rose, and adverting to the Resolution which the chairman was about to read, suggested to the Committee, that there would be no necessity for reading the whole of it, as it had been read at the bar, and was merely a recitation of the Letters Patent for opening the Parliament. The right hon. gentleman then observed, that he should not deem it necessary to preface the motion which he was about to make with many observations, as during the whole course of the proceedings, taken on this occasion, the Committee must be aware it would ultimately lead to the one he would now propose. No doubt every gentleman was of opinion, that after the concurrence which had taken place between the two Houses, and after the communications made to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and her Majesty of the Resolutions of the two Houses, that a Resolution would be proposed similar to the one just read at the bar. The course of proceeding adopted in 1789, was exactly in point with that now under consideration; and no part of the precedent was more completely established at that time than this: that under a commission similar in point of form, the parliament was opened, continued to sit, even after the happy period of his Majesty's recovery, and transacted business without any reference to succeed- ing commissions. He trusted therefore, that in making the motion, the Committee would see the policy of acceding to it. He should simply move, "That the Committee do agree with the Resolution brought up from the Lords, ordering the issuing of Letters Patent for a Commission to open the Parliament."

On the question being put,

expressed his astonishment, that on the last day the House met the right hon. gent. should wish for delay, on account of the length to which the debate might be carried, when this day he seemed only anxious to cut it short. The right hon. gent. might have made the proposition on Saturday, if he intended that it should pass sub silentio on his part. The course, however, which he had now taken, appeared to him not a little extraordinary, for he did expect, as reference was made to the precedent of 1788, and as many gentlemen now in parliament had not the honour of seats in the House at that time, that he would have condescended to detail the mode of proceeding so as to have given those gentlemen an idea of it. With respect to this part of the precedent of 1788, he could not agree with the right hon. gent. for he thought the Houses of Parliament stood now in a very different situation. At that time the majority in both Houses was so great as to render opposition useless; besides, a right hon. friend of his had withdrawn from illness, and there were other causes operating which did not authorise gentlemen to make the stand which they now found themselves compelled to make. There was one circumstance which had occurred within the last fourteen days, in another place, which bore him out in his assertion. Did gentlemen recollect how very near the two Houses were differing in opinion upon the subject of the Restrictions to be imposed on the Regent; and if a difference of opinion had actually taken place, would it not have extinguished all the functions of the government? This was deserving of serious consideration; for if it had occurred, he could not see how the right hon. gent. could have provided a remedy for the evil. He defied him to have produced any thing upon earth in the shape of a government according to the constitution of the coutnry. It was impossible that the two Houses could legislate unless there existed somewhere a power to dissolve the parliament, and there was no such power in existence on the occasion to which he had alluded. If, then, this disagreement was so near taking place, might he not fairly presume that in future stages of the bill for settling the Regency, such an occurrence might again take place? If so, then it was the duty of the House to provide a mode of proceeding, likely to extricate them from the irksome situation in which they might possibly be placed. It was not to be denied that the House had usurped and exercised the functions of royalty, and it was desirable that they should hasten to that point in which they must resign their usurped power. It was true that ministers had compelled that usurpation; and better it was that it should be in the hands of one of the branches of the legislature than in their hands, because it was more constitutional. He would not differ with the right hon. gent. as to the expediency of that usurpation. But to what did the deficiency in the execution lead? It was true that lord Grenville, in refusing to obey the order of the Treasury, had done no more than what was right. The deficiency gave an opportunity to ministers to exercise the royal functions when they committed that monstrous and unconstitutional