Sitting of 31 May 1839

Preamble
MINUTES.) Bill. Read a second time:—County Courts.—Read a first time:—Jamaica.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE—SERVING ON COMMITTEES.
Mr. Haweshaving moved that certain Members constitute the Select Committee on the London Police Bill,
Sir Robert Peeltook the opportunity of his being appointed to serve on the committee to state his opinion, that there ought to be some fixed rule laid down with regard to the attendance of members on private committees. He wished to know whether it were understood to be the rule of the House, that a Member should be present during the whole of the evidence, or whether it were competent to him, after the absence of a day, to attend the committee during the remainder of its sittings? He was now a member of a private committee, on the subject of which his constituents were much interested; and he much feared that he could not consent to be named on this committee, if a stringent construction were put on the rule to which he had referred with respect to private business.
Mr. Haweswas placed in the difficulty to which the right hon. Baronet had adverted. He was nominated on two committees—one public, and the other private; and having been obliged to be absent for a day on the latter, he considered himself disentitled to sit any longer. There was, however, a different interpretation put upon the rule by other Members; and, at all events, it was important that all doubt with regard to it should be cleared up.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonfound himself in a similar situation to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). He did not think that it was the intention of the House, that so stringent an interpretation should be put upon the rule, as that to which the hon. Member for Lambeth referred. All the House required, in his opinion, was, that no Member should vote on any question arising out of the proceedings before a private committee, without, hearing the evidence relating to it.
Mr. Humethought, on the contrary, that the rule should be strictly enforced, or not laid down at all. He considered the functions of the Members of a committee similar to jurymen, and not admitting of any absence.
Sir Robert Peeldeclined serving on the committee, which was appointed.

PRIVILEGE.
The Attorney-Generalrose to call the attention of the House to a subject closely connected with the privileges of the House, and, as he believed, intimately connected with the best interests of the people of the kingdom at large—a subject which involved the infraction of a principle which, for the last two centuries, had remained unquestioned—a subject in which every Member of the House must feel deeply interested. The House, in the exercise of that which had hitherto been always considered its undoubted privilege, had ordered that certain papers should be communicated to the public with the view, on the one hand, of informing the public mind, and, on the other, of enabling the House effectually to perform its duties. One of the papers so ordered to be published related to the management of the gaol of Newgate, and pointed out various abuses in the management of that institution. Amongst other things, it stated, that the morals of the prison were corrupted by the introduction of obscene publications. The publication of that

1193
statement was made with the view that the abuse might be remedied, and that the House might proceed to pass a measure to protect the morals of persons under confinement in that gaol. A person of the name of Stockdale brought an action against Mr. Hansard, an officer of that House, who was authorised, and indeed directed, by the House to distribute the publication. Upon a petition of Mr. Hansard to that House, stating that such an action had been brought, the House passed a resolution, by which the Attorney-general was directed to appear in the action, and to defend it. In obedience to the instruction which he had received from the House, he (the Attorney-general) did appear in the action, and had defended it to the best of his ability. It now became his duty to state to the House what had been the result of these proceedings. That day the Court of Queen's Bench had pronounced judgment in the case of Stock-dale v. Hansard, and had unanimously decided that the defence had failed, and that the action was maintainable. He most cautiously abstained at that moment from expressing any opinion with respect to that judgment. Coming from so high a quarter, it was to be received with respect and reverence; and he had no hesitation in saying, that each of the learned judges who concurred in it acted most honourably and conscientiously; but, at the same time, it was his duty to inform the House of the extent to which that judgment would go. If carried out, it would go to an extent that would be quite alarming, and that would place the House of Commons in an entirely new position. The Court of Queen's Bench had determined, that the House of Commons had no right to issue such a publication, nor to make such an order as had been made in this instance—that neither House of Parliament had a right to instruct the people, or to convey instruction to them through the medium of such publications; that the right which either House of Parliament claimed of doing so was not a privilege, but an usurpation. But the ground upon which this judgment proceeded rendered it more important and more alarming. Hitherto, in his humble apprehension, the judges of Westminster Hall had considered that the two Houses of Parliament were exclusively the judges of their own privileges. The judges of the Queen's Bench, in the decision of that day, had
1194
repudiated that doctrine, and announced, that they themselves were the judges of all the privileges of Parliament—that the privileges of Parliament might be submitted to their determination, and to the determination of the lowest tribunals in the country; and that finally the judgment pronounced by any of those tribunals might be submitted to the House of Lords; so that according to this decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, all the privileges of the House of Commons might finally come to be determined by the House of Lords. Nay, the Court of Queen's Bench had determined, that even with respect to commitments for contempt, they could examine into the subject matter of the contempt, and declare, whether in their judgment the House of Commons was justified or not in the course it had pursued. The result of this judgment would be, that the House, in the publication of papers, must take care, not only that not more than 658 copies were printed and distributed; but more than that—in the course of his argument upon the case, he (the Attorney-general) had pressed this difficulty upon the consideration of the Court—"If you limit the distribution of such papers to the use of the Members of the House, what is to be done upon a dissolution of Parliament, and what is to be done if Gentlemen cease to be Members of the House, either by the determination of an election committee, or by the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds?" He was told by the Court, that neither of these contingencies presented any difficulty at all, because, upon a dissolution of Parliament, or upon a Gentleman ceasing to be a Member of Parliament, all the papers that he had received as a Member of the House, in which there was anything criminatory upon the conduct of others, were immediately to be destroyed—that there was to be a grand conflagration, in which all papers of this description were to be committed to the flames. Thus it followed, that if, after a dissolution of Parliament, any individual who had been a Member of the House should have in his library a paper which he had received as a Member of Parliament, and should venture to read that paper, or to show it to another, he might be subject to an action of libel, or to a criminal prosecution, and be made liable to fine or imprisonment. At the present moment he most cautiously

1195
abstained from entering into the merits of the decision made by the Court of Queen's Bench; but it would be seen, from what he had stated, that it was of the last importance that the House should determine without loss of time upon the course which under the circumstances it should deem it most proper to pursue. When the subject was last brought under the consideration of the House, he was told by the House to appear in the action, and to defend it. He had done so, and had been defeated. He now appeared again to receive the instructions of the House, and as the servant of the House he should punctually and faithfully observe whatever directions he might receive. Whether the House would take strong measures for resisting the judgment of the Queen's Bench was, of course, a matter that remained entirely in the breast of the House itself. But after the statement he had made, it became his duty, as a Member of that House himself, to point out the course which he would recommend the House to adopt. It appeared to him, then, that it would be most advisable to appoint a committee to inquire into the proceedings in the action of Stockdale v. Hansard, and to give an opinion to the House as to the course which the House should follow; and if that should accord with the pleasure of the House, he would propose, that the Members who constituted the former Committee, and who still continued to be Members of the House, should be re-appointed upon the present Committee, with such additions as the House in its wisdom should deem fit. If he might venture so far, he would propose, in addition to the names which stood upon the former Committee, the names of the Solicitor-general, Sir E. Sugden, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Pemberton, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Easthope, the Solicitor-general for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland. This was no party matter. He recollected, with admiration, the manner in which, on a former occasion, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, vindicated the rights and privileges of that House. In doing so, the right hon. Baronet entitled himself to the gratitude, not only of the House, but of the whole community of the United Kingdom. He repeated, that this was not a party matter; and if to the names he had already mentioned there were any
1196
others that it might be thought proper to add, he should most cheerfully acquiesce in any proposition to that effect. It was also his intention to move for a copy of the record in the action of Stockdale v. Hansard, and for a copy of the short-hand writer's notes. It appeared to him, that it would be impossible for the House to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject, until they knew the grounds upon which the judgment of the court had been given. For that reason he deemed it most proper to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the whole proceedings. Supposing his motion to be agreed to, he hoped that, considering the urgency of the case, the Committee would not refuse to meet to-morrow for the sake of arranging the course it should ultimately pursue. He hoped that, in the consideration of this most important subject, there-would be no exhibition of warm feeling—that all would be calm, temperate, and moderate. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee.
Mr. Darbyhad that day listened with great attention to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, as delivered by Justices Coleridge and Patteson, and confessed, that he had either totally misunderstood those learned judges, or else had fallen into a complete misapprehension of what had been stated by the Attorney-general.—[The Attorney-General: In what respect?] In the first place, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that the judges of the Queen's Bench had decided that no papers of that House could be published by order of the House,—["No, no!"] He certainly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say so; whilst, on the other hand, he understood the learned judges to say—and they seemed to guard themselves most strictly upon the point—that they did not mean to assert that, by no order of that House, generally speaking, papers might not be published; but certainly, that papers could not be published by the authority of the House which were libelous upon the public. He appealed to the House, whether the hon. and learned Attorney-general had made that distinction. Then, with, regard to commits meats, he certainly understood the learned judges to pronounce their judgment in a sense entirely different from that described by the hon. and learned Attorney-gene-

