NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE principal subjects which have engaged the attention of Par- liament during the week, have been the Regency question, and Sir JAMES SCARLETT'S Libel Law Amendment Bill.
The discussion of the former produced what may be termed a reaction in favour of Ministers. In the debates on the Address, and on several other questions, they had been very hard run, and the narrowness of their majorities was the subject of considerable triumph to the Opposition. On the Regency question, introduced again on Tuesday by Mr. ROBERT GRANT and his friends, the triumph was on the other side ; Ministers having not a majority merely, but an overwhelming one. We believe that the renewed agitation of a subject which had been consigned to rest, if not by consent at least by necessity, was resented by many of the mem- bers, and that the majority was not so much produced by attach- ment to the Ministers, as a desire to get through the remaining business of the House.
The object of Sir JAMES SCARLETT'S bill is to repeal that clause of one of the notable Six Acts which allows of the infliction of banish- ment for seven years on a second conviction for libel. The repeal was attempted by Mr. Huma during Mr. CANNING'S Administra- tion, and was at that time resisted by Sir JAMES. The latter had, however, been so severely handled for his prosecutions, that he was willing, if possible, to niaffie the amende—but he is incapable of doing a good thing in a gracious way : not content with a simple repeal of the obnoxious clause, he must add one, not in- deed so oppressive, but which must do what the other never did nor could do—work. This clause raises the printer's security from 300,/. to 4001. It was lost in the Committee, but still Sir JAMES persisted; and last night it was again foisted into the bill on the bringing up of the report.
On Wednesday. Mr. HUME amused the House, and delighted the Home Secretary, by a not new, but certainly unexpected dis- sertation on the duties and powers of electors. Mr. HUME thinks that they have only to do as they ought to do, to produce a House of Commons of unimpeachable honesty and wisdom, independent of Ministers and every body else. We concede to Mr. HUME, that if all the voters in town and country chose to forego their private interests,—to act sine odio, sine amicilia, and at the same time with unity of plan as well as purpose, it would be possible to frame such a House, even under the present system. Make all the peo- ple of England good and wise, and their representatives will he so by necessary consequence—unless they go to Scotland or Ireland for them. We rather think, however, simple as this feat may ap- pear to Mr. Hums, that Radical Reform, with all its impractica- bilities, will be found the easier miracle of the two.
1. REGENCY. Mr. ROBERT GRANT moved, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, assuring him that the House was deeply affected by the gracious declaration made by his Majesty on his accession to the throne, of his attachment to the consti- tution of these realms. That his Majesty's faithful Commons felt that they should fail in theperformance of their duty, if, amidst their general feeling of gratitude, mingled with ardent prayers for the prolongation of a reign so auspiciously commenced, they omitted to make known to his Majesty the anxiety felt by his Majesty's loyal subjects at the possibility of a misfortune which might deprive them of the blessings of his Majesty's paternal reign, and in its consequences endanger the best interests of the monarchy. That they were therefore induced to lay the expression of their anxiety at the foot of the Throne, from the deep attachment which they felt towards his Majesty's august family, and from the conviction which they entertained that the safety of the state, and the stability of its institutions, essentially depended on the unimpaired exercise of the powers vested in the first of the three classes composing the constitution of this limited monarchy. They therefore approached his Majesty with the dutiful assurance of their readiness to take into immediate considera- t on any measure which his Majesty might be graciously pleased to re- commend, in orderto guard against the possible hazard which was to be apprehended from the demise of the Crown in the present circumstances , of the country."
After disclaiming party feelings, and quoting the more import ant of the precedents with which our history supplied him, Mr. IL Grant proceeded to an exposition of the dangers and inconve- niences which might result from the demise of the Crown before the appointment of a Regency.
In the event of a demise of the Crown, after that Parliament had been dismissed, and before the writs had been issued for a new one, they might
look forward to the probability of two contingencies,—either the demise of the Monarch, leaving offspring of tender years, or posthumous offspring, or offspring yet unborn ; or else the falling of the succession to a Princess of tender years, the niece of his present Majesty. Supposing the first:of f
these, there must he some provision forthwith, to provide some protecting care for this infant, to which the Crown falls. And taking the case of
the Queen being enceinte, what would be the course to be pursued ? He would gladly pass over this delicate subject with a transient mention, but it was his duty to call the attention of the House to all the difficulties to which they might be exposed in such an event, if it were unprovided for. Well, according to the statute of the 6th of Anne, which regulated the succession, and ordered certain solemnities to be observed immediately
after the death of the reigning Sovereign or her successors, it positively declares that the Privy Council must, under the penalty of high treason, forthwith assemble, and proclaim the Sovereign succeeding to the Throne of these realms, under the provisions of the Act of Settlement. Now here was the difficulty—the Royal issue had not yet seen the light : whom then were they to proclaim ? They were bound to swear allegiance, but to whom ? The Privy Council too was bound to have the Sovereign pro- claimed in various places throughout the empire; and in all these succes. sive proclamations whom were they to proclaim ? It was provided too, that the existing Administration should continue for six months after the demise of the Crown, unless it be previously dismissed by the reigning Monarch ; but who was to dismiss them ?—to whom did they owe alle- giance? In the next place, that Parliament should be summoned again to provide for the crisis ; but they must receive the commission from the Throne. But how was this to be procured, when the Throne was empty ?