act of seizing upon the King's Exchequer, and issuing the monies therein deposited. This was the danger to be apprehended in tolerating such a principle; because ministers might take upon themselves the whole of the Executive government, and completely subvert the third estate of the realm, by totally extinguishing the kingly power. With this view of the case, it became the House to see which was the best mode of proceeding: whether by the circuitous mode now proposed by the right hon. gent. or by an Address to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to open the parliament. In suggesting this Amendment, (which he did not, however, intend to make) he did not mean to propose, that his Royal Highness should open the parliament as Regent, but as Heir Apparent, until the wisdom of parliament should otherwise provide; consequently, that he should not hold the power longer than until the bill for that purpose should pass. The right hon. gent. it seemed, took it for granted, that lord Eldon would put the Great Seal to the commission, and he, (Mr. S.) did not mean to dispute the fact. But was the right hon. gent. sure that the noble and learned lord would not refuse (from motives of conscience he would suppose) to put the seal to a legislative act after the parliament was opened? Was the right hon. gent. aware, that the noble and learned lord might demur? Did he know that an act passed under such circumstances was in the teeth of the law, High Treason against the Constitution! It had been decided, in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and in Charles the Second's time, that the two Houses cannot legislate without the third estate. Did the right hon. gent. suppose that my lord Thurlow could have put the Great Seal to the Bill? He much doubted whether that great man would have complied. The learned law officers of the Crown opposite had not condescended to illuminate the House lately upon the subject with any of their vast stores of rhetoric and legal learning. What was their opinion of the subject? Besides, there were other circumstances which might arise: the Lord Chancellor might die (such a circumstance had occurred in the reign of Henry VI.); what could the right hon. gent. do upon such an occasion? would he forcibly enter the house of the defunct, and seize upon the Great Seal? There were, indeed, many cases which he might suppose to arise, so as to render the difficulties great. It was well known that Mr. Larpent had from conscientious motives refused to accede to the issue of the Privy Seal in a certain case, because it was against his conscience, viz. against the solemn obligations of his oath. Did the right hon. gent. mean to say, that the Lord Chancellor, because he was keeper of the King's conscience, was not to have a conscience of his own? Indeed, when he recollected the many difficulties that might intervene before the final adjustment of the executive government, he could not do other than suggest to the right hon. gent. the necessity of providing for the worst. Gentlemen must recollect, how nearly the nation was suffering lately in consequence of the overthrow, not of the cabinet, but of the noble and learned lord, and of the right hon. gent. in their carriage on Hounslow Heath. To be sure, though the loss of the right hon. gent. and his noble and learned friend would have been severely felt, still what would the Houses have done for the Great Seal? (A laugh). It was impossible to cast one's eyes over the Daily Journals, and not be afflicted with some such melancholy tidings like the one just described. It was but the other day that the noble and learn- ed lord (so said the Papers) was passing in the street, ruminating and thinking upon the dreadful abyss into which he was about to be plunged (by the recurrence of a calamity which the nation had encountered 22 years before), by doing some such another job as his noble predecessor had done, when he was nearly run over by a coal-waggon. Whether the noble and learned lord was pushed down by a phantom of his own creating or not, he could not determine; but the effect of his ruminations might have been detrimental, if Providence had not interfered, to the interests of his country.—He only alluded to these possible cases to shew in what a situation the country was placed, if the plan of the right hon. gent. was the only right and constitutional mode of proceeding which was left to the two Houses to adopt. He submitted these observations to the right hon. gent., in hopes that he might still adopt that mode of proceeding which he had suggested. It was not his intention to divide the House upon the subject, and therefore he should not put the Amendment to which he had alluded into words. He only submitted to the right hon. gent., that it was not too late still to get into the right road.