1197
ral. As he understood the learned judges, they stated, that there were commitments over which the House of Commons had an absolute control; but that, at the same time, there were also commitments which the House might make improperly. Between these two kinds of commitments, the learned judges drew a marked distinction, carefully guarding themselves in the opinions they expressed, and the language they used. But the hon. and learned Attorney-general represented them as dealing with the point in the broadest, most general, and most sweeping manner. He did not profess to have so accurate a knowledge of these matters as the hon. and learned Gentleman; but this he must say, that having heard the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman in that House, and the judgment of the learned judges as delivered in the Court of Queen's Bench, he certainly should not have recognised one in the other. There were other Members then present in the House who were also present in the court when the judgment was delivered, and he was sure they would be good enough to state, whether their impression of what transpired coincided with his.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that it was to prevent all possibility of misunderstanding as to what the judges had laid down, that he moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the proceedings. But he was sure that there really was no substantial difference between the opinions expressed by the judges and the statement he had made to the House. For what did the difference alluded to by the hon. Member for Sussex amount to? It was quite clear, that it was unnecessary for the learned judges to say that the House of Commons might publish that which all mankind may publish—namely, matter that was not of a criminatory nature, and which did not affect the character of any individual. Then with regard to the power of commitment, the hon. Gentleman had confirmed his statement, because he said that the learned judges had drawn a distinction between the cases in which the House had power to commit, and the cases in which, as the court asserted, the House had not the power to commit. That was exactly what he (the Attorney-general) had laid down as the doctrine propounded by the learned judges, He maintained, that that doctrine was entirely new; for
1198
from the case of Lord Shaftesbury down to the case of Sir John Hobhouse, there never was an instance in which a court of law said that it could inquire into the causes of commitments made by the Commons, whatever those commitments might be.
Sir R. Inglishad his doubts if the matter in question were such a breach of privilege as to justify the House in proceeding, instanter with respect to it, as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. If any difference greater than another existed in the minds of the people of these kingdoms, between them and this House, it was in regard to the extent of the privileges, claimed by this House. No one could doubt what had been the current of public opinion upon this subject two years ago. The House should pause before it committed itself in any other quarrel of a similar character with the legal authorities of the country. On that occasion, he had called on the House to pause; he now called on it to do the same thing; the grounds were in their recollection. If the case were a breach of privilege, then it was certainly entitled to a pre-audience of all other business before the House, and he should bow to the decision. But if it were not—and if he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly it was not, inasmuch as the Judges of the Court of Queen's-Bench had only decided on a question submitted to them by that House—then he did not consider that there was any necessity for the precipitate course proposed by the Attorney-general. The Attorney-general stated distinctly, that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench would prevent either House of Parliament from publishing matters for the instruction and enlightenment of the people of England. But unless enlightenment and instruction could be conveyed in no other forms of publication than those of libels, he did not see the relevancy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's deduction, as affecting the question at issue. If, as he had said before, the House decided that the question was one of pure privilege, then he should bow to that decision, though he might not acquiesce in it; but if it did not, he should venture to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, perhaps, it would be better, as it certainly was more formal, to give notice of his motion for the committee. The hon. Ba-

1199
ronet concluded by calling on the Speaker to pronounce on the question as a matter of privilege.
Sir E. Knatchbullconcurred in the principal part of the opinions of his hon. Friend, but he deprecated the idea of throwing the onus of pronouncing upon the question of privilege upon the Speaker. He agreed with his hon. Friend, however, that the Attorney-general should give notice of his motion. If the House agreed to the appointment of the committee at once, it would not, in his opinion, display that sound judgment which befitted the circumstance and the occasion, but would rather prove itself hasty and precipitate in its proceedings. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved for a copy of the record, and the short-hand writers' notes, confining himself to these alone, he should have had no objection to it; but he could not agree to the motion for a committee.
Lord J, Russelldid not think, that either the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, or the right hon. Baronet who had just spoken, had correctly understood the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend. One would certainly suppose, from their arguments (which would be correct enough, if their premises were right), that some immediate decision of the House was called for, and that that decision was to be a decision against some parties for a breach of privilege. No such decision was called for. His hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general, felt, however, that it was a matter deeply affecting the privileges of the House, and, therefore, had brought it forward at the earliest and most proper period. No one, he thought, would deny, that it was a question deeply affecting the privileges of the House. The object of his hon. and learned Friend's motion was not to charge any one with a breach of privilege, but merely to ask the House to appoint a committee to inquire into the proceedings by which its privileges were likely to be so deeply affected. Was this a new course of proceeding? By no means. It was a proceeding naturally arising out of the course which the House took upon the former occasion when this subject was under its consideration; and be it remembered, that that was not a precipitate nor a violent course, but a course of great moderation and temper, merely directing the Attorney-general to plead in a case then pending din a court of law. It appeared
1200
that the judges had now pronounced a judgment in that case, and nobody, he imagined, would deny, that that judgment deeply affected the privileges of the House. In point of fact, it affected them so nearly, that there was no doubt (supposing the force and validity of the judgment to be admitted) but that the Speaker, in the discharge of the duties of his office, might do that which to-morrow morning might be called in question, and himself be made subject to an action at law. The votes of the House might contain an accusation, or a sneer, against some individual, in the form of a motion, or a notice of motion—that accusation or sneer might be made the foundation of an action of libel, and the Speaker, as the officer of that House, might be made liable for the consequences. In the natural course of proceedings, the Speaker, by the direction of the House, might have to sign some paper containing a motion of that kind—it would go with the Speaker's name, and, according to an order of the House, might be circulated throughout the country tomorrow morning. Why, some person might immediately proceed against the Speaker, or against the printer, or any other person taking part in the publication, for a libel, in consequence of what had taken place in Parliament that evening. Therefore, he said, that whether the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench were a right decision or a wrong one—whether it were a new decision,—or a decision strictly in accordance with all ancient laws—it was, at all events, a decision upon which the House of Commons should not pause, but should immediately appoint a committee of inquiry. He did not say, whether the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, or the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite—which was, in fact, very little different from that of his hon. and learned Friend—was the correct and accurate account of what took place in the court of law. All he could say was, that he should support his hon. and learned Friend, in asking for the appointment of a committee.
Mr. Williams Wynnthought, there could be no manner of doubt, that any Member having matters to state, which he thought related materially to privileges of the House, was fully entitled to pre-audience. He thought, too, that nothing could be less precipitate, or less objectionable, than the course proposed in this instance to be pur-

