wished to inquire of the hon. member for Clare whether a letter which had appeared in the Irish newspapers, bearing his signature, and commenting in the grossest terms, on the conduct of certain Members of that House, had really emanated from him? [Order.]

The Speaker inquired whether the hon. Member (Mr O'Brien) was about to move a breach of privilege?

Mr. O'Brien replied in the negative.

—Then the hon. Gentleman must give notice of motion. If the hon. Member intends to complain of any breach of privilege, by misrepresentation in the debates, or otherwise, as regarded the proceedings of that House, and published in a newspaper, the paper containing the offensive article must be produced, and then the House could order the editor or proprietor of the newspaper so offending against the rules of that House to attend at the bar.

said, that he understood the hon. member for Clare (Mr. O'Brien) merely intended to draw the attention of the House to certain offensive passages in a letter written by the other hon. member for the same county (Mr. O'Connell) in which the characters of some hon. Members had been traduced. The hon. Member was about to submit, he believed, a question whether the attack on the Members he had referred to was not a breach of privilege.

said, such a proceeding would lead to a debate, and there was no question before the House. The hon. Member could give notice of Motion on the subject if he thought proper.

presented a Petition from a parish in the county of Galway, relative to Grand Jury assessments in Ireland. He would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the state of starvation existing at the present moment in various parts of Ireland. He had received a letter from a Roman Catholic Priest of the county of Clare, in which he described the wretched state of the people in that part of the country. [The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from the letter, in which it was stated that the miserable inhabitants were obliged to subsist on the nettles growing in the churchyards, and had asked permission to gather the weeds from off the graves.] Notwithstanding this appalling state, the inhabitants had manifested the greatest forbearance, and had committed no act of depredation.

expressed his surprise, when the distress in Ireland was so great, that the hon. member for Clare should have chosen that very moment for promulgating his tenets on the currency. Advising the people to exchange their paper for gold could not but add very materially to the present state of distress, and produce alarm and ruin throughout the whole country, which, in fact, appeared to be the primary object of the hon. Member, and nothing but the good sense of the people had prevented that result. If ever the wisdom and influence of a patriot ought to be exercised for the relief of a country, it was at the present moment; but the hon. Member had used his influence to add to the miseries of the people, and appeared to sport in the ruinous consequence he had produced. No artifice had been left unused—no stratagem left untried by the hon. Member, which he thought could create confusion and disturbance in that country. [The hon. Member was proceeding to comment on the conduct of Mr. O'Connell, when he was stopped by loud calls of "Question."] He then observed that he would not proceed further, but he felt bound to make these remarks in consequence of seeing his name, in conjunction with that of another hon. Member, held up to the scorn and contempt of the country; he must condemn the system of one Member traducing the character of another, and the infamous species of calumnious intimidation practised with respect to him, to which the hon. Member owed his great influence over the lower order of the Irish people.

Petition laid on the Table.

spoke as follows:—Sir, I now rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to that part of the most gracious Message of his Majesty which expresses a hope that this House will make temporary provision for the conduct of the public service in the interval which must elapse between the termination of the present Session and the assembling of a new Parliament. But I cannot proceed to the performance of that duty without expressing, so far as an individual can presume to express, my deep sense of the considerate and respectful forbearance with which the House was pleased yesterday to limit its proceedings to that part of the Address which related to condolence and congratulation, and unanimously to refuse to enter upon the consideration of anything which could provoke angry debate, or lead to the expression of a difference of opinion. Sir, upon the recent demise of the Crown, there necessarily devolved upon the Ministers a duty of giving advice to his Majesty as to the course which it was fitting for him to pursue for the despatch of public business. The House is, no doubt, aware that, by an ancient law of this country, the demise of the Crown necessarily terminated the existence of Parliament. The reason assigned for that by Blackstone is, that the King, being the head and soul of Parliament—its "caput, principium, et finis"—the demise of the Crown put an end to the proceedings and existence of Parliament, and it was not till the reign of King William that any alteration was made in the law in that respect. By an Act of that Sovereign (the 7th and 8th William and Mary), it was provided, that the demise of the Crown, during the existence of Parliament, should not necessarily terminate its existence, but that it might continue to sit, unless expressly prorogued or dissolved, for six months after such demise. The preamble to that Act sufficiently sets out the causes of it; stating, amongst other things, "the dangers likely to accrue upon the demise of the Crown from the invasion of foreign enemies, or the conspiracies of evil and wickedly-disposed persons at home." And the alteration in that law, no doubt, had relation to the peculiar circumstances of those times, and the danger which then existed of a disputed succession to the Throne of this country. It has been said that this was a temporary Act; but, from all that I can understand of the matter, I am disposed to believe it was intended to be a permanent measure; and the more firmly, because I find it repeated, almost in the same terms, and re-enacted by the subsequent Statutes of Queen Anne. But, Sir, whatever may have been the circumstances of that precedent, and whether the provident precaution then taken, of allowing the Parliament, notwithstanding the demise of the Crown, to continue to sit, provided the circumstances of the country required its uninterrupted deliberations, was or was not expedient, is not now the question: the question now is, whether or no, in the present state of public business, and referring to the proceedings incident to the demise of the Crown, and the accession of a new Sovereign, it is more advisable to dissolve the present Parliament, or to continue to sit for the consideration and despatch of such public business as is now unfinished? This is the question, and, Sir, after the most mature consideration of it in all its bear- ings, the Ministers, whose duty it is to advise the Crown, have come to a conclusion that they best discharge that duty by recommending the course pointed out by this Message. The question, then, which I have now to put to the House is this—will it accede to the suggestion made by the Crown, of making provision corresponding with the present state of affairs? This is a question which I propose for its immediate consideration. Sir, I think there can be no question that, though circumstances may seem to prove that it is necessary, nay almost advisable, that Parliament should continue its deliberations, yet, upon the whole, much inconvenience must arise from its continued sittings, particularly when it is recollected that the period of its natural dissolution—namely, six months—is not very far distant. I would also put it to Gentlemen whether the giving a longer time to canvass for elections would not be attended with the greatest inconvenience, and very great expense—for we all know that these long preparations produce no good; they do not facilitate, on the contrary they impede, the free and unbiassed expression of opinion by the electors; and the appeals thus made, and of necessity often repeated, within a large space of time, must have, not a beneficial, but a mischievous and corrupting influence. I hold it too, Sir, that it would expose Members of the existing Parliament, who are obliged to attend to their duties here, to an unfair disadvantage, as compared with their opponents—candidates for public favour, who, having no business to distract them, will be enabled to apply the whole of their attention to the subject, and to seek means of support which those others have not. These considerations, and the advantage of being personally on the spot canvassing their constituents, must either work injuriously towards the sitting Members, if they attend their duties in Parliament, or they will affect most mischievously the public business, should Gentlemen be selfish enough to yield to them, and absent themselves. And hence it is, that in former periods, when Parliament continued to sit under circumstances like the present, there was a constant complaint of the insufficiency of the attendance of Members, and there are frequent entries in the Journals of those days, of orders made upon Members themselves, urging their return to town, or upon Sheriffs and returning officers, calling upon them to return them. Upon all these grounds, I think it cannot be denied, that unless there be some special circumstances which require the immediate intervention of Parliament, it will be, upon the whole, most conducive to the convenience of Gentlemen themselves, most beneficial to the public, and most fair and impartial towards the parties contending for the voices of their constituents, to acknowledge, at the very earliest period we can, consistent with the public business, that the prerogative of the Crown ought to be exercised upon this occasion, and that a new Parliament ought to be called. I am aware that, since Queen Anne's reign, instances have occurred of a different course pursued in the reigns of the Monarchs who immediately succeeded her. I am aware that it has been usual to send a Message to this House, proposing, without delay, the arrangement of the Civil List, and that such arrangements were, in fact, made before any prorogation or dissolution took place. But let it be borne in mind that the constitution of the Civil List was different then from what it now is; that the Sovereign was then in possession of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and that the sum to be voted by Parliament was exactly the difference between the actual amount of the Civil List, and the sum of the charges upon it. It is also true, that the time devoted to the discussion of this subject, up to the accession of George 3rd was not of such a length as, in modern times, so great and important a measure would be thought to require. The bill, for instance, which settled the Civil List upon George 1st was passed through both Houses with an expedition little known now-a-days. Queen Anne died on the 1st of August, 1714, and the bill for settling the Civil List upon her successor was brought into the House on the 12th of August; it was passed through all its stages with great rapidity and little comment; upon the 17th it was taken up to the Lords, returned again upon the 19th, and Parliament was prorogued on the 25th of the same month of August. The periods, therefore, in which Parliament proceeded to regulate the Civil List, upon the demise of the Crown, before the Parliament was dissolved, cannot, I conceive, be referred to as authorities for our guidance now. It is, I am persuaded, the concurrent and unanimous feeling of the country that, in making a settlement of the Civil List upon the present King, under circumstances differing so entirely from those of the late reign, it is desirable that the Ministers, upon whom the responsibility of advising the measure rests, should have the fullest opportunity of maturely considering it in all its points; and that the Members of this House, who are to sanction such arrangements, should also have the fullest opportunities of weighing and deliberating upon them. Sir, it is to be considered that we have to arrange and settle the Civil Lists of three different parts of the empire, or, rather, the three Civil Lists of England, Scotland, and Ireland. A committee which sat upon this subject in 1815—fifteen years ago—gave some general recommendations with respect to the appropriation of the Civil List to the Prince, then unrestricted Regent, which were closely followed when his Royal Highness succeeded to the Throne; but, at the same time, it is impossible not to admit that there are several circumstances connected with the subject which would admit of additional improvement. I would mention, for instance, several of the public Officers of State, who receive their salaries partly from the Civil List and partly from the Consolidated Fund. The Judges are so paid; so are some of the officers of the Treasury, the expense and charge being defrayed from both sources. Indeed I cannot put the case more strongly than in the instance of my right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives his official emoluments from five different sources, partly from the Civil List, part from the Consolidated Fund of this country, part from the Consolidated Fund of Ireland, part from other funds arising out of the commutation of fees, and partly from other transactions in his office. It is desirable that this condition of the Civil List should be amended, and all charges upon it consolidated. But, adverting to the period which must elapse before Government can prepare any well-digested plan for arranging the Civil List—adverting to the time which Parliament must, of necessity, take in considering that plan—I do not think that the former precedent—a precedent, too, taken from the earliest period, immediately, after the death of Queen Anne, by whom the bill was passed—ought to be binding on us; and thinking, therefore that there will be more advantage in postponing the Civil List to a future occasion, than in pressing it on now, and keeping Parliament sitting for several weeks, with all the inconveniences of haste in the measure, and expense to the Members, we propose to follow the later precedent of 1820, as the safest course. Sir, it is not that Ministers have any doubt that the present Parliament would make a just provision for his Majesty, for, while Members are naturally and justly desirous of curtailing the public expenses, yet they would not be deterred by the fear of meeting their constituents, from making a just and liberal provision for the Crown. We know they would consider that the interests of the State were blended with the ease and splendor of the Monarch, and they would find it a pleasure, as well as feel it a duty to the country, to make such a provision,—not regardless of economy—but ample, as would maintain the dignity of the Throne. It is not, therefore, from any distrust in the present Parliament, that we do not now lay before it the arrangements of the Civil List for the new reign, but solely upon the ground that there is not time enough for the adequate consideration of these matters, consistently with their importance, and the claims of other business. I have, Sir, already said that we have decided upon following the precedent of 1820, but there were many circumstances in that case which do not apply to the present. In 1820 his late Majesty ascended the Throne, after having been unrestricted Regent for a number of years, and there was, therefore, no change in the person of the Sovereign. In 1820 the Parliament, which had been elected under the Regency of the Prince, afterwards George 4th, had already sat one year and six months, and the demise of the Crown took place the last day of January, at the very period when, under ordinary circumstances, we should be beginning the Parliamentary Session. But the demise of the Crown has now taken place under very different circumstances. The present Parliament has sat, not a year and six months, but four years. There is also a complete change in the person of his Majesty, who was never till now called, like the late King, to exercise any of the prerogatives of the Crown. The demise of the Crown has not taken place at the commencement, but at the end, of the Session, and after five months of, I won't say successful, but certainly unremitting and severe labours. It has occurred, too, at a period when some interval between, the past and future labours is so desirable, not so much for the personal convenience of Members as for the better despatch of public business. Keeping therefore the precedent of 1820 before us, we propose to imitate it, so far as the different circumstances of the two periods will allow; and it will be at once perceived that in the present case, there are more reasons for an immediate dissolution than in 1820. There can be no doubt but that it is competent to the House to sit and transact business, and, if there were any necessity for its continuing to sit, I am sure no feeling of personal inconvenience would induce us to rise, or to forego the consideration of the matters necessary to the public interests. Sir, I will not say, even for the purposes of debate, that this question is free from all difficulty, or that it is one to which we may at once come to a conclusion, without regarding any previous difficulties. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brougham), and some other Members, made some remarks upon omissions in the Message from his Majesty. Sir, it would be affectation in me to pretend ignorance of the meaning of these remarks, or not to know that the omissions alluded to must refer to one of two things: first, either to the Civil List; or, secondly, to some arrangements for a Regency. Sir, this latter is a subject of great delicacy and importance; but still it is better to treat it with frankness, that we may, if possible, remove wrong impressions. I admit that it is a question quite open to consideration, and various opinions have been formed upon it; but I can say that, after the most serious consideration of the matter, and after weighing maturely the great importance of the subject, the Ministers are of opinion that, upon the whole, we shall best consult the public interests by recommending a postponement of the consideration of that question for the present. We have, it is true, at this moment an heir-presumptive to the Throne, who is an infant of tender years; and the question is, whether Parliament will go on to provide for an event—possible, no doubt, but which God avert!—namely, the demise of the Crown—to provide for the administration of the Royal prerogative in the interval between such demise and the period when the next heir shall come of mature age, whoever that person may be? I cannot imagine any thing more deeply affecting the interests of this country, or which requires more mature and dispassionate consideration, than the provision for such a case. It is a case of the very last importance and consequence. There have been, indeed, in our history, instances of Regencies before; but, I apprehend, none exactly resembling this. In each of the years 1751 and 1765 there was an heir-apparent to the throne, of tender years, and Parliament made provision for the possible demise of the Crown. But yet the subject was so far involved in difficulties, and the circumstances, however near to each other in point of time, were considered so dissimilar in character, that Parliament thought it necessary to make a great difference in the arrangements. By the Act of 1751, Parliament appointed the Princess Dowager of Wales guardian of the infant Prince her son, and Regent of the kingdom, in the event of a demise of the Crown. In 1795 Parliament empowered George 3rd to name the person who should be the guardian of his son, and Regent of the kingdom, restricting his choice to certain individuals. I only refer to these precedents, however, to show, not that they ought to be followed, but that, from the difficulties which presented themselves in the progress of them, they proved that the subject was deserving of the most serious consideration. It will be admitted at once, that to make a permanent provision now, in order to guard against all possible events, and against all contingencies which might happen to the heir-apparent, to make, I say, any permanent provision against a possible state of things, and which would accommodate itself to all possible circumstances, would require the most serious and grave consideration. But then I am asked, "Is there no risk in leaving the case wholly unprovided for till the next meeting of Parliament?" To that I answer, that, at the early periods if our history, there are various instances of infant Sovereigns coming to the Throne of this kingdom, for whose protection no legislative measures had been previously taken. I could name Henry 3rd, Richard 2nd, and Henry 6th—all of them infant Sovereigns—none above eleven years of age—one not a year old; and yet Parliament made no provision for a Regency, but, after the accession of the Sovereign, appointed persons to govern the kingdom till the infant King had arrived at those years of maturity which the Act ap- pointing the Regency had prescribed. Since the Revolution, in 1751 and 1765, different courses had been pursued; but in neither of these cases was there a provision immediately made for the event of a minority. In 1765 no steps were taken till three years after the birth of the heir-apparent. The late King was born in August 1762, but it was not till 1765, three years afterwards, that the precaution of appointing a Regency, in the event of a demise of the Crown, was taken. I cannot find that George 3rd ever acted upon the powers contained in that Act. Sir, this is a delicate subject, but I hope I treat it with the delicacy which becomes us all, though we feel the necessity of doing our duty. But, let me fairly ask, where is the risk of postponing this measure to the next Session? In the reign of George 3rd it was postponed for three years; and in the reign of George 2nd nearly ten weeks were suffered to elapse, after the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, before any Act was passed for the Regency; of course, under the sanction of that precedent, there can be no necessity for making any provision for a Regency in the interval between the end of the present Session and the meeting of a new one. In case such an event should unfortunately happen, as the demise of the Crown, I apprehend that the infant Queen would have full power to give her assent to any Act of Parliament appointing a guardian for herself and a Regent of the kingdom, and that in a manner as binding as if it were signed by a Sovereign of full age. But, Sir, still it has been thought by those who admit the importance of giving full consideration to the permanent settlement of the Regency, that some temporary provision ought to be made, to give some one of mature age the power of consenting to an Act of Parliament for appointing a guardian for an infant Sovereign and Regent of the kingdom. Upon that head too, Sir, all I shall say is, that, after having given to it the best consideration which was in my power, I would press upon the House the impolicy of discussing any such plan. I will not now detail the circumstances which influence my opinion; but it must occur to every one, that any temporary arrangements, which would have the effect of fettering the future and final decision of this question, must be very inconvenient, and the appointment of an individual with such authority, for ever so short a time, and, above all, if the event to be guarded against should occur, would very much impede and embarrass any future arrangements as to the settlement of the Regency question. It must be always the paramount interest of the country to have the matter permanently settled. And having now, Sir, treated of the various views in which this very delicate matter has presented itself to his Majesty's Government, and having shown enough to explain the motives of that Government why it disapproves of any temporary provision for a Regent being now made, and why it advises the postponement of a permanent provision till the subject can be better discussed and more looked into, I don't know that I can offer any other considerations to the House to induce it to agree in the terms of this part of the Address. I shall, therefore, proceed to state what is the course of public business which his Majesty's Government proposes to recommend, should the House of Commons agree to the Address which I shall have the honour to submit. That Address will of course assure his Majesty, that the House will, without delay, make temporary provision for the public service in the interval which must elapse between the dissolution of this Parliament and the assembling of the next. Assuming those parts of it to be agreed to, then comes the question, what course is to be taken with respect to the public business? If it be determined that a dissolution is to take place, and the House is willing to perform its part as stated in the other branch of the Address, by making a temporary provision for the public service in the interval between the two Parliaments;—both these points being conceded, I think the House will be unanimous in agreeing that the sooner we despatch the public business, consistently with the public interests, and with the several measures of great public importance which are now in progress before the House, the better. Under circumstances like, these, it is hard to lay down any rule which can guide us in the course we ought to take. With so many measures, and so many of them of such great importance, as we now have unfinished before us, it is hard to expect the concurrence of all parties to any course Ministers may suggest; but I do hope, that, under the peculiar situation of the Government, occasioned by the demise of the late Crown, Gentlemen will extend as much indulgence as they can, consistently with their public duty, to our proposals for the despatch of public business. One rule of out proceeding, in case we agree to go on, shall be to avoid every thing which is likely to provoke discussion, and to forego every measure which is likely to lead to much detailed illustration. After the expectations which were held out to the country by my right hon. friend at the beginning of the Session, and more particularly to the lower classes, of relief by the remission of the Beer duties, I think it will be the opinion of this House, and of all parties, that the measures which had for their object the carrying these views into effect, and the other measures connected with them, which have not been brought to a conclusion here, the public interests require that these should be passed immediately. Although the bill authorising the sale of Beer on the premises, and the other bill for remitting the duties upon Beer, have not kept pace in this House, the one being at the second, and the other at the third reading, yet I think the House will concur with me in the attempt to pass these bills together. There is also another bill, which is not much known, and has not received much consideration in this House, though it is absolutely necessary, as a foundation for every sort of legal reform—I mean the bill for disposing of vested interests in patent offices in Courts of Justice, in themselves the greatest obstruction to legal reforms: this ought, I think, to be passed also. For, Sir, though we never venture upon any change in the constitution of the Courts without taking into account the reasonable claims of persons entitled to compensation, yet these patent rights are great stumbling-blocks in the way of reform, and they must be removed before reform can be effected. I propose to take all these into the hands of the Crown, as a preparatory step to the equalization of the fees in the different Courts; for, so long as the fees in the Court of Exchequer are three times as much as in the King's Bench, one cannot wonder that the business flows unequally into the latter. The bill for abolishing these privileges stands for the third reading, and I propose that it be passed without delay. With respect to the Spirit Duties bill, which is before the House, the House will recollect that it was at an early stage of the Session proposed by my right hon. friend, as an indemnification to the Re- venue for the losses which it would sustain by the remission of the Leather and Beer duties, to impose a duty of 6d. a gallon on British and Colonial spirits, and we think it our duty to press upon the House the propriety of carrying that plan into effect. But the passing of these measures will make it necessary to consider the condition of the whole of the West-India interest, to which we should wish to give all possible attention. [Some Member suggested that this should be postponed till next Session.] I wish Gentlemen to understand, that by the delay of four or five days we are already in a curious situation, and that no more time ought to be lost in settling the question, for the sugar-duties will expire on Monday next. I hope Parliament will not suffer them to expire before they have substituted some others in their room, for so large an amount of revenue cannot be given up, and, short as the interval is, I do hope that the House will concur with the Government in re-enacting those duties before the period when, according to law, they would cease. This is not a time for going into detail on the subject; but as they will expire on Monday, and as the late scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been severely contested in the House, and passed by no very large majority, it is impossible that we could call upon Parliament, without great deliberation, to adopt that scheme of duties. It is therefore, to be abandoned [laughter]. Sir, if there be any ridicule attaching itself to those acts of our public duty, I undoubtedly am here to bear my share of it; we advised the measures from a sense of public duty, and from the same feeling we now withdraw them. We have tried to confer some benefit upon the West-India interest, which has not been very graciously received by it; and since, in retaining the additional duty upon Rum, which is, after all, only equal to British Spirits, we seem called upon to realise the benefit which was promised to that distressed interest, we propose some reduction of the duties upon Sugar; and, because of the shortness of the time, it is proposed that the alterations be of the simplest kind. As the Resolutions are not now before us, this is not the time to discuss them in detail; and I shall confine myself to stating, that it is the opinion of practical men that the scheme might have been carried into effect. For my part I gee none of the difficulties which some hon. Members have been pleased to point out. However, in order to get over these difficulties, and give relief to the West-India interest, we mean to make a reduction in the sugar duties, but that reduction shall be uniform and absolute. The reductions which we propose to make are a reduction of 3s. per cwt. upon West India sugars, and of 5s. per cwt. upon those of the East Indies. This is as great a boon as we can give to the West-Indies. The loss to the Revenue from these measures, supposing them to be passed into a law this Session, will be explained in the statement which I am about to make, one side of which shows the amount contributed to the Revenue by the additional duties, and the other the loss sustained by the remission of duties. The Revenue then will suffer—