Then they were all hound to take the oath of allegiance at that table; but to whom were they to swear it? Next, a bill should be passed to provide
for the consequences; but how was it to receive the royal assent? And lastly, what would be the state of the country all that while—whose sub- jects would the people of England be—for whom were their prayers to be offered up in the churches—in whose name were all acts to run—in whose name were all proceedings to be taken—against whom would it be possible to commit high treasori? These were questions of the utmost import- ance, which would incontrovertibly show, the improvidence of the Go- vernment with respect to an emergency of that nature. Again, supposing that foreign news of great importance arrived, what was to be done ? And these were not merely hypothetical difficulties, or difficulties con- jured up merely to appal ; they all might occur, and they now served to throw the first case into the strongest light. Now, let them proceed to the alternative ; let them suppose that the succession fell upon the niece of his Majesty—what was he then to do—how was he to decide ? Was he to say, With Mr. Fox and my Lord Loughborough, that a right, strict, per- fect, and, indefeasible, existed in the heir-apparent to the Regency, as it did . to the succession to the Throne itself ; or was he to say with Mr. Pitt and my Lord Eldon, that, however exalted might be the station of that heir, that yet he had no more claim to the Regency than any other subject? But let them take either supposition, and another question would arise— it was whether the heir-presumptive had not as much right to the Re. gency as he had to the succession to the Throne ? Again, supposing that the heir-presumptive should also be seated on the throne of a foreign realm, how would that apply ? Should he be then considered positively alienated from the country, and incapacitated from holding such an office, by the fact of filling a foreign throne ? or should this be Considered no obstacle to his appointment to the Regency, as it would not be to his succession to the throne? Or, setting him aside, were they to take the next of the Royal Family in succession, or were they to select one—for instance, one of the Princesses who was not in the line of succession to the foreign Throne? Or were they to select a Regent from the Royal House without regard to order or succession ?
Mr. R. Grant also descanted much on the uncertain tenure of human life.
Could they forget—was it possible that Parliament should forget the instances of casualties which they had witnessed among them, in the midst of apparent strength and health? What had been the case with the late Lord Liverpool ? In the midst of his administration of the affairs of this country, he was unexpectedly carried off, and left Parliament de- liberating on a most important question—namely, on that which related to a grant to a part of the family now on the Throne. Could they fail to recollect Mr. Canning—his eloquent efforts received with such acceptance in that House—pursued with such vigour, and attended with such success? He recollected hearing a member observe, " I could say to Mr. Canning, as the Spartan said to the father whose sons had been victorious in the Olympic Games, 'Now die, for than canst not be a God f " and within one month afterwards, he was taken ill, and in one fortnight more Mr. Grant followed that eloquent orator and illustrious statesman as a mourner to his grave. Even in the illustrious family of the Sovereign, did they re- member what had happened within a few short days? Did they recollect the demise of George the Third? Did they recollect that the Duke of Kent, who, had he now lived, would have been heir.presumptive, was lying a corpse at the same time with his revered father? Did they recol- lect, that at the very same moment the late Sovereign, George the Fourth, was only saved from the same melancholy doom by the bold measures of his physicians ? Indeed, had it not been for those bold measures, they might have had three members of the Royal family all at one time un- buried. Might not that, which they were afraid would have happened,: actually take place ? It might indeed be said, that one thousand years had occurred withou our history affording us a single case in which the Crown had descende upon a posthumous child. But if they were arguing probabilities, i
should be considered, on the other hand, how seldom a British Monarch had died in that time leaving a Queen without issue. It had occurred only twice since the Conquest,—once in the case of the Queen of Charles the Second, and again in the case of that of Richard the First. Besides, there was an instance in aneighbouring country, where the Crown was now in direct course of descent to a posthumous child,—he meant the Duke of Bordeaux.
But then it was said that the Sovereign was never in a minority in the eye of the law. He thought the difficulty to be avoided was, the infant Sovereign exercising the powers of royalty. One of the most difficult of those powers, was that very measure which a new Sovereign was always called on to adopt,—namely, that of appointing a Ministry ; a measure which it was clear could not be judiciously intrusted to the dis- cretion of an infant. Lord Mansfield, in 1751, expressed himself as fol. lows, in the debate on the Regency Bill—" From the whole of this debate, I find gentlemen do not enough consider, that the necessity of such a bill as this proceeds from a most glaring, and, indeed, tremendous defect in our constitution ; for, with respect to the Sovereign, the law acknowledges no such thing as a minority. A child of two or three days old may. by our constitution, come to be our King or Queen ; and the moment the father dies, that child is by law invested with the whole sovereign or exe. cutive power of the Government : so that whoever gets possession of the person of that child, whether by fair or forcible means, becomes of course possessed of the Government, and all the prerogatives belonging to the Sovereign." How different was the state ofopinion in 1751 and 1830! At the former period a great lawyer was of opinion that the defect he had pointed out was a reason for introducing a Regency bill ; whilst, in 1830, another great lawyer cited the same defect as a reason for not introducing a simi- lar measure.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the motion. It was impos- sible.to frame laws suited to every emergency ; and it was more prudent to leave such, when they did occur,-to be dealt with by the constitutional law. As far as precedents could be quoted, they all went to prove a motion like the present unnecessary.