1201
sued by the hon. and learned Attorney-general. The matter was a very urgent one, and it was highly expedient, that the House should lose no time in the consideration of it. What was the position in which the House stood? Look at the events of the last two or three days. A person named Lovibond was reported by a Committee of the House to have been cognizant of an act of forgery: for that act of forgery, the Speaker was directed to reprimand him; and the Speaker accorddingly administered the censure of the House. The whole of those proceedings were entered upon the votes of the House, and had been signed by the Speaker, who had also given directions to the printer to print them. The present Speaker then stood in precisely the same situation as Mr. Speaker Williams in the reign of Charles 2nd. In that case, a person laying before the House an information, accusing the Duke of York of an act of high treason, that information was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. The Speaker, as the officer of the House, licensed the printer, which was afterwards made the subject of an action against him, in which the plaintiff was successful, and the Speaker was fined. In his opinion, they ought to lose no time whatever in taking proceedings to ascertain what were the real facts of the case, in order that the House might be in a condition to take such steps as might be considered necessary.
The Attorney-Generalbegged to explain. He ought to state, for the information of the House, that the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were of opinion that the Speaker personally would not be liable to an action, but that the printer and all the officers of the House, acting under the authority of the House, would. The motion he had made rested on this ground, that the Court of Queen's Bench having decided the case in question, and in favour of the plaintiff, it was now indispensably necessary that the House should give directions what course he was to pursue. If the judgment should be entered on the record, a wilt of inquiry would be issued and execution levied, unless a writ of error should be brought; it was, therefore, necessary the House should come to a conclusion what course should be pursued.
Sir R. Peelthought, under the special circumstances of the case, it was indis-
1202
pensably necessary that the House should proceed at once to appoint a Committee. The moment the House of Commons considered anything to affect their privileges, it was their duty to direct their attention to it. He would pronounce no opinion upon the grounds of the decision come to by the Court of Queen's Bench; but he certainly would not lose a moment in instituting an inquiry, first into the facts of the case, in order that they might be presented in a formal shape to the House; and next, as to what it behoved the House to do in support of their privileges. The Court of Queen's Bench could not complain that they were departing from the usual forms in proceeding without giving notice, because notices of motions were not absolutely necessary. Strictly speaking, every Member had a right to bring forward a motion without notice; and if ever there was a case that justified a departure from the usual forms, it was a case in which the privileges of Parliament were concerned. He would not prejudge the case, nor give the Committee power of instituting any proceeding; but the House ought not to lose a moment in considering, with all the deliberation and decorum belonging to the gravity of the case, what course it ought to pursue.
Mr. Kellydid not rise to offer any opposition to the motion of the Attorney-general. He agreed that it was quite enough, immediately it was found, that a decision had taken place affecting the privileges of the House, to justify the House in taking immediate measures upon the subject. He therefore concurred in the proposition for the immediate appointment of a Committee, in order that the proceedings in the late action might be regularly brought under the consideration of the House. But if he thought, with the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that by acceding to this motion he implied, that any breach of privilege had been committed, either by the Court of Queen's Bench, or by either party in the action, he should unhesitatingly oppose the motion. They ought to have brought under the consideration of the House, not only the proceedings on the action, but the short-hand writer's notes of the judgment delivered by the learned judges. Another reason why he acceded to the motion was, that he felt firmly convinced that the more the judgment of the learned judges was made known to the House

1203
and to the country, the more assured would those learned judges be of meeting with the entire approbation of the people. It was because he felt that the judgment of the court was calculated to preserve the dignity of the House and the liberty of the people that he desired the most extensive publicity to be given to it. He could not sit down without expressing his regret, that while the Attorney-general was proposing to have the proceedings in the action brought before the House, he did not limit himself to stating the grounds of his motion, but should have thought fit to advert to particular parts and portions of the judgment of the learned judges. He would venture to say, that when that very sound, enlightened, and constitutional judgment should come before the House, many of the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend would be found to be wholly incorrect and unfounded. He would venture, with all humility, to assure the right hon. Gentleman whom he was then addressing, that there was no danger of any action being brought against him for any act he might do under the authority of the House, and that no such doctrine had fallen from the learned judges. He would venture to add, that none of the learned judges would be found to have said that it was not competent for the House to instruct and inform the people of this country; and yet, if his ears had not deceived him, he had certainly heard his hon. and learned Friend say this evening, that the judges had decided that it was not competent for the House of Commons to instruct and inform the people. He also understood his noble and learned Friend to have said, that the Court of Queen's Bench had determined, that if any Member of the House, either by a decision of a Committee, or by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, ceased to be a Member, it would behove him, for the sake of safety, to burn the papers that had been delivered to him under the orders of the House. Now be (Mr. Kelly) would venture to say, that the judgment of the judges would be found to contain nothing to warrant that statement. He was afraid he had occupied too much of the time of the House; but having seen a substantial difference in the description given of the judgment by the Attorney-general, and by the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Darby), he felt bound, in common candour to say, having listened attentively to the judgment when
1204
delivered in court to-day, that the statement of the hon. Member for Sussex was the more correct and just account of that judgment.
Mr. O'Connellwould not detain the House, as he understood an unanimous vote was about to be given, but he must express his conviction, that if the plaintiff in the action in the Court of Queen's Bench had not been guilty of a breach of privilege, they might as well walk out of the House, and shut the doors, because it would be utterly impossible for them to do the public service. It was quite true the judges had not shut out publication altogether. Every laudatory publication might issue. They might praise all the world, whether they deserved it or not. Praise was never a libel. But it was a libel to tell the truth of a man who deserved to be reprobated. At present, the only control over the judges was a decision of the House of Commons. They were not responsible to the Crown. They could not be removed, except by a vote of that House. Since his time one judge had been removed, on addresses to the Crown, by the two Houses of Parliament. The judge was Sir Jonah Barrington, the vote of the House stating, that he had been peculating with the money of the suitors. According to this decision of the judges, Sir Jonah Barrington might have gone before the Court of Queen's Bench and indicted the officers, or have brought an action against them; and how would the House have acted had the court decided against the parties? Suppose a Jefferies should be restored to-morrow, and be placed in the room of a Denman, how could the House proceed against him, if they did not let the public know the ground of their procedure? It was admitted, that the House might proceed against a corrupt partial judge, but, in order to do so, it was necessary to bring before the public all the facts of the case. But those facts would be so many libels, according to the decision of the judges. It was impossible that the House could tolerate that decision; and his opinion was, that the four judges who had given that decision, ought, tomorrow, to be called to the bar of the House. Yes, that was his deliberate opinion. What he was then saying might possibly be published in the newspapers to-morrow. It was certainly in disparagement of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench—and they might, if they pleased,

1205
take up the publisher of the newspaper; or, if what he said were inserted in the votes, they might take up the printers of the votes, and send them to gaol for contempt of the Court of Queen's Bench. What remedy would the parties have? None by appeal—for there was no appeal. The judges might confine the parties for any time they pleased for an alleged contempt, and there was no way by which the parties could obtain a legal and judicial reversal of that sentence. The judges were not responsible to any other tribunal than to the House of Commons. But how could they be made responsible, unless they let the public see the grounds on which that responsibility attached? It was a question belonging to the Commons of Great Britain. The Members of that House were the concentration of the people of the country, the judges being appointed by the Crown, while the Crown itself was mater patriœ. This decision was made by the representatives of the Crown against the representatives of Great Britain.
Mr. Pembertonhad not purposed to make any observations upon this question, but, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he felt he should not discharge his duty if he remained entirely silent. Without disputing the regularity of the proceedings taken by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general, in bringing this subject before the House without any notice whatever, he thought that every. body would agree that it was not convenient, because many of those gentlemen who took, a deep interest in the subject were not only wholly ignorant that the motion would be brought on to-night, but even that the decision had been given, and it was by mere accident, when he was coming down to the House, that he himself had heard that his hon. and learned Friend had made this motion. He believed that there was no one who disputed the propriety of making this inquiry, and the only question between himself and his hon. and learned Friend was, whether the House would be more likely to adopt a course consistent with its own dignity and the interests of the people of this country, by delaying the discussion of this question for a few days, or by proceeding at once precipitately to take that course which his hon. and learned Friend had recommended. Now, if he wanted any proof
1206
of the advantage which would be derived from delay, it would be the temper which had already been exhibited, and he would ask if it were desirable, that upon the mere statement of his hon. and learned Friend, they should at once decide upon taking the step which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin considered as proper, for this reason, that the judges had been guilty of a violation of the privileges of the House, for which, in the opinion of his hon. and learned Member, they ought to be ordered to its bar. Now, what were the facts of the case? If there were any breach of the privileges of the House, it had been committed in consequence of what had been done by the House itself. An action had been brought by a private individual against another private individual. The House of Commons thought proper to declare that this was an attack upon their privileges, although the question of their privileges only came before the Court incidentally. The House could not stop these proceedings; they might commit the plaintiff, they might commit his counsel, or his attorney, but neither the forms of the House, nor the laws of the land, gave them the power of stopping any action brought by one person against another. On the former occasion, his hon. and learned Friend said, that if he attempted to do this, the House must either be defeated, or be driven to subvert the laws of the land. Well, then, what was the consequence? The House of Commons directed the plaintiff's counsel to plead their privilege. His right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, had said on that occasion, that if it should turn out that the law was against them, the House would find the means of vindicating its privileges. He had a great respect for the courage of the noble Lord, and of those who cheered that sentiment, but he believed that no man would dare, or daring would succeed, in what was called vindicating those privileges, which the sworn judges of the land had declared were untenable. If the attempt were made, sure he was that it must fail, Now, let them observe what the state of the case was. The House was called upon to stop this action at its commencement. The House allowed the action to go on, and now, when the judges, having no power of refusing to hear the action, had decided the case, and no man doubted that they had decided it according to