which will be three millions gained by the people.

I have also to state, for the gratification of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell), and other Members for Ireland, that it is not our intention to proceed with the bill for the Consolidation of Stamp duties in Ireland. We are willing to give up every contested thing, and to sacrifice any principle which may be involved in order to avoid Debate. There will remain then to be passed the Appropriation Bill for the votes of the present Session. We propose that the House of Commons shall vote a sum on account of the Estimates not passed; and under the head of the Civil List we ask for some provision to meet the circumstances of the new reign, taking into account the expenses of a Queen-consort. But we ask nothing which may fetter any decision hereafter, and what we ask is only for the interval between the conclusion of the present Session, and the beginning of the next Session. What I propose is, a vote on account, not for a whole year, but for such a limited time as circumstances render necessary. I have thus, as briefly as possible, stated my views as to the course which it appears to me most expe- dient to adopt at the present juncture. I cannot, however, conclude without earnestly expressing a hope that the House will concur with me in the propriety of passing some few measures, in favour of which the House has already expressed its opinion. Among these is the bill with respect to the Administration of Justice. It will be recollected that the sense of the House having been taken upon the question of the Welsh Judicature, an alteration of the existing system has been agreed to, after full and repeated discussions. As to the bill for appointing a new Judge in the Court of Chancery, and the bill for regulating the Offices of the Master and Registrar, his Majesty's Ministers think that they should not duly consult the feelings of the House, if they pressed those measures during the present Session of Parliament, and they are, therefore, willing that further time should be allowed for taking them into consideration. These are the arrangements which Ministers consider, upon the whole, most conducive to the general interests of the country. We have advised his Majesty to seek for a temporary provision for the public service during the interval between the conclusion of the present Session, and the assembling of a new Parliament. I have now plainly and concisely explained the course which the Government proposes to pursue in case the House of Commons shall acquiesce in the Address which I have now the honour to propose; I shall therefore move it, Sir, which is all that remains for me to perform; and which I hope will meet the approbation of the House. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly moved an Address precisely similar to that moved in the House of Lords, [see ante, p. 709.]

said, he wished to offer a few observations on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for the propositions it contained were of the highest importance to the best interests of the country. It must be admitted on all hands that they were propositions which involved a great constitutional question, and there would be much difficulty and inconvenience in calling upon the House to pronounce a decided opinion upon their merits without sufficient time being allowed for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, with very great candour and fairness, the different points of the measures he proposed to the House, and he (Lord Althorp) could perfectly well understand that many hon. Members might from considerations of personal convenience, be anxious for a speedy dissolution of Parliament; but all considerations of this nature ought to give way where the public interest was concerned. To him it appeared that all the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward to show that an immediate dissolution was necessary, had regard rather to personal convenience than to the more important question of public interest or injury. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated any discussion upon the question of the Regency at this time; but, for his own part, he felt persuaded that this was the proper time for the people of England to see how their Representatives voted upon a question of such vast magnitude and momentous importance. The question as to how far it might be expedient to make some, temporary provision for the public service at the present juncture was one which, under all the circumstances of the case, deserved to be fully considered before any decisive measure was adopted; but, whatever conclusion the House might, arrive at with regard to it, there could be but one opinion as to the weighty importance of the other question—namely, the question of the Regency. No one could possibly regret more than himself the necessity of providing for a Regency on the contingent event of the demise of the Crown; but such necessity suggested itself to every mind, and he would ask if there was any one in private life who would not be" deemed imprudent and rash if he delayed to appoint executors who should attend to the interests of his family in the event of his death? The Members of the Legislature, as trustees for the public, were bound to make provision for the Government of the country, by the appointment of proper persons to act on the part of the Crown during the minority of the Sovereign. His Majesty's Ministers would take very great responsibility on themselves if they delayed to make such provision one moment longer than was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman could not call upon the House to adopt his measures without allowing further time to consider them. Independently of the two leading measures proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, there were also several others touched upon by him, some of which the right honourable Gentleman thought ought to be brought forward, and some at the same time, abandoned. Now all these were of great comparative importance, and required mature and deliberate consideration. In all cases where a difference of opinion existed upon public questions, it was usual to give due notice of the time when motions respecting them were to be brought forward; and most assuredly that rule ought not to be departed from when the highest interests of the State were concerned. Yet now, without any time at all being allowed, they were called upon for an immediate decision. He hardly knew what course it might be advisable for the House to pursue, but the inclination of his mind was, that the Debate ought to be adjourned for twenty-four hours only, in order that they might come to a more deliberate decision on a question so highly important. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he submitted this proposition to the House with no feeling whatever of disrespect towards the illustrious personage now called to the Throne of these Realms; neither was he influenced by any wish of not returning an immediate answer to the Message which had been brought down to the House; but he thought that no more inconvenience could result from postponing this discussion till to-morrow, than could be presumed to have arisen from the House having postponed a part of it from yesterday till this day. Having stated thus much, he should move, as an Amendment, that the further discussion on the question be adjourned till to-morrow.

