§ Mr. C. P. Villierswished to ask the right hon. Baronet what was the probable duration of the prorogation of Parliament? The reason why he wished to put this question was, that an hon. Member on the Ministerial side of the House had stated in his place, that nothing that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet ought to lead to the conclusion that Parliament would be prorogued to so late a period as February.
§ Sir R. Peelbegged to state, that he had made no communication on the subject to any hon. Member who could have made such a remark; he himself had not heard any such remark, and did not at all understand to whom the hon. Gentleman opposite referred.
§ Mr. VilliersTo the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley.)
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Member for Finsbury had made such a statement without any authority from him. The hon. Gentleman opposite must be aware, that it was impossible for the hon. Member to give any assurance to the House on the subject.
§ Mr. Villierssaid, that he had not described the hon. Member for Finsbury to make the statement as upon the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. A doubt had been raised in the public mind on the subject, and it was the object of his question to set it at rest.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, he had never heard a question of that nature put to a Minister before. It was one to which he could not, consistently with his duly, return an answer. The period of the meeting of Par- 679 liaraent might depend on circumstances which it was impossible to foresee. He, therefore, should give no opinion whatever on the subject.
§ Mr. Villiersthought the right hon. Gentleman did say, that if no extraordinary circumstances occurred, Parliament would meet at the ordinary period. They might therefore, he thought, justly infer that it would be in February.