Mr. Pitt still declared himself averse from the principle of the motion, let it assume any shape it might; because he considered it as a palpable interference of the House with the promotions of the navy; he should therefore persist in giving it his decided negative. After some further conversation the House divided: YEAS Tellers. 5 Sir M. W. Ridley { NOES Marquis of Graham. } Mr. Fenton Cawthorne So it passed in the negative. } 83 100 Sir M. W. Ridley was so far from wish-pensed with, the constitution of the Leing to interfere with the executive go-gislature must be annihilated; and he vernment, that with the leave of the House thought that the forms were destroyed, by he would withdraw his motion, and make the Address being passed on a subject another in still more general terms. He before that subject was determined. For accordingly moved, "That an humble Ad- this Address having been passed after dress be presented to his Majesty, that certain resolutions had passed, and prehis Majesty will be graciously pleased to vious to a Bill being brought in founded take the meritorious services and sufferings upon those resolutions, the House were of captain David Brodie into his royal precluded from exercising their right of consideration; and that his Majesty will decision on the subject; and the words of be pleased to confer some mark of his the Address containing not only an aproyal favour on the said captain Brodie, probation, but a pledge, of using the as to his Majesty shall seem proper." earliest means of carrying the Treaty into effect, he thought the intention was to preclude Parliament from the exercise of their opinions, with which they were invested by the constitution. With respect to the system of this parliamentary form, as to its efficient political principle, he should observe, that the modes of passing bills, both in this and the other House, were certainly very deliberate. They might indeed, in the opinion of some, be considered as tedious; but those gentlemen who entertained such sentiments betrayed their rashness and inexperience. He did not mean to say what were the forms of the other House; he had never studied them, and was therefore not so well acquainted with them as with those of the House of Commons. In the latter, the form of passing a bill of such importance as the present, there were several stages. A bill relating to commerce or finance, was, 1st, moved for in a committee; 2nd, that committee reported; 3d, leave was given to bring in a bill; 4th, the bill was read a first time; 5th, a second time; 6th, committed; 7th, reported; 8th, read a third time; and 9th, passed; besides two other stages of lesser consideration, the engrossment, and the motion for leaving the chair. The reason of these different stages was in order to give Parliament so many different opportunities of considering the tendency of the measure before they finally gave it their concurrence. This caution was therefore exceedingly wise; for nothing required more deliberation than laws enacted for the welfare, protection, and government of the people; and therefore it became their constitutional guardians, their representatives, to be exceedingly cautious of adopting any measure which might tend to preclude them from the free and unlimited exercise of their judgments, on every subject in which the interests of the country were essentially concerned. It Debate on Mr. Fox's Motion respecting the Nature and Extent of Parliamentary Addresses to the King.] March 7. In pursuance of the notice he had given, Mr. Fox rose for the purpose of making a motion concerning the nature and extent of Parliamentary Addresses to the Crown. He said, that he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to a few remarks which he must beg leave to make on a recent occurrence, in which, at least in his conception, were most essentially involved the established rights of Parliament, and the best interests of the nation. The matter to which he alluded was the Address which that House had thought proper to vote on the Commercial Treaty. [See p. 469]. The time at which this Address was moved and passed tended, in his mind, to subvert the forms of Parliament, and thereby to destroy the legislative authority, the spirit of the constitution, and, consequently the dearest privileges of the nation. On the preservation of the forms of Parliament the security of the laws depended. No part of the constitution had been more tenaciously preserved than the forms by which all laws were enacted. If the forms were dis was with this view that he meant to submitness, frequently mentioned the Treaty of to them, before he sat down, his motion; Utrecht. He should now beg leave to for he was clearly of opinion, that the ad- mention that subject again, as it tended to dress which the House had lately voted to illustrate what he had to propose to the his Majesty was an infringement of the House. Had the ministry of that day free, unbiassed, and unrestrained exercise voted an address to queen Anne, and in of their judgment. After the business it induced Parliament to pledge themhad been only four or five days before selves to carry the said treaty into effect Parliament, and in its second stage, the at the time of its progress through the House had absolutely come to a vote House, as they had on the present occawhich precluded them from giving any sion, the consequence must have been opinion in the subsequent stages through the passing of the commercial part of the which the treaty was to pass; and thus, Treaty into a law; for it was only by not whatever their sentiments were, or might doing it that this evil had been avoided. be, they could not prove availing. Having During the first stages of the considerapledged themselves to his Majesty to take tion of that Treaty in parliament, there all early and possible means of carrying was no material opposition. On the conthe said treaty into effect, they were re- trary, it passed through