then rose, and spoke to the following effect:—Sir, I rise to second the motion of my noble friend; but in doing so I take the liberty of stating most explicitly, that, anxious as I am that there should be an adjournment of this Debate, yet I should have carefully abstained from pressing it, could I believe that this motion of adjournment could be so far perverted by any person, in any quarter, as to wear by possibility the semblance of disrespect towards the Illustrious Prince, whom we yesterday congratulated on his accession to the Throne of these Realms. I go further—I do not hesitate to say, that I should lament as much as any man, that any recommendation of mine should have the semblance of a disposition upon my part, captiously and needlessly to embarrass his Majesty's Go- vernment: I, for one, have not this disposition—I utterly disclaim it. I rise now, instead of waiting for all the observations which may be urged upon the contrary side, because I think I shall thus best reply to the candour and openness of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, by now declaring, shortly and decidedly, once for all, my impressions respecting those principles broached by the right hon. Gentleman in his propositions to this House. I think this a more convenient and more candid course than lying by to answer the arguments which may be hereafter advanced. Now, first, respecting the question of adjournment as it affects the Civil List: This is a subject of great delicacy and difficulty—and how do I propose to meet it? By recommending that which I recommended ten years ago on a similar occasion—on the Accession of his late Majesty, George 4th—and it was, that we should follow the precedent of the three former Accessions. It is a fit, a constitutional, and a wholesome, exercise of the functions of this House, that Members should consider of the arrangements of the Civil List before, and not after, they should have met their constituents. I certainly entertain no more apprehensions than the right hon. Secretary, that this House would now, more than it would hereafter, forget the duty it owes to the Crown (that is to say, to the people, for whom it is established—and for whose benefit it is supported and maintained) so as to refuse a suitable support for his Majesty; and when I say suitable, I mean, splendid as regards the head of a limited monarchy; but at the same time I know that the people are feelingly alive upon this subject. I know that there is an extreme watchfulness and excessive jealousy entertained by the Commons of England towards all expenses for the splendid support of the Monarch; and I am well assured of the fact that it is for the comfort of the nation in general, and particularly of the illustrious Prince, who has just succeeded to the Throne, that a cordial understanding upon this subject should, as speedily as possible, take place between him and his people. And so strongly, Sir, am I convinced of the advantage of this immediate understanding, that I do not hesitate to declare that the same precautionary arrangements would cease to have the game grace; the same effect, and the same favour, if they were made by a new Parliament, as they would if made by a House of Commons about to render to its constituents an account of the transactions in which it has been engaged. I therefore consider it highly important that we should come to some decision respecting those arrangements here, and not in a new Parliament. I consider it important to the character and dignity of this House, important to the interests and well-being of the country, and of paramount importance to the Crown itself. It is true, as was stated by the right hon. Secretary, that on the death of William, of Anne, and of the two first Georges, the existing Parliament did arrange the Civil List, and that the only deviation from this rule was on the death of the father of our late Monarch; but this was a peculiar case, and such was the argument Lord Castlereagh advanced against me ten years ago. His Lordship said, the case was different from all others, and that it was one to which no precedent could apply. And now, therefore, I beg to suggest (or, I should rather say, to throw out—for as we have had no notice, or no time for deliberation, I cannot do more), that this is, in my mind, a reason why we should assent to the very moderate proposition of my noble friend for twenty-four hours' delay. And now I come to another question of exceeding importance—a question, in point of universal interest, far surpassing any other which could be now brought forward. I allude to that most difficult and delicate question to which the right hon. Gentleman justly supposed (although I gave no direct intimation of it) that I alluded last night. The question is, touching the mode of best supplying any possible defect in the Royal authority on the occasion of an event (which, may it be far distant, is as sincerely and honestly my prayer, as it is that of the right hon. Baronet, or of any other Member of this House, or subject of these Realms)—but on the occasion of an event which, if not previously provided for, might leave the country under circumstances of much embarrassment. And if 1, as a British subject and Member of Parliament, thought it was consistent with my high duties as such to suffer myself to be actuated solely by motives of delicacy, or personal regard, or deference to what might be felt elsewhere, I would gladly refrain from at all touching upon this topic—though I hope there is elsewhere too much magnanimity, too much patriotism, too much manliness, to permit the illustrious Sovereign now upon the Throne to hesitate—to contemplate—to shrink from looking in the face that ultimate termination of his earthly existence, from which a recent event may well show him Princes no more than their subjects are exempt. I say, Sir, if we were to look only to such delicacy, and such personal feeling, I would gladly abstain from all allusion to even such a possible contingency. I would gladly close the eyes of my Sovereign against the approach of any calamity, however remote; but I have a duty to perform. The House is compelled to look to the irresistible progress of natural events; and, as far as human wisdom may, to provide against them. We have a duty to perform to the State. Feelings of delicacy and personal pain are not be entertained. It is our bounden and our highest duty to disregard such; and to prove to our constituents, and to the nation at large, that in our decisions we bow to the dictates of reason, but are inaccessible to the sway of feeling. We have then most carefully, most cautiously, most anxiously to see that the common weal is exposed to no risk. And to what risk do you not expose the common weal by leaving this question undetermined? In what difficulties may not the State be plunged hereafter? In what more embarrassing circumstances could these two Houses of Parliament be placed than by being called on to supply a defect in the Executive Government at a time when that defect must be supplied by an Act of the Legislature of an anomalous nature—injurious and unconstitutional in itself, and only to be justified by the plea of severe necessity? Supplied, in fact, by a thing contrary to all law, formed, as it must be, by two branches of the Legislature, framing a law to which the third, namely, the Crown, cannot give its assent. It may be urged in answer to this—we did so in the reign of his late Majesty. True, you did—and you did well; the emergency came on you unawares; and you did the best you could. But then, as to the Act you passed, it was not a law—it was only, as it was truly denominated, the phantom of a Law—a thing tending more than anything this House ever did, to bring the Royal authority into disrepute throughout the kingdom—to strike a blow at Royalty. It went further than anything I know, to teach the people of England a lesson which it will not be easy to unlearn. It showed them that it was possible to do acts of Legislation without a King, and without the sanction of a Crown. Now, Sir, this is one reason why I think the House should adopt means to prevent Parliament being ever again thrown into a condition which would compel it to pass a Legislative Act of a nature so anomalous. Again; I have most earnestly to press upon the House, that if we wait until the emergency shall arise, we cannot either discuss the question respecting the filling up of the Regent's place, or the conditions to be imposed upon the person by whom it is to be so filled, with that coolness, calmness, and freedom from personal feeling, which we could bring to the discussion at this present time. We could not decide with that unbiassed judgment which would now direct us. We could not then decide between the rival claims of the various illustrious individuals who might be anxious to assume the reins of Government, as we might at this moment. The rule of the succession to the Crown is distinct and clear—the entire rights and prerogatives of the Crown would be vested in the Princess Victoria; but then we should have to "place a barren sceptre in her grasp;" and by no extension of self-flattery could "we lay the flattering unction to our souls" that she could exercise a salutary control upon the councils of the State; and it would be a monstrous mockery of all reason and common sense to presume the possibility, or for an instant to think, that a child of eleven years old was to say who was to be Regent for the next seven years—to decide whether her own mother should be Queen for that period, or whether her uncle should be King, or whether several of her uncles should form a Regency, according to the mischievous precedent of 1751 or 1765; or finally, whether her mother's brother, to whom she must be naturally endeared by feelings of mutual kindness and affection, and to whom she is under the greatest obligations, should be for those seven years the Sovereign of these realms. But be this person a man or a woman, the uncle or the mother of the Princess; as he or she must be, in fact, the director of a child in leading strings, I do marvel that any Member, possessing reasoning powers, should hesitate to pronounce in favour of an immediate decision of this question, to prevent the possibility of the many evils which must, upon a future occasion, throng in, when intrigue and agitation must naturally be rife, should Parliament be called upon to decide upon the spur of an emergency, and without the advantage of that deliberation which should precede every legislative measure. And, Sir, this appears in my mind the more strange, when I consider that by this timely precaution we should above all avoid that which all men ought to be most cautious in avoiding—a departure from the fundamental principles of the Constitution. I agree for one with the right hon. Gentleman in the principle that a temporary or provisional Regency should not be countenanced. I could really entertain no feeling but one of pity for that unfortunate individual who should thus hold a worse than "barren sceptre in his grasp," and groan beneath the pressure of a crown of thorns; but there is besides something eminently ridiculous in the idea, that he or she, as it might happen, should be called on to perform the act by which a superior power was to be established; and thus upon all grounds of common sense and precedent: in saying precedent I do not know of any precedent for a provisional Regency in this country, though there may be in others;—I repeat, upon all grounds of common sense and precedent, we should, by pursuing the only rational and constitutional course which lies open to us, avert the possibility of our being compelled, by any sudden demise of the Crown, to appoint this Provisional Regency, which I concur with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking inconvenient and injurious. These are my reasons for joining the right hon. Gentleman in peremptorily rejecting any temporary or provisional Regency. I look to the delicacy and difficulty of the situation in which this country may be placed. The Princess is an infant. Parliament is called on to say who is to be Regent during the minority. Now the first person to whom I must look, and this without any question or regard to popularity or prejudice, is the eldest uncle of the Princess of Kent. This is a rule to which, as the subject of a limited Monarchy, in return for the removal of many things that are evil, and the alleviation of many things that are burthensome, I am compelled to submit. This rule of accession to this office, established against sound reason and the general principles of liberty, does yet minister to us one inestimable advantage—it enables us to avoid the difficulties and dangers of a disputed succession; and this is the polar star to which I look as the subject of a limited Monarchy. I then look to the heir-presumptive, and I find that he exists in the person of an illustrious Prince, the Duke of Cumberland; and I find, to embarrass me the more, that I am not at liberty to consider his personal virtues or defects—I am not at liberty to prefer any other person to him. He is a Protestant Prince, and he is married to a Protestant Princess. On opposite considerations alone could he be disqualified, and, if not upon such, upon no other. But, Sir, there is yet another thing to be considered. The Salique law prevails in Hanover. The Princess of Kent cannot succeed to the throne of that kingdom; the Duke of Cumberland must; and thus is it separated from Great Britain. Now, then, we have the Princess Victoria—a child of eleven years of age—Queen of these Realms, and her eldest uncle, King of Hanover—a foreign kingdom. Here there is no question of prejudice, or popularity, or disfavour; but I am bound to consider whether it would not be unconstitutional that a foreign Prince or Princess should exercise that power within these realms to which his station as heir-presumptive—indeed, I should say heir-apparent, for such he would then become—would be entitled. Am I then, under these circumstances, to abide by the precedent or am I not? Am I to protest against the interference of a foreign Prince, as injurious to the interests of the British people; or am I to adhere to this principle, which, although originally unconstitutional, is convenient? Or, am I—so to speak—to take my chance of the interests of the farm being sacrificed to those of the freehold? I throw this out to show that there is no time to be lost in coming to a conclusion respecting this question. It may be urged that, at this late period of the Session, and in this state of public business, it may not be convenient to enter upon a measure of such magnitude and importance, and that sufficient time has not been granted Members to make up their minds upon the subject; but who, with a serious face, will tell me that the lamentable event which has recently taken place, has not been long contemplated? For the last six weeks the minds of some without the Cabinet were turned to the consideration of this subject, and its pro- bable consequences, and I should fancy the minds of some within the Cabinet were not altogether idle. Certainly, unless they were made of extraordinary materials, they were more or less so engaged. Now, Sir, I allow that it may be very inconvenient that a discussion touching the establishment of a Regency should take place at present; but would it not be better to discuss it now, and in this way, than when the event which would cause it should have happened? We can come now to discuss the respective claims of the Princes of the Blood with a degree of calmness, and with an absence from all bias; but who can answer for our being able at a future period, and under other circumstances, to bring to the discussion that due solemnity and deliberative mind which it would require? Can we promise ourselves that we shall be able to give away the Crown calmly and disinterestedly to one or the other of the claimants;—that we should elect our Regent as subjects should elect a Sovereign, and decide whether we should have one Duke or another Duke for our ruler during these seven years' minority? There would be an actual accession of the Duke of Cumberland to the Throne of Hanover, and Parliament would be suddenly called upon to decide upon his election to the Regency—to that supreme rule to which he has a paramount claim, although he has not a strict right. On all these grounds I call upon the House not to suffer the possibility of a defect in the Executive Government, and not to recommend the dissolution of Parliament till after the consideration of the Regency Question. I shall certainly give my cordial support to the motion of my noble friend to obtain a brief delay of twenty-four hours, to enable us to consider the various topics which have been, without any notice, brought before us this night, and which ought to be calmly discussed before we agree to the Address proposed by the right hon. Baronet. Upon many of them I cannot profess to have made up my mind. I consequently require some breathing-time; and is it not more fitting that we should have this space than that matters should be so hurried forward? It is but fair that we should have some little time to turn this question over in our minds, and view it in the multifarious lights it presents, since, by agreeing to this Address, we at once express our assent to the passing of about two dozen bills, on which there is an infinite variety of opinions. The right hon. Gentleman tells us what measures he proposes to adopt and what to abandon. One man is in favour of the Beer Bill—but another says he has had enough of beer, and so say many others. There are others who do not like some other bills, and I believe there is nobody who will be disposed to comfort the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the loss of his Sugar duties. For myself, however, I must beg to say to the right hon. Gentleman, dulcia sunto, if not in the actual existence, at least in memory. Nor, I believe, will anybody rise to say a single word in favour of the fourth Judge in Equity. He has had his day—or rather, I should say, his night—and his exposition on that occasion will, I presume, prevent him from ever again claiming the favour of any other audience. There are various other measures which are scarcely more popular in this House. I myself, however, agree generally in the selection made by the right hon. Gentleman; but I fear he will not find this assent elsewere. Some of the measures brought before us in this hurried fashion are of momentous importance—others are produced for our decision under circumstances at once difficult and novel. By the courtesy of his most gracious Majesty's Message we are now placed in the novel situation of being called on to advise with the Crown whether the Parliament should be dissolved or not. It is not merely a question of corporate interests, where a Corporation declares that it will abandon certain vested rights, but we are called upon to concur in an Address for the termination of our own existence; and I, for instance, without being a Prince, or possessing any part or parcel of Royalty, am placed in the singular position of being called on to abdicate my portion of Legislative power, such as it is, as a Member of this House. In deciding upon this Amendment too, it ought to be taken into account, that contrary to the usual forms of the House, we have had no notice. The Address was general, and did not point out to us any one of those measures which we are now urged to pass. I therefore give my most cordial and strenuous support to my noble friend in his motion for a few hours' delay. One word more, Sir, and I have done. I trust that in speaking as I have spoken, I may not appear to have done that which, if I did appear to have done, nothing could have possibly been more fallacious. I trust, Sir, I have not appeared in any the slightest degree to violate that profound respect and cordial attachment which, humble individual as I am, I beg to express, with the same sincerity I feel it, towards the illustrious Prince who is now seated upon the Throne of these realms.

