same purpose in February last; only that it was even less sincere, and that it would have been even more disgraceful to have acceded to it. What was the nature of the proposition made to those who had been called upon to join the present administration? They had been asked, for the sake of mere place, to surrender their principles,—to disgrace their character—to violate their solemn pledges, and to subscribe to opinions directly the reverse of those which they had recently uttered. If he were to praise them for the rejection of such an offer, they might consider it as a very poor compliment. No honest man could have agreed to such a proposition. As great as were the talents of the noble marquis, and his right hon. friend oppo site, if they had accepted office under such circumstances, all the exertions of their highest abilities conld never afterwards have placed them on a level, in point of confidence, on the part of the country, with men of moderate talents. Was this really to be treated like a sincere, a bonâ fide attempt, by the relies of the late ministry, to form a strong administration? The people of this country must be blind indeed, if they did not see that the object was to leave matters precisely as they were, to afford some pretence for the continuation of this administration; and to avoid, by this colourable pretext, the public odium which they know they must encounter if they presumed to remain without an endeavour to strengthen themselves by more efficient aid. But the House had been told that this was not the time for such a motion; that they ought to wait till they had experience of the measures of the ministers. This was an old and specious argument. He maintained, however, that this was not a time to wait till they could nicely canvas this and that particular measure. The country required men whose every step it was not requisite to watch. The time, the circumstances, demanded an administration which could do something by authority,—an administration with some name and credit to give it strength in public opinion. Even those who approved of the present system ought to consider, whether the present men were capable of supporting it. But what must the nature of that system be, to which there was such a general hostility, that all the arts and blandishments of the court could not procure any others to attempt to support it, except the present ministers? If this administration rested on any principle, if it was any thing, it was Anti-catholic; and this Anti-catholic ministry came to this House supported by the noble lord opposite. After all that had passed in that House within these two months, he thought he might ask the noble lord, and those who acted with him, if they really felt so comfortable, and so dauntless that their champions who had hitherto supported them, would not be diverted from their cause, particularly when they considered the means and instruments they at present had in hand? Did they suppose they would long be enabled to resist? If they, on the one hand, refused to concede to the Catholics those privileges which, consistently with a fair spirit of toleration they ought now to accord to them, were they certain, having been at length compelled to grant those, that they would be able afterwards to resist any unreasonable demands which might follow? Would it not be better to trust to an administration which could talk in a firm tone to the Catholics—conceding to them what was consistent with the constitution, and resisting all unreasonable demands? It appeared to him, that the House was called upon to decide whether they should ever advise the crown on such an occasion—whether they should surrender one of their most important privileges, and agree to support an administration formed upon a principle of mere favouritism.

contended, that the proposition for strengthening the administration was made with real sincerity. The present motion was certainly unconstitutional, as the House had no right to interfere by any previous advice in the formation of a ministry, and he referred in support of that opinion to the circumstance which occurred in 1784, when the House of Lords refused to accede to the proceedings of the House of Commons upon a question similar to the present.

, said, that though he had differed from his right hon. friend, who was now no more, on several important topics, yet he could not agree to the present motion, as he conceived it to be the undoubted prerogative of the crown to choose its own ministers; but he would not pledge himself to support any administration which would not avoid involving the country in any more wars.

