HC Deb 19 February 1835 vol 26 cc3-59
Lord Francis Egerton

rose, and addressed the Chief Clerk, who presided, as follows:—Mr. Ley, his Majesty's gracious communication having pointed out to this House its preliminary task and duty, I rise for the purpose of making a Motion, which, if it meet, as I confidently trust it will, with the approbation of a majority of those who hear me, will carry his Majesty's pleasure into effect, and will do so, I conceive, in a manner most calculated to secure and promote all those great interests which can be affected by the object of the present discussion. At no period of this country's history, under no circumstances, public or otherwise, that I can conceive, could a fitting selection of an individual from among us, to fill the Chair, be a matter of greater public concern, or a Motion which tends to that selection a question of more serious responsibility. In the present circumstances of the country, when all know, and I am sure deeply feel, that the House must inevitably enter upon fields of discussion of vital importance to the interests of the State, I feel that we should look narrowly and closely to the qualifications of the individual to whom we must look for guidance and advice, for the maintenance of our high privileges and constitutional independence, for the due control over the fervour and excitement of our Debates, and for a wise exercise of that influence which we, with a proud, graceful, and salutary submission, are wont, and I am sure are now ready, to delegate to the individual we call to the Chair, and for whose attendance the honours and emoluments derived from it are in my judgment no more than a compensation for the toil, the anxiety, and the sacrifices of him who competently fills it. In addition to that mass of circumstances which at any time must make the qualifications of the individual a matter of interest and importance, I need not remind the House, that a great public calamity has given new weight to the value of one of those qualifications, more rare than patience itself,—harder to be met with than even candour and discretion, under present circumstances the lot of but one individual—namely, experience in office. I need scarcely add, that to that person the object of my Motion expressly points; and I must say, that if any circumstances existed which should deprive the House of the opportunity of securing the services and tried abilities of that individual, I can scarcely conceive a more legitimate subject of sincere regret; for he is a Member competent above all others, to carry into effect in this new locality, the laws of common convenience, the salutary usages and practices of the old. I ask the House to look at the loss we have recently experienced—to consider the lamentable deprivation we have suffered—the documents, the records, the evidence that has been consumed by that melancholy catastrophe, and then hon. Members will feel, that the extensive knowledge and intimate acquaintance with such matters possessed by that individual cannot be too highly appreciated, and afford the best hope of restoration, substitution and repair. I confess that, with such feelings, I should grudge hint even that ease and retirement which so many years of service so well entitle him to demand—I should almost grudge him the very favours of the Crown which might have called him to functions and honours elsewhere, and have rendered him therefore incapable of the situation to which I am anxious that the House should again invite him. After what I have said, it is almost a useless matter of form for me to mention the name of Sir Charles Manners Sutton, the eminent individual who has proved for eighteen years in that chair his undoubted competence, and who, on seven successive occasions, has accepted an all but unanimous invitation to resume it. The House, therefore, has most unequivocally shown its approbation both of his qualifications for the discharge of the important duties belonging to the office, and his manner of executing them. It would be as idle in me, as it would be painful to my right hon. Friend, were I to attempt to travel after any fashion of my own over those grounds of just eulogy which on so many recent occasions have been perambulated by others far more competent to impress their opinions on this assembly. Public attention has already been called, with peculiar force and justice, to the speeches of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who, on the last occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman was placed in the Chair, gave their approbation to the choice I now recommend; and it will be recollected that these sentiments emanated from Gentlemen who went on the presumption that they were opposed to the right hon. Gentleman on political grounds. I lay, as I have a right to do, the more stress on this circumstance, because I do feel, that from the spirit of party it might be very possible for an individual to secure the praise of those who felt that his political sentiments were congenial with their own. I almost believe, that if by any casual circumstance an individual were called to the Chair who was in any respect disqualified for its duties, he might for a time be supported by that good will and partiality which, even unconsciously to themselves, such as mingle in political strife will bestow on a favourite and a friend. Such is not the nature of the testimony I am able to produce, and which is so much superior to my own, that I trust the House will afford me the opportunity of bringing it under its consideration. I take it from the last debate on the subject, which will satisfactorily show that even the political opponents of my right hon. Friend advocated his claim to the Chair. Before, therefore, I proceed to the Motion, I have to ask permission, and I think the House will extend it to me, to direct its attention to a few brief extracts from the discussion to which I refer. I trust that hon. Gentlemen, whose names may be called in question, will acquit me of any wish to make invidious allusions to sentiments which did as much honour to their candour and integrity as to their eloquence. First, I will advert to what was then said by my noble Friend and relative the Member for the West-Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth). My noble friend then said, that the duty of the Speaker was to preside fairly, candidly, and impartially over the business of that House. That duty, it was admitted on all hands, had been satisfactorily performed, and therefore he thought that the objection, the sole objection made by the hon. member for Middlesex, that the right hon. Gentleman did not hold the same political opinions as the majority of that House, was on this occasion by no means a forcible or appropriate objection. He was of opinion, that that circumstance was rather in favour of the right hon. Gentleman since he had shown that, whatever might be his political sentiments, he did not allow them to bias his conduct as a public functionary. "It was always irk-some," his noble Friend continued, "to indulge in panegyric in the presence of its object. He, however, felt himself considerably relieved from that difficulty by referring to what took place shortly before the close of the last Session.* My noble Friend then proceeded to applaud the "unfailing punctuality, the diligence, affability, and suavity of manners of Sir Charles Sutton," and added, that "he had displayed, dignity without pedantry, and courtesy without servility, and that these invaluable qualities marked every hour of his official conduct." My noble Friend was followed by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster, who, after aiding and supporting my noble relative's observations, asked a question, which perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may think might be asked now without meeting with any response— Quis vituperavit? That question, as I said, it may be difficult even now to answer; for I cannot believe that we shall hear repeated in this place the kind of vituperation which seems to have been uttered elsewhere. At all events, we may put it in this form—Quis vituperaturus est. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, speaking on the same occasion on the question whom the House should place in the Chair, and resisting the Motion, the nominator of my right hon. Friend, admitted his great qualifications. If, however, the prediction entertained as to his vote this day may be relied upon, it leaves me without the power of imputing to the hon. and learned Member any charge of inconsistency; but it may be asserted, that he at least formerly concurred in the remarks made upon the personal qualities of my right hon. Friend. His testimony I have a right to consider a strong one, *Hansard (third series) vol. xxv. P. 50–. and it goes decidedly in support of the others that I have just read. If these allusions contained anything invidious in their application I should certainly stop here, and not continue my quotations from the speeches of noble Lords or hon. Gentlemen taken from this assembly, and not now belonging to it; but I think, on the contrary, that the sentiments they delivered in 1833 conferred upon them nothing but honour; and I shall close my list, therefore, with the evidence of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has since been translated to the other House by a domestic calamity. He said, that the qualifications of my right hon. Friend were "pre-eminent," and that he was "infinitely better fitted for the situation than any other Member could possibly be." These, the House will recollect, are not the testimonies of private partiality or intimate friendship—still less are they the consequences of undue preference to any party or section of a party in the House or in the country. This is not the evidence of partial friends, but the voluntary tribute of honourable adversaries—not the panegyric of an advocate, but the verdict of a jury. It is upon this almost universal feeling in the House, upon proof of tried fitness and experienced ability, that I rely, and I hope that my Motion will meet with the approbation of the majority of the House. I do regret, that circumstances should exist which would make it insincerity in me to affect to proceed upon the assumption that my proposal will meet with that unanimity which, for the reasons I have stated, I think it well deserves. I regret, for my own sake, that circumstances are likely to place me in opposition to many Gentlemen whom I esteem and regard, not, indeed, upon any question involving the great interests of the State, or the enlarged principles of political discussion. Energies, honestly and justly applied on any side of a subject, I trust will leave mutual respect unimpaired; but here, I apprehend, the application of those energies would be wasted and misdirected. At the same time, I do not believe that the Motion I shall submit will be resisted by an amendment to be supported by those strange charges and monstrous absurdities which have appeared in other shapes, for the last two or three months, before the public. I do not believe that I shall hear, on this occasion, of the misconduct of Privy Coun- cillors, or their attendance on the red-lettered circulars of the Clerk of the Council, construed into treason. I do not believe that we shall be called upon to meet indictments framed on the pages of "The Mirror of Fashion," or from the information obtained from those invisible and mysterious agents who track the progress of individuals through the avenues of private life to scenes of convivial entertainment, and who bribe the Sosias of the Amphitryons of the day for lists not always correct of the invited. To suppose that opposition would rest upon announcements of this kind in the public press of the day would be too contemptible, and would, I am sure, be doing injustice to those by whom it is intended. But I understand that the opposition to the Motion with which I shall have the honour of concluding is to be rested, not on the qualities of the party I shall propose, but on a great public principle. With that public principle it is undoubtedly difficult for me to deal, because the noble Lord who has, with that talent and ability which belongs to him, achieved the detection and discovery to which I allude, has kept it in Cimmerian darkness. I must say, that, if he had been the inventor of gunpowder himself, he could not have been more confidently explicit as to the existence of that principle, or more prudent and oracular as to its nature and composition. The noble Lord, who, I believe, may be looked up to as at least the intended leader of this House, whether self-elected I know not, or whether elevated on the bucklers of a tumultuary host, amid the clash of weapons hitherto crossed in all but mortal strife, amidst discordant war-cries, over which one shout alone (the solitary symptom of union) is predominant—"return to office"—I know not; but that noble Lord, I say, has left the principle he propounded so obscure, that we can only conjecture its nature till some one shall have appeared to expound it to the House. It appears to me, however, probable that it is a principle we have met with elsewhere, not in ambiguity, but blazoned on election banners and in hustings speeches, amidst the acclamations of electors—a principle new to English feelings, and offensive, as I believe, to our narrow prejudices—the principle of condemnation without trial. If that is to be the principle which is to flash conviction on the doubting, to fix the wavering, and reunite the phalanx which, by various accidents of disunion and secession, has had its bands somewhat dispersed, I trust that hon. Gentlemen will be able to support it in this House and carry it into effect without violation of their own consistency, and without the support of arguments which on the last occasion of this kind they raised very eloquent voices to combat and repudiate, namely, the principle, that political considerations—the consideration of the political opinions of the individual who is to be called to the Chair—are to set aside all others of talent, fitness, ability, experience, or even, what will be more shocking to some, the consideration of public economy. Before I conclude the observations I have been addressing to the House, I trust I may express my confidence that I have avoided the use of language which could be thought to savour of disrespect to any Gentleman who has been named by popular report as a candidate for this office. With regard to the individual right hon. Gentleman who is likely, as is understood, to be proposed to the House, I certainly feel, whatever may be the opinion entertained by this House of his talents, he is at least so far superior to me in everything that can command the deference of this House, that it would ill-become me, however others may think fit to exercise their right, to question his abilities in any particular; and I beg to express to him the fullest measure of respect and deference, which, I will not say I myself, but the nicest sensibility of his friends, may consider to be his due. I should have been well content, had the task — however honourable and consonant to my feelings of regard and esteem—of proposing my right hon. Friend to the Chair, fallen into worthier hands; and, if possible, more remote from the suspicion of private partiality, and more resembling the quarters from which those eulogiums, and that eloquence which placed him in the Chair on the last occasion proceeded. But I have felt myself supported in the task I have undertaken by the strong assurance and conviction, that my execution of it, however imperfect and unsatisfactory to this House, will not be unsatisfactory to a large majority of the large constituency which sent me here—sent me here not manacled or fettered by pledges, not with one arm tied up to fight, if need be, the battle of our liberties, but with my discretion free on a subject which, of all others, every man who considers it must feel to be one on which the Members of this House should be left with their judgment unbiassed. At all events, I am satisfied, that if the occasion should ever arise in which I should have to answer at the bar of offended public opinion for errors of judgment or failings of incapacity, the first occasion on which I have had the honour of mingling in the discussions of this House will not be the one on which those who blame me will fix for censure. I will not presume to make any further trespass on the time of the House, but will conclude by moving "That Sir Charles Manners Sutton do take the Chair."

Sir Charles Burrell

was understood to express himself nearly as follows:—I should not have intruded myself upon the attention of the House on this important occasion, had it not been for particular reasons, which my friends have been pleased to consider valid; but, after the excellent and eloquent speech of the noble Lord, my intrusion upon the attention of the House will be short. I offer myself to the consideration of the House as a man who seconds the Motion of the noble Lord, but without any party views, and upon no political principle; I second the Motion from an entire conviction of the superior fitness of the right hon. Gentleman who formerly was our Chairman, for that office, over every Member in the House, without meaning disparagement to any one, and much less to the right hon. Gentleman whom we understand it is in contemplation to propose. For that right hon. Gentleman I have the very highest respect; I know him to have considerable talents, and to be a man of the highest integrity; and in what I do, I repeat that I intend him no disparagement. In 1817 it happened that I, from circumstances of regard for a particular friend of mine, the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and from a persuasion of his fitness for the office, had the honour to second his nomination for the Chair. Since that period I have had opportunities, from having been in Parliament ever since, of noticing the urbanity, the efficiency, and the impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman who was then elected to fill the Chair. With this conviction, I think I should do an injustice to him, and injustice to my own character, if I could consent to give a silent vote on this occasion. I should not do justice to his merits or my own sense of them if I did not at once acknowledge that the high expectations which were then formed of him had been fully realized by the abilities and impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman. Under the peculiar circumstances, as the noble Lord properly styled them, in which we are placed, I trust the House will conclude by again availing itself of the qualifications of which we have had such satisfactory evidence. It is required in the Speaker we must now elect, that he should be well acquainted with all the duties of the House in the conduct of its business, so that all deficiencies may be supplied in the new building which is to be erected for us, and which none can be so excellent a judge of as the right hon. Gentleman, whose experience is known to be so great with every part of the business of the House. Under all the circumstances, I give my most cordial assent to the Motion of the noble Lord. I will not detain the House further; for anything I could say, would be mere surplusage, after the eloquent speech of the noble Mover.