did not go along with the noble Lord in his opinions concerning the Civil List; but with respect to the other parts of the case, he entertained great doubts, and he was glad that the noble Lord proposed to afford hon. Members an opportunity for turning them in their minds, and expressing their opinion on them. He would contend that the question of a Regency should be made the subject of a distinct Message from the Throne; for, properly speaking, such a measure should originate with the Throne. It was in that way that such a question should come before the House. Messages were sent from the Throne to recommend the House to take under review the proper mode of proceeding in such cases; but, without entering into the question whether, in point of parliamentary form, a Message from the Throne ought not to precede any question as to the appointment of a Regency, he would merely say, that upon the present occasion he was of opinion that the House had not had sufficient notice of the important question brought now under its consideration. He supposed that there were many Gentlemen who then heard him that did not know that morning that the question of a Regency was even to be alluded to that evening. Indeed, from his Majesty's Message one could hardly suppose that Ministers would come down with any measure relating to a Regency. What, however, was the House now called upon to do? Without its having had any previous notice that the question of the Regency would be brought under its consideration, without that question having formed any part, even by implication, of the discussion of yesterday, they were called upon that evening to consent to suspend all consideration of it for an unlimited period. He could not collect from the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite, how long that suspension was to last, nor when the present Parliament was to be dissolved, nor when the next Parliament was to assemble. [Some disturbance here occurred below the bar.] It was now only a quarter past seven o'clock, and he thought that it would be quite as well if those Gentlemen who were so clamorous after solid pudding would pay some attention to the solid principles of the Constitution. They had before them a constitutional repast, if they knew how to enjoy it, neither less important nor less solid than that to which many of them seemed anxious to hasten. To resume, however, the thread of his argument. He thought that some notice ought to have been given upon this subject, and he would shortly state why. Let the House consider what it was now called upon to do. It was called upon to say, "We will not entertain the question of a Regency in case of a demise of the Crown—quod Deus avertat—until the opening of a new Parliament, even though the accident, against which a Regency is intended to provide, may occur in that interim." The right hon. Baronet had gone through a long constitutional history, and had given them a long detail of constitutional principles, in order to prove that an infant Sovereign might be deemed an adult agent, competent to perform any legal Act. Of that, as an abstract principle, there could be no doubt. Yet when the right hon. Baronet proceeded to talk of the demise of our present respected and beloved Sovereign—a Sovereign who was at once respected and beloved for the kindness and beneficence which he had uniformly displayed whilst he was a subject, a circumstance which he hailed as a good augury that he would display similar kindness and beneficence as a Monarch—when the right hon. Baronet, he said, proceeded to talk upon that subject, he gave to the House the same cold and melancholy comfort which his hon. and learned friend, the member for Knaresborough, had recently given to his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Sugar duties. The Princess of Kent may, the right hon. Baronet said, do—what? She may give her assent to a bill to do—what? To name certain Councillors, and even a Regent, who might despoil her of her Throne—who might ruin her name, reputation, and glory—and who might involve in the same ruin the name, reputation, and glory of the empire. Poor consolation this for the Commons of England, if the King should happen to die—quod Deus avertat—that an infant Sovereign might take up the pen at any moment, or even have the pen put into its hand by ill-advised Councillors, to consummate its own ruin. He could not concur with the right hon. Baronet, that this intervention of Parliament, in providing for a Regency, when occasion for a Regency arose, was a desideratum in the Constitution previous to the Revolution. The right hon. Baronet had told them that the first Act after the time of the Revolution which provided for a Regency—it was an Act of the time of King William 3rd—was an Act of special occurrence, arising out of the external and internal condition of the country as to the succession to the Crown, as to its foreign alliances, and as to the attempts which were apprehended of forcing another family upon the Throne of these kingdoms. The right hon. Baronet had likewise told the House that, whenever the necessity for a Regency occurred, the regret with him was, that it could not be met by some general principle of legislation. In that opinion he concurred with Mr. Pitt, who said that he regretted that Parliament could not make a law which would prevent the necessity of having recourse to particular legislation for particular events. Indeed, it would be evident to the House, that all persons, to whose opinions they were accustomed to look up with respect, concurred in this—that the appointment of a Regency was not a question which ought to be pressed unexpectedly and precipitately upon Parliament. Let the House then consider what it was that the right hon. Baronet called upon it to do. He had called in the House of Commons as an assistant to his deliberations. Before the present morning, he thought that he himself had been nothing more than a knight and a lawyer: this evening he found that he was also a Privy Councillor, for he had now received a summons to attend upon the deliberations of the Cabinet. Yes, the whole House had been summoned to the Cabinet, for the purpose of giving the Cabinet its assistance in considering a question, which the House could not know would be submitted to it previously, and of which all the bearings were most important. Without going further into the question at present, he would state that the noble Lord's motion for adjournment carried conviction of its propriety to his mind. He would not, on the present occasion, state what vote he would hereafter give on the point of suspending the question of a Regency to a future period. He would deal as fairly by the House as the right hon. Baronet had done. He would not say upon the present occasion whether he would or would not suspend the consideration of a Regency for three or five weeks, or for three or five months. On that point, he repeated, that he would at present give no opinion. But as hon. Members could have no knowledge either when Parliament would be dissolved, or when it would be again assembled, he would confine himself to stating simply, that at this time they could not tell when the question of a Regency, if they postponed the consideration of it at present, would come under their notice. It was one thing to wait till the recess had run out and the new Parliament assembled; and another to wait for four or five weeks, or it might be for as many months; because, though the right hon. Baronet might know when Parliament would be dissolved, and when it would be convened, that was a Cabinet secret, which he believed that the right hon. Baronet was not inclined to communicate to the multitude of Privy Councillors whom he had summoned to advise him. Before he came to a decision on the subject of the present debate, there were important considerations which he ought to know with certainty. He was obliged, from feelings of delicacy, not to enter into the consideration of the persons who were to compose the Regency. It was, indeed, unnecessary to entertain at present the question how the Regency, in case it should be deemed expedient to appoint a Regency, should be formed; and therefore, as no necessity required him to entertain that question, he gladly turned away from it. He was never more convinced than he was upon this occasion, that no Member could properly perform his duty to his present Majesty and to his country, without considering what he was deliberating upon before he came to his conclusion. The House must therefore consult whether it would risk the postponement of this question for five or six weeks, for five or six months, or for any other still more unlimited period. It was upon these grounds that, without pledging himself to the opinion which he should ultimately give upon this subject, he would say that this was the most important point within his recollection on which the Commons of England had ever been called on to vote without prior notice. One word more, and then he had really done. If he understood the right hon. Baronet correctly, the right hon. Baronet was now endeavouring to make a compact and to strike a bargain with the House. There were some questions upon which the right hon. Baronet would enter, and there were others which he intended to give up for the present Session. "I will suspend," said he to the House of Commons, "certain measures which I have introduced here as Minister, and you, in return, shall give me a vote of Supply on credit, and leave the question of a Regency to further consideration." Now he for one could not consent to a bargain which was founded on the indefinite suspension of a question of incalculable importance—asuspension, too, by which the infant Sovereign might be placed in the unfortunate predicament of signing the bill for a Regency himself, or of having a Lord Chancellor to sign it for him. He well recollected that it had been stated on a former occasion, that instead of getting the child to sign the bill, you might get the Lord Chancellor to guide the child's hand whilst the child signed it; or, in other words, you might get the Lord Chancellor to sign it himself. He did not mean to say or do anything disrespectful to the present Lord Chancellor; but a phrase of Mr. Burke had just come into his mind, which, with their permission, he would mention to the House. Mr. Burke had said, "that they might build up an idol, if they pleased, for themselves, with a large black brow and a long white wig, and might call it a Chancellor; but that no joint stool which a carpenter could create, no wooden image which they could stick up, no table or chair could less fulfil the duty imposed by the Constitution, than the person, be he Lord Chancellor, or any other public officer, who should venture to sign his name for the infant Sovereign." Whatever form, therefore, the Lord Chancellor might assume, be he Lord Lyndhurst, or Lord Thurlow, or Lord anybody else, he would personate the Cabinet which ordered him to put the Seal to the Bill, but not the Sovereign whose rights would be affected by his signature, which might involve in one common ruin the best interests of the Crown and the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by stating, that he could not, for the reasons which he had stated, consent to this most hasty and precipitate measure, nor could he accede to that bargain which the right hon. Baronet had offered to their acceptance.

rose to deny, that he had offered any such compact to the House as the hon. and learned member for Plymp- ton asserted. Nothing was further from his wish than to have the statement which he had offered to the House considered as either a bargain or a compact. He had been requested to state what measures Government intended to postpone, and what measures it still intended to prosecute this Session. In compliance with that request, he had stated the business which Ministers proposed to press to a conclusion this Session, but he had not done so with any view of compromising the wishes or opinions of any Member in that House.