, in reply to the observations of the right hon. gent., was not prepared to admit, that the course he had adopted this day was extraordinary, in not opening the proposition more in detail. He appealed to the Committee, whether the ground upon which he postponed the proposition, was not to give an opportunity to that right hon. gent. and his colleagues, to make what he was pleased to denominate "a stand" against the proposition. That was the reason of the postponement; as it was understood by gentlemen on the opposite side, that the length to which the discussion on their part would run, might make it inconvenient to meet on Saturday. With this view, then, he must also be allowed to express his astonishment, that the right hon. gent. in making this "stand" and in suggesting the propriety of another course of proceeding, should have concluded his speech, and sat down without making any Amendment. If the right hon. gent. had condescended to inform the House on Friday, that the course he had now taken was the way in which he meant to make "his stand for the constitution," then he should not have put off the business—(A laugh) thinking, from the specimen which the right hon. gent. had just given, that the necessity for delay had not been made apparent. The right hon. gent. had however, made use of arguments which he begged the Committee would attend to. These arguments, uttered with much force and violence, the right hon. gent. had stated, were used for the purpose of promoting union of sentiment in both Houses: but what, in point of fact, was the effect? Why, to induce the Committee to disagree with the House of Lords—(Hear, hear,); for that was the practical effect of the right hon. gentleman's speech. The right hon. gent. had taken great pains to state the possible inconveniences which might arise to the country in consequence of a difference between the two Houses; and at the moment when the two Houses were agreed, he then suggested a course of proceeding which must indubitably produce that difference. The Committee, then, without any proposition from the right hon. gent. were to be fascinated by his arguments into a difference with the other House. In the name of common sense, he must enter his protest against such arguments. "Let us," said the right hon. gentlemen opposite, "differ from the House of Lords as soon as convenient, and that will be sure to produce harmony!" But what was the course of the right hon. gent.'s speech? why, he, in proceeding, feigned to feel how weak and shallow his arguments were, and in conclusion, instead of supporting manfully the constitution, refused, as he had promised on the Friday preceding, to "make his stand."—(A laugh.) That this was the fair interpretation of the right hon. gent.'s arguments could not be denied.—But then, said the right hon. gent. opposite, "the House is in a different situation to what it stood fourteen days ago, and therefore you had better adopt my suggestion, which, however, I will not follow up myself." Why, the very adoption of the suggestion would tend to produce what the right hon. gent. seemed anxious to avoid; namely, difference of opinion and delay! If any of the difficulties which seemed so much to alarm the right hon. gent. were to arise, and the Prince of Wales was called upon to use the Great Seal, how could he get at it by Address, earlier than by the present mode proposed? Perhaps the right hon. gent. would inform him, as he had the means of communication with his royal highness; but the real question was, whether it would be more respectful to the Prince of Wales, to invest his royal highness with the powers of government, by Bill, or by Address? For his part, he did apprehend the more respectful way would be by Bill, especially as the Princes of the Blood had, from motives of delicacy, desired their names not to be included in the Commission for opening the Parliament. Would the Committee think it more decorous that the act should be done by his royal highness alone? With respect to what the right hon. gent. had said about the reluctance of my lord Thurlow to put the Great Seal to an act of the two Houses, it was not, in his opinion, necessary to inquire what that noble and learned lord would have done in 1788; but he believed that it was not likely that the then Lord Chancellor would have let the proceedings have gone so far as to make it necessary, if he had the doubts, to refuse the Great Seal to an act, which, under circumstances like the present, the two Houses of Parliament had judged expedient should be passed into law. The noble and learned lord, he could not believe, would have so conducted himself; it might have happened that if the health of his Majesty should be so far recovered as to induce hopes of a restoration to the functions of government in a moderate time, then he might think it necessary to come to parliament and state his opinion and his reason for demurring to put the Great Seal. But for the right hon. gent. to suppose that any noble and learned lord holding that high official situation, would refuse, was supposing too much. Greatly as he respected the abilities of that great character, he would not even suppose such a case: he would not believe it either of that noble lord or of his noble friend the present Chancellor. The right hon. gent. could not seriously mean to suppose that his noble friend would intend to defeat or defraud the constitution. As to the other fanciful cases of death put by the right hon. gent., he did not feel himself justified in anticipating more difficulties than the Houses really experienced; but if such a serious calamity should occur, he should have no difficulty in proposing the remedy. Without stating that remedy now, it would be enough for him to say, "that sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." (Hear! hear!) The Resolution now proposed to be adopted, he trusted was such as the Committee would not hesitate to sanction.