1207
the law of the land, an hon. Member of that House got up in his place, and stated that the four judges ought to be summoned to the bar of the House. The House said, in effect, to the judges, "Decide this case by all means; we submit to your jurisdiction; but mind, you must decide it only one way. Decide it in our favour, and you will commit no breach of privilege, but decide according to your own opinions, and we will drag you to our bar." He would ask if there was ever a doctrine propounded more monstrous and unconstitutional than this? It was not because it was convenient or desirable, or even necessary, that the House should possess the power of publishing evidence, that therefore it should be possessed against the law of the land. The decision which had been given had greatly increased the evil against which they had formerly to contend. They might formerly have had a declaratory law, but such a step was now impossible, after the judges had formally pronounced their decision. Although, however, such a step was now impracticable, they might still have that protection for their privileges which the transaction of business required, simply by taking that course which was just, and which they might adopt without any compromise of their rights, or of their opinions. If they went on in opposing the courts of law, what would be the result? It could not be doubtful that, if the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was not impeached, the example would be followed, and what would the House do, when they saw plaintiff after plaintiff commencing proceedings of a similar nature? They could not stop such proceedings, even if they had recourse to violence: They had no means of preventing such actions or such decisions, except they were treated as con-tempts of the authority of the House, and there was therefore no effectual mode of preventing such proceedings. The House would not attempt to call the fifteen judges to the bar, or to send them to the prison of their own court. The House would therefore do well to consider the steps which they were about to take, and not to enter into a contest which could only terminate in a manner injurious to the best interests of the country. If they embarked in that contest, when it came to that point where support would be necessary he much doubted whether that House would find the people standing up to de-
1208
fend the course which they were pursuing. One course might be followed, which would lead to no inconvenience, and which would not compromise their privileges, but if they adopted a different course, and opposed the laws of the land and the judges, such a proceeding would not fail to prove injurious to the best interests of the country, and ruinous even to the House itself. He should not oppose the appointment of a committee, although he could not but regret that the present discussion should have taken place. He trusted, however, that the Government would apply itself to the consideration of the subject with calmness, in order to adopt the best way for securing the House in the enjoyment of those privileges which were necessary for the exercise of their legislative functions, but which, at the same time, would lead to nothing injurious to the institutions of the country. If they persisted in hostility to the decisions of the judges, they must necessarily hurt other institutions of the country, which were permanent in their nature, while a Parliament was not permanent. It was not the first time that that House had come into collision with the judges, but on every occasion on which they had done so, the House had been defeated. On more than one occasion, such collisions had taken place; but what had been the result? Why, the contest had been terminated by a dissolution of Parliament, which at once had terminated the dispute, and left the judges in full possession of their authority. Whether the noble Lord contemplated any proceeding of a similar nature in the present instance, he, of course, could not say; but, whatever might be his views, he would entreat the noble Lord to adopt that course which alone could redeem the House from its present state of difficulty, and put an end to a contest which, whatever party might triumph, from the very nature of the contest, would inflict a serious injury upon the people.
Sir C. Greywould cheerfully support the appointment of a committee, but beyond that, he was unwilling to express any positive opinion on the course which it was proposed to pursue. In regard to the second motion which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, had submitted for the consideration of the House, he wished to say a few words. That motion was, that the notes of the shorthand writer,

1209
containing the decision of the judges, should be laid before the committee which it was proposed to appoint. Now, they had heard two hon. Members opposite express very different opinions from those which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-general, had expressed, in regard to the terms in which the decision was couched, and he thought, therefore, that the notes of the shorthand writer, however accurate they might be, ought not to be taken as authority. When they considered that the record itself, and the minutes of the judges, in regard to which there could be no sort of doubt, would completely raise the whole question which it was necessary for the committee to investigate, he would ask the House to consider, whether it was desirable to take the decision of the judges, on the authority of the shorthand writer, more particularly in a matter so liable to misconstruction as the words of the judges. He would, therefore, suggest to hon. Members upon both sides of the House, whether the question of privilege would not be brought sufficiently before the committee, by the record and minutes of the judges, and whether it was not prudent to abstain from a course which might involve the House in a fruitless contest about words, which could hardly fail to be the case, if they relied on the notes of the shorthand writer.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that chiefly in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman near him (Mr. Pemberton), he wished particularly to ascertain what the precise objects were for which the committee was to be appointed. He a apprehended, that the committee was not to be required to express any decision whatever. He conceived that the whole matter was open for their investigation; that they were to examine all the important questions which the case suggested, but that they would have no power to decide. The committee would examine fully, and lay before the House, all the important considerations which might arise during the investigation, and it would then be for the House to decide. Whether the House was to acquiesce in the decision, or whether they should determine to resist, or to have the powers and privileges confirmed by a legislative act—all these questions would be settled by the decision of the House, and not the decision of the committee. It was upon these grounds that he had supported the motion for the appointment of
1210
a committee, and he now wished to he informed whether he had formed a correct opinion.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the right hon. Baronet had taken the same view of the duties of the committee as himself. The committee would do nothing but inquire. He could not help saying, considering, that inquiry was the only object in view, that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were out of place, more particularly so, as he had in-tended to put the hon. and learned Gen-man upon the committee. He again repeated, that nothing would be done by the committee but inquire.
Sir E. Knatchbullcould not help thinking, that it would have been better if notice had been given of the motion brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general; but, if the course which had been followed was satisfactory to the House, so let it be. He hoped, however, after what had fallen from those who had heard the decision of the judges, that it would be found, that that decision was expressed in a manner different from what had been represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-general.
The motion for the appointment of a committee carried.
On the question of nominating the members of it,
Sir R. Inglisrose to submit to the House the impropriety of placing on this committee those hon. Gentlemen whose opinions, they having served on a former and similar committee, were now matters of record. He thought it would not be wise to place the same Gentlemen on the present committee, and although he had not divided the House on the question that a committee be appointed, still he was strongly disposed to take a division upon this point, and on the propriety of producing the notes of the short-hand writer as evidence of the terms in which the decision of the judges had been delivered. If the House insisted on the production of those short-hand notes, he contended that they would be arrogating to them-selves a jurisdiction which had never before been claimed by the House of Commons, and which, he was persuaded, would be alike injurious to the House and to the people. In such a case they would practically be calling the judges of the land to the Bar of the House, and putting them to trial on the evidence of the short-hand