He could, indeed, imagine that providing a Regency beforehand, might increase the difficulties of the case, instead of diminishing them. In the first place, he would ask the House whether they would run a race against death ? whether they thought no risk was to be encountered in life ? whether nothing was to be left to chance? and whether it. was possible for them to go into the royal house of mourning—into the palace of the Sovereign, and, while he was lamenting the death of his beloved brother, they could state to him that the House of Commons anticipated his own demise, and therefore called on him to concur in a measure which every man must feel, nothing but a present necessity could justify ? They were not discussing whether the subject ought not to be considered at a fit oppor- tunity, but whether that was the moment in which to present his Majesty with an affectionate and humble address on such a subject, and to tell him that they expected his demise, and that he ought to consider and prepare for it. If they believed that the appointment of a Regency would entirely disembarrass the country from all difficulties, they were mistaken. The Regent himself might not survive. It was a contingency whether he would or not. In a few weeks he might prove to them that the provision they had made was useless. It was only the balance of one life against another. But was there no other danger—might there not be another Court, and might not other interests be excited ? Were all the benefits on one side, and were there no drawbacks on the other ? The question would arise—who was to he the Regent, and what were to be his powers? From the attention he had paid to the former debate, he did not find that any two gentlemen had agreed on these questions. Somewere for an unrestricted Regency, others for a Regent with a Council. In what situ- ation would the Monarch and the country be placed, if the address to the Throne now moved were to be adopted ? What would it be, but to tell the King, "We came to a hasty decision a few nights ago : we have re- vised our proceedings, and we now come to tell you, that the danger is such and so pressing, that it is absolutely necessary that we shoukrpro- ceed to the discussion of the Regency without a moment's delay." Such would be a most inauspicious commencement of a new reign, and it would not be that kind of loyal and affectionate proceeding with which the House of Comm ons would be desirous of hailing the accession of a new Sovereign. The difficulties also of the present position of the House could not be overlooked. How was it possible in the present state of public business, and with the approaching elections (for it was of no use not to speak out), to enter properly into considerations of such a subject ? He might reasonably envy members who, from whatever cause, confident of being returned, had no occasion to look after their constituents. He was in no such happy condition—he should be obliged to go down among his electors, and he believed that not a few others were in a similar, he hoped
none were in a worse situation. He should lament, not indeed for any assistance he could afford, that this great question should be discussed and decided in his absence. If the subject were commenced, it would be almost interminable—at least no one could foresee its conclusion ; and it would have to be considered at a time when the few who could attend would be unable to debate it calmly or to decide deliberately, to the satisfaction either of the Crown or of the people. Was nothing due, also, he would ask, to the feelings of the illustrious Individual who filled the Throne ? Approaching him with the address now moved, would be to call upon him to consider not only the possibility but the probability of his own demise. Having just succeeded to the Crown, his Royal Brother yet unburied, his own affairs yet unsettled, and before he had had an opportunity of consulting the wishes of his Queen, or the views of any member of his family, was it fit to demand of him the immediate con- sideration and decision of such a subject ?
Mr. MACAULEY, after observing that the inconveniences and defects of a system of hereditary succession had nothing to redeem them but the certainty which attended that system, remarked, that the Ministers in effect asserted that the advantage of here- ditary monarchy is an unimportant advantage, and that the evil of an elective monarchy is an unimportant evil.
" We are to run the most fearful risk to which a nation can be exposed —we are to be left in doubt as to the person in whom the supreme power of the State shall reside—we are to incur the danger of a vacant Throne and a disputed succession, rather than—what ? Rather than that ho- nourable gentlemen shall stay in London in the dog-days, and incur heavier charges for ribbons at an election. (Much cheering.) Is it the wish of the House that the monarchy of this country should be elective ? I doubt if such be the sentiment of a single member in it but why, by our measures, should we teach the people to wish it? When an extre-
mity of the kind arises, we must face it ; but is it the part of wisdom to
promote and invite that extremity ? Shall we, to use the expression of _should be compelled to ,go en with the discussion. A.-great number of 'Burke, teach the people to make that which ought to be theirrare repast 1- eases had`been stated by has honourable friend who bad brought forward their daily bread The Solicitor-General has talked much about discus- the motion as to what might be 'done. He had suggested that the heir- sing this subject with temper and calmness ; but let him reflect upon the circumstances under which we might be called upon to debate the ques- tion of a Regency, should an event contemplated unhappily occur.* • • Other arguments of the honourable and learned gentleman seem hardly todeserve notice. He said that the attendance would be thin ; just as if the House had not itself the powerto compel a full attendance of its members. Next he talked of the great expense of elections; and, no doubt, expensive elections are a great evil ; but this objection comes with the worst possible grace from those who have uniformly resisted any change of the representative system, which would make them less ex- pensive." (Cheers.) Mr. BANIeES opposed the motion. Mr. C. W. WYNN contended, that it was imperative on the House to call the attention of the Crown to the dangers that might result from postponing the decision of this question. Colonel SIBTHORP and Lord MORPETH took the same view of the question. Lord DARLINGTON and Mr. FLEMING should vote against the motion.
Mr. HUSK ISSON supported it at great length.
Those who were acquainted with the course which had been taken with respect to the public business during the present session, must perceive
that the lamentable event which had lately taken place was a sort of God- send to the Ministry. (Hear, hear!) He admitted the rights of the Crown to dissolve Parliament whenever it pleased, and that the Ministers, in advising the approaching dissolution, had done nothing more than what was usual for Ministers to do under such circumstances of embar- rassment. Of that advice, lie said, he did not complain in the abstract ; neither did he complain that Parliament was to be dissolved without hav- ing gone through the estimates ; and with respect to the Civil List, there certainly was reason for believing that it could he better entertained and disposed of in a new Parliament, than in one that was so near its close. Whenever that subject should come on, however, this he was sure of, that the great object of their desire ought to be to make a fair bargain on the one hand and on the other. He could not, however, help contrasting the conduct of the Ministers during the present period with what had taken place at the close of the last session of Parliament. Early in June last year, the Government business was brought to a conclusion; but, notwithstanding, the Parliament was kept sitting on what was neither more nor less than a dispute between the coal-owners in the North and the City of London. He did not mean to say that the consideration of that matter had not been desirable ; but when placed in comparison with the present topic, for which it was pretended that it was impossible to spare time, it necessarily sunk into insignificance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion, on grounds si- milar to those on which the Solicitor-General had rested.
In his eyes, the Parliament was to be considered in the same light as a man. With respect to the latter, it had been observed, that if he was aware of the period of his decease, he would cease to have that activity of mind which fitted him for the affairs of life. So it was with Parliament ; and when it knew that, in the course of a few months, it would cease to exist, he would defy any Parliament to look at such a sub- ject as this with that temper and calculation which were so absolutely essential. For all these reasons, then, he thought he was justified in coming to the conclusion, that it would be much more expedient to post- pone this question till the new Parliament should have assembled.