the committee, duced to a very unpleasant dilemma, either and was reported by very considerable to let the treaty pass, however repugnant majorities. But, in the subsequent stages, its principles, or subject themselves to the information was obtained, objections were charge of having given a faithless promise made, and the majority of Parliament very to his Majesty. This was of all situations wisely rejected it, as a measure that the most to be avoided. It was derogatory threatened the whole commercial interest to that sacred faith which should be pre- of the country almost with annihilation. served, and that respect which they should❘ Happy, therefore, it was, that the minisentertain in all concerns either of ad- try of that day did not bring a motion for dresses or promises to the sovereign. As an address to her Majesty before Parliato the plea that no necessity existed for ment, when the majorities of the House adhering to the accustomed parliamentary were so much in favour of the Treaty. If forms in the present transaction, he could they had, the address would certainly not see any principle in the Commercial have passed, and the country would have Treaty which could authorize Parliament been ruined. To this he attributed all to let it pass with less inquiry and cir- the subsequent prosperity and glory we cumspection than even the most ordinary had acquired. To the rejection of the concerns. On the contrary, it was a sub- commercial part of the Treaty that great ject, which, of all others, required the queen owed her highest honours, if not most deliberate investigation. Besides, her regal dignities. being a commercial question, it became such a subject that the Parliament had thought it expedient even to add two more stages to the investigation than what were adopted on ordinary concerns. The committee of the whole House and the report were added by a resolution of Parliament in the year 1772. Thus, not only the invariable custom of ancient times envinced the necessity of giving every possible opportunity for the House to consider most maturely the tendency of any bill in its different stages; but the opinion of modern times had been, that it was necessary to increase the stages of inquiry on a subject of such importance. With regard to himself, he had been censured for repeatedly recurring to one subject. But this was a species of censure which he should treat with contempt. This was the case in the present instance. He had, during the progress of this busi Mr. Fox now adverted to the manner in which the bill for carrying the Treaty into effect had been connected with that for the consolidation of the customs. This, he observed, had likewise a close relation to the subject on which he had been troubling the House. By this vote of address, the lords in the other House would not have an opportunity of exercising their judgments in the passing of the Bill to which he alluded. Besides, as it was connected with the consolidation of the customs, they were even precluded, by this means, from exercising the only right they had-with respect to a money bill-of adopting or rejecting it. If they were disposed to reject the consolidation bill, they could not, as it was connected with a subject they had pledged themselves to carry into effect. And if they were disposed to alter any parts of the Commercial Treaty, with regard to any matter in their power, they could not, as it formed part of a money bill; and thus was the exercise of their lordships rights fettered by the address, and by uniting these two subjects. This address, too, would entirely prevent the House from adopting any system that might hereafter be settled with respect to Portugal, if such system deviated from that established in the Treaty with France. We had, therefore, not only deprived ourselves of the privilege of exercising our opinions and discretion, with regard to the Treaty itself; but we had likewise deprived ourselves of the privilege of exercising any opinion or decision on pending treaties with foreign powers, if they did not happen perfectly to coincide with the one negociated with France. particular pledges. They contained, in general terms, an offer of their lives and properties in support of the measures then prosecuting. But how did such addresses differ from the present? Instead of containing a general disposition or approbation of a treaty being formed with France, it contained a specific assurance that the particulars of the Treaty should be carried into effect. What was this but interfering in the most unconstitutional manner with the rights of the Legislature? What had the House done in agreeing to such an address? They had even given a sacred promise to Majesty, which it was not in their power to give. No opinion, at least no assurance could be given, that any measure should be carried into effect while it was depending in parliament. For there was no stage of any bill passing through that House, in which Parliament could assure any one that it should pass until the last stage. Then a decided assurance might be given, and not before. Thus had Parliament by this Address, given his Majesty an assurance, which they could not give consistently with the principles of law, legislation, and the constitution. They were likewise so situated, that all future proceedings in this business would be nugatory. They had dispensed with their own privileges; and however inimical they might find, on more mature consideration, and more complete information than they had before been able to obtain, the tendency of it to injure the prosperity of the commerce, the existence of the navigation, and the preservation of the constitution-yet they must carry the Treaty into effect. They had pledged themselves to their Sovereign; and if they did not mean to couch a faithless promise under a solemn assurance to his Majesty, they could not recede from their vote. This was the predicament to which they Mr. Fox now made some observations