Mr. Denison

spoke to the following effect. It is seldom that I intrude upon the House, and it is with great reluctance that I do so upon the present occasion; indeed, nothing but the most imperative sense of public duty, and the wishes of my friends around me, could have induced me to come forward at this most important crisis, when the public mind is most excited; and when the eyes, not only of this country, not only of Europe, but of the whole civilized world are watching our deliberations. In a great part of what has fallen from the noble Lord, whose appearance in this House I am glad to see, and likewise in what has fallen from my hon. Friend, the Member for Shoreham, I perfectly concur. In all that has been stated respecting the amiable and excellent qualities of the right hon. Gentleman who was lately our Speaker, I agree; and, indeed, no one can dispute his virtues in private life. But this is not a question of personal character—it is a question of great public principle. Yes, I say, however the noble Lord (Lord F. Egerton) may be inclined to sneer at public principle, or ridicule those who act upon it, that this is a ques- tion of public principle; I must add, and he will excuse me for doing so, that I think he has thrown more asperity into this Debate than necessary—and has Leaped his light courser o'er the bounds of taste. I trust I shall not follow his example in that respect, but state my views of the position in which we are placed without in the least provoking angry feelings. Sir, it is upon public principles that I shall take the liberty of trespassing a very few moments on the time of the House, at a moment when our decision is looked for with breathless anxiety by endless thousands. I shall go back a little to what has taken place within the last two or three years. His Majesty, with that undoubted right he possesses, dissolved the last Parliament, and appealed to his people. The people have responded to his Majesty's call, and have returned a majority of Representatives to this House warmly and steadily attached to the great principles of Reform. Now, with all my respect for the character of the late right hon. Speaker, the Member for the University of Cambridge; I must take the liberty of stating, that in my humble opinion, it is incumbent on this House to place in our Chair—the highest situation to which a British Commoner can aspire, and which makes him who fills it the President of the first and most influential assembly in the universe—a gentleman assimilated in principle and opinions to the great majority of the House. In all the political storms which must inevitably take place in the course of a short time,— in all the troubles and difficulties which are incidental to the present state of the political atmosphere; and which, like "coming events, cast their shadows before,"—in all the discussions which must necessarily arise upon the introduction of those measures which the right hon. Baronet now at the head of his Majesty's Government has promised to bring forward upon the Church Reform—upon the subject of Corporation Reform—and that most crying of all grievances, the present state of the Church of Ireland, which I understand it is the intention of the present Ministry to reform—in the consideration of these questions, and in the discussion which must take place concerning the dismissal of my noble Friend, Lord Melbourne and his Administration, unheard and without a trial—without that trial which the right hon. Baronet and the friends who surround him so earnestly demand for themselves forgetting the golden rule "Do as you would be done unto"—in the important discussion which must arise with respect to the assumption for a period of three weeks of the greater portion of the chief offices of State by one individual, who, however high in rank and station—however renowned for his achievements in the field (and no man is more ready to do him justice upon that point than the humble individual who is now addressing you)—in taking upon himself the discharge of so many functions, appears to me to have acted upon that occasion in a most unconstitutional manner — in the Debate which must necessarily arise upon that subject, and upon the many other important questions to which I have slightly adverted; it will be incumbent upon this House, to have in its Chair a Gentleman who, combining impartiality and courtesy with dignity, shall likewise agree in opinion with the majority of its Members. Again, if ever a time should arrive (which from the bottom of my heart, I trust may never be the case) when—I will not use the word "collision," but when there may be some difference of opinion between this and the other House of Parliament— in such an event, as well as in the other instances to which I have alluded, it would be of paramount importance, that we should have in our Chair, a Gentleman whom we know to be sincerely attached to the great principles of Reform. I owe a thousand apologies to the House for the length at which I have trespassed upon its patience; but I beg to repeat my promise of being as brief as possible. In now proposing my right hon. Friend, the member for the city of Edinburgh, to fill the chair of this House, I feel that in his presence I cannot say all that I could wish with respect to him; but I take the liberty of stating, that in my humble opinion no gentleman can be more fully qualified to fill that distinguished but arduous station, either by his uniform consistency, his amiable manners, his extensive knowledge, his great legal knowledge, his long experience, or by his devoted application to business; and combining, as he does, with these, the coolest temper and the clearest head, and attached, as he has proved himself to be, on many important occasions, not only to the great principles of the Reform Act, but in every instance to the rights and liberties of the people,—possessed of all these qualities, I am convinced that if we place my right hon. Friend in the Chair, he will also act with the strictest impartiality. I flatter myself that all those Gentlemen whom I have the honour of addressing, who either supported the principles of the Reform Bill in the last Parliament, or who more recently, upon the hustings, have avowed their determination of supporting those principles, not according to the mere letter, but in substance and in spirit, will do me the honour of supporting the motion with which I shall conclude, and thus place in the Chair of this House, which, as I stated before, is the first station to which a Commoner can aspire—the Chair of the greatest and most influential assembly of freemen in the universe—that right hon. Friend of mine, who bears a name not unknown to history or to fame, and which will ever live in our country's annals. I am most thankful to the House for the attention with which it has heard me. I will now trespass no further upon its time, than to move "That the Member for the City of Edinburgh, the right hon. James Abercromby, do take the Chair."

Mr. Ord

rose to second the Motion. "It is with great reluctance, and even with regret," said the hon. Gentleman, "that I offer myself to the notice of the House at all, and much more so upon a question of such great importance as that which we are now assembled to decide. But I have another and a deeper source of regret, for I feel myself compelled by a sense of public duty to oppose the election of a right hon. Gentleman whose public services I have long witnessed, whose zealous and indefatigable exertions in the discharge of the duties of his laborious office, I have long admired, and whose kindness and courtesy of behaviour, I, in common with every Member of the House, have uniformly experienced. But occurrences sometimes present themselves to men engaged in public life, when feelings of a private and personal nature must give way to others dictated by what each individual conceives to be his public duty. In my opinion the present is one of those occasions; for the choice of a Speaker, at this moment, is not only attended by all those considerations of importance which at all times and under all circumstances attach to it, but derives an additional importance from the fact that it will be received by the whole country, and not only by this country, but as my hon. Friend has well observed, by other countries, as an intimation of the feelings and opinions of the newly-elected Parliament upon those important events which have taken place within the last few months, and which led to the premature dissolution of the late Parliament. I know that the question which will most probably be asked on this occasion is this—if the right hon. Gentleman who has been proposed by the noble Lord were well qualified to fill the situation of Speaker in the late Parliament, what has since occurred to render him an unfit object of our choice on the present occasion? To those topics to which the noble Lord (Lord Francis Egerton) has alluded, I do not mean for one moment to advert; bat I must be allowed to say, that I think the circumstances of the times and of the case at the present moment, compared to those of the period at which the right hon. Gentleman was last elected, are totally and entirely different. The election of the right hon. Gentleman to the Chair at the commencement of the last Parliament appeared to me to be quite a special case; at all events, it is undeniably true, that no Speaker ever was placed in the Chair of this House under such Circumstances. I had not the honour of a seat in the last Parliament, but I believe it was generally understood that the right hon. Gentleman, had virtually retired, and in consequence the usual retiring pension had been granted to him. Whatever I may think of the discretion or wisdom of the late House of Commons upon that point, I certainly cannot think it unnatural that the Ministry of the day, possessed as those Ministers were of all the power and influence of the Government, and with an overwhelming majority in the House, notwithstanding the political opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, should be anxious to avail themselves of his great experience to conduct the Debates of the first Parliament that was assembled under the Reform Act. The election of a Speaker at that time could not be regarded, as I conceive it now must be, as a test of the strength of any political party or any criterion of the opinion of this House. It was neither so in point of fact, nor was it considered so by any party or by any class of persons in the kingdom. The question, at that time, from the position in which parties were then placed, was regarded by all with indifference; but at the present moment, from the altered posture of affairs, it is regarded by all classes of men, and in every part of the empire, with the most intense anxiety; because by our decision upon this Question our probable decision upon other and still more important questions will be anticipated. His Majesty has been advised to appeal to the sense of the people upon those changes which, in the undoubted exercise of his prerogative, he has thought fit to make in his Cabinet. The people, in the representatives whom they have sent to the present Parliament have replied to that appeal; and I own it does strike me that if our first act shall be to give the highest proof of our confidence and approbation, by placing in the chair, to preside over our proceedings, and to be our organ and representative, any one entertaining the principles and political opinions of the right hon. Gentleman who has been proposed by the noble Lord, we shall greatly disappoint the just expectations of the people. These are the considerations upon which I feel myself obliged, however reluctantly, to oppose the re-election of that right hon. Gentleman. I now turn to the much easier part of my task,—to state very briefly to the House the reasons that induce me to second the motion that has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Denison) near me. I am not about to enumerate the many qualifications which are admitted on all sides, to be requisite in a Speaker of the House of Commons, because they have been described so much more ably than I could pretend to describe them by others who preceded me on the present occasion. Any attempt on my part, therefore, to enumerate or describe those qualifications would be a mere waste of time; but I may be allowed to express my belief that I am not blinded by personal partiality and friendship for my right hon. Friend, when I state that I esteem him in every respect to be eminently qualified to fill the high station for which he has been proposed. Whether I regard his great talents, his extensive acquirements, the soundness of his judgment, the promptitude and decision of his character, his habits of business, or his long acquaintance and complete familiarity with the practice as well as the principle of our laws, I feel on all these grounds that my right hon. Friend cannot fear a comparison with any competitor. But my right hon. Friend has another qualification, without which all those others that I have mentioned would in my opinion be insufficient—I mean his known political opinions and feelings—which will make him what, in my estimation, the Speaker of this House ought to be—the fit representative of the opinions and principles of what I believe to be the great majority of this House. Upon these grounds I have the most sincere pleasure in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. Those opinions and principles which, in my estimation, make my right hon. Friend the fit Representative of this House, have long been known to his country, and have made him the choice of one of the largest and most enlightened constituencies in the kingdom. I conceive, therefore, that his election to the Chair, to preside over the proceedings of the present Parliament, will be regarded by the country as the triumph of a great public principle. It is upon this ground that I shall give him my vote. I feel that the character of this House rests in a great measure upon our decision this evening; and I also feel, that the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is to be our Representative and our organ on all occasions, cannot satisfactorily (to the House) discharge those important duties unless his principles and opinions are in unison with those of the majority of the House. Upon these grounds I support the Motion of my hon. Friend. I have not been much in the habit of addressing this House, and I fear that upon the present occasion I have expressed myself very imperfectly; I trust, however, that in the observations I have ventured to make I have not been so unfortunate as to give offence to any one. Without pressing further upon the patience of the House, I beg leave to second the Motion "That the right hon. James Abercromby do take the Chair."