expressed himself perfectly ready to give credit to the motives of his hon. friend in bringing forward this motion, but he thought that if the House agreed to it at this moment they would violate one of the first and most undoubted privileges of the crown. He had expected that his hon. friend would have been prepared to show some analogous precedent; but the fact he really believed was, that there was no instance in our history where the House interfered to prevent the formation of an administration. His hon. friend predicted, from what he knew of the present government, that the administration, which was not yet nominated, would be one not entitled to the confidence of the country. The only similar instance alluded to was in the case of Mr. Pitt, and on that occasion his great political rival had made an apology for bringing forward a motion not of advice with respect to the formation of a ministry, but to prevent the dissolution of parliament, in the interval previous to the re-election of Mr. Pitt, acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the interference. The period he alluded to was one of unprecedented heat and irritation, when the House shewed a disposition to go lengths in opposition to ministers, which he believed many of them had since been disposed to allow were unjustifiable; yet neither Mr. Fox nor any of the great men of that day ventured to avow such motives as those declared by his hon. friend on the present occasion.—What was the case then? The reasons for interference then were much stronger than those which could now be alleged. The crown had dismissed a ministry which had great majorities on its side; and the crown did so, in order to appoint another ministry which had not the confidence of the House. He would be glad to know who were the persons that were to compose the principal parts of the ministry? Were they not those who, for the last four years, had been receiving the approbation of parliament and of his hon. friend? Was not the noble lord at the head of the administration (the earl of Liverpool) the same person who had been so long successfully conducting that part of the affairs of the country, which on so many occasions had experienced the approbation of the House and of the public? This was enough to shew that the grounds of proceeding in the one case and the other were totally different.—And yet it was under these circumstances contended against all precedent and principle, that the House should go up to the throne for the purpose of advising the Regent as to the choice of his servants. He here found it necessary to allude to some facts which were pretty generally known; and in doing so, he could not be suspected of any private motive, for, without going into the circumstances connected with that event, he had to state, that he was no longer a member of the administration. The manner in which certain propositions had been made, had been animadverted on that night, but he did not think that his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) would say, that those offers were not made in perfect sincerity, and in the wish and hope that they would be accepted. He could perfectly understand the grounds on which his right hon. friend had declined those offers; but he only meant to say that they were made in perfect sincerity. As far as related to the motion of which his right hon. friend had given notice—(Mr. Canning's notice relative to the Catholic question for the 28th of this mouth)—he apprehended that if he had accepted office, the necessity for bringing forward that motion would be superceded, because it would then have been in his power to direct the attention of his Colleagues to the subject in a more efficacious manner. But he understood there were other grounds for the refusal of his right hon. friend, among which was the treating the Catholic claims as a government question—whether his right hon. friend would have persisted in this new view of the subject he knew not; if he did, it would indeed have proved a bar to his right hon. friend's admission into the present ministry; but of this he was certain, that the proposals which had been made to him were made with sincerity, and that their rejection was received with regret. He did not mean to impute that rejection as any fault to him, but he knew that it excited extreme concern on the part of government to find, that his right hon. friend could not be brought to strengthen their administration. With respect to the opinions held on the principal topics at issue, he had papers which fully explained them, but which, at this moment, he did not feel himself authorised to produce, and he asked his right hon. friend whether he had not seen such a statement? To recur to the subject of the motion, he could see no ground for supposing any inability in the noble lord at the head of the government; for that noble lord was the man, who, ten or eleven years ago, had been characterised by Mr. Pitt as the individual most fit to succeed to the first office in the government, from his talents, integrity, and extensive acquirements, with the sole exception of Mr. Fox. As to the motion now before the House, he could not conceive how his hon. friend could reconcile it with the votes which he had been accustomed to give. He felt little disposed to enter into any political contention: or to say any thing that could give offence, but he could not help referring the House to the principles that had governed, and to the practice that had been pursued for four years by the last administration, and to the majorities by which its measures had been supported, and asking whether it could be imagined, that members would be acting a part agreeable to their constituents, by adopting the motion proposed for the purpose of destroying a government, which had hitherto received the highest approbation throughout the country? Had he no other objections to the motion, this alone would be sufficient to determine his vote: he could not believe it possible, that it could now be carried by a majority of the House, unless they were prepared to say, that all those measures which had been hitherto approved, as essential to the glory and security of the empire, were in reality detrimental to its best and truest interests.

spoke to the following effect:—It was my wish and my intention, to have avoided troubling the House in the course of the present debate; not because it might be presumptuously supposed, that in the motion for an address, for a strong and efficient administration, there was any thing personally reflecting upon myself, founded on transactions, which owe their birth to the few last days, but because I was aware, that whatever I might urge upon the subject, would naturally be attributed to individual feelings, which I can assure the House it has been my most earnest endeavour to dismiss, on the subject of the application which has recently been made to me. The speech, however, of my right honourable friend who has just taken his seat, has placed me in a situation, in which, if I did not answer the call he has made upon me, I might be justly accused in the first place, of disrespect towards him, which is far from my intention: and in the second, of disrespect to the House, which is equally distant from my mind. He will allow me to say, without any sentiment of unkindness, that I think the call has been made a little unfairly.—Whatever has passed verbally without these walls, by an absolute agreement between lord Liverpool, who made the proposition, and myself, was reduced to writing, that it might be less subject to misapprehension, or perversion, and to that minute, an answer upon paper was returned by me, to which, standing at the bar of my country, to answer for my conduct, I beg leave to refer—I know that here I cannot technically refer to it, and I know that thus a technical advantage maybe taken—an unworthy advantage may be taken—and when the honourable member for Yorkshire tells me that the House can have no cognizance of such correspondence, I acknowledge that it is perfectly true, and I cannot help wishing that my right honourable friend (Mr. Ryder) who spoke on the same side, had availed himself of the useful precept which was thus afforded. What I complain of is, that he has travelled out of the record which by special contract between the parties, was allowed to comprise the whole case.—He has gone beyond the written proposal and my written answer. I am sorry that he has done so, because he has put me under the unavoidable, but disagreeable necessity of doing what was farthest from my intention, when I entered this House, and what is in direct opposition to all my feelings;—viz. drawing a contrast between my own conduct, and that of others for my own vindication.