1211
writer—a proceeding which he was fully persuaded was a violation of their rights, and also in direct hostility to the best interests of the people.
Mr. Pembertonthought, that it was duo to the judges and to the House, that the House should fully and clearly understand the precise terms in which the decision of the judges had been delivered.
The Attorney-generalbelieved, from the acknowledged accuracy of Mr. Gurney, that the House might rely on the correctness of the shorthand notes. If, then, such was the case, surely for their own sakes, as well as for the sakes of the judges, they ought to have the exact grounds upon which the decision had been made, and the precise terms in which it was delivered, laid before the committee. When those notes were laid before the House, it would be found, that the statement he had made was fully borne out by the facts.
Mr. Blewittthought, that it would be more respectful to ask the judges to communicate their decision to the House than to make a motion on the subject.
Mr. Kellythought, that the notes of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-general ought also to be before the committee.
Lord J. Russellagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was desirable to have the notes of the arguments of the Attorney-General laid before the committee, and he believed they would be produced under the form of the motion which had been proposed.
Committee appointed.
On the question, that the committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records,
Sir R. Inglisasked whether the committee were to have power to send for the judges? Before he consented to this motion, therefore, he should wish to know whether the committee meant to exercise that power? He did not believe, that any person would consent to a motion that the judges of the land should be brought to the Bar of the House; and what the House in its collective capacity could not do, ought not to be given to a body of fifteen or twenty private gentlemen. So that, unless he heard a statement from the Attorney-general and the noble Lord, the leader of her Majesty's Government in that House, that they did not intend to call the judges before the committee, he, for one, should divide the House on the question.
Mr. C. Bullerasked, whether the hon. Baronet meant to say, that the judges were not to he called before the House, or even before committees of the House? If he did, the practice had been different. In the Record Committee the judges had been called upon to give their opinions. He could see no difference between the cases. Did the hon. Baronet mean to lay down a rule, that the judges of the land were to be kept so apart from all other persons, that they were not to be called before a committee of the House for their opinions?
Sir R. Inglisonly wished to ask his noble Friend and the Attorney-general, whether they intended to call the judges before the committee?
Mr. Humesaid, it was a monstrous doctrine to say, that any individual in the country was not amenable to this House. He had seen the Lord Chancellor before a committee of this House; and he had never heard that any individual was exempted, if his presence was necessary for the purposes of justice. Of course, it must rest with the discretion of the committee, but if they thought it necessary, he hoped they would have the judges before them. If necessary, he would be ready to move or to second a motion, on any occasion, to call the judges to the bar of the House.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend and himself, in the appointment of this committee, had no view to the examination of the judges on any judicial question; they had no such intention, and his hon. Friend need not suppose they had; at the same time they did not mean to preclude themselves from giving to the committee the power which was usually given by the House.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, as far as he was concerned, he felt the most sincere respect and reverence for the judges, and he believed, that the judges of the Queen's Bench had, on this occasion, acted most honestly and conscientiously. But at the same time, that the committee should be fettered by any such contract as that proposed by the hon. Baronet, was a proposition he utterly disclaimed. The Lord Chancellor, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, had attended a committee of this House, and other judges had done the same, without any scruples.
Sir E. Knatchbullobserved, that the

1213
Lord Chancellor was a Peer, and attended by his own consent and at his own discretion, so that the case was not in point. If the judges were sent for by the committee on any matter connected with their judicial capacity, he ventured to say, that they would not obey the order.
Mr. Wynndisclaimed the doctrine, that the judges could not be called before this House. Suppose a motion to be laid on the Table of the House, containing a charge of corruption against a judge. It used to be the practice to appoint a committee of corruption for the express purpose of inquiring into the course of justice. It was not likely that there would be any temptation to summon the judges before the committee, and if any individual were to attempt to exercise such privilege the committee would check it. But it would be better to let the discussion drop here.
Sir R. Inglisrepeated, that unless there was an understanding, that the committee were not to call the judges before them, he should divide the House.
Mr. Sergeant Wildeobserved, that it was necessary the committee should have the judgments of the judges before them, and as they were written judgments, there could be no difficulty in obtaining them. The committee would then have the exact reasons of the judges before them. The judgments would be printed in a few weeks, and circulated amongst the Members; and it would be no disrespect to the judges, but, on the contrary, it would be respectful to them to desire to know what were the reasons they assigned for their decision.
Mr. Godsonsaid, it was not the notes of the judges that were called for, but the shorthand writer's notes, which the committee might call for, if they pleased, without the authority of the House.
Sir C. Greyrecommended the hon. Baronet to withdraw his opposition. He had not known when he before spoke, that the judges had delivered their judgments from written papers, which there could be no objection to have printed for the use of the House. He did not recede from his proposition, that the House could not come to any conclusion as to the opinions of the judges which were laid before them on the authority of Mr. Gurney, or any shorthand writer in the world.
Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. Russellmoved, "that during the remainder of the session, orders of the day have precedence of notices of motions upon Thursdays, except on a special direction of the House with respect to a notice of motion."
Mr. Humehoped that the noble Lord would make an exception in favour of his motion, which stood for the 6th of June, respecting the Bank of England.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he could not do that without laying himself open to similar applications.
Sir E. Knatchbullobserved, that this was giving Government greater power than a private Member of the House, and no individual Member had now any possible chance of bringing forward any measure, except on the special direction of the House, and he did not know how that was to be obtained.
Motion agreed to.

COUNTY COURTS.
Lord J. Russellmoved, that the County Courts Bill be read a second time. He should not wish the discussion to be taken until after the bill had been referred to a Select Committee upstairs.
Mr. Kellysaid, he could not allow the bill to be read a second time without entering his protest against the principle of the measure. There was this palpable objection to the bill, that it went to repeal the whole law of England with regard to debts not exceeding 15 l. He should certainly feel it his duty to oppose the bill whenever he could find an opportunity.
Mr. Pakingtonmust declare his opinion that much in the bill was exceedingly objectionable. He would have been prepared to oppose the measure on the second reading, if the noble Lord had not arranged that the discussion of the principle should be taken after the reference to committee. Under the provisions of the bill a very considerable number of appointments were contemplated, such as chairman, receiver-general, clerk, and a variety of other officers, the salaries of all whom were to be defrayed, it was probable, from what was to be called the county fee fund. Now it was the opinion of every Gentleman whom he had consulted, and decidedly it was his own opinion, that this fee fund would be found quite inadequate and he wished to know, therefor, whether the noble Lord was prepared in

1215
that case to take any, and if so, what means, to make up the deficiency?
The Solicitor Generalsaid, he was anxious to express his opinion upon this most important subject. The question was, were they prepared to concede to the very strong and generally expressed opinion of their constituents a means of providing cheap and speedy justice? That was the whole question. Difficulties there were in the way, no doubt, but difficulties inherent in the subject. If the fees were small, then they must have an inferior description of persons to administer justice in those courts. They were bound to this. If they determined to continue the present system of expense, it was the same thing as to say that they would shut the door of the courts to all but the wealthy classes. But, what was all that had been urged by the hon. Members opposite considered as a reason against the second reading? They must run the risk of not doing such good justice by doing this cheap justice. They could not afford anything better. It was better that injustice should be done than that no justice should be done. He was prepared to support this position, and he said, that it was better that a poor man who had a debt of 5s. owing him, should go before a tribunal which should decide the question one way or the other, whether right or wrong, than that he should feel that he was utterly without any kind of means of redress—that the courts were beyond him. The present state of things made the poor man feel, and he feared with too much reason, that law was a luxury which was reserved only for the wealthy. The bill, he trusted, though he confessed he had certain objections to parts of it, would effect a change in a state of things so much to be deplored.
Mr. Darbybegged to know whether, in case the fee fund fell short, it was intended ultimately to throw the expenses of the machinery of the bill on the county-rates?
Lord J. Russellsaid, it was supposed that the fee fund would furnish sufficient means for the payment of the judges under the bill. If the committee thought otherwise, they would report otherwise. But he should say, if upon experience it were found that the fee fund were insufficient, that the measure was one of those in aid of which Government and the Parliament should see the propriety of incurring some expenditure.
Mr. T. Duncombebegged to know, why the county of Middlesex was excepted out of the bill? This was the more inexplicable, because every one who knew the county must be aware, that there was no county court in England, Ireland, or Scotland, in which the administration of justice was so objectionable as in the Middlesex County Court.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the reason why the Middlesex County Court had been excepted was, that it had been intended to introduce provisions into the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill for the purpose of providing judges for that court.
Mr. Humesaid, nothing was so much required throughout the country as this bill. He entirely approved of the spirit of the Solicitor-general's remarks, and he was convinced that they would be approved in every part of the country. If this was a Government job, as had been insinuated, he wished they would bring forward more such jobs. Let them go on with such jobs, and then see how they would be applauded from one side of the country to the other.
Mr. Godsonasked, whether they were going to discuss the principle of the bill after all? He had understood the noble Lord to say, that he did not intend to take the discussion on the principle of the measure at present, but the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had gone so deeply into the subject that he (Mr. Godson) almost thought the discussion ought to proceed.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had no objection to the principle being discussed then. What he proposed was, that a bill on this principle should be sent to a Select Committee, after having been read a second time; if the House affirmed the principle of giving the people cheap justice, there could be no objection against sending the bill up stairs.
Captain Pechellmust express his opinion, that the expense, whatever it might be, and whether it were to come from the fee fund or from the the county, would be cheerfully paid by the people.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee.