Sir Charles Manners Sutton

was aware, that he at all times owed an apology to the House for intruding himself upon their notice; but he felt that it was an occasion on which the House, always alive to the honour of public servants, would be inclined to give him a patient hearing. He assured them, that as, on the one hand, he should not presume to state any qualifications of his own for the high office which it had been so long his good fortune to fill—for he was so circumstanced that the House and the public must form their own judgment of the manner in which he had discharged its duties for nearly eighteen years—so, on the other hand, he would not presume to address them, if, contrary to all the knowledge which he possessed of the feelings of the House, and contrary also to his own feelings, he could be led to say one word in disparagement of the qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Edinburgh, or even if it were to enter into any competition with him. These, however, were not the grounds on which he wished to address himself to the House; but others, which he would bring as briefly as he could under their consideration. He could not but believe that he had pursued a course as respectful to the House as it was just to himself, in waiting patiently and submissively under imputations and charges affecting the honesty and integrity of a man whose highest pride it ever had been and ever would be to have been its servant for eighteen years, until he could answer them in his proper place—on the floor of the House itself. It was for that object that he till now had reserved himself, intending to state with as little—indeed he hoped with no asperity, his answer to those charges, without making any deviation from their substance. He could not but believe that every man would feel, that he owed this statement to the House at large, and more particularly to the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet who had that day proposed him once more as a fit person to fill the Chair, and who certainly would not have proposed him for that high office had they considered the imputations against him to be founded in truth. Having said these few words by way of preface, he would proceed at once to notice, not the way in which those imputations had been got up, not the assiduity with which they had been circulated, but the imputations themselves. He believed, that the charges against him, when stripped of all circumlocution, were substantially these:—that, being Speaker, he had busied himself in the subversion of the late Government; that he had assisted with others in the formation of the new Government; and that he had, last of all, counselled and advised the dissolution of the late Parliament. These three charges affected public character, and they affected peculiarly the character of the Speaker, who must, to a certain extent, be in constant communication with the executive Government. They also affected the character of a man who had been described somewhere or other as a traitor to the House of which he was the mere organ, and who had also been denounced as guilty of planning the extinction of that body to which he owed his own high station. Now, in these three charges—in all of them collectively, and in each of them individually—there was not one word of truth, on his honour as a gentleman, from the beginning to the end. To the first of these charges—namely, that of his having mixed himself up with others in subverting the late Administration, he would first of all reply, that as soon after the prorogation of the last Session of Parliament as the public business would allow—and there was always some public business to be arranged after the Session was closed—and with a small delay on account of the attention which he was obliged to pay to his own private affairs, he went down with his family to Brighton. It might not be immaterial to add, that at that time his Majesty and the Court were at Windsor. He remained at Brighton without any communication, directly or indirectly with his Majesty, until he was recalled to London by express on account of the lamentable fire at both Houses of Parliament. He arrived in London next morning while the fire was still raging; and, after witnessing the devastation which had taken place, it was suggested to him, and he immediately felt the justice of the suggestion, that it was his duty to write a letter to his Majesty, informing him of the state of things as far as it was then possible to form a judgment, and the rather as he was, by the gracious permission of his Majesty, living in a portion of the ancient palace of Westminster. He wrote the letter to his Majesty that evening, and, with the permission of the House, would state the terms in which he had written it. The right hon. Gentleman then read a copy of the letter, of which this is the substance;— The Speaker feels it his duty to acquaint your Majesty, that having heard at Brighton early this morning of the lamentable fire at the two Houses of Parliament, and the house which, by your Majesty's gracious permission, he inhabits, he lost no time in coming up to town. The Speaker regrets to state that both Houses of Parliament are entirely destroyed—floors, fittings, and roofs; and nothing left standing but the outer walls. With respect to the Speaker's house, the greater part of the domestic portion of the house is destroyed; and to the rest, including the public apartments, very extensive damage is done. Much of the more valuable part of the library of the House of Commons, as well as papers and records, have been saved; and the Speaker cannot omit to add his sincere satisfaction that westminster Hall, which was in imminent danger at several points, has been fortunately preserved. The Speaker trusts that your Majesty will pardon the liberty he has taken in communicating these melancholy occurrences to your Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state, that having written that letter, he carried it to the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Secretary of State was not himself in town, but he saw the Under-Secretary. He told the Under-Secretary that he had written a letter to his Majesty, acquainting him with the results of the fire, and requesting him to send it down to Windsor to his Majesty by a special messenger, if he had the power. He also requested him to state to Lord Melbourne the letter which he had written to his Majesty, and the object he had in view in writing it. In the course of that evening he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) received a letter from Lord Melbourne, informing him that his Majesty would be in town next day, and directing his attendance at two o'clock on that day at St. James's palace. He also received another letter from Lord Melbourne, desiring to see him in the morning before he went to the Palace. In the morning, before he went to Lord Melbourne, he received a letter from Sir Herbert Taylor, acknowledging the receipt of his report by his Majesty, and enclosing a letter from his Majesty upon the subject of providing for the future accommodation of Parliament. He then went and saw Lord Melbourne. He told Lord Melbourne that he had received an answer to his letter from the King. He also informed him of its contents. He likewise stated to Lord Melbourne that, in the letter, the object of his attendance on his Majesty was stated. He then attended his Majesty. His Majesty saw Lord Melbourne and the Lord Chancellor afterwards, and then returned to Windsor. The same evening he received another letter from Lord Melbourne, informing him, that he (Lord Melbourne) and his colleagues conceived that a Committee of the Privy Council should be appointed to inquire into the cause of the fire, and that they were desirous that he should be a member of that Committee. He received his summons as one of that Committee. He never missed a single day's attendance upon it whilst it sate, and he was concerned in framing the Report which emanated from the Privy Council respecting the destruction of the two Houses. On the Wednesday following his Majesty came to town to hold a Court for the investiture of Knights of the Order of the Bath; and as he had the honour to belong to that Order, he attended at the Court. After the Court was over, he asked if it was his Majesty's intention to return to Windsor, and he was answered in the affirmative. He likewise inquired whether his Majesty had any further commands for him, and was informed that his Majesty had not expressed any intimation of that kind. He then stated, that as he was going to the Privy Council Office, if wanted, he should be found there. On the day following he received a letter from Sir Herbert Taylor, conveying his Majesty's commands that he should be at Windsor at five o'clock on the next day. He attended his Majesty's commands, and he had a long audience of his Majesty on that occasion. With regard to what occurred at that audience, he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) requested his Majesty's permission, and his Majesty was kind enough to command him to communicate to Lord Viscount Melbourne every thing that passed at it. He did not request his Majesty's permission to state what had occurred at that audience to that House, and, therefore, he was not at liberty to make that statement now; but if any one entertained a doubt on the subject, he begged to refer them to Lord Viscount Melbourne in confirmation of what he now stated. He believed the noble Lord whom he now saw on the opposite side of the House was not then in town. He did communicate with the right hon. Gentleman then at the head of the Woods and Forests (Sir John Hobhouse,) and he would confirm what he now stated. He (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) returned from Windsor on the Saturday morning. When he returned he stated to that right hon. Gentleman that he had his Majesty's command to wait on him, and that, on doing so, he had been directed by his Majesty to survey Buckingham-house and gardens, and report thereon. The right hon. Gentleman suggested to send for Mr. Blore the architect, to accompany him on the occasion, which he did. He went over Buckingham palace with Mr. Blore, and he drew up his report, which he was to send to the King. Before, however, he sent it to the King, he brought it and showed it to Lord Viscount Melbourne and the right. hon. Gentleman then at the head of the Woods and Forests, and then he sent it to Brighton. He received an acknowledgment of it from Sir Herbert Taylor, and there terminated his communication with his Majesty. Subsequently the late Government was dissolved, and it had been laid to his (Sir Charles Manners Sutton's) charge, that he had been intriguing for its dissolution. Now, upon such a point, it was impossible for any man to speak but upon the sanction of his own personal honour. tinder that sanction, he now declared that he had no anticipation of such an event, and that the first information he received of it was from an article in one of the morning papers. In fact, he heard nothing, he knew nothing of it before. He feared that he was becoming tedious. The question, however, was one involving his personal honour and character, and, therefore, of the deepest interest to the individual concerned. He hoped, therefore, that the House would extend its indulgence to him. The next charge he had seen made against him was, that he had busied himself respecting the formation of the present Government. The only overt act advanced to substantiate that charge was, that he had attended the Privy Council. He certainly did attend it, and he would state the facts upon that point. On the Monday following the resignation of the late Ministers his Majesty came to town, and he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) received his Majesty's commands to attend him at St. James's. He went there accordingly —he saw there many Members of his Majesty's late Government. They had audiences. He (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) had none. After their audiences were over, the Duke of Wellington had an audience, and then a message came out to all those in the outer room who were Privy Councillors to go in and sit in Privy Council; upon that he, having received that summons, went in. The other summonses which he received to attend were in the form of a printed notice; and those right hon. Gentlemen who were Privy Councillors were aware that a printed notice to attend a Privy Council never stated the matter for deliberation. There was this difference between those Privy Councils and Committees of the Privy Council, that, in the former, mere matters of form were transacted. It would be impossible to go into a minute detail of the business that was transacted at those Privy Councils, for, although the circumstances in which he stood, might be a great temptation to state the details, he did not feel that it would be consistent with the obligation of a Privy Councillor to do so. Many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were Privy Councillors, and the Council books were open for their inspection. He (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) would satisfy himself with saying, that at no one of the Privy Councils that he had attended had any business been done but of the most formal description. The next charge that had been made against him was for busying himself in the formation of the present Government, When the right hon. Baronet returned from Italy, and took upon himself that station which he now filled, he did him (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) the honour to send to his house, expressing a wish to see him. That was the day after the right hon. Baronet arrived, and pursuant to his request, he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) willingly attended upon him. With the exception of that visit, and of another which he paid to the right hon. Baronet for the purpose of getting the sanction and signature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to make good the payment at the Bank of England of the salaries of the Clerks of the House—with those two single exceptions, from the time that his right hon. Friend had assumed the Government up to the present moment, it so happened, that he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) never was inside the right hon. Baronet's house. But he had perhaps gone too far in noticing such a point. But really, when his visits, as reported in the Court Circular, were made matters of charge—when he was accused of being at the Home Office with the Duke of Wellington day after day, previous to his right hon. Friend's return, and of his being with the Duke of Wellington week after week subsequent to his right hon. Friend's return, he must dispose of them by saying there was not one word of truth in such statements. When he saw such statements appearing day after day in the Court Circular, he thought at first it must have been a matter of accident, but the pertinacity in the repetition of them induced him to think otherwise. He should have felt it a high honour to have called so often upon his noble Friend and his right hon. Friend; but he should have considered it an act of impertinence to have so obtruded himself upon them without having business with them. Now, as to the charge against him with respect to the formation of the present Government, he would boldly, and at once say, that with the exception of his knowledge, in common with the public, of the appointment of his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) the Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of Wellington, he had never advised, he had never suggested, he never was in any way consulted, and he never knew of the appointment of any one individual till after it had taken place. So much with regard to that charge. He now came to the third charge—namely, that he had counselled the dissolution of the late Parliament; and the overt act charged against him in this instance was, that he was present at the Privy Council, from which the proclamation for dissolution emanated. Now he begged to say, that he was not present at that Privy Council. He was not summoned to it. He never did advise, he never did counsel, he never was consulted with regard to—he never had anything to do with—the dissolution of the late Parliament; and so little did he know of the steps that had been taken on the subject, that owing to an accident of indisposition in his own house, he did not know of the fact, until it was announced in the Gazette. He was aware of the fact too late to save the post that night, and he was in reality put to much inconvenience in sending off an announcement of the event to his constituents as early as he could have wished. He stood differently from his right hon. colleague. His right hon. colleague had the advantage of being able to canvass before he could do so. Further he would state, he did not feel himself at liberty, being Speaker, to make any communication to his constituents until Parliament was actually dissolved. He must again apologize to the House for the length of time that he was obliged to take up its attention on this subject. He would repeat, that, with respect to the three charges of his having had any communication with any human being, at any time, or upon any occasion, in reference to the dispersion of the last Government, or any interference at all in any appointment of the present Government, or any thing to do in the way of advising, suggesting, or counselling the dissolution of the late Parliament, he would say as to each and all of those charges, with the greatest solemnity, and the strongest sanction that could be given to his assertion, on the credit and honour of a Gentleman, they were from the beginning to the end utterly without foundation. He had felt, that it was but respectful on his part towards the House to say so much. As he had said before, he had had the honour of being their servant for a long period, and there was no disgrace which he should feel so much as its being the impression of the House, that he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) had discredited their repeated choice of him. With respect to the proposition before the House, as to who would be the fittest person to place in the Chair, he was sure that the House would concur with him when he said, as an honest man, that the question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman should be elected, or he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) should be re-elected, fell to nothing compared with the vindication of personal character. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman who had been proposed in opposition to him, he hoped that he would believe, that he spoke in the spirit of the most perfect sincerity when he said, that no man could rate his talents higher than he did, and that he should feel it no disparagement in being considered second to him. He would now conclude, but before he did so, perhaps the House would permit him to express a wish—which was the one most likely to be uppermost in his mind, from his knowledge of the difficulties which belonged to the discharge of the duties of the Chair—that with the termination of this Debate, whatever the result might be, would terminate all angry and acrimonious feelings. He expressed that wish for the sake of the dignity of Parliament, and the decency of their proceedings; and he expressed it, too, because, speaking from long experience, unless it was so, it would be impossible for any Speaker, be he whom he might, to discharge his duties usefully to the public, acceptably to the House, or satisfactorily to himself.