I have been asked whether, supposing I had accepted the offer that was made to me, I should not have felt myself at perfect liberty to act as my own opinions should dictate upon the great question which constitutes the main bar of separation? I reply that, as a minister, I know I should have been at liberty: I do not mean to assert, that if I had joined the present administration to fight against my own principles, under the banners of the noble lord, I should not still have had the power of making my solitary speech, and of giving my solitary vote in support of opinions I had previously maintained—I will not even say, that there may not be honourable minds who would be satisfied with such a distinction, and it may be my misfortune or my fault that mine is not a mind of that construction. If, when out of office, I have lent to any cause that I deemed just my influence and my authority, I never can consent to accept office under the condition that I shall instantly divest myself of that influence and authority which ought still to be my companions, and to leave them on one great and vital question in open and wilful abeyance. I beg the House to observe, that these painful explanations are extorted from me: I could refer them to the cool, deliberate compositions of my closet, but I am compelled here to stand forward while they are wrung from me by the unfair conduct of a debate. I am most unwillingly placed in the situation I now occupy, and obliged for my own justification to appear to throw imputations upon others.

I perfectly concur in the general doctrine laid down, that it is the exclusive prerogative of the crown to nominate its own ministers; I admit that the case must be urgent indeed to authorise the interference of the House; but I cannot forget that parliament has a double character. The House of Commons is a council of controul, but it is likewise a council of advice, and I think the man ill-read, not in your Journals, but in your constitution, who should say that no case of such transcendant importance could exist, in which it would not be competent for the legislature, by the timely interposition of advice, to prevent the necessity of controul.—The right hon. gentleman who spoke last, has resorted to a very dangerous species of argument, even when most dexterously handled, by attempting to shew the absurdity of one thing, by exemplification and comparison with another. His reference was made with peculiar infelicity.

In 1784, he says, times of peculiar turbulence, the House never thought of interfering with the crown in the appointment of its servants. Though triumphant majorities were headed by transcendant talents, so high and extravagant a flight as interposition in the nomination of ministers was never contemplated, but to keep within the bounds of the constitution, parliament addressed the sovereign for the continuance of their own existence! If the proposition of this night had been as it was in 1784 to address the crown against a dissolution, then indeed it might with some plausibility have been urged that the House was advancing a step too far—then indeed the right hon. gentleman might exclaim, that the great landmarks of the constitution were thrown down; that the king was deprived of his controuling power, and that the House of Commons was erecting itself into the tyrant of the realm, instead of remaining merely the representatives of the people. While I am thus arguing in favour of the motion of the hon. gentleman, the House and he will allow me to state that I utterly disclaim any privity to his intention of submitting it. I can truly assert that no man admires his vigour and independence more than myself, and there is no man whom I should be more proud to call my friend; but standing in the situations which we respectively hold, if I were to have indulged a conjecture on the subject, and were to have considered who would have been the first to have brought forward a motion of censure upon my conduct, I should have named that hon. member; and if the House is taken by surprise, I can, with the utmost sincerity, assert that its astonishment at the nature of the motion, and at the quarter in which it originates, is not equal to my own.

In the early part of the debate, the hon. gentleman who moved that the other orders of the day be read, made an allusion which was liable to some misapprehension.—I wish, however, previously to say a word or two upon the nature of his amendment.—What, Sir, are we come to this? How is an unprecedented motion, shaking the very foundations of the throne—aiming a deadly blow at the prerogative of the crown, inverting the march of the constituent powers of the state, met by the administration? By an amendment, proposing the reading of the other orders of the day. They do not come forward boldly maintaining the principles of the constitution, demanding that such an unheard of motion shall be deliberately investigated with closed doors, and exclaiming, 'Down with the audacious innovator!'—but they content themselves with very simply moving the orders of the day! This too, be it never forgotten, by a government which calls upon the House and the country, to declare that they are strong, efficient, and fully competent to conduct the arduous duties of the state, in these most arduous times. This specimen, I think, will be allowed to be a fair indication of what we may hereafter expect from their boasted ability and vigour. The allusion which I noticed as being liable to misconstruction, was made in the early part of the speech of the mover of this celebrated amendment, where he stated that I had demanded some concessions of principle as the price of my acceptance of office. To refute this assertion, I beg leave to refer him and the House to my recorded opinion. I merely enquired of lord Liverpool, as a matter of information, whether the policy and sentiments of his colleagues continued the same, and I was answered by my noble friend with the candour and manliness that have distinguished him in every part of these transactions, as well as through life, that his own opinions upon this grand topic remained unchanged, and he was not aware that those of his colleagues had undergone any alteration. I here once more protest, and protest complainingly, that I have thus been dragged into a reconsideration of the subject, and I hope the House will not forget that I have been far from seeking the occasion. When I was thus informed of the settled and confirmed opinions of the head of the government, honoured with the chief confidence of the sovereign, and possessing all the influence and authority which that ostensible situation affords, could I doubt for an instant their practical effect on the other members of the cabinet? Could I hesitate as to their operation upon any attempt at a practical proceeding? My right hon. friend tells me, that if I would have consented to have formed a part of the administration to be established, the motion of which I have given notice would have been wholly unnecessary, as I should then have had an opportunity of calling the attention of my colleagues to the subject. I would ask any rational being what would have been the probable—the certain result? I should have moved it in the cabinet to be beaten there, instead of moving in the Commons to be beaten here; I consider myself bound rather to move it here, and to be beaten here, and for this obvious reason, that it may appear to the public that the pledge I gave has not been forfeited, and that I have used my best exertions to carry my object into execution. I have never stated an opinion, nor do I hold it, that concessions to the Catholics, unrestricted, unqualified and precipitate, were either politic or just.—Other honourable men may entertain conscientiously different sentiments, but I am bound only by my own, and those have always been uttered in one direction.