PRISONS BILL.
House in committee on the Prisons Bill.—The Chairman read the 14th clause, as follows:—
"And be it enacted, that in any prison in which the average number of prisoners profess-

1217
ing any one and the same religion differing from that of the Established Church confined at any one time during the three preceding years shall not have been less than fifty, it shall be lawful for the justices or other persons having the appointment of the chaplain of such prison, if they shall see fit, to appoint and remove at pleasure a teacher or clergyman, acting as such at the time of such appointment in some chapel duly registered as a place of religious worship, of the religion of such prisoners, for the instruction and spiritual assistance of such prisoners solely, and for the persons having the control of the funds applicable to the expenses of such prison, to fix the salary to be paid to such teacher or clergyman, and to make order for the payment thereof out of the funds applicable to those expenses."
Sir R. Inglissaid, that this clause did not form a part of the original bill brought forward by her Majesty's Government, last session, but it was subsequently introduced by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. But though he must do the Government the justice to say that they did not originally propose that there should be in all the prisons salaried teachers for every religious persuasion which could be found to germinate in this country, yet he must say, that they yielded without much reluctance to the proposition, or, in other words, he might say, that they adopted it with considerable alacrity. What was the clause? It was neither more nor less than a declaration by the Legislature, so far as that House was at present concerned, that there was no distinction whatever between the truth or falsehood of different forms of religion and belief. If it could be said that all religions were equally true, it might, in like manner, be Said, that all were equally false. The proposition, which was now adopted by her Majesty's Ministers, recognised the principle that whatever men, or any set of men, to the number of fifty, believed to be true, shall be taught as truth by persons paid by the Government. That was the principle which he protested against last year, and he felt it his duty not less earnestly to oppose it now. There was no difference between adopting this principle for persons confined in a prison, and applying it to any other aggregation of human beings; and if the principle were recognised in one case, it must be extended to others, and it would be equally the duty of the Government to hire chaplains of different creeds for different persons to be found on board our ships of war, and for our military regiments. The hon. Member for Knaresborough last year stated that the clause would apply to only three or four places in the empire,
1218
and he mentioned London, Lancashire, and some other populous parts, urging that the measure was not of that character, in as far as its practical extent and working was concerned, as to justify the opposition to which it had been exposed. But it was not to the degree or extent in which this principle was to be carried into operation that he offered his opposition; it was to the establishment of the principle itself. It was to the deliberate recognition of the principle by that House, that there was no such thing as difference of truth or falsehood in different religious persuasions, but that the Government was bound to pay the teacher of doctrines which were opposed to the established religion of the country that he was opposed. There was a great deal of difference between the toleration of other sects of religion and that maintenance and encouragement and support of them which the present clause proposed to afford. Regarding this clause, then, as the first step in the progress of a principle which he held to be destructive to the legitimate rights of the Established Church of this country, regarding it as making no difference between truth and falsehood, and regarding it as a principle which, if once admitted could not be afterwards altered, but must be carried out still further, so that if it were adopted in this case, religious teachers of different persuasions could not be excluded from workhouses, or from the army and navy, he thought it better to stop where they were, and therefore he moved that this 14th clause do not stand part of the bill.
Mr. Pakingtonread the first passage of the clause, and said, he must protest against the principle of making religious instruction dependent on numbers. If the principle was a sound and good principle, that persons not members of the established church confined in our gaols should be provided with religious instruction according to their own tenets, for if they amounted to fifty in number, it must be an equally sound principle for forty-nine prisoners—it would be an absurdity, a gross insult to common sense, to say, that religious instruction ought to be withheld from forty-nine prisoners, which would be given to them it' they had only another partner in crime. Religious instruction was a blessing which should be given to all; and the only question was, in what way the Legislature was bound to provide it. There was another objectionable point in the clause, and that was, the discre-

1219
tionary power given to the magistrates to appoint or remove the chaplains of prisons at pleasure. That appeared to him to be a complete abandonment of the functions of Parliament, and an imposition of a discretion on those who were appointed to carry out the law which they ought not to be called upon to exercise. The amount of salary, and other minor matters, might be safely left to their discretion, but he protested against the extreme unfairness of calling on the magistrates to decide whether the principle of the law was a good one, and whether it should or should not be carried into effect. Such a measure must, if passed, operate very unequally, for there might be fifty persons of one sect in prison in Liverpool, white at Birmingham the number might be less, and thus the population of two different places would be living under different systems. But there was another reason why he was opposed to this clause. When he saw the rapid strides which the Roman Catholics were making in this country, he must say, that he did not feel at all disposed to make this further concession to them. He was by no means disposed to interfere with that principle of British law by which every man was tolerated, and could hold his theological opinions without let or hindrance; he held that to be a true principle of our Legislature, but he must nevertheless give his decided opposition to this clause.
Sir A. Dalrympleexpressed his entire concurrence in the remarks of his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He had presented a petition to the House against the clause, signed by a most respectable body of persons, and he should feel it his duty to vote against it.
Sir G. H. Smyththought the noble Lord would be compelled to give up this measure ultimately, although he might that night succeed in getting a majority in its favour. He admitted that Dissenters and Roman Catholics ought to have the privilege of receiving religious consolation from their ministers, but he objected to any clause of this kind, because he knew that Roman Catholic priests and dissenting preachers were not satisfied with administering consolation to those who belonged to their own sects, but that they would interfere with those who did not belong to them. He knew instances in which Roman Catholic and Dissenting teachers endeavoured to force their principles upon others—
1220
["Hear," and a cry of "divide.") "I do not wonder," said the hon. Baronet, "that hon. Members opposite are so anxious to go to a division on the clause, because we are not in a situation to divide. I know that if we divide now, we shall be beaten. But if the House were full of Members, I am perfectly sure that we should negative this clause. But we are in a most unfortunate condition. I neither see the argument nor the gentlemanly feeling of laughter, and I think it is a course of proceeding which is not fit for the House of Commons. If we had fair play, I am sure we should reject the clause." Being convinced that it went directly against the Protestant feeling of the country, he should follow the course of his hon. Friends who had spoken.
Sir C. B. Veresaid, that to take money from the public funds for the support of other creeds than that of the Established Church of the country, was virtually to separate that Church from the State. But there were other difficulties in the way, arising out of the multiplicity of sects in existence. It was quite impossible, he believed, to say how many sects there were. If this principle was admitted, this assistance must be given to any number, and any number of members might be employed; and this in itself would be extremely inconvenient.
Lord John Russellthought it right to say a few words with respect to the introduction of this clause. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, was right in saying that the clause was not contained in the original bill. It was moved when he (Lord John Russell) was not in his place, by the hon. Member for Knaresborough; it was supported by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) whom he did not now see present), and it was received with favour by the House. When he found the proposition had been thus supported and favourably received, although he had some doubts as to its propriety, he had stated, that seeing the opinion of the House was in its favour, he was willing to adopt a clause of this nature, always providing, that its terms should be such as to preserve that general superintendence of the chaplain which was necessary to the discipline of the prison. He thought that the clause in this respect answered the object the hon. Mover had in view, and in which he was ready to concur. The state