Mr. Abercromby

spoke to the following effect:—Sir, while I am duly sensible of the honour that has been conferred upon me, in having been selected by others as a person qualified to be recommended to the favour of the House on the present occasion, I cannot be insensible to the very great disadvantage under which I must labour from finding myself opposed to a Gentleman, who so long has filled the Chair, and whose repeated re-election has marked the sense which has been entertained of his services. This and other considerations were so strongly felt by me that I was most anxious to decline the application of my friends to permit them to place me in my present position. I have, however yielded my own inclinations and opinions to the judgment of others, in whom I confide, and whatever the decision of the House may be, I shall always reflect with great satisfaction upon the proof which has thus been afforded to me, that I possess the confidence of friends, whom I respect and esteem. My thanks are especially due to my two honoured friends who have recommended me in terms dictated by their old friendship, and not, as all must know, by the merits of the individual to whom those terms have been applied. Sir, the House is now required to perform its first and most important duty in selecting the individual whom it would call into its service. Feeling that the decision ought to be governed by the judgment that may be formed of the past conduct in life of any one who may be proposed for the consideration of the House, I have thought it most respectful and becoming to take no part, but patiently to abide the event. Under this impression I should have had little more to address to the House; but as the House cannot fail to know that the contest has been conducted out of doors in a very different spirit from that which I am sure will prevail within these walls, it has occurred to me, that as the right hon. Gentleman has vindicated himself (and in doing so he has acted most naturally) from charges which have not been made in the course of the Debate, I may be subject to observation if I do not do so likewise. I shall not, however, suffer in the judgment of this House, whatever I may suffer elsewhere, if on the whole I deem it most correct not to obtrude upon the consideration of the House what affects only myself personally, and the rather, as I have reason to believe, that before many days of the Session have passed, a Motion will be made, which will bring the matter to which I refer, and which has been so much the subject of discussion out of doors, under the consideration of a Committee of this House. My opinion, on the leading political questions, which have been discussed during the time I have had the honour of a seat in this House, have been, I hope, clear and distinct. If I were now to pretend, that the fact were otherwise, I should be contradicted by the whole tenor of my life; and I hope that those opinions, whether right or wrong, have always been adopted from conviction, and maintained with sincerity. Whoever is called upon to fill the Chair of this House, must know, that he is always acting in the presence of a critical and vigilant assembly. He must be influenced by a proper regard for his own fame, and animated by a sense of public duty. These considerations may not be regarded as sufficient guarantees for impartiality of conduct; but at least they deserve to be numbered among the most powerful and strongest motives that can act on a well-regulated and honourable mind. I shall now submit myself to the judgment of the House, and will only add the expression of my fervent wish that the decision of the House may be such as to contribute to the stability and permanence of that just authority, and of those real and substantial rights and privileges which have been assigned to this House by the constitution of our country; and that the business of this House may be conducted with that order, regularity, and decorum which are essentially necessary to command the respect, and secure the confidence of the people, whose Representatives we are.

Lord Stanley

addressed the House to the following effect:—Sir, as I conceive it is not probable that any other Gentleman will be submitted to the consideration of the House beyond those whose names have already been laid before it, I hope I shall not be considered as impertinently intruding myself on the attention of the House, for I confess that I feel anxious to take this opportunity of stating the grounds for the vote which it is my intention to give on the present occasion. In doing so I am anxious, in a question which partakes in some degree of a personal and political consideration, to state my views, without offence to either of the two Gentlemen who have been put in nomination, for both of whom I entertain an unfeigned personal respect, from both of whom I am divided by no unimportant difference of political opinion, and without offence to those personal friends from whom I feel myself compelled to differ on this occasion. I had the honour—and an honour I shall ever feel it—to have been for four years a Member of that Administration over which Earl Grey presided. I yield to no Member of that Government, or of this House, in attachment to that which has been put forward as the great principle involved in this question—I mean the principle of Reform. I yield to no Member of that or any other Government in my attachment to liberal principles. I will venture to say, I am second to none in the zeal with which I endeavoured to carry out those principles. In 1833, when the right hon. Gentleman was re-elected, I did not express my sentiments on that occasion; I concurred most fully and most cordially not only in the course then pursued, and in the praises which from every side of the House were bestowed upon the right hon. Gentleman below me, but I was also of opinion that no political question could arise, no difference of political opinion could be sufficient, to counterbalance the inestimable advantages which the country would derive from the services of that right hon. Gentleman. I was of that opinion then—I am of that opinion now; and when I came down to the House this day I must confess I did expect to hear a complete explanation of the difference of circumstances which caused their opinions in 1831 and 1835 to be so totally different. I came down to the House with the belief, founded on a communication neither with the one side nor with the other—founded upon nothing except upon that persevering system of attack which I have seen in the public papers on the character of the right hon. Gentleman below me—that disclosures were now to be made affecting his impartiality of conduct in the performance of the high duties intrusted to him, which would call upon the House to perform the painful act of justice—but an act of justice it would have been—of pronouncing him a convicted intriguer. Now, what has been the course which my hon. Friend, who proposed the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh has pursued? and, in making the inquiry, I beg to say, that no man entertains a higher opinion of the temper, of the judgment, of the consistency of that hon. Gentleman, and of the correctness of the political principles he has advocated than I entertain. Why, my hon. Friend came forward and stated broadly, that, with insinuations, with charges, with accusations, he had nothing to do; that personally and publicly the right hon. Gentleman below him stood as high in the estimation of the country, and in the judgment of the House, as he had stood before; that all the eulogiums that had been passed upon him might still be repeated again and again, and repeated with the assent of the House; but that a great principle—a great principle—was involved in his election. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ord), who seconded the nomination of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, followed in the same course, and explained a little more fully what the general principle was—a point which, up to this moment, however, has been left in my mind, at least, in some degree of doubt. Both those hon. Gentlemen have declared that no charge is made against the right hon. Gentleman below me. If charges have been insinuated elsewhere, they are not prosecuted in this house. The House of Commons can not take cognizance of them, nor can the least advantage be taken of them to prejudice the right hon. Gentleman in the judgment of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, I am convinced, from what has fallen from him, is not satisfied with this position; a tacit acquittal was not enough; he had felt that in the position in which his friends desired to place him he ought not only to be unconvicted but unsuspected. He had felt that his claim to their support would rest upon his refutation of a charge insinuated elsewhere and not repeated there; but a charge, in fact, that he was disqualified by his conduct from filling the Chair of that House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He has met the charge. He has met it boldly—he has met it fairly—he has met it manfully—he has met it unanswered—and he has met it without the apprehension of being answered. I say, that upon these grounds the House of Commons can not degrade the right hon. Gentleman from the situation he has so long held. I come then to the question of the public principle involved in the decision of the House. Why, what is that public principle which is so deeply involved in the present question, that it is important, that it is essential, that the House should not give it the go-by, and should not allow even the qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman below me, pre-eminent as they are admitted on all sides to be to counter-balance it? That public principle is that the person we elect to fill the office of Speaker should be known to entertain opinions in conformity with the majority of the House. Is this a new proposition; or was it not advanced by a certain portion of those who supported Lord Grey's Administration in the year 1833? Was that proposition not met by Lord Grey's Administration with the declaration, that that public principle was not one which, under the circumstances of that day, ought to bear on the case of the right hon. Gentleman below me. Why, if this were a great public principle they had given it the go-by in 1831, and they had given it the go-by in 1833. I do not question the consistency of those hon. Gentlemen who entertained the same opinion in 1831 and in 1833. I contend that in following up the opinion which I entertained in common with them in 1833 it is enough for me to vindicate the vote which I am now about to give in consistency and conformity with the vote which, as a member of Lord Grey's Government, I then gave. But it is said that the case of 1833 was not one of an alarming or extraordinary description; that there were no peculiar circumstances attending it; that there was no immediate public question at issue; that there was no question on which a mistake could arise—no question on which a direct appeal to the country had been made. But what did the House say to 1831—to May, 1831—when an appeal was made to the country, involving the whole of the principles of the Reform Bill—involving the very existence of the Reform Bill—involving the question whether the country and the Parliament would have or would not have Reform? Now was there ever a question on which a public principle was so broadly put forward as the very basis and ground-work of the discussion—that very question being the first measure the Parliament must consider—the first question they must necessarily determine? What was the first act of that Parliament? Why, the first act of that Parliament—the first act of that Reform Administration in the very agony and struggle for the Reform Bill itself—was to propose to the House, and to unanimously adopt a Speaker, whose very principles were in opposition to that measure. I might require of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the nomination of Mr. Abercromby to point out in what respect the circumstances of 1833 and 1835 so far differ that we should now elect a different Speaker; but. I have pointed out to him that in one respect, at least, the circumstances of the present times are not stronger—they are not so strong—with regard to the necessity of the Speaker agreeing in political principles with the majority of the House; there being now no great principles at issue, as they were in 1831. What then are the different circumstances which warrant such opposite conduct? I ask again and again; and I know not what those circumstances are, except I am to take the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman, the seconder of Mr. Abercromby, and that doctrine is that this is not a test of principle, but a test of the strength of party. We are told it is essential that the Crown should not be deluded, and that no mistake should exist as to the sentiments of the House; that no mistake in 1833 could have existed—that no mistake in 1831 could have existed—because upon both these occasions as the hon. Gentleman asserted the Government wielding the whole power of the majority, in proposing a Speaker merely consented to a sacrifice to the expediency of the moment. If it were a great public principle no expediency, nothing on earth ought to have allowed a Government or an Opposition to sacrifice it. But the hon. Gentleman says circumstances have now materially changed. They are changed in one respect certainly—we were in office in 1833, we are not in office in 1835. I really don't mean to say this invidiously. Hon. Gentlemen may, perhaps, not believe me when I say I speak in all sincerity, and I use the words of one of the hon. Gentlemen who proposed Mr. Abercomby. Referring to the words which the hon. Gentleman himself used, I find that it was stated by him, that the difference between the case of 1833 and 1835 was this, that in 1833 the Government who proposed the Speaker had a certain and decided majority, and that in the present instance the majority might be less; therefore, said the hon. Gentleman it is essential that we should take this opportunity of signifying to the Crown, that we have no confidence in the existing Administration. Is that the principle? I ask again, is that the principle? If it be, I say unhesitatingly, that an act of grosser injustice—an act savouring more of resentment. than of justice—cannot be perpetrated than to take the decision of that question upon a matter which materially affects the honour and character of the right hon. Gentleman. I speak this openly and plainly: and I say, moreover, that if it really be the intention to try the strength of parties, let that question be manfully brought to issue upon an address for the removal of the present Ministry from office; but do not injure and damage the character of an individual to decide a party question. Do not commit such an injustice as to remove—and I appeal to the honour and candour of every Gentleman in this House, when I ask if it be not an act of injustice to remove—a Speaker against whom you have not only admitted that there is no personal charge, but whom you have admitted to be pre-eminently qualified for the station, personally and individually. I ask again, is it not an act of injustice to remove him for the mere purpose of testing the strength of party. But we are told, that by the election of a Speaker this day we are to judge what are the principles, what the political opinions, what the expectations and views of the hon. Members of this House. I ask, then, whether it be put to the House broadly and distinctly, that the election of either of the hon. Gentlemen who have been nominated is to be taken as an indication that the majority of the House coincide with the principles and opinions of the right hon. Gentleman who may be placed in the Chair. Will those Gentlemen who intended to support Mr. Abercromby, declare that his principles are their principles, that his politics are their politics, and that by his public declarations they are to be bound? I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, (Mr. Denison) will not make any such statement; that hon. Gentleman has been throughout his life too steady and consistent a supporter of the Whig party to hold himself bound by the opinions or principles professed by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. But if this be the question, and if the case be so put that by my supporting the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, I am to be understood as intimating my concurrence in the opinions the right hon. Gentleman professes, I must beg to say that from those opinions I widely dissent; and that being so called upon, I see in that call a ground for refusing to support him. There are many questions on which I differ most widely from the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. I am opposed to—he is the supporter of—Triennial Parliaments, or at least he advocates shortening the duration of Parliaments. I am opposed to—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inclined to support—the Vote by Ballot; and I have without the advantage of the experience enjoyed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, conclusively, I believe made up my mind against the voluntary principle as applied to the Church Establishment. I have freely and openly stated three points of political difference on the most important questions that can well be brought before the House, and I state them in answer to those who say that they are bound to support that candidate, with whose political views and political opinions, their own coincide. [No, no!] Is it not so? Why, what then becomes of the test of party strength and public principle? Either we are to support by our votes, and declare our agreement with the principles of the candidates, or we are not. In the former case I cannot vote for the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; in the latter, the House indicates no opinion, and the decision of the Question cannot be received by the country as a test of political strength. One of these alternatives we must abide by, and I leave to those Gentlemen who intend to vote in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman below me, to state on which of these grounds they rest their case; but by one of these two alternatives, the House must be guided in forming its decision. It would be impertinent in me to bring before the House the name of any individual, still less without having previously, from motives of delicacy, consulted with, or named, the subject to him. I confess, however, that if I were bound to make an exception, and to name a Gentleman whom I thought, from his knowledge of the House, and from his experience—setting aside the claims of the right hon. Gentleman below me, and supposing that he were no longer a candidate, or nominated for the office of Speaker—was most competent to the discharge of the duties of the office—if I were to select the individual whom I thought best qualified to do justice to it—if I were called upon to select from among those whom I have heard named, a Gentleman whose opinions approach most nearly to my own, and whom I should have the greatest pleasure in supporting, I should most undoubtedly name my right hon. Friend, the Member for the town of Cambridge (Mr. S. Rice.) If I were called upon to indicate my accordance with the political opinions of any man, I believe my sentiments, with certain slight differences, accord more nearly with those of that right hon. Friend than with those of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. I only put a case, for I entirely disclaim the doctrine which has been urged on this occasion, namely, that the choice of a Speaker is a test of the political opinions of the House. I do not agree, as is well known, in the political principles of the right hon. Gentleman below me; I do not agree, as is also well known, in the political opinions of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh; but I stand upon those declarations which I have before made; and, consistently with my public opinions, already recorded consistently with the opinions I conscientiously entertain, and the more strongly after knowing that charges which had been insinuated, are not only not urged, but challenged to be urged, and triumphantly refuted—I cannot vote against the right hon. Gentleman. In justice, in candour, and in honesty, I must say, that no case has been made out for withdrawing that support which you have given, and cheerfully given, to the right hon. Gentleman below me for so many years, and to that right hon. Gentleman, therefore, on public grounds, and on public grounds alone, not on party considerations, and not from agreeing with the right hon. Gentlemen in political opinion, my humble, but cordial support must be given.