Lord ALTHORP gave the motion his-most cordial support. Sir ROBERT PEEL could not help thinking, from the apathy which the House had displayed throughout the debate, that it did. not desire, and was not at all prepared to enter into, a discussion on the question of the Regency.
If, under the circumstances of the session, the Parliament could not command the attendance of a sufficient number of members to discuss so important a subject in the manner it required, the minority was also, he thought, precluded from entering into the subject, by the vote of the House of Commons on Wednesday evening. He recalled the attention of the House to the address it bad then presented, and to the answer to that address which his Majesty had sent down to the House that evening. His Majesty thanked the House of Commons for their dutiful address, and lie returned his acknowledgments for their promise that they would, without delay, make provision for the public service during the interval which must elapse between the close of the present and the meeting of another Parliament. If the motion of that night were carried, they must go up to the Crown with a very different address, which would require another answer If they were then to address the King—after having committed the House of Commons to pledge itself to support the previous recommendation from the Throne—to take measures to appoint a Re- gency, when the message from the Throne said that there was no inten- tion of bringing any other business before it—would that bean auspicious beginning to a new reign ? Now, to address the Crown in the sense of the motion, would be, in fact, to compel the Crown to do that which it had declined to do. This was quite inconsistent with the vote of the other evening, though he did not rest the vote he should give on that in- consistency. If the motion were carried, it would preclude his Majesty, or his Majesty's Ministers, from giving to the proposition the full deli- beration it required. The proposal to appoint a Regency, he begged to be understood, might, under certain circumstances, be a reasonable and wise proposition; but nothing was more difficult than, in such a con- tingency, to determine the succession to the Crown.
Sir Robert then examined the precedents, to show that they did not warrant the course suggested by the motion. Now, however, the House was called on to depart from all these pre- cedents, and to call on the Crown to make such a provision as a matter of urgent necessity ; they were called on, too, before the funeral of his late Majesty, and before his cold remains were committed to the grave. (Hear, hear !) No remedy ever before had been provided for such a con- tingency, and now they were to urge the providing such a remedy in opposition to their own address, and in a manner which was equally con- trary to delicacy and good feeling. He had shown, that in five cases of Regency, the principle followed had been different in each ; which must satisfy the House of the great difficulties in the details of the measure it was thus called upon hastily and indelicately to discuss. No urgent case had been made out for immediate consideration; and yet, in spite of all these difficulties, it was proposed that the Crown should come to an immediate decision :and after it had declared that it meant not to do so, it presumptive ought to be excluded, because he had tesuccession in another kingdom, and they might choose between the Queen Consort, the mother of the young Queen, or one of the sisters of his present Majesty. But his honourable friend, in stating all the difficulties, had carefully avoided stating who, in his opinion, was the most proper person. All the gentle- men who had spoken had stated the difficulties of the subject, but none of them had given any opinion as to the remedy. When the case did arise, it would be decided by what Lord Coke called propria ionsilia. If the event which was predicted should unfortunately occur, he did not see that it would be so calamitous, for he .relied oa the good sense of the people to give effect and support to the decision of Parliament. But it was asked, to whom Parliament itself was to swear allegiance ? He would ask, in his turn, by what act of Parliament the House of Commons was required to take the oath of allegiance ? It had not always done it. The House of Commons, at the demise of Queen Anne, did not take the oath of allegiance. The 6:h of Anne, confirming the 7th and 8th of William III. was made to provide for the continuation of Parliament on the demise of the Crown. There was no difference in the principle of these Acts, as they imposed the same obligation on Parliament to sit on the demise of William and on the demise of Anne. In neither case did the Parliament take the oath of allegiance for some time, because there v. a‘: an oath re- lative to transubstantiation, which was, not to take effect till some time after. It was said fleet Parliament could not take the oath till after the proclamation of a new King; but if the Privy Council should order an improper person to be proclaimed, it would be the duty of that House to take the oaths to the proper successor to the Throne. Li ti:e House of Lords, he knew, on the best authority, the oath of allegiance might be taken before the King. was proclaimed. The Earl of Eldon bad taken the oath under these circumstances, or before the proclamation, and he be- lieved in confornii!y to the law. There would not he any difficulty, then, on the score of the meal of releglance ; for it did not appear that it was necessary that the oat!, should be immediately taken, or that it might not be taken before a new I; ing was proclaimed.
