, seeing a Member of her Majesty's Government in the House, would ask the question of which he had given notice yesterday, namely, whether her Majesty's Ministers view as authentic the proclamation purporting to be issued by the King of Hanover on the 5th day of this present month of July, in which he declaren he did not consider the Constitution agreed to by his predecessors, George 4th and William 4th, as binding on him either in form or in substance, and intimated his intention of reverting to the old Constitution without consulting the States-General?

could give no answer to the question. It was rather a question for the States of Hanover to consider.

.: Then, Sir, at an early period of the next Session of Parliament, I shall move for leave to bring in a Bill to declare that in the existing circumstances of the Crown, no foreign prince or potentate ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority pre-eminence, authority, or succession, within this realmorany of the Queen's dominions; and to vest the succession, in the event of the demise of her Majesty, in Prince George of Cambridge, and his heirs.

said, that seeing his hon. Friend (Mr. Pattison), at present one of the Members for the city of London, and who he hoped would continue to be so, in his place, he wished to ask him whether the Bill which had been brought in respecting the clause inserted in the charter of the Bank of England for discounting bills of exchange at three months, at a higher rate of interest than five per cent., and which went to extend that period to twelve months, met with his approbation, and with the approbation of his colleagues in the directory of the Bank of England?

was understood to say, that when he joined in bringing in the Bill to which his hon. Friend had referred at the commencement of the Session, he did so because he approved of the principle of the Bill, and because he had previously con- ferred with his colleagues—the directors of the Bank—on the subject, whose approbation he also believed had been unanimously given to that principle. He had always wished the clause in the charter to extend to bills for twelvemonths, instead of three. But the reason he had withdrawn from the management of the Bill this Session was, that at the time it was introduced he was the governor of the Bank of England, and he felt that it was better that he should not take a prominent part in the measure.

observed, that it was no doubt true that the hon. Member for the city of London had given his concurrence to the extension of the period of three months to twelve; but the statement that that extension of time had met with the concurrence of his colleagues, the directors of the Bank, was in contradiction to what was averred by an hon. Member on Saturday last, who expressly declared that as an individual director of the Bank the extension of the period to twelve months had not his individual concurrence.

begged to observe, that the statement made on Saturday was, that the Bank directors approved of the period of six months, and of that term only; therefore he was glad to have elicited from his hon. Friend the expression of his approbation of the term being extended to twelve months.