Mr. Abercromby

was understood to say, that he did not understand on what authority the noble Lord had represented him to have made up his mind on the voluntary principle, as applicable to the Church Establishment.

Lord Stanley

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What he (Lord Stanley) meant to say was, that he (Lord Stanley) had made up his mind on the principle, and that he believed the right hon. Gentleman had not.

Mr. Abercromby

assured the noble Lord that there were records of his opinions in existence which showed that the noble Lord was mistaken.

Mr. Robert Ferguson

said, it is exceedingly painful for me to be obliged to address a few words to the House on this occasion, the more particularly from the feelings of personal friendship I entertain for Sir Charles Sutton. But I trust the House will bear with me in consequence of the painful situation in which I find myself placed. At an early period, when I perceived that there was likely to be a serious division on the Speakership, and that Mr. Abercromby would be nominated in opposition to Sir Charles Manners Sutton, I endeavoured to ascertain the real fact, and from undoubted authority I was informed that Mr. Abercromby had declined being put in nomination. I still thought it probable that there might be a division and resistance to the re-election of the late Speaker, but that it would not be viewed as an important party question. On this conviction, I certainly then allowed a communication to be made to Sir Charles Manners Sutton, intimating that I should not vote against him. It is unnecessary to allude to the intense interest now attached to the present vote—and considering it of the greatest constitutional importance with my own known and decided hostility to the present Government—if I had felt myself entirely a free man, I should on this occasion, on public grounds alone, have most unquestionably voted against my own brother; and in doing so, have felt that I neither should have sacrificed my freedom of action, nor any feelings of friendship, regard, or attachment. Situated, however, as I have already described myself to be, I had resolved to be absent on this occasion. But Mr. Abercromby having allowed himself to be nominated, the universal demand on every Reformer throughout the country to vote for him has become most decided. My own constituents have been, on good grounds, loud in their demands upon me to perform my duty. Many electors who have in various instances made great sacrifices in my support, have a full right to require of me the return they are entitled to expect. The demands made on me became so urgent, that I resolved to come to town and appeal to Sir Charles Sutton himself for a release from the understanding not to vote against him. Not a friend around me knew my intention till I arrived in town. I resolved, being so imperatively called upon, to recur to Sir Charles himself. In his answer, Sir Charles unfortunately chooses to consider his own individual character and honour to be at stake. This leaves me exactly in the situation in which I had unfortunately placed myself. I hold his character not to be at all at stake. This struggle has become a great and important constitutional question. If I had thought it otherwise, I should never have appealed to him on the subject. This, Sir, is my position in relation to the question before the House. I thank the House for their indulgence in listening to my statement, but whatever judgment may be formed of my conduct, I trust in God no shade of dishonour will ever attach to me from feeling myself, in the circumstances I have mentioned, not at liberty to give the vote which would otherwise have been dictated by my principles.

Sir Charles Manners Sutton

begged permission to offer a very few words relative to what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ferguson). He begged to assure that hon. Gentleman, and he referred him to that with respect to which he could labour under no mistake, that he (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) had never held him to any intention he might have expressed with reference to himself. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that application had been made to him (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) to know whether, under the pressure of the different view the hon. Gentleman had taken of the subject, he would release that hon. Gentleman from the intention he had previously communicated. What was his answer? His reply was—and he appealed for the accuracy of his statement to the hon. Gentleman himself—that he advised him to take that course which should honestly and conscientiously satisfy his own mind, and that, whatever that course was, he might depend on its proving satisfactory to hint. This was the first answer; it was then pressed upon him (Sir Charles Manners Sutton) that he should make this his own act. His reply was, that if the question did not involve a great personal imputation upon his conduct and character, he might; but that as he felt it did, and as he could not, therefore, be considered an impartial person, he would only beg to refer the hon. Gentleman once again to the test of his own honourable feeling, adding, that if the hon. Member satisfied other honourable men by his conduct on the occasion, he could not fail to satisfy him.

Mr. Robert Ferguson

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that his honour and character were at stake, and on that ground his determination had been founded. He then left the House.