Mr. BROUGHAM di.:claintecl all wish to ;give pain to his Majesty. " I must beg leave, however, to make a liro;Tcl distinction now, which, with God's blessing, I mean to preserve in any future Pasiiament, be- tween what is courteous to the Prince and courteous to his Ministers,— between what is inauspicious to any Sovereign's reign and an event less auspicious to his Ministers ; beeause I am well aware, that neither what is called the inconsistency of this House, nor what is described as dis- courtesy to the King, is any more than an inconvenience and an inauspi- cious beginning for his Majesty's Ministers. It is not auspicious, I know, to them, that I shall give my cordial and hearty support to the motion of my honourable and learned irieed. "There was one appeal made by the right honourable Secretary—one false step made by the Solicitor.General, which I must notice, though out of no disrespect to him—out of no unfriendly feeling either to the right honourable gentleman ; but I wish he had forborne so to demean him- self, and that he had omitted what was quite unworthy of him—that ap- peal which tens followed by clamorous applause. I wish that he had not suffered himself to he seduced into the use of such a clap-trap, which was quite unworthy of the right honourable Gentleman, from his long stand- ing in this House, though it might suit the tender infancy of the Parli- amentary life of my learned friend the Solicitor-General. (Lang-hter.) But for him, who is always sure, from his seat in the middle of the Trea- sury Bench, to obtain a and generally an applauding audience— in him it was unworthy to make use of a clap-trap to secure members of Parliament, or invite rapturous appeal, by referring to the King's nut yet being cold in his grave, and insisting on the indecency of provoking discussion about a Regency ere the funeral of the late King has been per- formed. It was quite unnecessary for him to refer to the King being yet unburied to obtain appheuse. When the right honourable gentleman mentioned the funeral, it was heard and answered by repeated cheers ; when he spoke of the King's being unburied, cheers again encouraged him to proceed. But whose fault is it if I call upon the House to go up to the Throne with an Address to appoint a Regency, before the obsequies of the late King are performed? Why, • if we do rot eSa now, the obse- quies of Parliament will he performed, and Parliament will not be able to address the Throne. If I am driven to intrude on the King in the midst of his grief, and warned against such discourtesy by the honourable member for Dorset, whose fault is it ? by whom am I driven, but by Mi- nisters, who are anxious to dissolve the Parliament? It is their act, and not mine. Did the other illustrious persons who have sat on the Throne of this kingdom abstain from the performance of their duty because the former sovereigns lay unburied ? Did they even dream of being guilty of any disrespect to the memory of the King, by doing those things which were required from them at his decease ? No; they entered into the smallest details of. their expenditure—into the minutest particularities— into the whole mysteries of housekeepinec and family arrangement—how much they were to pay for the Board of Green Clothe-how much they were to give for hoard-wages to servants—how much they were to be- stow in dole for the Privy Purse—how much they were to provide for the King's personal expenses, down even to the minutest article of per- sonal attire. All this they entered into on all occasions—at the con- clusion of every reign down to the year Twenty, when, from peculiar circumstances, they found the very precedent which went to show a contrary course of proceeding ; but till that time, the conclusion of any reign displayed a course in all respects uniform with respect to that order and arrangement which are now contended to be indelicate and indecent even to allude to while the Sovereign remains uninterred. There have been a number of speeches delivered on this question, and Many honourable gentlemen. have supported the Government with very great honour to themselves, and, no doubt, very much to the satisfaction of their constituents. I am bound, however, to say that those who have not distinguished themselves in this debate, are those from whom, on such a question, we expected most—the Law-officers of the Crown. }Laughter.) Whether it is that my learned friends have higher duties to per- form, or that they are engaged in setting their house in order, I know not, learned certainly of all-the arguments I have heard this evening, those of my learned friends made the least impression on me. The Attorney-General has, to be sure, argued much on the indelicacy and indecency of pressing this question at such-a time, and the same line of argument. has been taken by the learned Solicitor:General ; but I confess it does not seem to Me to be altogether applicable to the exigency of the case. 'Suppose, now .--to take a case somewhat less exalted, but ndt less applicable—suppose that aman had succeeded to an estate in tail about-the end of Trinity Term, and ion before the four months of the long vacation ; and suppose that he had . a. wife enceinte, and three or four children whom lie wished to provide for. Itavould,be very natural, that, looking at the uncertainty of life and the ibusgezolthe whole property in the event of his sudden death before the ;Whalen/ of thesefew months, he should be anxious to suffer a recovery, and thereby bar the entakand-have itin his.power to dispose of the pro- Party for the benefit of hia.family. Well, Invest° his.attorney, andthe
attorney, agreeingwith him, proposes to consult one of the learned gentle- men opposite, probably the Solicitor-General, as most conversant with
the method of disposing of property of this description. The attorney statesthe case, and tells him that his client has just succeeded to the estate under the circumstances I have mentioned, and that it is necessary to do something before the long vacation. What would my learned friend say ? If we are to trust to the speech we have just heard, he would exclaim—Go to, indelicate man that you are. You an attorney ! You a person who dares to call yourself gentleman ! Out, out of my chamber—out of my sight ! Talk not to me of fines and recoveries, or of barring entails, while the late tenant in tail lies yet unburied in the hall of his ancestors ! (Shouts of laughter.) Talk not to me of your recoveries, or your family, or of the danger of delay t the late tenant in tail lies yet unburied, and it would be indecent in the highest degree to discuss such a question at pre- sent. (Shouts of laughter, and hear, hear !' in which all the members seemed to join except the learned gentleman alluded to.) Let me hear no more of your estate in remainder or reversion ; and I never wish to see your face again, unless you come in the shape of a client. Did the House think this would be the advice of his learned friend? No. He would say, the tenant in tail may die before Michaelmas Term ; lie must suffer a recovery forthwith, and a settlement must be made on his family. This would be the honest advice of the learned gentlemen to their client ; not the sentimental, and over-nice and delicately scrupulous advice which it seems they eive his Majesty's Ministers with respect to the settlement of the Crown, but the honest and unsentimental advice which I !eke it for granted must flow from the deep and practised conveyancer." (Cheers and laughter.) After enlarging on the question of precedents, Mr. Brougham concluded by a brief justification of his own motives as a public man.