expressed his entire concurrence in the Amendment of his noble friend, the member for Northamptonshire, to which he meant to give his support, although he did not mean to follow him into the question which he had raised as to the policy of dissolving the Parliament at present. That was a point on which it was competent for his Majesty to exercise his prerogative as he pleased, and on which it became Ministers to give him such advice as they believed to be most serviceable to the interest of the country. For that reason, whatever opinion he had formed as to the policy of carrying on to a conclusion the different measures which had been introduced into Parliament in the course of the present Session, he should abstain from expressing it. But, with respect to the first consideration mentioned by the noble Lord, he saw no reason whatever why the present might not with equal, and even with more advantage than any subsequent Parliament, proceed to discuss and settle the Civil List. He saw no reason why the Parliament, on the demise of the Crown, should not pursue the same course as every other Parliament, with the exception of that which was sitting on the accession of his late Majesty. The accession of George 4th, however, took place under circumstances which differed very widely from every other. He had long administered the affairs of the nation when he was called to the Throne, and the Civil List, which had been fixed for ten years previously, required little alteration on his accession. But let the House look at the first Parliament of George 3rd; what was the course pursued then, with respect to the public business? George 2nd died during a recess of Parliament, and it was of course quite impossible to have an immediate dissolution. Considerations of a personal nature did not prevail at that time; the old Parliament was assembled, and it continued to sit until the whole of the business of the Session was disposed of. He did feel the importance of that consideration, which the right hon. Baronet had mentioned as influencing the Members of the House, and inducing them to hasten the dissolution of Parliament:—by continuing the Session, an opportunity would be afforded to those not in Parliament to canvass electors, and by that means, perhaps, to gain an advantage over those who would be unable to present themselves to their constituents until Parliament was finally dissolved. But that was, in his opinion, a very trivial consideration; and he was convinced that the Members who did their duty to their constituents while sitting in that House, would have no cause to fear the effects of any canvassing in their absence. He had, however, already said, that the power of continuing or of dissolving the Parliament, was constitutionally vested in the King; and he did not mean, for one moment, to interfere with the exercise of his prerogative, unless, indeed, it should appear that the postponement of any particular question would prove directly injurious to the public interests. In such a case, however, any interference of his would be unnecessary, since the paternal feelings of his Majesty towards his people would induce him to be the first to direct a full discussion, and a mature consideration, of every question of that kind. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, that the important subject of a Regency would much more properly, and more advantageously, come before the House by a Message from the Crown. No one would regret more sincerely than himself the existence of a necessity for such a measure; but what was the question before the House? it was, whether Parliament should separate for an indefinite time, without having made the slightest provision in case of the demise of the Crown? In his opinion, nothing could be more imprudent or unwise than such a course. A day seldom or ever passed by in which there was not some evidence of the uncertainty of human life; and although he (in common with every subject throughout these realms) was anxious and desirous that his present Majesty should live long and happy in the exercise of his regal functions, it was impossible to say how speedily the common lot of humanity might fall on him. He was not aware what the first step to be taken on this occasion ought to be, nor did he understand the manner in which the right hon. Secretary had argued the question. He had not alluded to the circumstance of her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria being the direct heir to the Throne. [Sir Robert Peel:—I said distinctly that she was.] He had misunderstood, then, what fell from the right hon. Baronet. He had paid some attention to constitutional points, and was convinced that there was not a single provision for the exercise of the royal prerogative in case of the demise of the Crown and the heir-apparent being a minor. By the Statute of Anne, it was provided that the Privy Council, on the demise of the Crown, should meet and proclaim the heir-apparent; but no provision was made for the exercise of the Regal functions in case of that heir being a minor. For many reigns, the difficulty had never once occurred of providing a Regent under such circumstances as at present. If, therefore, Parliament were to be governed by precedents or analogies, to be drawn from proceedings in similar cases, it must go back at once to the feudal times. He wished to ask them whether a question of that kind, so important in every point of view, ought to be discussed and decided upon under the pressure of an immediate necessity to provide for the exercise of the regal functions? Would it be proper in Parliament, being then assembled, to suffer a subject of such vital importance to be postponed until, perhaps, an actual necessity might exist, for making at once, and without delay, that provision which it would only be wise and prudent to make before the necessity arose. Let the House consider what the consequence would be of a demise of the Crown before Parliament could be again assembled. It would, of course, then be necessary to make immediate provision for the administration of the royal prerogatives; but was it not evident that, at such a time, the subject could not be calmly and deliberately considered. Was it not evident also, that confusion and distraction would ensue from the claims of different parties, urging their rights with equal earnestness? These were possible evils, of which the country ought, in his opinion, to feel the greatest dread; and if Parliament had it in its power to make a provision against them, and neglected to do so, it would desert its duty to its constituents, and abandon the best interests of the State. The Constitution was essentially monarchical, the kingly authority pervaded through all, and was requisite to give effect to every measure adopted by Parliament. He did not mean to say that, in case of the demise of the Crown, an Act of Parliament might not be passed creating a Regency which should be valid, even though there were no Sovereign to give an assent to it. But as he conceived that it would be far better to have the Royal assent given, not as a mere matter of form, but in a substantive and decided shape, he would take immediate measures, while there were a Sovereign and a Parliament, to have the question of the Regency settled, with all the formalities of legislation. When Parliament had to determine how the Royal prerogatives should be exercised, in what individual they should be vested, and under what restrictions he was to be in-trusted with them, the voice of the King was more than commonly necessary to give validity to the result of their deliberations. If there was any bill upon which, constitutionally, the Royal negative might be interposed, it was, in his opinion, that for the appointment of a Regent. Such Regency Acts as had hitherto been passed had always been subject to the approval or disapproval of the Monarch on whose death they were intended to come into operation; and the Act of 1751, if it had not been previously recommended by the Crown, was one to which the King's negative might very properly have been applied. The Monarch, while in the exercise of the Royal prerogative, was, of course, most sensible of the necessity of placing the future exercise of that prerogative in proper hands; and for that reason his assent to any Act appointing a Regency was most important. These were the considerations which weighed most with him on this subject; and he trusted that this Session would not be suffered to close, without some provision having been made to meet the possible case of the demise of the Crown.

said, that what had occurred that evening respecting the Sugar duties could not have failed to occasion considerable surprise in the mind of every person connected with the West-India interest. After the repeated statements which he had made to Government, of the distress in which that interest was involved, he was surprised that Government should offer it no relief, but, on the contrary, a measure which was only calculated to aggravate its distress. The East-India interest was to be relieved to a greater extent than that of the West Indies, which would be a positive disadvantage to the latter: that was not keeping faith wish the West-India proprietor. He took that opportunity of stating, that he for one would not accept the relief which Ministers tendered to the West-India planters; and that, if he could prevent it, he would not allow the measure which it was their intention to propose, to pass a single stage in that House. He concluded by declaring that he did not mean to take any part in the discussion of the other topics which had risen up in the course c. the present debate.

expressed his surprise at the speech of the noble Lord. For his part, he thanked Ministers for the relief which they were going to afford to those with whom he was connected, by the alteration which they had announced in the mode of levying the Sugar duties. He trusted, however, that they would be able to carry that relief still further.

thanked the noble Marquis for the manly and independent manner in which he had spoken out on behalf of the West-India interest, and declared, at the same time, that by their late conduct Ministers had treated that interest with contumely and neglect. He used the terms "contumely and neglect" advisedly. He had seen the good which the gentlemen of Ireland had effected for themselves by agitation; and he believed that it would only be by agitation that the West-India interest would be able to obtain for itself the slightest benefit.

confessed, that the subject which had just been introduced to the notice of the House was one on which he did not expect to have been called on to speak. The House must see, from what had already been stated upon it, what were the difficulties that attended the arrangement of it, and must have formed some idea of the obstacles that the Government had to encounter in the endeavour to conciliate those whose interests were engaged in that trade. On this subject he would say no more at present, than that the Government had felt the most anxious wish to relieve the West-India interest to the greatest possible extent consistent with the means of the country. He had himself originally proposed a mode which appeared to him calculated to effect that purpose, and to operate extensively for its benefit. When that plan had been stated in detail, objections were taken to it, and he had then proposed another, of more general relief, of relief fully co-extensive with the means of the country, and prepared in a manner most conformable to the views of those who had objected to the previous measure; but that had likewise been objected to. With respect to the propositions that were soon to come under the consideration of the House, he would make no further remarks, but would reserve himself to some future stage of the proceeding. Having thus expressed himself on the question of the West-India interest, he should now come to that matter which was more immediately under the consideration of the House. That question was, whether they should postpone for twenty-four hours the answer to the King's Message, in order to take into consideration the question of a Regency? He entirely dissented from those who were in favour of such a postponement. He did not think it consistent with the character of the House, when they received a Message similar to that now addressed to them by his Majesty, to delay answering that Message. The delay was asked for on two separate grounds. First, by the hon. and learned member for Plympton, on the ground that the House had had no notice of the question. In answer to that he would ask what notice could be more distinct than that which was conveyed in the Message of yesterday? His Majesty, in that Message distinctly stated the reasons why he was unwilling to submit to the attention of Parliament any new matter. It could not, therefore, be expected that the question of the Civil List, or that still more important question, the Regency, would be now brought forward. But the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough had fully answered the objection of want of notice, for he had said, that for the last six weeks the minds of all men had been directed to this subject. That hon. and learned Member, therefore, did not complain of surprise, nor did he assert that further notice was necessary, for he distinctly announced that the attention of others and of himself had been for six weeks past directed to these points. As to the objection made by the hon. and learned member for Plympton, that no man knew when this Parliament would be dissolved, and when a new Parliament would be assembled, surely the observations of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had removed all doubt upon that subject. For himself he must say, that he thought there were considerable objections to considering the questions of the Civil List and the Regency in the present Parliament. The commencement of a new reign created a great many important subjects for discussion, and Members ought to know the opinion of their constituents on those subjects, not from old and doubtful suggestions, nor from any belief of what might afterwards be found acceptable, but from the more certain ground of knowledge acquired from the previous instructions of those whom they represented. The absence of Members from their places was not merely a personal question, because they would by the agitation of a coming election, be disabled from attending their public duties; and topics like those of the Regency and the Civil List ought not to be commenced unless they could receive the undivided attention of the great majority of Parliament. The hon. and learned member for Plympton had complained that the question of the Regency had not been formally brought before the House; and the answer was, that the Crown, under the special circumstances of the times, had forborne to press it on the notice of Parliament. The same hon. Member had remarked, that the whole House had been called upon to advise the Crown as Privy Councillors; but he apprehended that the course taken by no means trenched upon the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, to dissolve one Parliament and to summon another. The sole object was, to pursue that line which would be least detrimental to the public service. If the House, on the other hand, was of opinion that it would be inexpedient that Parliament should be dissolved, an Address to that effect might be proposed and carried. For these reasons he would not assent to the proposal for an adjournment of the question: if that Amendment were intended as an indirect opposition to the Address, the course was not as downright and straightforward as might be expected from the noble Mover; and if, on the other hand, it were meant only to gain further time, it was unnecessary. He believed that no precedent could be found for the re-postponement of a motion of the kind in order to avoid the expression of any opinion upon the real merits of the question.

was able to infer what were the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the Amendment, although he had not directly avowed them. For his own part he saw many and weighty reasons for delaying the question for twenty-four-hours. The right hon. Secretary had stated what measures were to be passed and what were to be abandoned; and he had further called upon the House to vote certain sums upon account; but I he had never stated the amount he should require, although upon that amount depended the only security Parliament possessed for its re-assembling. The right hon. Gentleman had relinquished his usual fairness upon this point, and unless the amount to be required were stated with more clearness and candour than had been displayed in bringing forward some of the late measures, and particularly the Beer Bill, he must say that Ministers would very much neglect their duty. On bringing forward the Beer Bill, the Excise regulations connected with it had been kept in the back-ground, and concealment had characterized the proceeding from first to last. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the House of Commons would abandon its character, and not do its duty, if it did not vote this Address; but he begged leave to remark, that there was nothing inconsistent with the character of the House, and with the discharge of its public duty, if it required a postponement of the Address—if for nothing else but to elicit from Government a full statement of its views. His Lordship agreed that it would be inexpedient now to introduce new measures, and one fresh topic of discussion of which he had given notice he intended to avoid, by withdrawing the motion which was standing upon the paper; but there were other points of novelty involving considerations of the utmost importance, on which the House ought to deliberate before its separation. He was of opinion, therefore, that those Ministers did not well advise the Crown, who recommended the postponement of measures embracing the most valuable and important interests, and perhaps risking the peace and tranquillity of the country. He could not sit down without expressing a doubt whether the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough (Mr. Brougham) was not wrong in the interpretation he had put upon the terms used by Mr. Pitt in 1789, when he stated that the Prince of Wales had a paramount claim to the Regency. In the event of the accession of the Princess of Kent, no member of the family would possess the paramount claim which was enjoyed by the late King, when Prince of Wales. If by the cruel, or, more properly speaking, by the awful—dispensation of Providence, the Throne should lose its present royal and benign occupant, not one of the uncles of the Princess of Kent would be heir-apparent, but only heir-presumptive. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member, with his legal habits, should have fallen into this error; and he begged not to be concluded by the opinion which the hon. member for Knaresborough had expressed with less than his usual consideration. Although neither the right hon. Secretary, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given any explanation, and strenuously contended against postponement, he hoped that some other Minister of the Crown was present, who would afford the House some further satisfaction, by giving a few details.—Sure he was, that if nothing more were said, people out of doors would feel that Ministers had not dealt fairly by the House, nor the House by the country.