1221
of the law at present was, that if any prisoner asked the assistance of a minister not of the Church, that such minister should be admitted, and the practice was, he believed, uniformly agreeable to that law. Then it was said by hon. Members, that if such was the law, a minister should be paid for attending one prisoner as well as if he attended on fifty. To that proposition he could not agree, for though it might be very proper if there were fifty prisoners of one communion in a gaol, and that the minister of such communion gave up his time and passed a great part of every day in that prison, that he should have some remuneration for that constant devotion of his time; still, when he came only once a month, perhaps, to visit one prisoner, it would not be fit or necessary that any compensation should be given for so small and inconsiderable a service. Then the hon. Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington) objected to the words in the clause, "if they shall see fit." Now, it did seem to him (Lord John Russell) those words were necessary to render the clause free from that objection which he should otherwise entertain to it. The magistrates were obliged, as the hon. Member supposed, to appoint a minister to the gaol different to the chaplain of the Established Church; unless those words appeared, it would be otherwise a matter of absolute necessity with them to appoint such a person, and, on the other hand, it was desirable they should have this discretion, as in case they saw a minister interfering improperly with the duties of the chaplain, they could take advantage of the clause, and exercise the power and discretion vested in them by the Act of Parliament, On that head, therefore, he did not see the clause was liable to objection. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis) urged, that if the principle of this clause was carried to the extreme, it would be necessary to have ministers of every religion to regiments, to ships, and in almost every place; but the Legislature must look to practical effects. Soldiers were permitted to go to Roman Catholic chapels or Dissenting meeting-houses, because it could be done without inconvenience, but the privilege could not be extended to sailors, nor could ministers of every creed be sent on board ships, on account of the manifest inconvenience which would arise to the service. Hence it was necessary to make a difference
1222
both in practice and in legislation; And therefore he thought the committee might adopt a clause of this kind without saying they would adopt the principle in any other case.
Colonel Woodobserved, that though soldiers went to Roman Catholic or Dissenting chapels, they, nor the country, had not to pay the ministers. He was very sorry the noble Lord's doubts had been shaken on this question, for the very circumstance which recommended the, clause to the noble Lord—namely, that the appointment was left optional to the magistrates—afforded the very strongest objection to it. The operation of the clause would be strongly felt in Middlesex, Lancashire, and other large counties, and to show the consequences he would state what had occurred in the county of Middlesex. The circumstance he was about to mention showed, that the matter could not be left optional with the magistrates, but that the Legislature must determine whether or not Roman Catholic and other ministers must be paid or not. Not long since, an application was made at the quarter sessions on the part of some Roman Catholic ladies who wished to visit Coldbathfields prison; the majority of the magistrates not wishing to be responsible for the tracts those ladies might think fit to distribute, felt it their duty to resist the application, and the magistrates divided—fifteen for and thirty against the admission of those ladies. Upon that the question was supposed to have been settled, but the magistrate who had introduced again revived the subject; the magistrates again rejected it, and by a larger majority, because they stated, that the question was very likely to be brought under the consideration of Parliament, that they hoped it would not be left optional with the magistrates to decide one way or the other, and that the Legislature ought to determine, aye or no, whether these ministers ought to be paid. If that was not done, they stated, that the bench would be fighting the Catholic question every time they met. Determined as he was, not to leave the matter in doubt, he should certainly vote against the clause.
Mr. Blackstoneinquired, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) was willing to apply the principle of this clause to prisons, why he hesitated to extend it to workhouses? He could assure the noble Lord, that the Dissenters did not

1223
look to this clause as any boon to them, and therefore he (Mr. Blackstone) believed it was in fact a clause to increase the power of the Romish Church. Neither did he believe the people of England were prepared to go along with the Government in that view, and on that ground solely he should resist the clause.
Mr. Bainesconcurred in the belief expressed by the hon. Member, that the Dissenters had no wish themselves on the subject, first, because it was not consistent with their principles, that their clergy should receive payment from the state; and, next, because he believed there would never be found fifty Dissenters in any prison in England. At the same time he was very much disposed to give religious instruction to Roman Catholics hi prison in the way proposed, and when this was called a means of extending the power of the Roman Catholic Church, he must 'ask hon. Members whether they thought really their Church was so weak as to be in danger of being subverted by sending half-a-dozen Roman Catholic priests to attend prisoners in as many gaols? The proposition was most preposterous, and he thought he saw the hon. Member opposite smile at the absurdity of his own observations.
Mr. Langdalebegged to remark, in the first place, that the words which had now been objected to were not in the clause he originally proposed, but had been inserted at the instigation of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. But the really serious question in the clause was this—look at the different prisons, and it would be seen, that the Roman Catholics in populous towns were of the lowest classes, and formed the largest number of prisoners. Those persons could not and would not receive the instruction the law now afforded them. The Legislature was now passing measures for the separate confinement of prisoners, and for other means of correcting criminals, and then, because there were large masses of criminals who would not avail themselves of the instruction of the Established Church, it was said, rather than provide them with the instruction they would accept, the Legislature would give them none, and thus deprive the whole community of the advantages of an attempt in that way to reform persons in confinement. This was a denial of justice to those individuals and to the country, Furthers it seemed strange
1224
to him that hon. Gentlemen opposite should think so lightly of their religion as to suppose, that because a few gaols were to be visited by the Roman Catholics, a blow was inflicted on the Established Church of the country. Hon. Members had spoken of a division on this clause; why, last year, after a long discussion, there had been a division, and the clause was carried by a large majority.
Mr. Darbysaid, as the clause had been disclaimed by the noble Lord opposite, and also on the part of the Dissenters, he could not but think it was brought forward on behalf of the Roman Catholics. It was said, that this plan had been in operation in Ireland. The result there, however, did not induce him to look on the plan in a very favourable light. By this clause it was sought to make the magistrates do that which the Government were afraid to do themselves; they feared the responsibility, and sought to fix it on the magistrates of the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Langdale) had said, that the Catholics were the lowest class of the community. They well knew, that this class of the community did not seek the clergy of their persuasion; their clergy were obliged to seek out them; and were Members on the opposite side of the House prepared to tell him, that the Roman Catholic priests did not seek up the Members of their persuasion, but that it was necessary to provide clergy for the Roman Catholics in the prisons? The principle was not now acted upon, that the state was to maintain the established religion of the state; they had given up that principle. The Members of the Opposition had told those on the other side of the House, that there were persons destitute of religion within the walls of the gaols, and they now called on them to provide the religion of the state for them. It was not because he thought, that if the Roman Catholic priests were admitted into the walls of the gaols they would destroy the Church that he opposed this clause; for he did not believe if they separated all support of the state from the Church, that the Church would be in danger; but it was necessary for the safety of the state, that the Church should not be separated from the state. This attempt to introduce this clause was part of our great system; he saw it in operation not only in this country, not only in Ireland, but in Europe; it was part of a system,

1225
The Roman Catholics were a very powerful body, a very powerful political body, determined to work out their own ends. He saw this going on; he knew their power, and so far as he knew that power he believed, that when once it was established it was inconsistent with the civil and religious liberty of any country. On that ground he should vote against this clause.
Mr. Plumptresaid, if once they admitted the principle, that fifty persons assembled together in any gaol or other place of one religious persuasion should call upon the state to support their minister, fifty persons in any ship or society whatever might call upon the state to support their minister, of whatever religion they might be. It was the admission of this principle to which he, as a Protestant, could not submit. Fifty men of any religious denomination so circumstanced, be their principles ever so wild or contrary to Scripture, would be able to call on the Government to do that which would be disgraceful to a Protestant country.
Mr. Aclandthought this clause had some connexion with the minute of Council on education. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had told them, that he would not have consented to this clause except it were always provided, that a general superintendence should be exercised by the chaplain of the gaol. He (Mr. Acland) had looked over the bill in vain for any such clause of superintendence It appeared to him, that the chaplain with his fifty persons under his charge would be in very much the same position as the Roman Catholic priest. On behalf of the established religion of the country, he did beg, that as the state professed to have an Established Church, it should not act in contravention of that profession. He would ask the noble Lord, what was that general superintendence which was given to the chaplains of the gaols? He had also to call the attention of the legal adviser of her Majesty to another question. He was rather anxious to ascertain from those learned in the law the meaning of the term "one and the same religion." He wanted to know what was the legal definition of the term "one and the same religion." Did it mean of the same denomination of religion, or did it include all denominations not being Roman Catholic, or all denominations not being of the Established Church? It was important for the House when a new principle was
1226
introduced to know to what extent it went. He should be glad to know what was the extent of the meaning of those terms?
The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill:— Ayes 136; Noes 81: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R

James, W.

Adam, Admiral

Jervis, S.

Aglionby, Major

Jones, J.

Archbold, R.

Langdale, hon. C.

Baines, E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Baring, F. T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Barnard, E. G.

Loch, J.

Barry, G. S.

Lynch, A. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Macleod, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Macnamara, Major

Bewes, T.

Mc Taggart, J.

Blackett, C.

Marshall, W.

Blake, M. J.

Marsland, H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Melgund, Viscount

Blunt, Sir C.

Morris, D.

Bridgeman, H.

Muskett, G. A,

Buller, E.

Nagle, Sir R.

Busfield, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Brien, C.

Chalmers, P.

O'Brien, W. S.

Chester, H.

O'Connell, D.

Chichester, J. P. B.

O'Connell, J.

Clive, E. B.

O'Connell, M.

Collier, J.