" I have now discharged my duty to the Throne and to the country. I am about to return with my fellow-representatives into the great body of the subjects of the Crown ; and we may not meet—certainly we cannot all meet again in the same place. Do not, I implore you, let it be said that you were, as a body, inattentive to the ersat duty which was imposed on you. Do not let it be said that you employed yourselves in consider- ing the question of providing bear for the rabble, and that you were in- different to those more vitally pressing subjects, which are dependent on the settlement of the Crown. I am told, however, we should have confi- dence in his Majesty's Ministers. So says one county member of this House. I never knew the time when not one, but many a county mem- ber was ready to leap up and say much the same thing. An eloquent and enlightened member of the House, no!.v no more, has recorded the opi- Mons of the county members of his day on that subject; and certainly their confidence does not seem to have suffered much diminution since, He said, I think, that if the Thames was blockaded, and Plymouth had faller, and Portsmouth was besieged, and London was the only place that still held out, there were abundance of county members who would have as much confidence is the Ministry as ever; and worthy aldermen who could sleep even so alder than ever under the full security that the Government deserved the trust which had been reposed in them. I have no distrust of the noble person now at the head of the Government. I disavow in the most solemn manner all imputation of mixing up any thing arising from personsd considerations in the discussion. When I call on the House to address the Crown to take measures to pro- vide against those chances which may produce the calamitous results I have described, it is not that I harbour any distrust of the motives of that noble person ; that I wish to cast even the shadow of a shade of suspicion on his character, or that, by neglecting to take those steps which I con- sider so imperiously called for, I would insinuate that his noble nature, or his tried honour and public virtue, could think of compassing anything treacherous to the Constitution of his country. I acquit him of all intent or conception of that kind. His public services are my guarantee for the integrity of his conduct. His civil services, for which this country— and above all, regenerated Ireland—owe him so much—for which poste- rity will bless his name, and which place him higher on the record of fame than the victories of Waterloo or of Salamanca—they are my pledges for the purity of his motives. But I am here to represent the people of this country; I am here as one of the Commons of England, to distrust and to watch Ministers, because they are the public servants of the Crown—to know no difference between man and roan in that capacity, but to take all the security I can obtain against even the principles of the Constitution, or the rights and privileges of the people, being endangered. The right honourable Secretary told us, that even supposing the worst came to the worst, the constitution of this country had the power to save itself ; and, as a proof that it had done so, and could do so again, he in- stanced the settlement of the Throne on the flight of James the Second. So, the flight of James to foreigners is the precedent we are to take now Good God are we to he driven to this as the remedy for our present culpable delay ? are we to seek in a revolution the precedent for our future course of action, and to draw from the change of the dynasty the argu- ments which are to influence our decisions. Is the House to be cashiered, and are we, from false notions of decorum, quietly to go on—to do nothing prospectively, but delicately to wait till the painful moment arrives, and then legislate as if we were at the period of a revolution ?" (Cheers.) For the motion, 93 ; against it, 247.
2. STATE OF TAE REPRESENTATION, AND DUTY OF ELECTORS. In the COrnmittee. of Supply, on Wednesday, Mr. HUME said, that as the House would not again be in a Committee of Supply during the present session, he should take that opportunity of making some remarks, which, if proper attention were paid to them, might be of some advantage to the country. He nought it was in the power of the people to return a majority of the House of Commons, and thus to reduce the taxes, and redress all other grievances. On analysing the constitution of the House of Commons, he had disc covered that it was still in the power of the people of England, if they were true to themselves, to return a majority of members to it, inde.- pendent not only of the borough-holders, but alto of the Government itself. He looked upon all the counties of England as capable of return- ing if they .pleased independent members. If the counties did not avail themselves of the capability which was in them, they had no ri 'ht to complain of the burdens to which they were subject. There were .ighty county members, who ought one and all to vote for the interest re their constituents; but instead of pursuing that course, there were not more than fifteen of them who regularly supported propositions for re .nch- merit. From Wales there were twenty-three members returned air the popular voice. There were also sixty-four members returned by te free- men of boroughs, who, if they performed their duty honestly, woo .1 take care to return none but honest representatives. There were fifty-three members returned by scot and lot : a more extensive right of- suffrage could hardly exist, and it must be the fault of the electors if the repre- sentatives of those places did not attend to the wishes of the people. There were twenty-seven members returned by freeholders and house- holders conjointly : such persons must be independent in their circum- stances, and therefore, if not corrupt themselves, would return incor- ruptible representatives. There were sixteen members returned by re- sident freemen, and six by potwallopers. In Trelanri, seventy five mem- bers might be freely elected by the people. It thus appeared, that a total of three hundred and sixty-nine members might be compelled, if the electors would only perform their duty, to support every proposition for promoting economy in the national expenditure. If the electors would only perform their part at the next election, they might get a House of Commons pledged to support all practical reductions ; and with such a House of Commons, he had no doubt that our annual expenditure might be reduced from 54,000,000/. to 44,000,0001.
This would be a great benefit even to the Government.
From events which had recently taken place, he was inclined to think that the present Ministers, when they had good measures to propose, found themselves trammelled in carrying them into execution by knots of boroughmongers, who sent down their eight or ten members each to protect their individual interests. A House of Commons honestly chosen by the people would enable Ministers to laugh to scorn the efforts of these conspirators against the general welfare. If the Duke of Wellington and the right honourable baronet opposite would act with manfulness and re- solution on the principles of economy which they professed, he should not be sorry to see them released from the trammels which now confined them ; for he could assure them, that he had no desire to see them re- moved from their places, so long as they devoted themselves with heart and soul to the public service. Ile had seen several cases lately—the Beer Bill; for instance—in which, though their measures were good, they had been in great danger of being left in a minority. This was owing totwo causes,—the first was, that they were controlled, as he had before stated, by the borough-holders ; and the second was, that the people of England had, at the last election, suffered themselves to be bought by individuals, who, in their turn, made no scruple of selling them again to the best bidder. It had been said by a great authority, that with an unreformed House of Commons, no honest man could be a Minister. He was of opinion that the day for that observation had gone by. He hoped that the next Parliament would satisfy the Minister that the time had at length arrived in which it was no longer necessary for a Minister to be a rogue. (Laughter, in which Sir R. Peel jobv,lrery heartily.) Perhaps, in holding this opinion, he judged too favourably of the community ; but if he did, he would only say, that in future the community would have no right to complain of the weight of taxation, or of the malversation of Ministers, seeing that the people had it in their own power to apply cor- rectives to both, if they had only virtue enough to exercise it. From Scotland there were few popular representatives : only forty-five mem- bers were returned by the whole of that country, out of which number only five or six acted an independent part. If the people of Scotland had even the semblance of a real representative system, a ve.mdifferent set of mem- bers would be returned to Parliament. Instead of five or six honest members, you would have forty out of the forty-five members anxious to advance the public interest. He really did hope that when the noble Duke found himself stung by the aristocracy of that country, he would see that the best mode of getting rid of the annoyance which they caused him would be by giving additional power and privilege to its popular in- terest. Where did the House generally find the Scotch members at pre- sent ?—backing the Ministers for what they could get from the Treasury for themselves and their dependants, and not at all regarding the advant- age of the country. Look at the Irish members. Were they better than the Scotch ?—Not a wit. When any great public question came on, they were either out of the way, or, if in the way, were, with a few splendid ex- ceptions, regularly found among the supporters of Ministers.