When my right hon. friend spoke of opinions that I had recently adopted, I apprehend he cannot mean to state that they are such as I have not long held, and such as he has known that I have long held. He says they are recently adopted—I say I have not recently adopted them, I have ever entertained them, but I have often avowed in this House, that on a fair comparison of conflicting duties, while the third branch of the constitution was hostile to the measure, I thought it better for the country, better for the cause, better for Ireland, and better for the Catholics themselves, that I should raise my feeble shield between the crown and the question. I felt it my duty at that period not to hazard the peace of the empire, and the peace of mind of a venerable sovereign. I maintain then, that the right hon. gentleman has no right to say that these opinions with me are of recent adoption. It is however, a little too much to expect, that what I then yielded to the conscience of a sovereign, I should now yield to the convenience of a minister. For my conduct on this subject I have long laboured under misconstruction and obloquy, and I protest that I would have suffered under it with patience to the last hour of my life, rather than have sown with thorns the pillow of my sovereign. It is, however, rather an unreasonable expectation, that I should approve of the policy of a minister because I had submitted to the irremoveable conscience of a king. I should not have been more scrupulous with regard to the sentiments of my late much lamented friend, and shall I now submit to the prejudices of an individual who has succeeded him at the head of affairs, and whose opinions nearly, though not perhaps entirely, coincide with those of the right hon. gentleman now no more? Personal objections to the noble lord, I declare I have none; I am actuated by no feeling of rivalry, and with this particular question excepted, I could have no earthly hesitation either in acting with, or under him; but I cannot allow, that the predominance of his opinion shall stifle mine. I cannot enter the cabinet, pretending not to know, that the influence of the noble lord will be such as to paralyze all my feeble efforts there.

But do I therefore demand concessions to my opinions? None! all I ask is, that the subject shall be fairly and deliberately considered, with a view to the arrival at some practical conclusion, and that it should be investigated where alone it can be done with the hope of a favourable result, in the cabinet. My desire was, not to obtain concessions, but to ascertain to what extent conscientious men in the discharge of a public trust would go; it was to this consummation that my anxiety was directed; I required only that the important topic should be considered, the question demands it, you ought to give it, and I will add, that ere long you must give it. As another opportunity will shortly be afforded me of more minute explanation, I have not now attempted more than to free myself from the misrepresentations of which the hon. mover, I am certain, and my right hon. friend, I hope, were unintentionally guilty. My right hon. friend has put to me a most unfair question, but since it has been proposed I will answer it. He enquires whether I have not seen a statement of the opinions entertained by the cabinet upon the subject of the Catholic claims? I have seen it. I do not like to speak in disrespectful terms of any paper evidently the production of great labour and study, but I am compelled to notice it, for here, again, I would entreat the House to bear in mind that I have not courted this discussion. I admit that the abolition of the Jesuits completely exonerates that order from the charge of having drawn up this document, but such an extraordinary pledge of what a cabinet intended to do, I never saw. Not two of the members agreed in opinion, and I thought that it would be little consolation that another individual should enter the cabinet with yet another shade of difference. I imagined, before I obtained a sight of the document referred to, that it comprized all the philosophical principles combined, that all the lights of abstract reasoning and profound theology were there concentrated to a point, but, after perusing it with the utmost attention, I returned it with a note, written in perfect good humour, stating, that as far as I had been able to make it out, it appeared to me to be of a controversial nature.—Such was the answer, which, in perfect simplicity of heart, I returned yesterday; I really did not know what other answer to give; but to what did this answer amount? Practically to this, as far as I could comprehend it; but, indeed, it is unfair to impute to the cabinet any opinion, because, collectively, it has none, and the retrospective influence upon my mind (for I did not see this curious production until after the negociation had been closed,) was, that if I had joined this hortus siccus of dissent, as Mr. Burke once termed it, we should have formed as beautiful a variety as was ever assembled in so small a collection. But amidst such unprecedented differences, on which side is the influence and authority of government enlisted? That is the main question; this man may hold a blue opinion, another a white, a third a green, a fourth a yellow, and a fifth a red, but with which of these shades does the sentiment of government most nearly accord? Undoubtedly this point will be decided by the individual, who, holding the principal office, pre-eminently enjoys the confidence of the occupant of the throne, and the additional weight he adds to the scale must overbalance the remainder. I could not, therefore, feel that I entered the cabinet with honour, if I consented to give there a mere barren solitary vote. I trust, although not very fairly put upon my trial, that my conduct is completely justified in the eyes of the House and of the country.