spoke to the following effect:—However important to an extensive interest, I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done better to have postponed what he said upon the comparatively minor question of the Sugar duties, until some regular motion was made upon the subject. Whatever relief may be just and necessary for the West-India planters, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the shortest and simplest measure, under the circumstances, must be the best, leaving other points to future discussion. I notice this matter first, because it is the only part of my right hon. friend's speech in which I can concur. He asks, why do we wish for twenty-four hours to deliberate upon these important matters? and he urges that we have already had the time we require. I confess that I was never much more surprised than by this assertion. Yesterday the most gracious Message of his Majesty was brought down, with the contents and import of which, until it was read by the Speaker, none but the immediate servants of the Crown were acquainted. We are there told, that his Majesty is unwilling to recommend to the attention of Parliament any new matter that might admit of postponement without detriment to the public service. Hence may arise a question, whether the matter son which we are now engaged can be postponed without detriment to the public service? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer asserts that we have already had twenty four hours' notice, let me ask him whether, after the reading of the Message yesterday morning, Members did not go away from the House with the impression that some description of Regency adapted to the exigencies of the State, would be proposed? Many also were of opinion that some temporary arrangement of the Civil List would also be recommended; and such was not only the opinion of intelligent individuals, unconnected with office, but I could name hon. Gentlemen in office who went away in the entire belief that the topic of the Regency was to be submitted to our consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman were at all acquainted with what has passed out of doors, he would know that so much has the point been mooted elsewhere, that wagers have been laid, on the question whether the Regency was or was not this night to be introduced. Therefore let it not be supposed that the information on this subject was so clear and distinct that no mistake could arise. The principal Minister of the Crown in this House, in his speech to-night, most fairly and candidly said, that he would proceed to what he apprehended was uppermost in the minds of all—what might be the situation of the Throne in care of the unexpected demise of his present Majesty? He admitted that it was a subject full of doubt and difficulty, which had not escaped the anxious attention of Government; and he added, that it had been considered the least of two evils, not to bring it forward in the present Parliament. Government, no doubt, has taken ample time to deliberate upon this point, and when, on our part, we ask only twenty-four hours for consideration, we are told that it is altogether unnecessary. Called upon to decide upon the sudden, it seems to me that there is no room for hesitation: looking; at the disadvantage on the one hand of having a few Members employed in canvassing, certain expenses thereby incurred, and possibly a corrupt effect, as my right hon. friend observed, produced upon the people; and looking on the other hand at the fearful dangers and possible consequences of that contingency which I pray Heaven to avert, not only as a loyal subject, but as a Member of Parliament anxious for the tranquillity of the people and the security of the Constitution; I cannot doubt as to the balance, and as to the impolicy of the course we are so hastily called upon to pursue. Remember that we are dealing with an event in which human foresight will be of no avail—which cannot be measured and fathomed by the wisest—which no prescience can foretell—no prudence avoid: no shield can guard, no sword defend the Sovereign from the inevitable lot of humanity. The wisdom of our ancestors has provided, that Parliament may continue sitting for six months after the demise of the Crown, in order to watch the public interests, and, to use a technical expression, to attend the inheritance of the Crown. Should that disaster befal us which my argument implies, and nothing have been done in the way of precaution, we shall have set the wisdom of our ancestors, which gave us this opportunity, at nought, and the dreadful consequences may be measures subversive of the Constitution itself. Shall we, then, with our eyes open, and with the means of avoiding these evils within our reach, expose ourselves to the risk, not indeed of a disputed or doubtful succession, but to a risk only second and minor to it, that of having the powers of the Crown devolve into hands totally impotent and incompetent? For aught we know, that very impotence may be the occasion of an act subversive at once of all the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of the Crown. I do not mean, of course, to say that such dangers must end in such disasters; but ought we needlessly to expose ourselves to the peril, and would that exposure tend either to the security of the Throne or to the happiness of the people? Again, let me observe, that we are not only called upon to deal with this question, but with others necessarily included in the Address; and upon none of these are we to be allowed even twenty-four hours for deliberation. My right hon. friend says, that we are not at present to touch the Civil List; and I confess myself, that I do not see so strongly as some, the inconvenience of postponing the permanent arrangement until the meeting of a new Parliament. Government ought to have time to discuss and weigh all the details, and when the plan is at length brought forward, it ought to be referred to a Select Committee; and that inquiry will unavoidably occupy time. Therefore, I do not view with either jealousy or alarm, the proposal to continue the present Civil List for a short period, on the understanding that no part of the new arrangement is thereby prejudged. Next we are called upon by the Address to do—what? To declare that all the important measures that have occupied us so unceasingly during the present arduous Session, shall be at once abandoned! To say the least of it, this is to stultify Parliament; for we must declare, that all the measures which, in the opening of the Session, came recommended from the Throne itself, as essential to the well-being of the country, are not so essential as the dismissal of the present Parliament, by which they are to be gratuitously, and perhaps for ever abandoned. What will the country think of us, after the labours we have undergone, and the long debates we have held, if we at once break off, doing literally nothing? Did I say nothing? We shall have done worse than nothing—we shall have brought forward measures only to relinquish them for others, which in turn have been also abandoned. We could not last night extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he meant to do with the Sugar duties, and yet now, on a Wednesday night, not ordinarily devoted to business, we are required to decide at once upon the most important topic that can engage the attention of the Legislature. I do not dwell upon the danger and confusion—which itself is danger—to arise from the fatal and unlooked-for demise of the Crown, when, if the course now suggested be adopted, there will exist no executive authority, except by means of one of those temporary expedients which have been of late too much the fashion. An order of Council might temporarily settle the question of the Sugar duties, by directing the collection of more than the subject was bound to pay; but what I now refer to goes to the root and foundation of the Monarchy itself; and is that, too, to be settled by an Order of Council? What I contend for is this—that there are risks it is in no way necessary to incur: let us settle the Regency now, and not leave it to a period of unforeseen calamity, when all the excitement of party animosities will be in full and violent operation, and when we shall be deprived of the reliance we might be disposed to place on the executive Government. I cannot too often impress upon the House that all we ask, in order to avoid the chance of the evils I have pointed out, is a delay of twenty-four hours. As to the Estimates, I beg to know whether it is too much, to ask for a delay of twenty-four hours before we decide whether we shall grant a vote of credit, or whether we shall proceed with the Supplies in the regular parliamentary method? That course was settled by the wisdom of our ancestors, and shall we determine, upon the spot, to depart from it, lest a new candidate should unexpectedly start and derange the interests of some favoured, because favouring Member? Do not let us forget, that we have six months before us for the deliberate consideration of these great questions; and heavy will be the responsibility of Members of Parliament, and fifty-fold heavier the responsibility of the members of Government, if they neglect this opportunity, and expose the nation to the perils and calamities which all may foresee, but which it may soon be too late to avoid. On these grounds, I implore my right hon. friend to re-consider his proposition, and to allow us the short delay we require. I implore it the more, because we are now on the last day of June, and how shall we be better qualified to decide these great matters in September than in July? We know that Parliament has been not un-frequently called upon to consider matters of importance in the month of July, and even in August; and I can see no possible reason why the advisers of the Crown should recommend the re-assembling of the two Houses at the most inconvenient period of the year. That Parliament, if now dissolved, will be re-assembled, as soon as the writs are returned, I cannot for a moment doubt; and I never will believe that a House of Commons, with perhaps 200 or 300 new Members, will possess more knowledge of public affairs, more capability of deciding great questions connected with the public interest, than the present House of Commons, with the assistance of all its experience. Then comes the grand absurdity—I will not use a harsh expression—the grand inconsistency of all: that if the contingency of the demise of the Crown should occur before the new writs are returned, this old, incompetent Parliament must inevitably be re-assembled, to contend with all the complicated and accumulated difficulties, and the alarming insecurity, that may then threaten all our great constitutional establishments.

referred to the period when the Act passed, providing that Parliament shall continue to sit no longer than for six months after the "demise of the Crown, and contended, by analogy, that the present was of all times the most proper for considering the circumstances of the country connected with the succession to the Throne. He also adverted to the serious responsibility incurred by Ministers, in refusing to discuss now the question of the Regency, and to the great importance and interest of the subject to the country. He agreed with the right hon. Member who spoke last, that the Civil List did not press with so much urgency, and that it required much time for investigation before the House consented to any permanent settlement. He called the attention of the House to the many great questions yet remaining undecided upon the Orders of the House. Something ought to be determined regarding the Canadas, which were in a state of disturbance and uncertainty. The growth of Tobacco in Ireland was a matter of no small moment; but that, and the questions connected with the Courts of Equity, Tithes, and Beer, were not to be finally concluded. He complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never yet sufficiently stated the nature of his proposed change regarding Beer, although the bill had arrived at its last stage. The Usury Laws, Secondary Punishments, and the Ecclesiastical Courts, were three other questions that were to be wholly abandoned; and with regard to the Sugar duties, he would assert, that the proposed alteration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very far from giving satisfaction to the West-India interest. The planters, during the whole Session, had been ill-treated; relief had been promised by a change in the duties on Rum, but that had been relinquished for the present scheme, which, itself, was now to be hurried through the House, without any opportunity of ascertaining the views and wishes of the parties more immediately concerned. With all these matters unfinished, was it fit, then, independent of any consideration of the Regency, that Parliament should be dismissed, in order that in the next Session the topics should be revived before those who, from their want of knowledge and experience, were unable to arrive at a sound decision? Besides, it ought to be remembered, that no period of dissolution could be more inconvenient than that now about to be chosen: in the middle of a circuit, Members connected with the profession would be led, by personal ambition, to neglect the interests of their clients.

could not see how it was possible for Ministers to refuse the proposal for a delay of twenty-four hours. With regard to the six months for which the present Parliament could yet sit, although time might not be allowed for beginning any new measures, it would be amply sufficient to conclude those already in progress. He contended that the objections of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were more technical than real, and that those Members who had constituents would canvass them better, by remaining in their places and discharging their duties, than by vulgar and cheaper methods of courting popularity.

observed, that the question was, in every point of view, so important, and involved such great constitutional principles, that he could not allow a division to take place without stating the reasons which influenced his vote ["Question, question."] He was not surprised that some hon. Members, who were on all occasions but too anxious to give their votes without requiring any reason for the act, should be impatient for the division, but he thought that, after the patience they had bestowed on the most trivial questions throughout the Session up to two and three in the morning, he was not requiring too much when he asked them at that early hour to favour him with a few minutes' attention. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the proposition to the House asked for its concurrence in those proceedings which were to hasten the termination of their political existence, on the ground of the great convenience it would be to the Members to have an opportunity of canvassing their constituents, and carrying forward their elections with as little ex- pense as possible, and with the most effectual means of evading that successful rivalry which might be set up if they were compelled to absent themselves from attendance on their business in that House. This was the alleged reason for the course now proposed; but the real reason, and that which every one understood, was of a very different nature. It would be convenient for the Members to save expense in canvassing their constituents; but it would also be more convenient for the Government, when it came to propose the Civil List, to meet with a new Parliament whose span of existence might be extended to six years, and who might show a complaisance to the Government on this point in the first year, under the hope that it would be overlooked or forgotten by its constituents before the Members could be again called to account. This was the plain reason for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; and for this every constitutional principle was to be abandoned, and all measures of public convenience or utility wantonly sacrificed. It was a matter of satisfaction to find that every constitutional principle—that every argument, whether drawn from the convenience of the public service, or the pressing necessity of the case, was against the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, and that nothing remained to the right hon. Gentleman to support his views, but an appeal to the personal convenience and interests of the Members themselves. The right hon. Gentleman, in arguing this question of an immediate dissolution, had displayed his usual skill and dexterity as a debater, in the production of precedents with respect to that most important question—the propriety of providing against any sudden demise of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman, in alluding to the course adopted on other occasions, had drawn his precedents from William, Anne, and the 1st and 2nd Georges; but it was a remarkable circumstance that he had passed over the life of George 3rd, in which the necessity of providing for suck an event was clearly admitted and ably argued. Indeed, he thought that the Speech from the Throne calling on the House on that occasion, in the year 1765, to provide for the possible demise of the Crown, contained the most incontrovertible arguments against the postponement of the consideration of such a question a single day longer than could be avoided. Every reason which weighed so strongly in favour of that arrangement in the reign of George 3rd existed now in full force. The same regard in his Majesty for the preservation of good order—the same affection for his family—the necessity of preserving undiminished the honour, the lustre, and the dignity of the Crown—all concurred to induce them to guard against the evils of the sudden demise of the present Sovereign, and to protect this country against the consequences of the power of the Crown falling into the hands of a child of scarce eleven years of age, through whom that power might come into the possession of persons of whom the Government and the Parliament could at the present moment have no knowledge. For the convenience of his Majesty himself, it mattered little whether the question were discussed now, or six months hence; and he trusted, therefore, that the Government, if it did not yield to the arguments drawn from public right and convenience, would at all events listen to the loud clamour for some delay, and allow at least twenty-four hours to consider the effect of a proposition new to almost the whole of the Members,—of which many of them had not had any conception till that evening, and of which he, for one, was entirely ignorant at the moment he left the House yesterday. The question now was—whether the House should proceed to consider those measures which imperiously demanded attention, or whether it should abandon them, and consent to a provisional vote of credit, and perhaps a provisional Regency? It was the duty of the House to pause before it assented to this; at all events, it should guard itself against being driven into an assent to a series of measures, which regard for its constitutional privileges might hereafter lead it to deplore. One thing was plain, that no Member of that House could give his assent to the course now pursued by the right hon. Gentleman, without entertaining an unlimited confidence in the present Ministry. Now, he declared at once that he had not that confidence. He thought well of many of the acts of Ministers—he thought better of many of their intentions—but he was not, after a calm consideration of their conduct since the commencement of the present Session, prepared to give them that confidence which this proposition required. He had watched their conduct narrowly. He saw that the right hon. Gentleman displayed a talent and a skill in the management of his duties in that House, which entitled him to the highest praise; but the support afforded him was so feeble and so inefficient, that in the Ministry, as a whole, he repeated he could have no confidence. He had heard the reasons with which they supported their measures confuted, and their propositions one after another so shaken in the course of discussion, that they were either thrown overboard or totally changed, before they received the approbation of the House. These were proofs of the weakness of the Government in the management of its affairs; but there were other and stronger proofs of their ignorance and incompetency. In the discussion on the Sugar-duties, he had heard their propositions scouted by every man in that House who had any knowledge of commerce; while their measures respecting the alterations of the Court of Chancery were condemned by every Member who had any acquaintance with Equity. In these matters there was no reason to doubt the goodness of their intentions, however their prudence or ability might be questioned; but there was one subject which more than any other had, from the manner in which it was treated, excited his suspicions of the present Government. The subject to which he alluded was not one of those which gave to a county new Members, or to large and populous towns representatives. It conferred no right which was the subject of great party contention. It was a mere question whether the right of voting in a borough town (he alluded to the Galway Franchise Bill) was to be given to those who had once enjoyed it, or whether the right of voting was to be so shut up, as to render a populous town a mere close borough in the hands of a single person? That Bill, after receiving the assent of the House of Commons, had been carried elsewhere, and, to his astonishment—he might add, to his grief—he perceived by the newspapers that the person who proposed the Amendment which perpetuated the abuses in the borough, and limited the franchise to the power of a single individual, was the person who at that moment held the situation of the head of the Government. Whatever might be thought of the wisdom or of the prudence of some of the measures of the noble Duke, no man ever could have supposed that he would sully his hand with such a job as that. To a Government, which, from its vacillation, its incompetence, or its hostility to popular rights, deserved no confidence, he could not give the power it now demanded; and he, therefore, eagerly and anxiously supported the amendment of the noble Lord.