He hoped that from this day henceforward his Majesty and his Ma- jesty's Ministers would only adopt such measures as were calculated to meet the wants and wishes of the people. If they did that, they would have an easy line of conduct to pursue. They would no longer be in doubt whether upon this or that particular question they would be left in a majority or a minority—points on which he must confess that of late he had often been at a loss to form an opinion beforehand. To him, indeed, the issue of such points was only matter of curiosity ; but to the leader of his Majesty's Government in the House of Commons it must have been matter of quite another character. For that reason he would advise Ministers to throw themselves at once for support upon the people.
He likewise trusted that the people themselves would take a more rigid account of the stewardship of their representatives, more especially of the representatives of counties. He trusted that at the ensuing elections they would call upon Ahem to explain the manner in which they had ex- ecuted the trust confided to their charge, and that if they found any of them who had not executed it faithfully, they would punish such mem- bers by not returning them again.
He hoped that with a new reign a brighter day was going to dawn upon the country. He hoped, also, that when Parliament next assembled, it would see the situation of some of the Ministers better filled. There were many good men among them, but he wished to see more, for as matters stood at present, the right honourable baronet had the whole House on his shoulders alone. (Hear.) He trusted that the different par- ties hi that House would, in the next session, be all of them more effec- tive than they had been during the present ; he trusted that he should not see again a bill three times reported, and then abandoned, no matter whether it regarded reforms in the law, or duties in the customs. He hoped that the new Parliament would perform its duties better than that which was now expiring—that the people would reap benefit from the appeal which was now about to be made to their discretion; and that their constituents, judging from the past, would only select such of them for the next Parliament as they were convinced would do good for the future.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had listened with the utmost atten- tion to Mr. Hume's recipe for securing those large and over- whelming majorities by which the Government ought to be sup- ported. The honourable member had truly stated that the Government often laboured under difficulties in bringing forward many of those measures by which the public interest was to be promoted : there were individual interests which were often op- posed, and but too powerfully, to such measures. It would be found that constituents were always ready to assert their particu- lar interests, and that representatives consulted their own by obeying the wishes of those who sent them there. In the course of fife present session Ministers had proposed several Measures which they thought calculated to promote the general advant- age of the people. Take one of them, the Beer Bill, as an instance. They had deemed it desirable to destroy the monopoly of beer ; but it somehow or other happened that there were several honourable gentlemen who, though they affected to agree with the principle of the bill, met the bill itself with considerable opposition. That was a practical instance of the effect produced upon the House by the consideration of vested rights—which, according to the member for Aberdeen, ought to be disregarded, but which members, by some strange fatality, could not overlook in their wish to conciliate the support of those who possessed them. Gentlemen had looked to the amount of votes at the next poll, and with that view had voted for the continuance of a monopoly which they all in the first instance had been ready to condemn. The honourable member for Aber. deen had taken the opportunity of the general election, which was fast approaching, to issue, after the 'flannel' of a neighbouring foreign poten- tate, a general exhortation to the electors. (Laughter.) The honourable member must of course be relieved from all anxiety about his own indi- vidual return, else he could never have displayed such anxiety about the returns which were to be made from all parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Indeed, he had never heard any gentleman take a wider range in one speech. He had gone over three kingdoms in his excursive flight, and appeared unwearied when he came to the close of it. He had made it, however, all in good humour,—" and as I really believe," continued Sir Robert Peel, " that the labours of the honourable member, though I am often obliged to differ from his propositions, are directed to promote what he conscientiously considers to be the public interest, I shall concur with him in hoping that in the next Parliament he will find many an op- portunity of swelling, by his own vote and that of his friends, the majo- rities by which he seems to think that the present Government ought to be supported." (Hear, hear.) Mr. HOBIIOUSE did not think it possible that the people of England could return a majority of members to Parliament so in- dependent as Mr. Hume supposed. In cases where members were returned by non-resident freemen, the elections could not be freely and fairly managed, owing to the indigence of many of the electors rendering them liable to the corruption of wealthy can- didates. Besides, he knew from his own experience in Westmin- ster that even upon many individuals, moving in a respectable sphere of life, intimidation produced a considerable effect. He defied any man to show him that the House of Commons, even if the electors did their duty, could be so formed under the present system as to be a fair representation of the people.
3. LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having moved the third reading of this Bill, Mr. HUME wished to know whether pardon was to be extended to Mr. Alexander, who was in confinement for libels published in The Morning Journal newspaper ? He really thought that when murderers were pardoned, he might well become an object of clemency. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could give no answer to this question.
Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that any capital punishments had been remitted an the Accession of his Majesty, which from their ' nature did not warrant such a (emission.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed a clause which no one in the House seemed to hear.
Lord MORPETH said, that though the Attorney-General might have found it perfectly satisfactory to himself not to explain more particularly the nature of his amendment, yet it was scarcely de- corous to the House.