on the manner in which the Court of France had depended on the ratification of this Treaty. They had stated in the convention" as soon as it had received the sanction of the law." But to receive this sanction of the law, it must be submitted to all those forms and investigations which constituted our laws. And as the address prevented this possibility, the Treaty could not be said to have the sanction of the law. How, then, could the French Court expect it to be ratified? He consequently thought that the address had absolutely destroyed the legal possibility of the Treaty being so carried into effect as to admit of a ratification. To have the sanction of our laws, as he before observed, it was necessary that it should pass every form of parliament. But if that House was precluded from giving their opinions, whatever forms or stages it might pass through, they could be of no effect with regard to legal efficiency. In this point of view, he thought the address absolutely destructive of the intention for which it was professedly moved; for that of carry-were reduced by this premature proceeding the subject as immediately into effect as possible. For nothing could have the efficiency of law that was not properly submitted to those forms which the constitution prescribed for the making of such laws. ing. And in what manner to rescue themselves from either of these alternatives he knew not. But in order to relieve them as far as it was possible from their embarrassing situation, he would offer a protest, or motion, whereby the House would Mr. Fox next adverted to the nature declare they were not bound by any Adof addresses to his Majesty. There were dress to the Throne from deliberating and two modes in which such addresses were acting in its legislative capacity; nor that necessary and serviceable. These were the subject was in any degree prevented with regard to negociation and the pro- from petitioning the House in consequence secution of war. In both these instances, of such address. This, he said, would addresses strengthened the effort of Go- be a declaration of right; and would tend vernment. But then they contained no to do away the unconstitutional effects of the address. He accordingly moved, "That no Address from this House to the Throne can, in any degree, bind or pledge this House, in its legislative capacity, or bar the subjects' right of petitioning this House, upon any bill depending in Parliament, although such bill be founded upon, and conformable to such Address, previously agreed to by the House." Mr. Pitt said, that he had waited with anxiety for the arrival of the day on which the right hon. gentleman would make his promised motion, having no small curiosity to learn by what sort of arguments he would support it. He had listened with the utmost attention, and would venture to declare that there had not been the smallest occasion for the wonderful display of the eloquence and abilities of the right hon. gentleman to prove one part of his argument, and that even the eloquence of an angel could not have successfully maintained the other. The right hon. gentleman had exerted all his talents to labour two separate points. One a mere child would have been able to argue, because it was on the face of it a self-evident truism, and what no person either had, or would deny it was, that the House could not so far commit itself as to deprive itself of the free exercise of its deliberative powers, to incapacitate the Speaker from putting a question on a bill, yet to be brought in, on any one stage of it, or impede and embarrass the full and free discussion of the principle of the bill, or prevent, if necessary, its final rejection. The other point was impracticable, even by his eloquence, because no mortal eloquence could attain it. It was to persuade the House that by their late address to his Majesty, it had itself resigned its rights, that it had itself surrendered its functions, that it had itself abandoned its deliberative powers, and given up all claim to the free exercise of them, and that, in fine, it had itself violated the constitution. On the first of these points he would not take up the time of the House in making any observations. He allowed it to the right hon. gentleman in its fullest extent, and let him see what deductions he could make from it. To the second he must observe, that he did not, for one, conceive himself committed by the address; nor did, he was satisfied, those gentlemen who gave Government their support, feel themselves so far pledged, but that if the general opinion were totally adverse to the Treaty, if any new information arose or any new ar gument of weight on the old information, they might alter their decision. All the Address went to say was, that the House had taken the Treaty into their most serious consideration, and that so far they approved of it-not however, by any means surrendering their right of future discussion, or even rejection of the Bill in any of its stages. The right hon. gentleman had argued, that in addition to the ordinary forms of a bill, every act relative to matters of commerce, must go through a committee of the whole House, and be reported from that committee. He had asserted that the Bill was already pledged for, and the House committed in, the first, second, or third stage. As to the committee of the House, he had already stated his sentiments; and as to the number of stages, so wisely provided by our ancestors, the House would observe, so far from retrenching, he had, in fact, added two new stages; and these were the address and the report of that address; so that, instead of weakening the constitutional right of that House to full, frequent, and deliberative discussion, he had, to the utmost of his power, strengthened and maintained it. The right hon. gentleman had, by a strange fatality, referred constantly to the Treaty of Utrecht, and seemed to imagine that as that Treaty was, like the present, at first