Lord John Russell

was unwilling to prolong the Debate by any observations of his; but after what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) with respect to the conduct of Earl Grey's Government, he felt he should not be doing justice to his own feelings if he did not offer some explanation of the vote he was about to give. In the very beginning and outset of his explanation, he must vindicate, on the part of the House of Commons, the right of electing the Member whom they please to fill the office of their Speaker. If his noble Friend's principle were to be carried out to its full extent, there was an end at once to the option of the House as to whom they would place in the Chair. His noble Friend had stated, that he expected an attempt would have been made to fix on the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge the character of a dishonoured and convicted intriguer, and that upon such grounds the House would have been called on to reject the right hon. Gentleman's claim to the Chair. His noble Friend also seemed to think, that in the absence of such a charge, the House was bound to re-elect the right hon. Gentleman. If such were really the question on this occasion then was all power of choice at an end on the part of the house. For, according to his noble Friend's doctrine, there was no need of anything in future to decide the choice of Speaker, except that a late Speaker should get some anonymous journalist to accuse him of base and dishonourable conduct in counselling the dissolution of Parliament, and intriguing for the dismissal of Ministers; and that the party accused should come down to the House and protest on his honour, which could not be doubted, that he was innocent; immediately upon this the option of the House of Commons was at an end, for his noble Friend would have them believe that they were bound to replace the unjustly accused in the Chair, under the penalty of fixing upon him, if they refused to do so, the character of a dishonoured and convicted intriguer. He would take leave to assert fully and completely, that they were not there to listen to criminal accusations; that they were not there to pass a vote of censure; that they were not there to furnish matter for an impeachment; but that they were there to commence their proceedings with that first act—one of the most important which belonged to the House of Commons—of choosing their servant and their organ; and that they were not to be deterred from making the choice which they considered best, by the chance that somebody or other might say that by so doing they had affixed an unjust and unfair character upon one of the candidates for the vacant office. His noble Friend must know, whatever happened in Lord Grey's time, that it had been the practice not only in ancient times, but in periods much more modern, when the majority of that House, led by the Ministry, did not quite and entirely approve of the conduct of the individual who had formerly filled the Chair, to place another gentleman in it. It had been done by Lord North, in the case of Sir Fletcher Norton, who, in his Speech to the Throne in the other House, let fall some expressions displeasing to that Minister.* Lord North had the majority in the House of Commons with him, and he very rightly and properly said, "Let me have a Speaker who suits the majority." As well as he remembered, Sir Fletcher Norton used *Parl. Hist. xxiv. some of those ironical and sarcastic phrases of which he was known to be a great master, with reference to some proceedings of the House of Commons. Another Member, more agreeable to the majority of the House, was therefore proposed by the Minister, and elected. Now, were they to be told that the character of Sir Fletcher Norton would be disgraced to all eternity, because that House had not chosen to replace him in the situation he had formerly held? He thought, that if his noble friend should attempt to carry his doctrine to that length, he would not succeed in saving the honour and character of the right hon. Gentleman below him, but would be affixing dishonour and disgrace on the character of that House—the dishonour and disgrace of being no longer a reflective or deliberative body. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who lately filled the Chair, with respect to the imputations which had been cast upon him, that right hon. Gentleman would perhaps expect him to express some opinion with reference to those charges. He should not have done so had he not been called upon, but he had now no alternative. With respect to the first charge against the right hon. Gentleman—he meant his having busied himself in intrigues to overthrow the late Ministry—he must say, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, as he should say of the Duke of Wellington, or the right hon. Baronet opposite, that he believed there was no ground or foundation whatever for the charge. He, therefore, at once acquitted the right hon. gentleman of anything that could fairly affect his honour, as having taken a share in any political intrigues. As to the other charge, he founded his opinion on the right hon. Gentleman's own statement. The right hon. Gentleman attended a Privy Council at the time that the Duke of Wellington, being then First Lord of the Treasury, held the Seals of three Secretaries of State. The right hon. Gentleman afterwards attended several Councils before the return of the right hon. Baronet to England. With respect to Privy Councils, he (Lord John Russell) believed that the ancient form was, to take the opinion of the Councillors generally. He might then observe that be believed Lord Cowper had on one occasion protested against the dissolution of the Parliament, under circumstances not dissimilar to the present. In later times the general practice as to Privy Councils had been for the King, and the Cabinet, or some member of it, to call to those Privy Councils only such persons as were Members of that Cabinet, and no others, agreeing as they might be disposed to do generally on all points brought before the Council. The summons to these Councils was no peculiar summons of his Majesty; it was no act of his; it was done by the Prime Minister, Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne, the Duke of Wellington, or whoever it might be, who called to the Privy Council those persons in whom he had political confidence. The right hon. Gentleman was accordingly summoned to the Council by the Duke of Wellington. Now, although he did not mean to impute to the right hon. Gentleman any wrong intention in attending, not only the first, but several of these Councils, he must at the same time say, that having been chosen Speaker of a House of Commons, in which the major portion of the prevailing opinion was totally adverse to the sentiments of those who then formed the Administration, the Speaker of the House of Commons ought not to have been mixed up with those of the individuals who attended such Councils. When I he made this declaration, he said nothing more nor less than this, "that I think his attending those councils was conduct unbecoming the Speaker of the House of Commons." It had been argued—he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of it—that it was impossible for an individual who receives a summons to attend a Privy Council, to take no notice of it. He believed that every body who had been concerned in cabinets and courts knew that there was generally that sort of indulgence, that if an excuse for non-attendance were offered, it was readily accepted. In the precedent to. which he had already alluded, the Duke of Somerset, although. he continued to hold the situation of Master of the Horse, no longer attended the Privy Councils. The Earl of Albemarle, who was also Master of the Horse, continued so for some weeks after he ceased to attend the Privy Councils. He (Lord John Russell) was quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had signified the slightest opinion, whatever his private wishes or feelings might have been, that it would not become him to take part in the proceedings he would have been readily excused. The number of Privy Councillors was not so small as to render the attendance of the Speaker of the House of Commons necessary, before the necessary amount of attendance could be obtained. There were no less than 200 Privy Councillors, and it could not therefore be necessary that the Speaker of the House of Commons should attend, against what he might venture to say would have been the declared opinion of the House of Commons. It could hardly be doubted, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would scarcely be disposed to deny, that if the Privy Councils had been held in the middle of the Session—in the Easter recess, for instance—he would not have attended them. He surely would not have attended four or five Privy Councils of this kind in the Easter recess, and then have been prepared to meet the Parliament to fill the Chair, and to ask for their approbation of a provisional Ministry, consisting solely and entirely of the Duke of Wellington. Why then, he said with respect to this charge, there was no question of degradation, there was no question of disgrace, there was no question which could make the right hon. Gentleman retire from the House with mortified and painful feelings; but there was this fact, that the political bias of the right hon. Gentleman had not remained, as his noble Friend the Member for Yorkshire had told the House when he proposed him on a former occasion, entirely inert, but that it had got the better of him, and induced him to concur in acts, which, as Speaker of the House of Commons, he had much better have avoided. This would be the ground he fairly confessed, on which—holding the election of Speaker to be the indisputable privilege of the House of Commons—he should vote against the right hon. Gentleman and in favour of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. He was unable to discover any reason in what had been said by the hon. Members who preceded him why he should support the re-election of the right hon. Gentleman. It had been said, that the government of Earl Grey had approved of the right hon. Gentleman on two former occasions. Now, the first of these occasions was in the year 1831, when the right hon. Gentleman still continued in the office of Speaker, and nothing had occurred to render his removal at all necessary. Such was the state of the matter till the termination of the Session of 1832, when the right hon. Gentleman announced his intention to retire. He stated to the House, that he had served in the office of Speaker during six Parliaments, and for a period of sixteen years. The right hon. Gentleman must admit, that he was not one of the most grudging of those who on that occasion offered their tribute of praise and admiration to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he had borne testimony to his fair and upright conduct in the Chair during the sitting of the previous Session of Parliament, and it was his belief that the right hon. Gentleman had behaved in the most exemplary manner. If he had any party bias he did not show it, and there was, in fact, not that danger front its indulgence, while the minority was weak and insignificant, as there would be now, when the parties were so much more nearly balanced. In 1832, the right hon. Gentleman retired, having obtained an Act of Parliament, securing to him his returning pension, but he was again elected Speaker at the commencement of the first Reformed Parliament. He did not know what were the objects or feelings of other Members, in giving their support to the right hon. Gentleman upon that occasion; but, for his own part, he supported the right hon. Gentleman, because he felt exceedingly solicitous and somewhat diffident concerning the Reformed House of Commons. He had felt no doubt but that the Reformed House would, in point of intelligence, in point of honesty, and in point of integrity be not only equal, but far superior to any other House that ever had sat. But he did not feel sure that, having a great number of new Members, who had not turned their attention to Parliamentary forms, there might not be some deficiency in a knowledge of those forms, which might cause the Parliament to become the subject of undeserved obloquy. That being the case, he had thought it best, on that occasion, to depart from the general rule, that the Speaker should be the organ and Representative of the House, for the purpose of securing the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's experience. If nothing of a particular nature had occurred since, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might have been proposed for the Chair without much objection; but considering what had happened, and taking into account all the circumstances of the case, he thought there no longer remained any room to doubt as to the course which the House ought to take. But, laying aside that view of the subject, he now came to a question which he thought by far the most important, namely, how far public principle was involved in their choice. He thought it most important that the person who was placed in that Chair should be a man who was zealous on behalf of the liberties of the people, zealous on behalf of popular prerogatives; fit to be the organ of that House in its communications with the Crown; to represent their feelings firmly, zealously, and openly, without fear of offending, or a wish to conciliate those who might have the power of dispensing. favours. In saying this he expressed not only his own feelings but the doctrine of the Reformed House of Commons, which it was especially necessary to vindicate at the present moment. They bad heard the dismissal of one Ministry, and the formation of another Ministry, on certainly, different principles from that which was dismissed, discussed, and they were told that it was the prerogative of the Crown, to appoint the Ministers, and that the recent appointment of Ministers in opposition to the spirit of Reform was an exercise of that prerogative, which ought not to be questioned. The late Parliament, which he did not hesitate to say was as loyal to the Crown as any Parliament that ever existed, was suddenly dissolved; and they were again referred to the prerogative of the Crown as the cause of the dissolution. He admitted it was the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss and appoint Ministers, and to dissolve Parliaments; but the people also possessed their privileges, which on fit occasions were to be exercised, and if the sword of prerogative were drawn, it was time to be prepared with the shield and buckler of popular privileges. He knew of no right more sacred, no privilege less to be infringed, than of that House placing their Representative in the Chair. They had all been sent to that House by their constituents, not because they liked their appearance or manners, but because they agreed with them in political opinion, and because their constituents thought that they would reform abuses. He would say the same thing. Let all those who wished to reform abuses choose a Speaker who fully concurred with them in that feeling, and who would be their proper and complete organ and Representative, and who would aid them in those Reforms. This was the doctrine in ancient times, when the prerogative was also asserted, as in the time of Charles 2nd, when the Speaker chosen by the House was refused by the Crown, and an attempt was made to force upon the House of Commons a Speaker favourable to the Court.* The attempt was resisted, and successfully resisted, and more especially by Sir Harbottle Grimstone who had been Speaker in a preceding Parliament, and Mr. Serjeant Williams, to whom he was always glad to give his weed of praise. He would call the attention of the House to the expressions made use of by Sir Harbottle Grimstone. He said:—"Shall we not have the liberty to choose our own servant, fit to do our own work? Other people would destroy our work, if we part with that which must enable us to do the work of them that trusted us, and sent us hither. If any one man may be imposed upon us, who will not do our work, it may be he will put what questions he pleases, and tire you out. This I have seen done, I will ask any man, who has influence upon this action, now we have chosen a Speaker, that he should be refused? Whoever broke the last Parliament, without the desire of this House, or the advice of the Privy Council, that man or men, that broke that Parliament, will break this too, to the utter undoing of the nation." Mr. Williams said:—"Will you sit down and give up your right for a compliment? If so, farewell choosing a Speaker for the future. Mr. Powle is a gentleman of great value, but let every man consider the right of the Commons of England." This was what he said on the present occasion. He also said let every man here consider the rights of the Commons of England. They had for their choice a man of the character he had mentioned, who, in addition to his legal and historical knowledge, added a sound knowledge of the Constitution, and a love for the privileges and liberties of the people. By choosing the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, they would I give the country an earnest that they meant to set zealously about real Reform, and that they were not going to cheat the people by any unsubstantiated and mock Reform, while they exhibited sincere and undoubted loyalty to the Throne, and Parl. Hist. iv. p. 1092. respect to the prerogative of the King, let them show that they were determined to maintain the privileges of the Commons.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he should pursue the course which had been generally pursued by every one who had hitherto taken part in the discussion—and confine his observations to the question immediately before the House. Such a course appeared to him not only wise in relation to the topic under discussion; but to be especially necessary as they had not yet gone through one of the formalities essential to constitute a House of Parliament. He should, in the first place, speak as a witness; and it would be his duty, a duty perhaps unnecessary for him to discharge, to confirm, in as far as he had any knowledge, the statement of his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge. The only part of the transactions, however, to which he would speak, occurred after his return to this country. Of what took place previous to his arrival he could say nothing. Having undertaken the duty which his Sovereign had assigned him, he sought an interview with his right hon. Friend, for he was anxious from the high opinion he entertained of the talents, character, and experience of his right hon. Friend in public business to procure his assistance and co-operation. Having informed his right hon. Friend of the duty he had undertaken, and the principle upon which he should endeavour to construct his Administration; namely, that he should seek for aid from every man of character and talent who could unite with him consistently with his honour and his principles; he asked his right hon. Friend, whether or not it was consistent with his feelings and sense of duty to enter into the service of the Crown? He received from his right hon. Friend this answer—that he did not seek employment in any official capacity in the service of the Crown. There was a defect apparently in that answer which he would supply, as probably it would furnish the main reason which had induced the right hon. Gentleman at such a time to withhold his services from his Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that he had served in the Chair of the House of Commons for a period of eighteen years; and he felt, that if he were to enter into the arena of political discussion as a Member of the Government, he should, after so long a service in the Chair and his personal connexion with, and authority in, that situation; run the risk of lowering it, if he appeared on the floor of the House of Commons as a Member of the Government. That was the reason which his right hon. Friend assigned for his desire, to withhold his services from the public. When he understood from his right hon. Friend, that he was not willing upon that ground, to enter into the service of the Crown as a Member of the House of Commons, fearing that there something might occur to lower the authority of the office he had held, if he became a Member of the Government at a time when it was likely that there would be stormy discussions; having received that answer, he did not feel it to be his duty to consult his right hon. Friend, either as to the formation of the Government or its policy—and not one word passed between his right hon. Friend and himself on the subject. He had asked his right hon. Friend, whether he would wish again to fill the Chair of the House of Commons in the event of a dissolution? He replied, that he had no wish or feeling upon the subject—that it was a matter upon which he could have no personal interest in consequence of the former liberality of the House of Commons. At the same time, his right hon. Friend stated, that the impediment of ill-health which before led him to meditate retirement no longer existed; and, that if he (Sir Robert Peel) thought that his services would be of any value to the public, as long as his health would permit, he should feel it his duty not to withhold them, if placed in the Chair of that House. He had expressed no opinion on the subject, and least of all any wish that his right hon. Friend should resume the office, if there should be any indisposition on the part of the House to receive him. These were the circumstances, as far as his knowledge went, of the course pursued by his right hon. Friend. The question now was, whether, since his right hon. Friend had professed his willingness to serve, it was right and fitting that they should select another Speaker. The noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, said, that the House had a perfect right to choose whom they pleased. Was that the question at issue? Who contested the noble Lord's position? The noble Lord, who was the loudest in claiming this prerogative, ought to know that it was a trust conferred for the public good, and ought to be exercised with discretion—that it did not become him to insist on the exercise of the barren and abstract right, but to consider the more important point—namely, whether it could be exercised with justice to individuals and advantage to the public. The noble Lord had said he could quote precedents, but with all his historical research, the only case which the noble Lord had been able to set against the example of Earl Grey and the first reformed Parliament was the conduct of Lord North with respect to Sir Fletcher Norton. A worthy precedent truly! Did that case proceed upon any intelligible principle? Was not the argument employed then something like that used upon the present occasion—namely, "You have given us offence upon one ground, or we wish to gain an advantage upon one ground, but we will assign another for depriving you of the means of rendering further service to the House of Commons?" The ground of Lord North's objection to Sir Fletcher Norton was a speech delivered by the latter at the Bar of the House of Lords. Did Lord North assign that as his reason for displacing him? No. His reason was pretended solicitude for the health of Sir Fletcher Norton. Thus it was evident, that Lord North was so convinced that whatever might be the abstract right of the House, they would, by exercising it, inflict injustice upon Sir Fletcher Norton, that he carefully avoided stating in the face of the House his real reason for wishing to get rid of him. If there was anything analogous in the two cases it was this, that both in the one and the other an offence was imputed, and the opponents of the candidate said, we will act upon that imputation as truth, and yet assign for not re-electing you some other cause. The noble Lord also quoted another precedent, that of Sir Edward Seymour, which he must have selected when it was thought that the charge could have been successfully brought against his right hon. Friend of having counselled or instigated the dissolution of the last Parliament, for the part of the precedent which extorted the slightest cheer was that in which it was insinuated, that if he should be re-elected, the Speaker would do as he had done before. But how did the case of Sir Edward Seymour bear upon the present one? The House of Commons had unanimously elected him Speaker. [A Member: Against the wishes of the King.] "Against I care not what," said the right hon. Baronet, with more than his accustomed energy. But he ought to beg pardon for his apparent warmth. He might say with sincerity, that he felt the duties which had devolved on him to be far too onerous for him to set in the House any such example as that of being betrayed into unbecoming warmth. He was about to observe, when he was interrupted, that the case of Sir Edward Seymour had not the least reference to the present discussion. The Commons then elected a Speaker whose appointment the Crown refused to sanction, and wished to promote the election of another; it was therefore evident that the strong and just reasons urged by the Commons for adhering to their original choice which had been quoted by the noble Lord, were applicable to another and totally different state of circumstances from that which now occupied the attention of the House. Not in the least doubting the right of the House to refuse to re-appoint the late Speaker, the question was, whether such a refusal was fair and just, not towards the individual alone, but towards the House. Was the House called upon by a sense of fitness, or justice, to choose any other person in the place of him who had received his appointment by the almost unanimous sanction of six Parliaments—who had served the House of Commons for eighteen years, against whom every charge had been abandoned, whose health permitted him again to undertake the office, and who was willing, without the possibility of his being actuated by any motive of personal interest, to continue in the performance of its duties? Would the House allow their late Speaker to suffer by six weeks of uncontradicted calumnies against him, uncontradictcd by himself, or by his authority, until that day, and which calumnies, and not a sense of his unfitness for the office, had raised a feeling against him amongst the constituents of some hon. Members? Might he be allowed to ask the noble Lord opposite a question? Was it not the noble Lord's own impression—and if it were he was sure the noble Lord would have the manliness to avow it—that the late Speaker was concerned in instigating and provoking the dissolution of the Parliament? ["Don't answer."] He appealed to the noble Lord's candour.