Lbrd NORM-ANDY observed, that the manner in which the bill had been introduced perfectly corresponded with the whole con- duct of the honourable and learned gentleman in office ; and for his own part, he declared that that gentleman was one of the last to whom lie should agree to intrust any additional power over the liberty of the press. He was the more anxious to make this declaration, as throughout the country- he and his friends around him shared much of the unpopularity of the Whig Attorney- General.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained the clause. The object he bad in view was to enable individuals libelled to recover such damages asamight be awarded them, and such costs as they might be entitled to. He -wished to put an end to the system by which the real parties concealed themselves behind men of no substance or responsi- bility, of whom they made scapegoats. It had often come to his know- ledge that publishers of newspapers were not able to pay either when de- feated in actions for defamation, and to remedy that evil was his sole ob- ject in bringing forward the clause ; and he hoped that for the manner of doing so, he should not be held amenable to the noble lord, or to any of his honourable friends—his sole wish was to protect individuals from the effects of private libels. Mr. P. THOMSON observed, that the clause went to increase the recognizances from 3001. to 400/. To that alteration he certainly could not give his assent.
For Sir James Scarlett's amendment, 68 ; against it, 47.
Mr. HOBHOUSE remarked, that the bill before the House would produce no detrimental effect to men of capital and power, but , merely do injury to persons of small pecuniary means—it would not make persons of wealth or influence conduct their papers in any respect better than they had done—it would affect no great paper, such as the Times—it would merely operate against jour- nals of minor influence and circulation. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the time would come when the conduct of Sir James Scarlett would, by all well-judging people, be considered to have reflected honour upon him. (Cheers from the. Opposition.) "Yes, 1 repeat—it does reflect honour upon hini." (Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) His object was not to cultivate the favour of the press or of the people—his object . was to do what he conceived to be right, indifferent in the first ni• stance as to what might be thought of his conduct. Mr. Hums was willing to give Sir James credit for sincerity, fine the increased security to cases of private libels, since he merely Dey lost 2,600 men killed ; and that the Turks and he were deter- professed to have in view the suppression of that class of publi- mined to dispute every inch of ground. They threaten, when the cations. city falls, to betake themselves, like the Athenians of old, to their What was or was not a libel, was nowhere defined ; and a judge who eastwatd% I During the nights of the 25th and 26th all the horses stated his- opinion that a publication was a libel, was sure to find a very were landed.` On the 29th, the attack on the heights was made. complaisant jury. Accordingly, it ho'bZini found a libel upon an Earl, They were carried without difficulty, the whole of the enemy's before the late Lord Ellenhorough, that he was called." a sheep-feeder cannon falling into the hands of the assailants. There had been from Cambridgeshire ;" and another man had been convicted of a libel upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for saying- that he was " a stout- some roug,hwather on the 26th, and several vessels had lost their built special pleader." He agreed tht4 the libel of which Mr. Alexander cables and anchors. The road of Sidi Fennell is described as a had been found guilty, was most gross—it was false and scandalous; very bad one. Admiral DUPERRE is very pressing for a supply of but, had it been true, the verdict must have been the same. Iti was Liscuit, of which it appears the fleet is extremely deficient.
equally a libel to publish truth of a corrupt Lord Chancellor, as fats, 1 1 Of the future chamber there are now 290 Deputies whose elec-
of a pure one. .. nous are known. Of these, according to the Messager des The bill then paSsed the Commons, and was carried up to the -.
Lords. and 9 are neutral or uncertain. Of the famous 221, 123 have 4. REVENUE. The Beer Bill was before the House of Lords 7.- een re-elected, and 10 have failed. It is said that the suspicions on Thursday ; and the Duke of Rien:troNies amendment, againts4,4 the Minister's intentions are so strong, that even the great Col- drinking beer on the premises, was negatived by 60 to 15. Aiee -e -.es are likely to prove muell less subservient than was expected ; this occasion, Lord GODERICH enlarged on the nature of the r • in case of strong measw s,. it is not thought that he would ductions in taxation which Government proposed to make ; an. unmand a majority in the Peers more than among the Deputies. asked, first, whether the present Government looked to have a sur- e - .. . plus revenue ? secondly, what, in their opinion, it was durinft, the last TUE KING.—We_poticed1 lit our latest edition last week, the hold- year? thirdly, what they conceived it likely to be ? and fourthly, ing of a Court by his Majes Satarday, at St. James's Palace, for what were the grounds on which their estimates were framed ? the purpose of receiving the n •rtmbassadors. • financial statements, and then observed that the Government had report of the convicts capitati convicted at the Old Bailey, during the already reduced the expenditure 1,500,000/. and had reduced the April Sessions. The twenty--even cases reported Were respited during taxation to the same amount. He agreed that it would be wise to his Majesty's pleasure. The eves of the eleven convicts convicted dur- re ing the May Sessions were als. ^asoited during the King's pleasure. vise the system of taxation—repealing such taxes as bore the On Sunday, his Majesty attended divine service in the Chapel Royal, heaviest on the people, and cost most in the collection. He agreed accompanied by the Dukes of Sussex, Gloucester, Cumberland, and also that the expenditure ought to be reduced—the Government Prince Leopold, and attended by the officers of the Household, and by a had undertaken that task, and would accomplish it. Much had number of Peers. His Majesty entered the Royal closet at five minutes been already done ; but he entreated their Lordships to remember, before twelve. The Communion service was read by the Bishop of Lon- that the Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, and the Miscellaneous don, who also preached the sermon. When the sermon was ended, the Services, were the only part of the expenditure which could be re- King and the Princes descended from the Royal closet for the purpose duced, and they only amounted to 16,500,0001. Of these, 5,500,0001. of receiving the sacrament. The sacred rite was administered to his went for half-pay and pensions, and could not be touched ; leaving Majesty on one side of the altar, and to the rest of the Royal Family on but little more than eleven millions from which it was possible to the other. The Archbishops, the dignified clergy, and nobility pre- make reductions. sent, received the sacrament in front of the altar.