To all that has been said regarding the mode in which the overtures were made, I most heartily subscribe; and no man can pronounce a panegyric upon the demeanor of my noble friend, which I will not cheerfully second: I have known him for nearly 20 years, and during that period the warmth of my friendship has progressively augmented. I cast no slur upon the motives that influenced him or his colleagues: I believe, nay, I am convinced, that they conscientiously entertain different sentiments. Here I beg, once for all, to state, that the point on which we differ is this—not, as has been constantly and studiously misrepresented, whether we shall instantly concede, but whether this be a question which, in the present temper of the times, in the present state of Europe, in the present convulsions of the world; at a period when the public mind is in a ferment, when you cannot dispose of the subject with a wish, or strangle it with a hair, and when you are not able to set it at rest by the strong arm of power, the government should not do that which is best in my opinion, and next best in the opinion of the present servants of the crown, allow it to come before the cabinet for decision. Thus would the public anxiety be allayed, and those repeated annual discussions, fruitless of any thing but evil, be once for all concluded. In affirming that the Roman Catholic claims should not now be agitated, ministers beg the whole question. I do not say that immediate concessions should be made; all I claim is, that this body of people should be sheltered under the protecting wing of the legislature: that their case should be placed in the hands, or in the portfolio of the executive government. By those means, and those only, can you ensure to Ireland a happy and peaceful summer, and to the empire, confiding and lasting tranquillity.

When my hon. friend opposite, the member for Yorkshire, asserts that measures and not men, were to be the main topic of consideration and animadversion, he seems to have forgotten that I, one of the principal actors in the scene which has lately been displayed, have been imperiously called upon for a justification of my conduct; he does not recollect that even my reputation is at stake. He, of all others, is the one who would pay most attention to individual character; he will not say that if you deprive the present race of pigmy men of reputation, you destroy almost every claim they possess to the gratitude of the nation, and make them unworthy of the country in which they were born. On my part, I can assert with the most perfect sincerity, that no disposition has been shewn by me to decline sustaining my share of the burden of the state in these perilous times. My anxiety has been to make them less perilous, but upon this great question I have seen not only no desire to grant any thing to the Catholics, but not even a disposition that an enquiry should be instituted. The noble lord seems by his gestures to ex- press dissent from my statement. I am happy to remark it, and if within the last eight and forty hours, any change of opinion should have taken place; if the various shades of sentiment have been amalgamated into one general and pleasing tone; if it is now thought that the question ought to be considered, I do not desire to take advantage of it by accepting any place, being myself out of the question, but although out of office, I shall hail this alteration of opinion with a joy as sincere as if I possessed a seat in the cabinet.

admitted, that according to the constitution, parliament had a right to address the crown on urgent and important occasions to prevent the execution of measures that were deemed by the House injurious to the welfare of the state. Before, however, a step were taken upon ground so seldom trodden, it would be well to examine its firmness and solidity, and to consider maturely whether the causes which induced it were adequate to the effect. He approved highly of the manner in which this motion had been met by the amendment for passing to the order of the day, since the direct negative might have been subject to serious misconstruction. The right distinction had been taken, when it was said, that the House was not by circumstances justified at this moment to interfere, not that it ought not to interpose at all. As a general admission he was ready to agree, that at no period of our history was it more necessary that a government should be formed of the united talent and honour of the nation; at no period was it more necessary that a strong and efficient administration should be selected, that their combined efforts might tend to the salvation of the state in these times of peculiar danger. He submitted, that in the proposal made to lord Wellesley, and his right hon. friend, the crown had acted from the dictates of a sound discretion, and if with honour the offer could not be accepted, it was the duty of those to whom it was suggested to reject it. The laudable object of his Royal Highness was to form a broad and stable administration; precedent shewed that there might be obstacles in the way of its accomplishment, which it might be impossible to over-step. In 1783 two months of interregnum had occurred, during which the individual holding the chief office under government, declared that he found it impossible to form an administration like that which had lately been attempted. His lordship did not dare to predict that such a calamity would again ensue; if gentlemen intended that it should return, he called upon them to avow it, and to take the sense of the House upon it. He lamented that the hon. mover had not thought it right to declare more explicitly what in his view, the crown had attempted, and what it ought to have done. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had noticed one great question, on which differences of opinion prevailed, and he seemed to have forgotten all other matters in dispute, some of which were of scarcely less magnitude; even upon that solitary subject he had not favoured the House with one practical idea, or with one reason why the sentiments of so many others should yield to his opinion. Before the House voted by a concurrence with the motion, that the sovereign had not done all in his power to attain the desired object, it would be fit to enquire, whether nothing stood between the crown and the formation of the government, so much desired by all parties. For himself and his colleagues, he asserted, that they had interposed no obstacles. If, however, they had sought to shelter themselves from the pelting of the supposed storm, gathered by their measures, by a voluntary retirement, animadversion might have been justly bestowed; if they had given the pusillanimous advice, that because the hand of an assassin had deprived the government of one of its members, that administration should be removed, they would indeed have merited to be stigmatized as the basest of mortals. Under such a cover they disdained to place themselves, and they had ventured to hope, that those who for four years had successfully conducted the affairs of the kingdom, had not forfeited all claim to the confidence of the sovereign, by the unfortunate death of one individual. He hoped he should not be considered as trespassing too much on the attention of the House, or of indulging habits which were too familiar to him, if he offered to their consideration a few words respecting himself. He wished to justify himself in the opinion of the House, by stating fairly and distinctly what the views and principles were on which he had acted. He had felt it to be his duty at a time, when, for want of abler assistance, a more effective and desirable arrangement could not take place, not to abandon his situation, or withdraw his humble services from the government.