, in explanation, denied that he ever intended to divide the House. He had on Friday distinctly stated, that he should make his stand, by which he meant that he would enter his protest against the measure. With respect to the force and violence which the right hon. gentleman imputed to him, that force and violence was, in fact, produced by the right hon. gentleman himself; for he would appeal to the Committee, whether his speech was not a mere milk and water speech compared with that which the right hon. gentleman had let forth and exhausted without any provocation. Before he proceeded further, he must pause to notice an observation of the right hon. gentleman's, implying that he, (Mr. S.) was understood to have the means of access and communication with his royal highness the Prince of Wales, accompanied with an insinuation, that his opinions declared in that House were in some measure to be received as having had his Royal Highness's sanction. With respect to access or communication, the right hon. gentleman, perhaps, forgot that he had the honour of being a servant of his Royal Highness's, a higher honour he never wished to aspire to—and that he was also one of his council, and that when he became so, he had taken precisely the same oath as he had taken when he became a privy counsellor to his Majesty. This he applied only to the presumed access and communication, which he hoped would justify both, independently of the protecting friendship with which his Royal Highness had condescended to honour him for so many years, and which formed the first pride of his life. But, with respect to the insinuations that what fell from him in that House, was entitled in any respect to be considered as the sentiments of his Royal Highness, he felt himself bound most seriously and solemnly to deny any such construction. He was confident that his Royal Highness had too just and constitutional notions to dictate opinions to any member of that House: and he should feel himself guilty of the utmost arrogance, if he allowed it for one moment to be thought that he had the presumption to permit it to be considered that any thing he uttered in his place in that House, was meant to be regarded as conveying the sentiments of the illustrious person alluded to. He spoke his sentiments in the House of Commons as a free and individual member of it, and he trusted upon as independent a principle as any other member belonging to it. The right hon. gentleman had argued as if he had committed a gross inconsistency, in first deprecating and expressing a desire to guard against the possibility of coming to an open difference with the House of Lords, and in consequence of this apprehension advising a rejection of a Resolution which had passed that House. He begged leave to remind the right hon. gentleman that he had endeavoured chiefly to impress upon the House, that having come to certain Resolutions, and adopted certain Restrictions on the power which they were about to confer, it had now to determine upon the best mode of rendering those measures most complete and effectual. The learned and right hon. gentleman had told them, that if they pursued the plan which he recommended, the same objection would apply, as the Great Seal would even then be affixed by authority emanating from the two Houses. Surely, however, the right hon. gentleman had forgotten the history of the country, and the numerous instances in which, without the use of the Great Seal, acts of sovereignty had been performed. It had been admitted that an equal validity might be made to attach to a similar exercise of power by his Royal Highness. King William was addressed by the Convention, who after offering him the Declaration of Rights, were dissolved, and a legitimate parliament immediately called. He should feel much regret if it could for a moment be believed that in any thing he had said that night, he had reflected on the noble and learned lord who held the Great Seal. So far from having any such intention, he felt the highest respect for the professional and private character of that noble person, whom he believed to be as competent to his high office as any of his predecessors who had ever sat in the other House. With respect to the right hon. gentleman's incredulity of what he had said of lord Thurlow, it was to be remembered that he referred only to the act of parliament, not to the commission for opening parliament. He had reason to persist in his persuasion of the scruples and difficulties which that noble and learned lord would have been sensible of on the occasion of affixing the Great Seal, in order to give the royal sanction to a legislative act. The right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to put the question in a new light, by asking, if it would be a proceeding respectful to the Prince of Wales, to propose that he should do that which his royal brothers had unanimously declined to do, in withdrawing their names from the commissions? He was ready to acknowledge the ingenuity of the right hon. gentleman, but could not help feeling surprised that he should have studiously evaded answering the legal objections which he had thrown out for his consideration. He had quite forgotten to say a word on the subject of those statutes which made it even treasonable to assert an exclusive right of legislating on the part of the two Houses. He was not particularly disposed to hold cheap the law of the right hon. gentleman, and was ready to say, that in his late allusion to Reubel, when designating the present Ministry as a Directory, he had not meant any thing offensive to his feelings. He was among those who entertained a high respect for the amiable qualities and private virtues of that right hon. gentleman, and could easily conceive how possible it was for him to forget his law in the multitude of his political avocations, and in the pressure of those great exigencies, which he was bound to provide for in managing the state in all its departments—not omitting the Exchequer—(A laugh.) He seemed to have sanguinely expected that lord Grenville, upon his assurance of indemnity, would have complied with his order, but lord Grenville, on wisely applying to the Attorney and Solicitor General, discovered that the indemnity was worth nothing, and that the right hon. gentleman was not infallible, at least as a legal authority. A parliament, he recollected, had once existed which excluded lawyers from sitting in it, who in revenge named it the "Parliamentum indoctum." If this appellation was justly applied, it was impossible to deny that the present parliament might be fairly entitled "Parliamentum super doctum." (A laugh). Indeed, the only question was, whether the House, or at least the country, had not too much of a good thing, in having a Cabinet composed principally of lawyers.

The Resolution was agreed to, and the House being resumed, the Report was received, and a Conference ordered with the Lords on the subject.

then observed, that as the Conference might be obtained, early, to-morrow, he saw no obstacle to open the commission on the same day; and on Wednesday the Bill might be brought in and read a first time. If, however, he should experience any diffi- culty in accomplishing this, he should have no objection to read the Bill twice on Thursday, and to expedite its progress with all practicable dispatch. He begged also to remark, that as it might be imagined that the Call of the House would not be imperative after opening the Commission, he should move to-morrow that the Call be enforced on Thursday next.

suggested, that the commencement of the quarter-session on Wednesday next, might render it impossible for many members to attend on Thursday.

said, that he should regret the absence of any member on such an occasion, but he did not see that it furnished any sufficient ground for retarding the proceedings of the House.—Adjourned.