Lords Sitting of 16 July 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of GLOITESTIM, and the Earls of FEVERSHAM and COMBERMERE, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Earl of HARROWRY, from Stokeley and Reading, against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By the Earl of CLONCURRY, from several Places, for the Abolition of Tithes; from other Places, for the Repeal of the Union; and from one Place, for Poor-Laws to Ireland.

THE ADMINISTRATION.
Lord Ellenboroughcalled their Lordships' attention to the fact, that the Irish Coercion Bill was appointed for the third reading, but no day had been named; and he wished to know, whether any member of the Administration (if an Administration had been formed) meant to make a statement of the views of Government with respect to that measure?
The Lord Chancelloranswered, that his noble friend (Viscount Melbourne), who was not then in his place, would be present to-morrow, and would then answer the question. He had left his noble friend at the Palace in the morning, and a Government had been formed.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to know, with reference to what had recently been stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether a noble Viscount, a Member of the other House, still retained his place in the Administration? A noble Earl (Earl Grey)
26
had, on a former occasion, described him as the right-hand of the Government; now, he wanted to learn whether that right-hand had come back to the old body? As the noble and learned Lord had, on this occasion, afforded them some information with respect to the Ministry, perhaps he would answer this question.
The Duke of Richmondwas of opinion, that it was extremely inexpedient to put such a question to his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack at the present moment. He did not think, that it was acting fairly to his noble and learned friend, particularly when it was known, that the other House had adjourned till to-morrow, at which time the noble Lord, who had been alluded to, would, of course, make his own statement.
The Lord Chancellordid not think it a very logical inference on the part of the noble Marquess, that because he had given one piece of information, he was, therefore, bound to give another. He had, however, no objection to say, and he should be very sorry if he could not say, that his noble friend to whom allusion had been made was still Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he entirely agreed in the statement of his noble friend who was lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, as well as in the observation, however meant, of the noble Marquess himself, that in whatever Administration his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was placed, he must still be looked on as the right-hand of that Administration. He (the Lord Chancellor) could not fancy any Administration of which his noble friend should be a Member, that would not think him worthy of that appellation.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed with the noble Duke (Duke of Richmond) as to the inexpediency of making any observations on the subject, but he thought it was proper that the fact of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) retaining office, should be known.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) had on a former evening stated, that he had sought the co-operation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in forming an Administration, but he had not said, that that noble Lord was to be replaced. In fact, that noble Lord had stated elsewhere that he had positively resigned.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble

27
Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had tendered his resignation, but had not formally resigned.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that what was commonly called resigning was tendering a resignation, but it was not formally accepted until a new appointment was made.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, the noble Viscount had himself declared in the other House, that he had given in his resignation, that it was received, and that the Government was virtually dissolved.
The Lord Chancellorwished once more to set this matter right. His noble friend in the other House, did not say, that the Government was virtually dissolved. What he said was, "that he understood, that at that time, or before that time (when he was addressing the Commons), his noble friend (Earl Grey) had stated to this House, that the Government was virtually dissolved." That was, however, altogether a mistake, arising from misinformation, for the noble Earl had never, in the whole course of his statement, said any such thing.
Here the conversation ended.