He believed it was not necessary for him to acquit himself of having entertained any feelings of impatient ambition, or from the charge of having acted from any other motive than a desire to support those principles to which he had always adhered, at a period when they seemed to be put to hazard. So far, indeed, as his own personal honour was concerned, (and he hoped that it would never be called in question, as he held that it would be then next to lost) he was happy in a perfect consciousness that he had omitted no effort to prevent any considerations personal to himself from interfering with the formation of an arrangement on an extended basis. Aware that his presence might have embarrassed government in prosecuting the object of availing themselves of those talents and connections, which were deemed to be advantageous for the promotion of the interest of the state, he had felt it his duty to tender his resignation to his Royal Highness. This he had done, not from any wish to shrink from the difficulties of an arduous employment; those who knew him best, he was sure, would admit that his nature was incapable of such a sentiment; but he had so acted exclusively from a sense of duty, and an earliest and sincere desire to put himself altogether out of the question. He had tendered his resignation, and had done so with an anxious wish that it should be accepted. He was no party whatever to those negotiations which had recently taken place, but he did think the right hon. gentleman had pressed a little too hard on his right hon. friend near him, and his hon. friend the member for Yorkshire. Were they to be told that the publication of documents in the Morning Chronicle, (and some wonder might reasonably be entertained, that this publication should have been so speedy) was a proper or sufficient ground for any parliamentary proceeding? The right hon. gentleman had no doubt acted on feelings quite satisfactory to his own mind on this occasion; he himself had not seen these documents till yesterday, but he did consider it the duty of every man to refuse his services to an administration, if he was conscientiously of opinion that those services could not be beneficial. But the right hon. gentleman refused the assistance and co-operation of his talents, because he could not carry a particular point. His great and only principle of objection to acceding to the present ministry, was, that the Catholic question was not to be taken into consideration. But ought he not to have apprised the House what his practical opinion on the subject was, what was the plan by which it appeared to his judgment, that the measure to which this consideration pointed, might be ultimately carried into execution? Did the right hon. gentleman mean to say, that the present moment, and under all the circumstances of the disturbed domestic situation of the country, was a period peculiarly favourable for conceding to the Catholics with perfect security to the state? Was the House then, upon the vague plea of giving the subject their consideration, to conceive themselves bound to gratify the right hon. gentleman in constructing a new admistration? The hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, with some few exceptions, pursued a more manly policy, and declared themselves openly the advocates of unqualified concession. He felt as strongly as any man that the question itself was a cardinal and fundamental one to the interests of the country, but it was ridiculous to talk of creating a government simply for its discussion. It appeared to him that the right hon. gentleman ought in candour to have acquainted the House that he was ready to submit a distinct proposition, founded on his practical view of the question, and also to have laid that proposition before them. From the first moment of the Union being accomplished he had himself been uniformly friendly to the claims of the Catholics. He had never made the question a political engine, or an instrument of supporting or overturning any administration. (Hear! from sir J. Newport.)—The right hon. baronet was fond of his own music, but he apprehended little from his interruption, as he had lately shewn himself a very inaccurate reporter.—Whenever it could be shewn that the Catholic body were prepared to concede those securities which he had always deemed necessary, and which had appeared to be so both to Mr. Pitt and lord Grenville, he should be willing to espouse their claims; but he never would suffer it to be made a stalking-horse for the mere purpose of embarrassing the government, at a period when objects of so much greater magnitude occupied the attention of the country. He was not disclosing State secrets, for he had, in acting both with lord Sidmouth and Mr. Perceval, stipulated to express his own individual sentiments at all times on the subject, when he explained what his conduct had been with regard to it. He would be a base and ungrateful man, if he were not readily to acknowledge that the Catholics had materially assisted in accomplishing the measure of the Union, but he denied that any positive and particular pledge was given to them at that period. His own language to them, and the language of lord Cornwallis, had then, as well as subsequently, been, that there were practical difficulties which time and a spirit of mutual concession and conciliation could alone overcome. He had supported, when a member of lord Sidmouth's cabinet, strenuously supported, the measure of a provision for the Catholic clergy.