Lord John Russell

said, that his impression was, that the late Speaker went no further than this—that he took an active part with respect to the formation of a Government, which Government could do no other than dissolve the Parliament. His grounds of objection, therefore, had certainly been founded on the supposition, that the right hon. Gentleman had contributed by his conduct to the dissolution of the late Parliament.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the impression on his mind was, that the noble Lord at a public meeting had expressly declared the ground of his objection to the re-election of his right hon. Friend to be, not that he had attended councils, that he had been a party to the advice but through which the Parliament had been dissolved. That was the ground taken up by the public Press, and the ground on which some constituencies had advised their Representatives to vote against the re-election of his right hon. Friend. He implored hon. Members to reflect, that if their impression against his right hon. Friend rested originally on erroneous grounds, they were bound in manliness to refuse to vote upon those grounds. They might oppose the re-election of his right hon. Friend upon public principle, if they thought it applicable to the case; but if either they, or their constituents, originally formed the determination of opposing him upon the erroneous grounds which he had adverted to, he had sufficient confidence in their manliness and honour to believe that they would not act upon that determination. There had been something said about a "public principle" involved in the decision of the present question. Now, what were the arguments advanced in support of this proposition? One hon. Member said, that the Speaker ought to represent the opinion of the majority of the House. Was that a good principle to establish? Was it wise, or conducive to the dignity and just station of the Chair, that its possessor should ever be seeking favour with the political majority in order to secure his re-election? Was it not infinitely wiser to look at the qualifications of the individual to fill the office for which he was proposed than to consider his political opinions. But that question had been decided by the first reformed Parliament. Earl Grey and his adherents, having a great majority, thought it right to elect the right hon. Gentleman, though differing from them in political principles, whom some of the same party now opposed. They had the power then to enforce their opinions, and why did they depart from what they now called a great principle, and wished so urgently to carry into effect? The first decision of the first reformed Parliament carried with it this conclusion, that the House did not feel itself called upon to elect a Speaker whose political opinions were in accordance with those of the majority of its Members. But what was the explanation of that given by the noble Lord? The noble Lord said:—'We wanted to avail ourselves of the advantages of the right hon. Gentleman's character, judgment, abilities, and experience, and therefore we elected him." But he had served their turn; he had done his work; he had answered their object; and (with singular ingratitude he must say), they would now dismiss him, after they had established the principle of electing a Speaker not of their own political opinions, when they had the power of doing so. After they had availed themselves of his services, and after he had co-operated with them in establishing the character of the first Reform Parliament for decorum, they would unfairly take the very first opportunity to subject him to disgrace. ["No, no,"] No, no, indeed; for no disgrace could be heaped upon a man who had conscientiously done his duty. It was beyond the reach of a majority to do that; but it was not beyond the reach of a majority to injure the character of the House. The hon. Member who nominated the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, in a speech which he might be allowed to say exhibited much good sense, said that the election of Speaker was an important matter at the present time, because various important matters were about to be brought under discussion, and amongst others, questions relating to the constitution of the present and the dismissal of the late Government, and in order that justice might be done to the discussion of those questions, the hon. member urged that an impartial Speaker should be appointed. Well, whom did he propose? He had taken down the hon. Member's words: he said that the House required an impartial mediator to still the raging storms that would arise amidst the conflicts of exasperated parties. Did then the hon. Member propose to select a Gentleman who had stood aloof from party? No; his choice fell upon a distinguished member of the very Government whose removal was to be brought under the consideration of the House. If impartiality in the Speaker was so desirable, let not the House select a Gentleman to fill that office who was a member of that Government, the conduct of which was likely to occupy the attention of the House. There were two candidates for the Speakership—one, the late Speaker, who had served the House during eighteen years, and been elected by seven Parliaments; who had declined to accept office under the Crown because he thought it would have a tendency to lower the authority of the Chair;—the other a member of the late Government, with respect to whom not a word of disrespect should fall from his lips, but whose impartiality the House had no means of judging of. Could they doubt which they could give the preference to? The House was bound to be as careful not to do injustice to an individual as it was not to abandon its principles or to lessen its own character. The House had another and most important duty to perform. If it had a want of confidence in his Majesty's Government, let it make that fairly and openly a ground of address to the Crown; but do not let it do injustice to an individual whose high merits all admitted, by selecting him as the first victim of its displeasure. He resisted therefore, the Motion of the hon. Member for Surrey not only on individual and personal, but on general grounds; and as the office in question was the only one which the House had the power of bestowing let them make such a selection as would be in accordance with the examples which both the unreformed and the Reformed House had afforded them. The only objection of a personal nature made by the noble Lord to the appointment of his right hon. friend was, that he had attended some three or four Privy Councils which were purely of a formal character. That one charge was to invalidate the impartiality, dignity, ability, and experience practised during eighteen years. But what was the nature of this charge? If it were not fitting that the Speaker of that House should be a Privy Councillor let there be a regulation to that effect; but if he be one, why should he be blamed for performing the duties of the office? An erroneous opinion was entertained by a part of the public that the meetings of the Privy Council which had been referred to were deliberative assemblies. The noble Lord opposite also was quite mistaken when he said, that. they were attended only by Members of the Cabinet. Any Members of the Council not Members of the Cabinet might attend, and they frequently did so. Their duty was merely ministerial, and they offered not a word of advice to the Sovereign. If the Speaker were in London, living in the House assigned to him for a residence by his Majesty, and received a summons to attend a Privy Council, on what ground was he to refuse to perform his duty? The charge respecting the late Speaker attending councils was not worthy of one moment's attention after his solemn disclaimer that he had been directly or indirectly a party to the dismissal of the late Government, the formation of the present one, or the dissolution of Parliament. For his part, he would give his vote in favour of his right hon. Friend, of whose experience and ability he had had so many proofs. He implored hon. Members to consider, that the office of Speaker was one which ought not to be made the subject of party feeling. The precincts of the Chair ought not to be converted into ground on which political battles might be fought. He resisted the appointment of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, not because he had any doubt with respect to his qualifications for the office of Speaker, but on the double ground—first, that the qualifications of his right hon. Friend were superior from his long practice and experience; and secondly, because he thought that his supersession would be unjust towards him individually, and have a tendency to disparage the authority of the Chair, and the House of Commons itself.

Mr. Cobbett

said, that the last time he had the pleasure of seeing his constituents they voted an Address of thanks to the King for having dismissed the late Ministers. He, therefore, was determined to do nothing which had a tendency to force those Ministers back upon the King. He could give many long reasons for not voting in favour of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, but he would content himself with one. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the Ministers who hatched, brought in clandestinely, and pushed forward the inhuman Poor-law Bill.

Lord Morpeth

said, that he would limit his observation to what seemed peculiar to his own position. His noble Friend, who opened the discussion to-day in so able a manner, reminded the House that, in the last Parliament, he (Lord Morpeth) had the distinguished honour of proposing the successful candidate for the office of Speaker, and most truly said, that he rested the recommendation of the appointment of Sir C. Manners Sutton on his eminent fitness for the discharge of the duties of the office. Not a syllable of what he then said did he now repent of, or wish to retract. On the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman's opponents should fail in their object, they, at least, would find some compensation in yielding to no unworthy foe, and in seeing the functions of the office intrusted to most skilful guardianship. He thought, however that he and his friends were justified, on political grounds, in transferring the support which they gave to the late Speaker to his present opponent, and that without any stain upon the honour of the right hon. Gentleman, or any want of gratitude on their part for having profited by his previous services. His limited task at the present moment was to claim for himself as full a share of strict consistency as any hon. Member who might give a vote on the other side; for, on looking at the fullest record of the proceedings of the House, he found that, in the very act of proposing the late Speaker, before he came to the mention of the right hon. Gentleman's name, he used the following words, which were not included in the quotation made by his noble Friend:—"I feel it due to myself, and I am sure that the person I am about to propose will least grudge me the fair avowal, that strong feelings, both of a public and private nature, at one time induced me to contemplate a different arrangement with great pleasure. The circumstances, however, to which I allude have not arisen." Those circumstances were known to many, and, he believed, were understood by all whom he then addressed, not to have arisen in consequence of the absence from his place of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, which rendered it impossible that he could be nominated as a candidate for the Chair. Notwithstanding the high estimate which he formed and expressed of the late Speaker,—notwithstanding the support which the right hon. Gentleman received from that party with whom in public life it was his (Lord Morpeth's) pride to act, he signified that he was prepared to give the preference to the claims of his right hon. Friend, if they had then been brought forward. The feelings to which he then adverted of a public and private nature were his personal friendship for his right hon. Friend, and respect for his abilities and public career, and these remained as they ever had been. They would have led him to prefer his right hon. Friend; and he hardly need add, that, under circumstances materially altered, with so many incentives conspiring in his behalf, he preferred him still.

Lord Dudley Stuart

was understood to say, that he felt bound to give a short explanation of the reasons which induced him to abstain from acting with that party with which he had hitherto acted. He trusted the House would permit him to explain the motives which influenced him in the course which he felt it his duty to pursue. Having been one of those who voted in the majority in the late Parliament on the election of Speaker, he considered that it was impossible for him on the present occasion, however painful it was for him to take part against his friends, to vote against the re-election of the right hon. Gentleman, unless it could be shown that he had done something wrong. The charges that had been brought against him had altogether failed. On the former occasion to which he had referred, many Gentlemen of all shades of opinion concurred in saying, that the right hon. Gentleman was the best Speaker that they could then choose; and some said, that he was the best Speaker that they could possibly have. He thought that it was the duty of the House to select the man who was likely to discharge the duty of the office with the greatest advantage to the House; and he could not help feeling that the late Speaker was better adapted for the office than any one else that could be chosen. He had been asked out of the House, how he intended to give his vote? and his reply was,—that as the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, while he held the office of Speaker, had obtained the unquestionable approbation of all parties, it was his intention to vote for the re-election of the right hon. Gentleman to the Chair, unless it could be shown that he had acted improperly. To him the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the accusations brought against him was perfectly satisfactory. He had been told that no man could vote the right hon. Gentleman into the Chair if he were a sincere Reformer. He was aware that opprobrium might attach to him for pursuing the course which he intended to follow. He did not mean to say that he was indifferent on the subject, for he, as most men, felt it very unpleasant to submit to misrepresentation of their motives and conduct; but he would say, that no consideration of that nature should deter him from pursuing a line of conduct which he felt that duty dictated to him. He was satisfied that the country would not take a wrong view of the subject, nor consider a man an apostate from his principles because he was not willing to commit an act of injustice; and he considered that giving a vote against Sir Charles Manners Sutton on that occasion would be committing an act of the grossest injustice. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, that the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to Reform, and, therefore, ineligible to the Chair; but, in his opinion, this might have been a good argument against the right hon. Gentleman when he was proposed to the last Parliament, but was not applicable at present. In conclusion, he had only to add, that he had not the pleasure of boasting of the private friendship of the right hon. Gentleman, he therefore could not be supposed to be influenced by feelings of that nature.

Mr. Robinson

said, that it was impossible for any Gentleman who had heard the debate to come to any other conclusion than that the rejection of the late Speaker would be an act of great injustice, and the infliction of unmerited obloquy on a public servant, who had occupied the Chair of the House of Commons irreproachably, according to the concurrent opinion of men of all parties. The question was, and it ought to be so considered by every honourable man, whether the House would reject an old and tried servant, and elect another person in preference to him. He would not say a word in disparagement of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, and if the Chair were vacant by the retirement of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, he knew of no person whom he would more readily vote for; but as he entertained a decided conviction that it would be doing an act of injustice to re- ject the late Speaker, particularly after his manly and satisfactory explanation, he was determined to vote for him. He should consider himself unworthy of a seat in that or any other deliberative assembly, if he were not perpared to say, in the face of his constituency and his country (though the loss of his seat in Parliament might be the consequence of the vote he was about to give), that he was determined to take that course which honour and a due regard to character pointed out, rather than endeavour, by pursuing an opposite path, to acquire a little temporary popularity. They had been told by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that under existing circumstances the election of Speaker was mixed up with the question of Reform. Now, he put it to hon. Members who were Reformers, whether they did not possess the power, if, as they had been told, they really constituted a majority of the House, of turning the right hon. Baronet(Sir R. Peel) and the whole of the present Ministers out of office, if the measures of the Government, when proposed, should prove to be unsatisfactory to the country? He was resolved to vote in favour of the election of Sir Charles Sutton, because he felt that the present question ought not to be made a party question. The House divided: For Mr. Abercromby 316; for Sir Charles Sutton, 306; Majority in favour of Mr. Abercromby, 10.

Names of the Members who voted for Mr. Abercromby.