begged to recall the Members to a consideration of the real question before them. The question was, whether they should reply to the Message of his Majesty, declaring themselves ready to facilitate, as far as in their power lay, the despatch of the business of the Session, according to the Royal wish; or whether they should take twenty-four hours longer to deliberate on the course they might ultimately adopt. Now, he could not desire any better answer in support of the Address, than that which was contained in the Amendment of the noble Lord. They had already had twenty-four hours to consider what they were to do, and the Amendment required twenty-four hours longer. That was the question. They required twenty-four hours longer, to consider that reply to his Majesty which every man knew was already determined on. Could any man doubt, at the time the Message was brought down and read, that it was plain from its language the Answer must correspond to its wish? Could any man doubt that it contained no allusion to a proposal for a Regency, and therefore that there was nothing of that kind on which it was necessary for Members to make up their minds? But what said the learned member for Knaresborough (Mr. Brougham)? Why,—that the whole of the people of this country had for six weeks past been considering the question of a Regency. If that were the case, surely then the Members of that House had made up their minds on the subject, and were competent to decide the question of a Regency or not a Regency, without requiring twenty-four hours longer deliberation. The proposal on the subject of a provisional Regency seemed to be abandoned by all parties. What, then, he asked, were they now called on to decide? Why, that they should, as quickly as possible, go over those votes which were necessary as a preparation for an immediate dissolution, and that they should inform his Majesty they were disposed to comply with his wishes in that respect. His right hon. friend the member for Montgomery (Mr. C. W. Wynn) had, how- ever, called on the House to decide, not that point, but other questions, which for a thousand years had not been decided in this country. The right hon. Gentleman called on them to decide the question of whether the Heiress Presumptive was to be Queen at the time when the Queen Consort might probably have issue? A question which, although it might have frequently occurred, had yet remained, he repeated, undecided. This was the question, however, which the right hon. Gentleman the member for Montgomery would allow the House a few days to determine. Here, however, he recollected another specimen of the objections to the Address; it was the objection of the right hon. member for Liverpool, that the debate had been taken on a Wednesday. So, because the King died on a Saturday, and that circumstance prevented the communication from the Throne being made before Tuesday, they were at this period of the Session not to enter on the discussion of most important public business because it was fixed for Wednesday. He confessed it appeared to him that his right hon. friend had to-night as well as on many other occasions, forgotten he had once been in the service of the Crown. There was scarcely one occasion in the course of the present Session, whether in describing the state of trade, the distresses of the people, or the consequences of a particular course of policy, that the right hon. Gentleman did not cast into oblivion the fact that for more than twenty years no man had been more closely connected with the Government, no man had exercised a greater influence over its decisions, than he. If his right hon. friend found such objections 10 the course now pursued, and condemned it so strongly, how came it that his right hon. friend had, in his capacity of Privy Councillor, given his consent to the very same course in the year 1820. What did the Crown require on the present occasion? A concurrence in its wishes with respect to the despatch of business, in order that it might exercise its undoubted prerogative. The Crown asked the House for no opinion on the course it proposed. Its power to make this use of its prerogative was undoubted; but the House might nevertheless, as in the case of the continuance of the Sugar duties, exercise its privileges to control the exercise of that prerogative. The real question, as he said before, was not, therefore, whe- ther they should wait twenty-four hours to deliberate on that question on which every man had already made up his mind; but whether they should adopt the views of the Crown, or refuse to allow the exercise of the Royal prerogative until a Regency was appointed. He did not complain of those who had framed the Amendment in its present shape. However opposed to the real commonsense question they had to determine, it was a perfectly legitimate method of opposing the proposition of the Government. He begged those who contended for the immediate appointment of a Regency to recollect, however, that even supposing the Crown was to devolve on the Princess Victoria, the responsibility of his Majesty's Ministers, in the appointment of a Regency, would remain the same, and no difficulty would occur in a case of that kind more than at present. He knew he might be told of the power of the Crown. There were cases certainly in which that power could be exercised to produce strife in the country; but every one knew that all real power was exercised under the responsibility of the Ministers, and that the House of Commons, by the stoppage of the Supplies, could always compel them to adopt that course which the necessities of the country demanded. He entreated the House, therefore, to go to the vote on the real merits of the question—on the propriety of complying with the wishes of the Crown, and reposing a just confidence in his Majesty's Ministers; and not to be deluded by an Amendment which professed to require twenty-four hours for the consideration of a question already fully determined on.

was proceeding to deny that he had ever forgotten his duty as a Privy Councillor, when

explained, that he had not said anything of that kind. All he wished to express was, that his right hon. friend had frequently forgotten this Session that he had ever been a Minister of the Crown.

said, he was unconscious of having acted with the forgetfulness imputed to him; but he bowed with great humility to all lessons received from his right hon. friend on the subject of inconsistency.

observed, that there had been but two speakers on the side of the Government, although the House had been treated with three speeches, and it was not at all wonderful, therefore, that its supporters should wish to extinguish a discussion in which none of its adherents had any desire to take a part. It had been well observed, that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman took the House by surprise, for he believed that no one in it had the slightest idea that the great constitutional question of a Regency would be wholly passed by, and that they would be called on to confine themselves to the passing of a Vote of Credit, preparatory to an immediate dissolution. He would say, that he had no suspicions of that kind, and he really thought the Message was framed with great dexterity, so as to allow of its being converted to one thing or the other, as the Government might subsequently determine. When they looked at the state of public business, and the little progress the Government had been able to make during the Session, it did not surprise him that the Ministers found it convenient to send the Members back to their constituents. He understood, indeed, that the true reason for the immediate dissolution was not because the House could not get through its business, but because there was no probability of getting to any termination of the business. All minor points were, however, lost in the contemplation of the awful responsibility which Ministers took on themselves in the event of the demise of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it was not necessary to make any provision for a Regency, because the Princess, if she succeeded to the Throne, had the power to assent to the Bill for the appointment of a Regency when it became necessary. If, however, that argument were good, why, he would ask, provide a Regency at all, for, as a child had it in her power to settle the Regency satisfactorily at any time, there was just as little reason for determining to settle the question six months hence as for refusing to settle it now. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was, in truth, one of the loosest and most inconclusive he had ever heard advanced in that House. The House and the Government were able to find time for details, but, when this great question was brought forward, they turned their backs upon it. For these reasons, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.

said, that if he had not expressed his opinions on all occasions, it was because he placed implicit confidence in his Majesty's Government. The hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, in his speech on the Scotch Judicature Bill, gave great credit to the Government for what it had done, in depriving itself of patronage for the sake of forwarding the public advantage, and he therefore thought that the hon. and learned Member, and the House generally, ought to give great credit to the Government for what it had done, and to support it on that occasion, in the faith that it was disposed to do all in its power for the benefit of the country.

said, that he could not support the recommendation to dissolve the Parliament without the appointment of a Regency. He had supported the Government in most of its measures; but this was not a question of 100l. or 1,000l. It was a question which involved the possible safety and security of the nation; and he felt that he should be wanting in his duty if he did not say that he could not consent to give his vote in favour of the Government on this occasion.

said, that he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord; and he cautioned the Ministry to take care how they dissolved Parliament when the country had such reason to be dissatisfied with their conduct.

The House then divided: For the Amendment 139; Against it 185—Majority 46.

On the Question being put on the Original Address,

said, in his opinion, the House had been called upon to decide this question without due notice; and the Amendment which he had already moved had expressed his view on the subject. He should now move an Amendment to the Address itself, which he did to the following effect:—"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to represent to his Majesty that we acknowledge, with every sentiment of gratitude, the communication which his Majesty has been pleased to make to his faithful Commons; that his faithful Commons acknowledge as a proof of his Majesty's anxiety for the public welfare his Majesty's gracious determination that, in consideration of the advanced period of the Session, and the state of the public business, he feels unwilling to recommend the introduction of any new matter, which would admit of postponement without detriment to the public service; and his faithful Commons feel it to be their duty to state, that if his Majesty, taking the present circumstances of the country into his consideration, should contemplate some provision for guarding against the danger to which the country might otherwise by possibility be exposed, his faithful Commons are ready to take into their consideration such measures as his Majesty may be pleased to recommend for this purpose: that his Majesty's faithful Commons are at all times ready to assist his Majesty in the execution of all public services, and to facilitate the dissolution of Parliament whenever it shall appear to his Majesty to be requisite for the benefit of his people; and they trust that the furtherance of his Majesty's wishes will be most effectually provided for, by diligently carrying through that portion of the ordinary business of the Session which still remains incomplete."

did not mean any disrespect to the noble Lord; but as the debating this Amendment would only be going over the same ground again, he should content himself with generally opposing it.

said, that since his Majesty's Government had resolved to proceed, not only without the support of that House, but against its opinion, and in despite and contempt of its sentiments,—when the whole weight of Government had been put forth, and had only secured the support of 185 against 139; to collect which 139 he would take upon himself to say that no expedient had been used—[Loud cheers on both sides of the House, amidst which was a peculiar cry.]

rose to Order. He wished to ask the Speaker whether the expression which had just been uttered by the hon. Member behind him was within the rules of the House [cries of hear, hear, hear and no, no!] Might he explain? Was that exclamation, which he took on himself, with every wish to qualify it, to describe as one of a very indecent nature, within the rules of the House?

If the impression on his mind had been the same as on the mind of the hon. Member, he should certainly have felt it to have been his duty to have interfered. If he had been remiss in his duty on that head, the House would so instruct him.

continued; For himself he hardly marvelled at that sort of cheer; and if the hon. Gentleman had been in the habit of sitting on his side of the House, he would by this time have been inured to such sounds. By a wonderful disposition of nature, every animal had its peculiar mode of expressing itself; and he was too much of a philosopher to quarrel with any of those modes. To return, however, to the question. It was his fortune to know, that for the 139 votes which appeared in the minority, no exertion of any kind had been made—no coalition had taken place—no understanding had been entered into; but the division in which he sat, that on his left hand, and that on the right hand of the Ministry, had all come forward spontaneously, because they felt the case strongly, Let them remember, too, that all this had taken place on a Wednesday, and from that hour never let any one be flouted or flung at for bringing forward a motion on that day, whether it was his" noble friend, the member for Cambridge (Lord Palmerston), when touching on the dignities of the country; or his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, that most useful and invaluable Representative of the people, to whom he wished long life and prosperity, for he had the hearts of the people with him; never, he said, let any one be flouted or flung at for bringing forward business of importance on a Wednesday. Amongst all the arguments used on the other side, he acknowledged that there was one which was new, and one which he had not heard in that House,—he meant the implied threat of resigning. "If you leave Government in a minority I will resign, and where then will you get a field marshal to superintend your finances, and your Law Courts?" If he had had the bad fortune to hear that threat uttered in this place, he should have stated the grounds on which he deemed it his duty not to listen to the threat, but to look with an equal and undisturbed mind on what some might consider the last national calamity. He conceived it just possible for the United Kingdom to bear the going out of office of a considerable portion of his Majesty's Ministers. Let them not lay any flattering unction to their soul, and indulge fond hopes of securing their power from the measure they contemplated; that hope might meet with such a disappointment as to make them look back, even to this Parliament, with some of the pleasures of memory. Their case might be the same as that of Prince Polignac. He must needs send the representatives of France to their constituents; and mark, they were choosing a new Assembly, and that great nation was up, not in arms—that might be controlled—but up in the panoply of reason, and to be the comfort of all freemen, and especially of ourselves; no longer their enemies, but happily their rivals in obtaining the advantages of free and liberal institutions;—they were resolved to set at nought the paltry intrigues of Prince this, and Duke that; and cared no more for them, even when backed by a band of Jesuits, than they did for the memory of those wretched regicides whom they had unanimously agreed to despise and bury in endless oblivion. The hon. and learned Gentleman then continued nearly as follows:—We can perceive, Sir, in this country as in that, that the day of force is over, and that the Minister who hopes to rule by an appeal to Royal favour or military power, may be overwhelmed, though I in nowise accuse him of such an attempt. Him I accuse not. It is you I accuse—his flatterers—his mean, fawning parasites.

I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I am one of those on this side of the House to which he is referring, whether he means to accuse me of such conduct? The hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself to this side of the House, when he said, "I mean to accuse you—his flatterers—his mean, fawning parasites." I am sitting on this side of the House; and, speaking in my own individual capacity, I ask him whether he presumes—whether he presumes to call me the mean and fawning parasite of anybody?

rose amid some cries of "Chair, chair!" How it is possible, Sir, for you to answer the question that has been asked, I do not know. I am not aware how you, by any possibility, can answer a question that has been put to me; but I observe, that it is reckoned much easier on that side of the House to have the question put, and then, by a cry of this sort prevent the answer being given. Now, Sir, I beg to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question by a question of my own. I ask him whether, in the course of the last two or three Sessions, I have ever treated him so disrespectfully as he for the purpose of putting this question chooses to consider the case? I ask him whether he has perceived in my conduct, in word or deed, during the last two or three Sessions, the slightest tendency towards treating him with personal incivility or disrespect? Sir, I anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and it is in reply to the question which he has demanded of me. Sir it was impossible that I should allude to him, but what I did allude to was the votes passed, and the resolutions come to, and the cries uttered, all of which I have as much right to canvass as hon. Members had to make them. An equal right, too, I claim to comment on the character and conduct—or at least, if not on the character, on the political and official conduct of any one of the Ministers to whom the Crown is pleased to give its confidence. This, Sir, is my undeniable right; and if, in the course of my comments, I am interrupted by cheers, the meaning of which is as much as to say that those comments are contemptible and unfounded, it is also my undeniable right to impute that interruption to what I please. Let me be understood; I do not ascribe motives, but, I ascribe tendencies. It was tendencies that I ascribed. I am in the judgment of the House that I said it was the parasite—pessimum genus inimicorum—that did the mischief. I have a perfect right, Sir, to challenge the conduct of any Minister that the Crown may please to appoint; and if any Minister is defended in an unconstitutional manner, it is my privilege, it is my right, nay more, it is my bounden duty, to attack and expose them, and that shall ever, while I have a seat in this House, be the course which I shall adopt. It is at the same time the course of conduct which it behoves this House to pursue; and I warn his Majesty's Ministers, that such a course will always be adopted, and that it will be their interest, and their best and safest policy to expect and lay their account to seeing it adopted.