Before he quitted that administration he received an assurance that the measure should be recommended to his Majesty; but it never was carried into effect because in the mean time the Catholic clergy had changed their opinion of it, under the idea that it might prove injurious to their own interests. The Catholics themselves ought to come forward, and declare what precise measures they wanted. He saw no occasion for laying upon government the task of considering their claims, but rather that the whole attention of administration should be bent to the great difficulties in which the country was placed, and above all, to the conducting of the war in the peninsula on the largest possible scale, particularly when the affairs of Europe were now at a most important and interesting crisis. He had heard something of the necessity of carrying on the war in the peninsula on a more extensive scale; but he should be glad to know how that could be done. The scale of warfare was the largest, the most expensive, and the most disinterested, at least as far as Spain and Portugal were concerned, of any in which the country had ever been engaged. How could it be said to be neglected, when this country was actually expending at the rate of twenty millions a year in the great cause of the peninsula? In this sum were of course included the supplies and subsidies afforded to our allies, as well as the pay and maintenance of our own armies. Under these circumstances, to say that there was any abandonment of the cause of the peninsula was an unjustifiable imputation on the government. He concluded with deprecating the stamping of a stigma on an administration, the whole of which was not yet before the House; and con- tended that nothing was more impolitic than to throw discredit on a government, when there was little prospect of substituting a better in its room.

explained. The noble lord had put to him the question, why he had dwelt so much on the points on which he differed from ministers, and not on those on which he agreed with them. The simple and obvious reason was, because he felt himself called upon to answer to the one point, and not at all to the other.

affirmed, that notwithstanding the repeated allusions of the noble lord he would still persist in bringing forward against him the foul charge of not having fulfilled the promises, by the means of which he had effected the Union, and that charge he would repeat till the hopes then falsely held to the Roman Catholics had been fully realized. The noble lord had rightly stated that no absolute pledges had been given, but there were engagements more binding on honourable minds than the most formal written agreements. These, however, the noble lord had totally disregarded, and still boasted, as it suited his convenience, of his steady friendship to the Roman Catholic cause. The noble lord had vindicated his own sincerity; and certainly he had great reason for undertaking that task. It was not surprising that he whose own country had loudly accused him of violating every public principle, should be anxious to defend himself from suspicion in this. As to his observations on the practical difficulties that attended the question, was he blind to them at the time of the Union? Was he blind to them in 1801? The noble lord had boasted of his favourable disposition towards the Irish Roman Catholic clergy; but how had he acted in the business of the Maynooth college? The Irish Roman Catholic clergy had, however, much to their credit, refused the grants proposed in their favour by the noble lord, as they were unconnected with the emancipation of the Catholics at large; and this circumstance he was persuaded, must convince every thinking mind that an actual arrangement had been entered into, which being only in part executed, the Irish Roman Catholic clergy had very properly refused that share which was to be allowed to them at the expence of their flocks. Adverting to the base, sinister, and he would call them dirty bargains, by which the noble lord had effected the Union and purchased the parliament of Ireland for lucrative consi- derations, he remarked that all those underhand agreements had been most scrupulously fulfilled, but the national faith pledged had never been redeemed. Whatever the noble lord might be pleased to say about the perpetual ringing of the same changes, he could assure him that be should continue to ring the same tune in his ears so long as he sat in the same assembly with him, and his character remained marked, as it now was, by repeated pledges unredeemed, engagements forfeited, and by the dirty trafficking for seats in parliament—means which he had not scrupled to use, and by which he had succeeded in depriving Ireland of her parliament.

said, the noble lord appeared to him to labour under no small degree of embarrassment and confusion, in supposing that any specification was necessary to enable the House to as certain what the objects and claims of the Catholics were. They were fairly described in the prayer of their Petitions, and it remained only for government to consider and state the conditions on which they were willing to make the required concessions. It was at least as incumbent on the noble lord (and in his judgment a little more so) as it was upon the right hon. gentleman on whom the noble lord had called, to declare what were the terms and the mode on which he was willing to agree to that emancipation which he declared was so desirable. It seemed to him to be peculiarly the duty of the noble lord himself to shew his hand and produce his game, considering his situation. He would vote for the order of the day if he could be assured that an administration was forming of talents and character, and not those whose names he had seen in the newspapers.

in explanation said, that in calling on the Catholics to state the conditions they were willing to offer, he meant to guard against the tergiversations of which the country had witnessed several instances.

, in reply, declared that he had seldom heard in that House, a speech, containing so many unconstitutional assertions, as had been delivered that night by the hon. member for Yorkshire. For himself he would say, that he had taken particular care not to pledge himself to oppose, or support, this or that government. He conceived that it was quite practical with very little sacrifice of pub- lic opinion to form an efficient administration; and he thought the noble lord had failed to prove, that all had been done which ought to have been done, to form an efficient administration.

The House then divided—

The motion of Mr. Wortley was then carried without a division.

immediately moved, "That the Address should be presented by the whole House."

opposed this motion, and moved the previous question.

then withdrew his motion, and moved "That the said Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, by such members of the House as are of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council."