Acheson, Viscount Bewes, T.
Adam, C. Biddulph, R.
Aglionby, H. A. Blackburn, J.
Alston, R. Blake, M. J.
Andover, Lord Blamire W.
Anson, Sir G. Blunt, Sir C. R.
Astley, Sir J. Bodkin, J. J.
Attwood, T. Bowes, J.
Bagshaw, J. Bowring, Dr.
Baines, E. Brabazon, Sir W. J.
Bannerman, A. Brady, D. C.
Barclay, D. Bridgman, H.
Barham, J. Brodie, W. B.
Baring, F. T. Brotherton, J.
Barnard, E. G. Browne, D.
Barron, H. W. Buckingham, J. S.
Barry, G. S. Buller, E.
Beauclerk, A. W. Buller, C.
Beaumont, T. W. Bulwer, H. L.
Bellew, R. M. Bulwer, E. G. E. L.
Bellew, Sir P. Burdon, W. W.
Berkeley, Hon. C. F. Burton, H. P.
Berkeley, Hn. G.C.G.F Butler, Hon. P.
Berkeley, Hon. F. F. Buxton, T. F.
Bernal, R. Byng, G.
Byng, Sir J. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Campbell, Sir J. F. Grote, G.
Carter, J. B. Guest, J. J.
Cave, O. Gully, J.
Cavendish, Hon. C. C. Hall, B.
Cavendish, Hon. G. H. Hallyburton, Hn. D. G.
Cayley, E. S. Harland, W. C.
Chalmers, P. Harvey, D. W.
Chapman, M. L. Hawes, B.
Chetwynd, W. F. Hawkins, J. H.
Chichester, J. P. B. Hay, Colonel L.
Clay, W. Heathcote, J.
Clayton, Sir W. R. Heathcote, R. E.
Clive, E. B. Hector, C. J.
Cockerell, Sir C. Heneage, E.
Codrington, Sir E. Heron, Sir R.
Collier, J. Hindley, C.
Conyngham, Lord A. Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Cookes, T. H. Hodges, T. L.
Cowper, Hon. W. F. Hodges, T.
Crawford, W. Hoskins, K.
Crawford, W. S. Howard, Hn. E. G. G.
Crawley, S. Howard, R.
Crompton, S. Howick, Viscount
Curteis, H. B. Hume, J.
Curteis, E. B. Humphery, J.
Dalmeney, Lord Hurst, R. H.
Denison, W. J. Hutt, W.
Denniston, A. Jervis, J.
Divett, E. Johnston, A.
Dobbin, L. Kemp, T. R.
Donkin, Sir R. S. Kennedy, J.
Duncombe, T. S. Kerry, Earl of
Dundas, Hon. T. King, E. B.
Dundas, Hon. J. C. Labouchere, H.
Dunlop, C. Lambton, H.
Dykes, F. L. B. Leader, J. T.
Ebrington, Lord Lefevre, C. S.
Edwards, J. Lemon, Sir C.
Elphinstone, H. Lennard, T. B.
Etwall, R. Lister, E. C.
Evans, Col. de Lacy Littleton, Rt. Hn.
Evans, G. Lock, J.
Ewart, W. Locke, W.
Fazakerley, J. N. Lopez, Sir R.
Fellowes, Hon. N. Lumley, Lord
Fergus, J. Lushington, Dr.
Ferguson, Sir R. C. Lushington, C.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. R. C Lynch, A. H.
Ffrench, Fitz-Stephen Mackenzie, A. J. S.
Finn, W. F. M'Cleod, R.
Fitzgibbon, Hon. R. H. Macnamara, W. N.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Maher, J.
Fitzsimon, N. Mangles, J.
Fitzsimon, C. Marjoribanks, S.
Folkes, Sir W.J.H.B. arshall, W.
Fort, J. Marsland, H.
Fox, C. R. Martin, T.
Gaskell, D. Maule, Hon. F.
Gillon, W. D. Maxwell, J.
Gisborne, T. M'Cance, J.
Gordon, R. M'Taggart, J.
Grant, Right Hon. C. Methuen, P.
Grattan, H. Molesworth, Sir W.
Grattan, J. Moreton, Hon. A. H.
Grey, Hon. C, Morpeth, Lord
Grey, Sir G. Mosley, Sir O.
Mostyn, Hon. E.M.L. Seymour, Lord
Mullins, F. W. Sharpe, General
Murray, J. A. Sheil, R. L.
Musgrove, Sir R. Sheldon, R. R. C.
Nagle, Sir R. Simeon, Sir R. G.
North, F. Smith, R. V.
O'Brien, C. Smith, B.
O'Brien, W. S. Speirs, Capt.
O'Connell, M. Spiers, A.
O'Connell, D. Stanley, E. J.
O'Connell, J. Stanley, Hon. H. T.
O'Connell, M. J. Steuart, R.
O'Connell, M. Stewart, Sir M. S.
O'Connor, F. Stewart, P. M.
O'Connor, Don Strickland, Sir G.
O'Dwyer, A. C. Strutt, E.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Sullivan, R.
Oliphant, L. Sutton, Rt. Hon. Sir
O'Loughlin, M. C. M.
Ord, W. H. Talbot, J. H.
Ord, W. Talfourd, T. N.
Oswald, R. A. Tancred, H. W.
Oswald, J. Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.
Paget, F. Thompson, P. B.
Palmer, C. Thomson, Right Hon.
Parker, J. C. P.
Parnell, Sir H. B. Thornley, T.
Parrott, J. Tooke, W.
Parry, L. P. J. Townley, R. G.
Pattison, J. Tracey, C. H.
Pease, J. Trelawney, Sir W.L.S.
Pelham, Hon. C.A.W. Trowbridge, Sir E. T.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Tulk, C. A.
Pepys, Sir C. C. Tynte, C. K.
Perrin, L. Tynte, C. J. K.
Phillips, G. H. Villiers, C. P.
Phillips, M. Villiers, F.
Pinney, W. Vivian, C. C.
Ponsonby, Hon. J.G.B. Vivian, J. H.
Potter, R. Wakley, T.
Poulter, J. S. Walker, R.
Power, J. Walker, C. A.
Power, P. Wallace, R.
Poyntz, W. S. Warburton, H.
Price, Sir R. Ward, H. G.
Pryme, G. Wemyss, J.
Ramsbottom, J. Westenra, Hon. H. R.
Ramsden, J. C. Whalley, Sir S.
Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. White, S.
Rippon, C. Wigney, I. N.
Robarts, A. W. Williams, Sir J.
Roche, W. Wilbraham, G.
Roche, D. Wilde, T.
Roebuck, J. A. Wilkins, W.
Rolfe, R. M. Wilks, J.
Ronayne, D. Williams, W. A.
Rooper, J. B. Williams, W
Rundell, J. Williamson, Sir H.
Russell, Lord J. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Russell, Lord Winnington, H. J.
Russell, Lord C. J. F. Wood, M.
Ruthven, E. Wrightson, W. B.
Ruthven E. S. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Scholefield, J. Wyse, T. Jun.
Scott, J. W.
Scrope, G. P.
Seale, Colonel

Names of the Members who voted for Sir Charles Manners Sutton.

Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J. Compton, H. C.
Agnew, Sir A. Conolly, E. M.
Ainsworth, P. Cooper, Hon. H. A.
Alford, Lord Cooper, E. J.
Alsager, R. Coote, Sir C. C.
Angerstein, J. Copeland, W. T.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Corbett, T. G.
Archdall, M. junr. Corry, Hon. H. T. L.
Ashley, Lord Crewe, Sir J.
Attwood, M. Cripps, J.
Bagot, Hon. W. D'Albiac, Sir C.
Bailey, J. Damer, D.
Baillie, H. D. Dare, R. W. H.
Bainbridge, E. T. Darlington, Earl of
Barclay, C. Davenport, J.
Balfour,— Denison, J. E.
Baring, F. Dick, Q.
Baring, W. B. Dottin, A. R.
Baring, Rt. Hon. A. Dowdeswell, W.
Baring, H. B. Duffield, T.
Baring, T. Dugdale, D. S.
Barneby, J. Duncombe, Hon. W.
Bateson, Sir R. B. Duncombe, Hon. A.
Beckett, Sir J. Dundas, R. A.
Bell, M. Durham, Sir P. C. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. East, J. B.
Beresford, Sir J. P. Eastnor, Viscount
Bethell, R. Eaton, R. J.
Bish, T. Egerton W. T.
Blackburne, J. I. Egerton' Sir P. de M.
Blackstone, W. S. Egerton,' Lord F.
Boldero, H. G. Entwistle, J.
Bolling, W. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bonham, F. R. Euston, Earl of
Borthwick, P. Fancourt, C. St. John
Bradshaw, J. Fector, J. M.
Bramsten, T. W. Fielden, W.
Brocklehurst, J. Ferguson, G.
Brownrigg, J. S. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Bruce, Lord E. A. Fleetwood, P. H.
Bruce, C. L. C. Finch, G.
Brudenell, Lord Fleming, J.
Bruen, Colonel Foley, E. T.
Bruen, F. Follett, Sir W. W.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Forbes, Lord
Buller, Sir J. B. Y. Forbes, W.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Forester, Hn. G. C. W.
Campbell, Sir H.P.H. Forster, C. S.
Canning, Sir S. Fremantle, Sir T. F.
Carruthers, D. Freshfield, J. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount Gaskell, J. M.
Chandos, Marquis of Geary, Sir W. R. P.
Chaplin, T. Gladstone, W. E.
Chapman, A. Gladstone, T
Charlton, E. L. Godricke, F. L. H.
Chatterton, C. Gordon, Hon. W.
Chichester, A. Gore, W. O.
Churchill, Lord C. S. Goring, H. D.
Clayton, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.
Clive, Viscount, Goulburn, Mr. Serjt.
Clive, Hon. R. H. Graham, Sir J. R. G.
Codrington, C. W. Grant, Hon. F. W
Cole, Hon. A. H. Greene, T.
Cole, Viscount Gresley, Sir R.
Greville, Sir C. J. Martin, J.
Grimston, Viscount Mathew, Captain
Grimston, Hon. E. H. Maxwell, H.
Halford, H. Meynell, H.
Halse, J. Miles, W.
Hamilton, Lord C. Miles, P. J.
Handley, H. Miller, W. H.
Hanmer, Sir J. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hanmer, H. Morgan, C. M. R.
Harcourt, G. G. Neeld, Joseph
Hardinge, Sir H. Neeld, J.
Hardy, J. Nicholl, J.
Hawkes, T. Noel, Sir G. N.
Hay, Sir J. Norreys, Lord
Hayes, Sir E. S. O'Neill, Hn. J. B. R.
Heathcote, Sir G. Ossulston, Lord
Heathcote, G. J. Owen, Sir J.
Henniker, Lord Owen, H.
Herbert, Hon. S. Palmer, R.
Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C. Patten, J. W.
Hill, Sir R. Peel, Colonel
Hill, Lord A. Peel, Sir R.
Hogg, J. W. Peel, Rt. Hn. W. Y.
Holland, E. Peel, E.
Hope, Hon. J. Pelham, J. C.
Hope, H. T. Pemberton, T.
Hotham, Lord Penruddocke, J. H.
Houldsworth, T. Perceval, Colonel
Hoy, J. B. Phillips, C. M.
Hughes, W. H. Pigot, R.
Ingham, R. Plumptre, J. P.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Polhill, F.
Irton, S. Pollock, Sir F.
Jackson, J. D. Powell, W. E.
Jermyn, Earl of Praed, J. B.
Johnstone, J. J. H. Praed, W. M.
Jones, T. Price, S. G.
Jones, W. Price, R.
Kavannagh, T. Pringle, A.
Kearsley, J. H. Pusey, P.
Kelly, F. Rae, Sir W.
Ker, D. Reid, Sir J. R.
Kerrison, Sir E. Richards, J.
Kirk, P. Bickford, W.
Knatchbull, Sir E. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Knox, Hon. J. Robinson, G. R.
Lawson, A. Ross, C.
Lee, J. L. Rushbrooke, R.
Lefroy, T. Russell, C.
Lefroy, A. Ryle, J.
Lennox, Lord J. G. Sandon, Lord
Lewis, D. Sanderson, R.
Lewis, W. Scarlett, Hn. R. C.
Leycester, J. Scott, Lord J.
Lincoln, Earl of Scott, Sir E. D.
Long W. Scourfield, W. H.
Lowther, Lord Shaw, F.
Lowther, Hn. H. C. Sheppard, T.
Lowther, J. H. Sibthorp, Colonel
Lucas, E. Sinclair, G.
Lygon, Hn. Col. H. B. Smith, T. A.
Mackinnon, W. A. Smith, A.
Maclean, D. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Mahon, Lord Somerset, Lord G.
Mandeville, Viscount Somerset, Lord R.
Manners, Lord R. Spry, Sir S. T.
Marsland, T. Stanley, Lord
Stanley, E. Yorke, E. T.
Stewart, J. Young, Sir W. L.
Stormont, Lord Young, G. F.
Stuart, Lord D. C. Young, J.
Surrey, Earl of
Talmash, Hn. A. G. Belfast, Earl of
Tapps, G. W. Bennett, J.
Tennant, J. E. Burdett, Sir F.
Thomas, Colonel Calcraft, J. H.
Thompson, W. Campbell, W. F.
Townsend, Lord J. Cartwright, W. R.
Trench, Sir F. Clements, Lord,
Trevor, Hon. G R. Cobbett, W.
Trevor, Hon. A. Colbourne, N. W. R.
Turner, W. De Beauvoir, Sir J. E.
Turner, T. F. Dillwyn, L. W.
Twiss, H. Ellice, Rt. Hn. E.
Tyrrell, Sir J. T. Ferguson, R.
Vaughan, Sir R. W. Fielden, J.
Vere, Sir C. B. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Verner, W. Jephson, C. D. O.
Verney, Sir H. B. Johnstone, Sir J.V.B.
Vernon, G. H. Knightly, Sir C.
Vesey, Hn. T, Lennox, Lord A.
Vivian, J. E. Milton, Lord
Vyvyan, Sir R. R. Pechell, G. R.
Wall, C. B. Pollen, Sir J.
Walter, J. Pollington, Lord
Welby, G. E. Ponsonby, Hn. W.F.S.
Weyland, R. Pryse, Pryse
Whitmore, T. C. Sanford, E. A.
Wilbraham, Hn. R.B. Smith, Hn. R. J.
Williams, T. P. Smith, J. A.
Williams, R., jun. Stuart, Lord J.P.H.C.
Wilmot, Sir E. E. Talbot, C. R. M.
Wilson, H. Walpole, Lord
Wodehouse, Hn. E. TELLERS.
Wood, T. Wood, C.
Worcester, Marq. of Clerk, Sir G.
Wortley, Hn. J. S. PAIRED OFF.
Wyndham, W. Langton, W. G.
Wynn, C. W. Wynn, Sir W. W

Mr. Abercromby was then led by his Mover and Seconder to the Chair amidst the loud cheers of his friends. The right hon. Gentleman returned thanks in a short speech for the honour the House had conferred upon him, but the cheering was so loud and continued, that the words were lost.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, amid much confusion, said, that after what had taken place, it only remained for him to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his election to the Chair.