Sir, I have no right to speak at this moment; but I trust that the House will permit me to say a few words (I trust in perfect good temper) in allusion to that part of the hon. and learned Member's speech in which he referred to my interruption of his observations. I do not suspect that he offered to myself these personal comments of an unjustifiable nature. I do not believe that it was his deliberate intention to offend any one by their use; but at the same time I must say, that it would have been better for him to have withdrawn the expression altogether, to have said, that it was uttered in the warmth of debate, rather than to attempt, in this unsatisfactory manner, to justify it. No one has contested his perfect right to attack Ministers for their public conduct; but he said, "if the Duke of Wellington should resort to intrigue or employ force," and at that word, Sir, a cheer was given, on which the hon. and learned Member turned around and said, "Do I accuse him of this? No, Sir, no such thing—I accuse you, his fawning parasites"—and then there was a cheer of indignant remonstrance at an attack thus made, and then declared to be meant, not as against the Minister, but against his fawning parasites. Now, giving the hon. and learned Member every advantage of the right of free discussion, I must say that he has no right to accuse men as honest, independent, and upright as himself, of being parasites. Sir, it will be bad indeed if we are not able to conduct these debates, which naturally lead to sufficient asperity of expression and warmth of feeling, without these personal imputations. These words, Sir (for I will make the apology and retraction, for the hon. and learned Gentleman) were not meant to apply to any one—they were not meant to apply to me; the hon. and learned Member said so himself, and I am sure that his feeling of honour and candour will acquiesce in the statement I now make, that they were uttered in the warmth of debate, and without reference to any individual application.

I have no hesitation in saying, that the right hon. Baronet is quite correct. I did not charge any Member more than himself with being a parasite. I was myself offended that I was suspected of applying the words to him. They were not deliberately directed to any individual. All that I did was to state my feelings in language perhaps a little warmer than usual. I will only add, that what I said of parasites is in fact true; and that the worst sort of enemies a man can have are those who obsequiously call themselves his friends.

, who rose amidst loud cries of "Question," was understood to say, that the hon. Members opposite seemed to have adopted the plan sometimes supposed to be employed by Mr. Holmes, who was called the "Whipper-in." But though they had been started at the same point, they did not seem to run well together; they were not, in fact, well coupled, and they came to fault in the chase.

I don't quite understand the language of the kennel, employed by the hon. Member opposite; it is not generally very intelligible; it is a sort of dog language, full of wit, no doubt, but I repeat, I don't understand it. If the hon. Member means, as I suppose he does, that any attempt has been made to obtain an attendance on this side of the House, he is mistaken. If he means that a single note has been issued to assemble Members together, the idea is, I can assure him, utterly unfounded; and whoever told him so, was either mistaken, or has been the means of misleading him. This I can tell him, that if we were to try the plan he refers to, he would find in another Session that 139 Members were not by any means the number of those who would agree to unite in the defence of the Constitution and the people.

confirmed the statement of the want of combination, and suggested to the right hon. Secretary the propriety of allowing the further consideration of this question to be postponed for twenty-four hours.

could not consent to that postponement.

protested against a proceeding which might leave this country in a most awful situation. He thought the House ought not to separate till they had assured his Majesty that they were ready to consider the question of a Regency.

The House divided: For the Amendment 146—Against it 193; Majority against the Amendment 47.

The original Address was then put and carried.

objected to proceeding after twelve o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman had better postpone the consideration till Friday.

agreed with the hon. Member, that it was impossible for them to expect the House to pay much attention to any subject after the discussion they had already gone through; but the case was particular, and indeed there was a necessity to forward the measure as soon as possible.

Order of the Day read, and following Resolutions reported—

Sugar Duties

"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that towards raising the Supply granted to his Majesty, there shall be charged the following duties upon Sugar imported into the United Kingdom; that is to say,—upon all Brown or Muscovado Sugar; published in the manner directed by law, viz.—

On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these Resolutions were recommitted.

The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.

said, his right hon, friend had stated generally, in the early part of the evening, the grounds for altering the Resolutions in the hands of the Chairman, and at the same time stated the nature of the Resolution it would be his duty to submit to the Committee. There was only one objection, that he knew of, likely to be urged to his present proposition; and that arose from the duty on the different kinds of sugar not being levied in exactly the same proportions as at present. The reduction made in the duties would occasion a loss of revenue, equal to that which he stated was likely to result from the measure previously submitted to the House. He had subsequently thought it necessary to make a reduction on East as well as West-Indian sugar. The ground on which he had proposed that East Indian sugar should not share the intended relaxation of duty was, that that sugar competed with a quality of West-Indian produce, with regard to which no reduction of duty was contemplated; but, from the peculiar circumstances in which the country was placed, it had been judged more advisable to adopt a general reduction of the duties on West-Indian sugar, and it therefore was just to make a corresponding reduction on East-Indian sugar. The reduction proposed on sugar, coming from the West-Indies was one-ninth; and that on East-Indian sugar, somewhat more than one-ninth; but only so much more as was necessary to get rid of the fractional pence. On former occasions, when it was proposed to reduce the duties on West-Indian sugar to 20s. a cwt.; and on East-Indian sugar, to 25s. per cwt., that scale met with the concurrence of many gentlemen concerned in West-Indian produce; he had, therefore, persuaded himself, that the slight difference of a fraction, now proposed in favour of East-Indian sugar, would not lead to any objection on the part of the West-Indian interest. His object in proposing the present Resolution was, to bring forward a measure calculated to insure general concurrence as a temporary arrangement, not to lay down any permanent system of trade. The wish of the Ministers, in the first instance, must be to afford relief to a suffering interest; and they had reason to believe, from representations made by the West-Indians themselves, that the relief now proposed would be acceptable to them, and therefore not calculated to excite opposition or discussion, so as to prevent the House from passing the Resolution before the present sugar duties should expire. It was not necessary to make any further remarks, but he should be happy to answer any objections made to his proposition. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions, "that it is the opinion of this Committee, that towards raising the supply granted to his Majesty, there shall be charged, for a time to be limited, the following duties upon Sugar imported into the United Kingdom, that is to say:—

"Upon all brown or Muscovado, or clayed sugar, being the produce of, and imported from, British possessions in America, or the island of Mauritius, the cwt. 1l. 4s.

"Upon all brown or Muscovado, or clayed sugar, the produce of, and imported from, the British possessions in the East Indies, the cwt. 1l. 12s.

"Upon all brown or Muscovado, or clayed sugar, the produce of, or imported from, any other places, the cwt. 3l. 3s."

had no intention, after so much had been said upon this subject, long to occupy the House by his remarks. In proposing this simple measure of reduction, in point of principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done well, and no doubt his proposition would be acceptable; but there was certainly a difference of opinion on the point to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. The reduction he had proposed was not so great as the West-Indians had a right to expect; but still, as Government admitted that the duty was excessive, this reduction, small as it was, appeared calculated to excite hope for the future, which Ministers would do well not to disappoint. He expected that they would next Session come forward with a proposition, which would place this interest on a better footing than it had been for several years. With regard to the present measure, the liberty of saying, that a plan, to be acceptable to the West-Indian body, and afford it relief, should not have extended a greater degree of relief to a rival article. The question on the duties on East-Indian sugar, should have been left for investigation, certainly it was not one that ought to be decided in that offhand manner. There would not, perhaps, be so much reason to complain if, taking one-ninth from the duty of 25s. on West-Indian sugar, the Government had taken one-ninth, also, from the duty of 37s. on East-Indian sugar; but instead of so doing, which would be taking off 3s. from the former, and a very little more than 4s. per cwt, from the latter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took 5s. from the latter. He said, that this was a very small distinction; but still it was one which affected a most important question, which ought not to be disposed of in this manner. It would have been far better if he had contented himself with moving a reduction on East-Indian sugar of 3s. or 4s. per cwt.

said, that in the next Session he would oppose any discriminating duties, as most injurious to the trade. A reduction of duties ought to be accompanied by a proportionate reduction of drawbacks, or a great injury would be done to the consumer at home.

had given notice, when this subject was last before the House, that he would move that the duties on Sugar be reduced to 20s.; but the original proposition of Ministers having been abandoned, and considering the position in which the House was placed with regard to the Sugar duties, and also considering what had been stated by the hon. Member who spoke last but one, who seemed satisfied with this plan, he meant not to persevere in his intention. The only objection he had to the new plan was, the smallness of the difference made between the East and West-India sugar. Greater relief might have been given without materially affecting the public revenue, and between this and the next meeting of Parliament, he hoped Ministers would consider whether the permanent reduction could be greater. He hoped also that his right hon. friend, on giving relief by reducing the duty on sugar, meant also proportionately to reduce the duty on molasses, now 10s. per cwt.; and he should be satisfied with having the duty on that article reduced, for the present, to 9s. He would also urge upon his right hon. friend's consideration the anomalous state in which, at present, Rum was placed, an article which was absolutely prohibited in two parts out of three of the British empire. As the law stood, the consumption of rum was virtually prohibited in Scotland and Ireland; the duty upon it there being the same as in England, although that upon home-made Spirits was so much smaller. The duty upon corn-spirits here with the proposed additional 6d., would be 7s. 6d. a gallon, whilst that upon rum would be 9s.; a slight difference, which did not prevent a great consumption of rum in this country, where many persons preferred it to any other spirit; but in Ireland and Scotland, where the duty on corn-made spirits was 3s. 4d., the difference between that sum and 9s. on an article of this description, amounted to a prohibition of its consumption. He might perhaps be told, that one reason against introducing rum into Ireland and Scotland, at a lower duty than into England, was, that it would be smuggled from both those countries into England. But that was no real objection, for the same argument applied to corn-made spirits, the difference of the duty on which, in the two countries, was very great. No greater injustice could be done to our West-Indian colonies; and no greater insult offered to the feelings of West-Indian proprietors than that of prohibiting their great staple production in two-thirds of the empire. He trusted, therefore, when the relief that would be given to our colonies by the increased use of rum in Ireland and Scotland, but particularly in the latter, where, heretofore, it was in great demand, was considered, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be prevailed upon to lower the duty upon rum, imported into those countries to Scotland, such a degree as to make it bear the same proportion to the corn-made spirits there, as it did to the corn-made spirits of England. In this country there was a discriminating duty, in favour of corn-made spirits, of 1s. 6d. per gallon, whilst the discriminating duty imposed upon rum imported into Scotland and Ireland was 5s. 8d.; but if the duty were reduced from 9s. to 4s. 10d., it would bear the same proportion to corn-made spirits produced in those countries, as it did to the corn-made spirits of this country. This plan would have the advantage of giving relief to the West-Indians, by affording them a market for an article for which they had no vent, and would, at the same time, be attended with benefit, rather than loss, to the Revenue, inasmuch as the increase in the consumption of rum, whatever it might be, would be an increase in the consumption of an article paying a higher duty than corn-made spirits.

did not mean to imply that the West-Indians would be satisfied with the measure, but from the particular circumstances of the case he had not strenuously opposed it. If the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman, as to rum, were taken into consideration he would support it.

maintained that the proposed relief was not what the West-India interest expected, or was entitled to, and he should, therefore, move as an Amendment, to reduce the proposed duty by 7s. instead of 3s.

The Amendment was read by the Chairman. It was to the effect, that on all plain Muscovado and Brown Sugar, imported from the British possessions in North America, and from the Island of Mauritius, there should be a duty of 20s. per cwt.

seconded the Amendment. The West-India interest had been seriously injured by the vacillating conduct of the Government. The unexpected change in its measures had deteriorated West-India produce, and caused a vast deal of mischief to every person dealing in it.

argued, that the relief proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wholly inadequate; and represented the great injury and inconvenience which the West-India trade had suffered from the fluctuations in the measures of his Majesty's Government during the present Session.

, although he allowed that the proposed relief would not be a substantial one, yet did not wish to oppose his right hon. friend's proposition, because he hailed it as a proof, that the barrier which had been set up against all efforts at a reduction of duty was broken down. At the same time, as he did not consider the proposed reduction sufficient, if his noble friend pressed his Amendment he would support it.

supported the Amendment, considering the relief proposed by the original Resolution to be wholly inadequate.

hoped that greater relief would be afforded in the next Session, and considered the present reduction as a great concession.

said, that the West Indies were in so reduced a state, that even the trifling relief proposed would be acceptable. If his Majesty's Government had the smallest desire to alleviate the distress of the West Indies, they would attend to the suggestions of the right hon. member for Liverpool respecting the duties on Rum.

thought, that the question ought not to be made so much a personal question, but that those who formed what was called the West-India interest, ought to come forward in common with all who were concerned in the growth of sugar: if they would not seek a monopoly but make common cause with the people of England, the latter would make common cause with them. Let them do by the parties connected with the East Indies as they would be done by, and not, like the dog in the manger, deny to others what they could not enjoy themselves.

denied that the West-India interest could safely make common cause with the East-Indians. He complained much of the present being made a bye question—he wished to see it a Ministerial question, that they might come forward and argue it in the face of the country.

said, that the consumers had as much, nay, more reason to complain of the amount of the duties than the West-India proprietors; for the consumers were, after all, the real sufferers. He was resolved to vote for the larger reduction, for he was determined to oppose any impost that he possibly could, though he acknowledged it was not the most legitimate mode of expressing the dissatisfaction which he thought the House and the country had aright to feel at the enormous amount of the Estimates for the present year, which, in one branch alone, were 500,000l. above what they ought to be.

was compelled, against his inclinations, to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned his original plan, which would have given more relief to the suffering West-Indians than the present reduction of duty.

dwelt upon the impracticability of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman; who he was sure would acknowledge, that, within these few days, a paper had been presented to him, signed by several practical men, pointing out the impossibility of executing the proposed measure. He should on that, as well as other accounts, vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord

said, that the present state of the finances of the country would not admit of such a sacrifice of Revenue as the Amendment necessarily involved. The reduction which he had proposed, he should have no objection, at a future time, to extend further, should it on trial be found to work well.

The Committee divided—For the Amendment 88; Against it 88—Majority 52.

Original Resolutions agreed to, as was also a Resolution for reducing the duty on molasses to 9s. per cwt.; and also a Resolution, that a sum not exceeding 13,607,000l. be raised by Exchequer Bills for the service of the year 1830.

The House resumed; the Resolutions reported.