A division ensued—

expressed his utter surprise that a motion of such high importance as he conceived the present to be, carried by a majority of the House, in which there were present 350 members, should from any circumstance of management or finesse remain as a dead letter. He hoped, however, the House would not suffer themselves to be left in such a predicament, but would take such measures as should be fully adequate to carry the Resolutions they had passed into complete effect.

said, he had been in the majority on both these motions; and he wished to explain the reason how—

reminded the hon. member that there was no question before the House.

said, he would put the matter into the shape of a motion. The House appeared to him to be placed in a most extraordinary situation. They had been that night debating on the commencement of an administration that was not yet formed. A motion of the highest importance had been brought before the House, and carried against ministers by a majority of four. After this, an hon. friend of his under the gallery had moved that the Address to the Prince Regent, which had just been voted, should be carried up by the whole House, which had afterwards been withdrawn, and a motion made that the Address be presented by such members as were of his Majesty's Privy Council. This was opposed by a right hon. gentleman opposite, lately at the head of the Admiralty, who complained that the very small majority which had been obtained, was owing to eight members being shut out on the division, who would have voted against it. Here, then, were eight members who had neglected their duty. For where could the duty of a member of parliament be more imperiously called for, than by his attendance in this House on a question of such magnitude and importance as the present? He should be glad to know how far they were to go—was it expected they should go or send round to all those members who did not choose to stay in the House, but retired to take their tea or other refreshments in the adjoining coffee-houses, to ask them which way they would be pleased to give their votes?—or would any of the constitutional members of the House of Commons be pleased to inform the House, what, in such cases, ought to be done? Would those gentlemen who had the constitution for ever in their mouths, now stand forward and say, that a resolution, carried by a majority of the House, in which there were present 350 members, should remain a dead letter? Would these hon. gentlemen, who had such a high regard for the constitution, wish so deeply to degrade the House of Commons, which formed so essential a part of it, in the opinion of the people? The right hon. gentleman, and the noble lord near him, complained of the small number of the majority, which was four. He (Mr. W.) remembered a question in which he voted in that House, when the numbers were equally divided, and the right hon. gentleman in the chair, by his single vote, gave the majority; and on that occasion the Address was carried up by the whole House. He was sorry the motion to that purport had not, in the present case, been persisted in; if it had, the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman would not have been able to vote against a question they would otherwise have been glad to adopt. There was, however, evidently a piece of trickery and finesse in the proceeding, and he would, therefore, beg leave to apply to the superior wisdom and experience of the Speaker, to point out what would be the best motion to make, to extricate the House from the unexampled and dis- graceful situation in which it was then placed.

said, he knew but of two modes by which the House had ordinarily proceeded; the one was, that the Address be presented by such members as are of the Privy Council, the other by the whole House, the first had been negatived, the other remained to be decided.

. Are there no other modes?

. Other Modes may be devised, but they are not regular or customary.

was about to speak—when Admiral Harvey rose to order. He (admiral H.) had been called to order, because there was no motion before the House. An hon. member, certainly possessing greater weight in parliament than he could pretend to, had interrupted him, and taken up the time of the House. He now called on the Speaker not to permit any person to address him till there was a motion submitted to their consideration.

observed, that a course different from those two specified by the Speaker was pursued when the Address was presented on his Majesty's recovery.

again spoke to order. If any person were permitted to address the chair, no question being before the House, he felt he had a right to claim that indulgence, having first attracted the Speaker's attention.

said, although the general rule was, not to address the House, when there was no question before it, still, if any hon. member put a question to him, he felt it his duty to answer it as satisfactorily as possible. The instance quoted by the hon. and learned gentleman, was certainly correct, and he could adduce several others of a similar description; that, for example, which occurred after the illness of queen Anne, where it was considered, that the ordinary mode of presenting the Address would be inconvenient; and, therefore, a specific and limited number were Selected for the purpose. Still, however, he believed, the usual and regular modes were confined to the two he had noticed; and he thought it his duty to call the attention of the House to consider, whether they would proceed to extraordinary means before having tried those which were ordinary.

said, a different course had sometimes prevailed when Addresses of congratulation were presented—and, in support of his position, he instanced the Address on the marriage of the Prince of Wales. He would therefore move—"That the Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, by Mr. Stuart Wortley and lord viscount Milton."

said, he would proceed to put the question; though, if they adopted that mode, or any other, save one of those to which he had alluded, it would be a departure from the course usually adopted by the House.

expressed a wish to withdraw his motion.

said, as the question had been regularly moved and seconded, it was his duty to put it to the House, which he then did; adding, that the hon. member who made the motion had afterwards expressed a wish to withdraw it, in which desire, however, it was necessary the House should concur.

expressed himself satisfied the Address should be presented by the mover and seconder. He had not wished the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) to withdraw his motion for the whole House to go up with the Address; but, if it were again proposed, he would negative it, in order to support the proposition at present before them.

said, he felt no unwillingness to undertake the task; for he should consider the day on which he presented the Address as the proudest of his life.

The motion that the Address should be presented to the Prince Regent by Mr. Stuart Wortley and lord Milton, was then agreed to without a division.