1807. greatest of political evils, the destruction of the constitution. Such an innovation in the constitution*, would be in practice to convert the mature Upon this extraordinary change of administration, there appeared some letters, or rather essays in the Morning Chronicle, under the signature Scavola, which are pregnant with so much wisdom and experience, and breathe throughout so pure a spirit of the enlightened and constitutional Statesman the late Mr. Fox, that afford the cheering prospect to the Empire, that his surviving spirit animates his representative, and will ultimately prove the salvation of this country. In the 2d of those letters, (they are a touchstone of constitutional policy) the mischief of these pledges is thus emphatically exposed. "What would be the practical effect of this innovation in our constitution? It would be giving in substance and in effect, a negative before debate to the secret advisers of the crown. Men unknown in the constitution, responsible to no tribunal, guided by private favour and affection, or prompted by idle fancies or arbitrary caprice, counsellors neither tangible nor visible, but like wicked spirits known only by the evil they produce. They would usurp at this day in the English constitution the same dangerous powers, which were enjoyed and abused in the Scottish parliament by the Lords of the Articles, under the tyrannical House of Stuart. Whilst Ireland was considered and treated as a conquered province, the privy council of England had a negative before debate on the proceedings of the Irish parliament. But when after three centuries of slavery and submission, the Irish nation and Irish parliament re-asserted their rights, and recovered their dignity and their importance, one of their first acts was to abolish this badge of servitude. Yet this was a privilege lodged in the privy council of England. But the negative now sought to be established, not in Ireland, but in England, is to be placed: Where? In the secret unknown irresponsible advisers of the crown. The great historian of England, whose general leaning is certainly not so much in favor of popular government, has remarked in one of his essays, "that if the King of England had " a negative before debate, and could prevent any bill from negative, certainly vested in the executive, into an abortive Veto, by enabling the King to strangle the fœtus on its first conception in the House of Commons. The more moderate of the new men admitted the general doctrine, that there was no act of the crown without responsibility: but the rule was not without exception. Such exception eminently occurred in every instance, where the King dismissed his ministers: for there he must necessarily be without advisers: or the royal prerogative of chusing and dismissing his servants would be otherwise nugatory*. 1807. motion. On the 9th of April, Mr. Brand moved in the Mr. Brand's House of Commons; "that it is contrary to the "first duties of the confidential servants of the 66 66 crown to restrain themselves by any pledge ex pressed or implied from offering to the King any advice, which the course of circunstances may "render necessary for the welfare and security of any part of his Majesty's extensive Empire." On which motion a very warm debate lasted till near seven o'clock in the morning, when the division was 259 for passing to the order of the day, #coming into parliament, he would be an absolute Monarch: that if he could crush a disagreeable bill in embryo, the Bri"tish constitution would have no balance, nor would grievances ever be redressed." But that device for crushing a disagreeable bill in embryo, which Hume's sagacity foresaw, the secret advisers of his Majesty have at last discovered." His Majesty acted with more candor, than his new servants. He scrupled not to admit to Lord Hardwicke, that certain persons had advised him to dismiss his late servants: but they meant very well at any rate, 1807. Duke of tempt on sity of Dub Lin. and 226 for the motion: by which the ministers had a majority of 32. The first novelty of any consequence to Ireland land's at and to the illustration of the system, which occurthe univer- red in this debate, was in the maiden speech of Mr. Plunkett. After having strongly reprobated the dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional conduct of those, who had been so active in raising alarms in the country, he proceeded. "Not sa"tisfied with their placards, &c. an attempt has "been made by the Chancellor of the University "of Dublin (the Duke of Cumberland) to disturb "the peace of that university, by, endeavouring "to procure a petition against the Catholic bill. "Finding (to the honor of that learned body) the "first application unsuccessful, a second had been "sent, in which it was intimated, that, the only 6.6 way to preserve the favor of the royal Duke, was by signing such a petition. He was not aware, whether the latter application took place "after the measure had been abandoned in Par 66 liament, or before. If after, it was a political "scheme to support the new administration: if "while the bill was pending, it was an unconsti"tutional and unwarrantable interference* ” Mr. Plunkett on this oocasion deserved so well of his country, that it is next to a duty to transmit to posterity the quintessence of his speech in that debate. "As well might it be ex pected, that shutting one's eyes would arrest the fall of a body irresistibly impelled by the laws of gravitation, as to suppose, that by inattention to Ireland, the evils, to which he had alluded, would of themselves subside. He spoke in the pre 1807. va!, Mr. Sir Samuel As Mr. Perceval took a leading part in that debate, and is now the prime minister of that admi- Mr. Percenistration, which was then put into power, it will Grattan, & not be irrelevant to the object of this history, to Romilly. remark, that he laid it down as a political axiom, that nothing could be further conceded to the Irish Catholics, without danger to the establishment, and therefore he would never hold out any hopes to them. Mr. Grattan made a long and impressive speech in reply to Mr. Perceval: a single passage of which will give the reader no very imperfect idea of its general tendency. "The whole of that Right Hon. Gentleman's speech laid more stress upon the disposition of the late ministry, than on the principle of the measure. He kept out of view the nature of the difficulties it was likely to remove, and the value of the benefits, it was well calcuated to produce. But the House would recollect that the bill went to create a community of interests amongst those, who were involved in an sence of persons, who were well acquainted with the facts. "What must be the effect of the demand upon the late admi"nistration for a pledge against the Catholics of Ireland? Had " ever such a pledge been before demanded, as it related to any "of the inhabitants of the Empire? The right of the meanest ‚ individual to lay a petition at the foot of the throne has been long established. But here was a restriction on the claims of "millions. This was not a mere novelty; it was a prodigy, an alarming appearance in the constitution. Only unbounded "power, or unerring wisdom could impose such a pledge. "What must the feelings of the Catholics of Ireland be, when told, that the conscience of the Sovereign is, hermetically sealed against them?" 1867. identity of danger: that it proposed to combine an integrity of principle: that whilst it conferred privileges on the Catholic subject, it imparted to the Protestant establishment, the best support against a great menacing enemy, with whom we cannot contend without the integrity of our population." Of all the supporters of Mr. Braud's motion, Sir Samuel Romilly grappled the hardest with it's opponents. He firmly contended, that it was unconstitutional and contrary to the first duties of the confidential servants of the crown to restrain themselves by any pledge express or implied from offering to the King any advice, which circumstances might render necessary for the welfare and security of the Empire, and this brought home the matter to an unanswerable point. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer so much dreaded the responsibility of such advice, that he exposed not only the existence of the secret cabinet, but left his Majesty to all the humiliation and danger of braving the constitution, by assuming to act in the most sacred functions of the state without any advice at all. Thus depriving his people of their constitutional redress against the mischiefs of weak or wicked measures. What could be more degrading to the Sovereign, and unmanly in the servant, than to receive the wages of service, and withdraw from his master the only shield, which could protect him from personal danger and insult? The words of Mr. Perceval, as quoted by Sir Samuel Romilly on this occasion werè. "That to the best of his knowledge and belief, the King |