received favourably by the House, so might the present, in the end, like that Treaty, be demolished. He would just beg leave to state the history of that Treaty. It was not announced to that House or to the nation, until the 9th of May 1713; on the 14th, the first reading of the Bill, it was carried through the House by a large majority; but the outcry of the nation becoming more and more strong against it, on the 19th of June following it was finally lost on the report. Did the conduct of the present ministers bear any analogy to this? In October last, the Commercial Treaty with France was before the public; from that time to this it had been open to discussion and objection. The ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman, and the industry of the gentlemen who surrounded him, had been exerted to prejudice the minds of the people, and conjure up objections against the Treaty in vain. No objections had appeared during the course of five months it was now March-did that look like a dread in ministers that the Treaty would not bear inspection, or did it resemble a wish to to take the House by surprise, and draw it into a premature pledge to the future Bill, before they had time to examine its contents? The right hon. gentleman had said, that the House by pledging itself to the address, had pledged itself to pass certain future specific bills; and that his Majesty, in his answer, would probably express his approbation of their intention, and that such a circumstance would be a direct infringement of the principles of our constitution, in that the executive power thus interfered, and took cognizance of, and influenced the discussion of the House. To that assertion he must give an absolute denial. What did the address say? It told his Majesty, that the House had received the Treaty, which he had ordered to be laid before them; that they had examined, and, as far as they at present could judge, approved it, and were disposed to carry it into effect by certain laws. His Majesty might, in his answer, say he was glad to find they approved it. What did that tell the House? It conveyed his Majesty's approbation of-what? The very treaty which he had made himself, and recommended to their notice in his Speech from the Throne. The right hon. gentleman might as well assert his Majesty's Speech on opening the session to be a violation of the spirit of the constitution, as well as the answer to the address; for one was as much a mode of influencing the proceedings of the House and controlling the freedom of debate as the other. The right hon. gentleman had, with as much warmth as if it were introductory of an impeachment, challenged any man to produce an instance of such an interposition of the Crown. What would the right hon. gentleman say, if instances were produced, and that, too, in an æra which even he would admit to be the best of all possible times, as these were, in his opinion the worst? Every man formed his own judgment as to which were the best and which the worst of times; and the expression of the worst of times might to him appear rather too severe, were it not that the words admitted of some latitude of interpretation; and it was to be remembered, that the worst of times in the right hon. gentleman's interpretation meant those times in which he was under the mortifying necessity of dividing with a minority. The precedents he meant to allude to, however, were in the best of times; upon recollection, he ought to beg pardon-not the best of all possible times, but the best, except one, of all possible times;-at the period when the right hon. gentleman was Secretary of State for the first time, before he had extended his base and formed those connexions which introduced the second auspicious æra. It appeared on the Journals of the House, that, in the year 1782, in consequence of a message from his Majesty by Mr. Secretary Fox, the House passed two resolutions, and addressed the King relative to the jealousy that subsisted between this and the sister kingdom, which Resolutions and Address contained a promise of the repeal of the 6th of George I.; and on those Resolutions and that Address, and antecedent to the repeal of the positive statute, there had been a minister found hardy enough not only to advise his Majesty to testify his approbation of the intention of the House, signified in the said Resolutions, but which were not communicated to the Throne, but absolutely, officially to communicate such intention through the chan nel of the Lord-lieutenant to the parliament of Ireland, which, in their Address in return, recognized and admitted such a declaration. Here was a manifest interposition of the Crown, testifying under the auspices and by the advice of the right hon. gentleman to another legislature, the intention of the legislature of this country; and this at a time when they had not testified it themselves. After this, what became of the apprehension of the right hon. gentleman for the constitution of the country, and the privileges of this House? Upon the whole, what did the arguments go to prove? The right hon. gentleman had told the individual members of the House, that it was committed and concluded by their Address; and therefore, he moved a resolution, stating, that the House collectively was not committed and concluded; but as a great and a very respectable majority did not feel themselves tied down in the manner described by the right hon. gentleman, and therefore could not admit the necessity of the motion; he would move, in order to negative the whole, to prefix the following words by way of amendment; viz. "That it is necessary to declare, &c." Mr. Bastard said, that the resolutions of 1782 were merely resolutions of their own, uncommunicated by them to the Sovereign, and liable to be rescinded by subsequent resolutions; and that the precedents from the Journals of the Irish parliament could not be considered as precedents for the direction of that House. |