O'Connell, M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

O'Conor, Don

Craig, W. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Curry, Mr. Serg.

Palmerston, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Parker, J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Duke, Sir J.

Parrott, J.

Duncomb, T.

Pechell, Captain

Dundas, F.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Philips, M.

Ellice, Capt. A.

Philips, G. R.

Ellice, E.

Phillpotts, J.

Ellis, W.

Pigot, D. R.

Evans, G.

Power, J.

Evans, W.

Price, Sir R.

Finch, F.

Pryme, G.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Redington, T. N.

Fort, J.

Rice, E. R.

Grattan, H

Roche, E. B.

Hastie, A.

Roche, W.

Hawes, B.

Roche, Sir D.

Hayter, W. G.

Rundle, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hector, C. J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A,

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Scholefield, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Slaney, R. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Smith, B.

Horseman, E.

Stanley, W. O.

Hoskins, K.

Stuart, Villiers

Howard, P. H.

Stock, Dr.

Howick, Viscount

Strickland, Sir G:

Hume, J.

Style, Sir C.

Humphery, J.

Talfourd, Mr. Serg,

Hutt, W.

Tancred, H. W.

1227

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P

White, S.

Thornely, T.

Williams, W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T

Williams, W. A.

Turner, W.

Winnington, T. E.

Vigors, N. A.

Wood, C.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Wood, G. W.

Wakley, T.

Wrightson, W. B.

Walker, R.

Wyse, T.

Wallace, R.

Yates, J. A.

Warburton, H.

Ward, H. G.

TELLERS.

White, A.

Steuart, R.

White, H.

Maule, F.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Kemble, H.

Archdall, M.

Kilburn, Viscount

Ashley, Lord

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Baker, E.

Kirk, P.

Blackburne, I.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Blackstone, W. S.

Sir E.

Blair, J.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Broadley, H.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Buck, L. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Burr, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Chapman, A.

Marsland, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Marton, G

Cole, Viscount

Miles, W.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Miles, P. W. S.

Courtenay, P.

Neeld, J.

Cripps, J.

Parker, R. T.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Perceval, Colonel

Darby, G.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Dick, Q.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

D'Israeli, B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Duffield, T.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Du Pre, G.

Richards, R.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rickford, W.

Fector, J. M.

Round, J.

Fellowes, E.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Filmer, Sir E.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Grimsditch, T.

Stormont, Viscount

Hale, R. B.

Teignmouth, Lord

Halford, H.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Heneage, G. W.

Thornhill, G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hodgson, F.

Villiers, Viscount

Hodgson, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Hope, hon. C.

Walsh, Sir J.

Houstoun, G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Hughes, W. B.

Wood, T.

Hurt, F.

Young, Sir W.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

James, Sir W. C.

TELLERS.

Jermyn, Earl

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Johnstone, H.

Pakington,—

House resumed.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
House in committee on the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.
On the first clause, appointing the General Board of Directors of Prisons,
Mr. Colquhounmoved, as an amend-
1228
ment, that the sheriffs of nine counties in which circuit courts are held should ex officio be members of the board.
Mr. F. Mauleopposed the amendment.
Sir G. Clarksupported it.
The committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 56; Noes 109: Majority 53.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Archdall, M.

Jermyn, Earl

Baker, E.

Johnstone, H.

Baring, H. B.

Jones, J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Kemble, H.

Blair, J. M.

Kilburne, Viscount

Broadley, H

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Mackenzie, T.

Codrington, C. W.

Marsland, T.

Cole, Viscount

Neeld, J.

Dick, Q.

Pakington, J. S.

D'Israeli, B.

Perceval, Colonel

Fielden, W.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Fector, J.

Planta, right hon. J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gladstone, W. E.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Round, J.

Grant, F. W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Greene, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Stormont, Viscount

Hale, R. B.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Heneage, G. W.

Thompson, Alderman

Henniker, Lord

Waddington, H. S.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Wood, Colonel T.

Hinde, J. H.

Wood, T.

Hodgson, R.

Young, Sir W.

Hope, hon. C.

Houstoun, G.

TELLERS.

Hurt, F.

Clerk, Sir G.

Inglis, Sir R. H,

Colquhoun, J. C.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Duke, Sir J,

Adam, Admiral

Duncombe, T.

Aglionby, Major

Dundas, F.

Archbold, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Baines, E.

Ellice, E.

Bannerman, A.

Ellis, W.

Baring, F. T.

Evans, G,

Beamish, F. B.

Evans, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Ferguson, R.

Blake, M. J.

Finch, F.

Blewitt, R. J.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Bridgeman, H.

Fort, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grattan, H.

Busfeild, W.

Hastie, A.

Chalmers, P.

Hawes, B.

Chester, H.

Hayter, W. G.

Collier, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hector, C. J.

Craig, W. G.

Hobhouse, right hon.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Sir J,

Dalmeny, Lord

Hobhouse, T. B.

Divett, E.

Hume, J.

Dunkin, Sir R. S.

Hutt, W,

1229

James, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Russell, Lord

Lennox, Lord A.

Rutherford, rt. hon. A.

Loch, J.

Scholefield, J.

Lushington, C.

Sheil, R. L.

Macleod, R.

Smith, B.

Macnamara, Major

Smith, R. V.

McTaggart, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Marshall, W.

Speirs, A.

Marsland, H.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Melgund, Viscount

Stanley, W. O.

Morpeth, Viscount

Steuart, R.

Morris, D.

Style, Sir C.

O'Brien, C.

Tancred, H. W,

O'Connell, D.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

O'Connell, J.

Thornely, Thomas

O'Connell, M.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, M.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Paget, Lord A.

Wakley, T.

Palmerston, Viscount

Walker, R.

Parker, J.

Wallace, R.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Warburton, H.

Pease, J.

White, A.

Pechell, Captain

White, S.

Philips, M.

Williams, W.

Pigot, D. R.

Williams, W. A.

Power, J.

Winnington, T. E.

Redington, T. N.

Wood, G. W.

Roche, E. B.

Yates, J. A,

Roche, W.

Roche, Sir D.

TELLERS.

Rolfe, Sir R, M.

Maule, F.

Rundle, Lord J.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

On the clause being again put,
Sir W. Raeobjected to the Inspector-General of Prisons in Scotland being a member of the general board.
Mr. Hawescould not see what objection there was to it. The Inspector-general was the man likely to possess most information on the subject of prisons, and, as there were many Members of the Board who could not always attend, the attendance of the inspector would be more desirable.
Mr. Colquhonnsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member would go more to prove the inefficiency of the board than the propriety of making the inspector a member of it. The inspector ought to be under the control of the board.
Lord Stormontthought, that as the inspector was the servant of the board he would, by being made a member of it, be made a judge in his own case.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, the inspector was responsible to the Government, as he had to report to it all circumstances connected with the state of prisons in Scotland. He would be an honorary member of the board, and should not influence its decisions. He thought that his being a
1230
member of the board would he a sort of guarantee that the board did its duty.
Sir W. Raemoved, as an amendment, that the words "inspectors of prisons" be omitted from the clause.
The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 101; Noes 51:—Majority 50.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18 being proposed, which relates to the constitution of local boards,
Mr. Hopeproposed an amendment, to the effect that no man should be a member of these local boards, unless he were a Commissioner of Supply and also a Justice of Peace.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 22; Noes 54;—Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Ballie, Colonel H.

Houston, G.

Blair, J.

Johnstone, H.

Bramston, T. W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mackenzie, T.

Cole, Lord Viscount

Pringle, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Sheppard, T.

Grant, F. W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hale, R. B.

Stormont, Lord Vis.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Hinde, J. H.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Hope, Mr. G. W.

Hope, hon. C.

Colquhoun, Mr. J. C.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Kinnaird, hon. A. F,

Alston, R.

Langdale, hon. C.

Baring, F. T.

Loch, J.

Beamish, F. B.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Blake, M. J.

Macleod, R.

Brodie, W. B.

McTaggart, J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M.

Busfeild, W.

Palmerston, Lord Vis.

Cayley, E. S.

Parker, J.

Craig, W. G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Duke, Sir J.

Pigot, D. R.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dundas, F.

Rundle, J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Sheil, R. L.

Ellice, E.

Smith, R. V,

Evans, W.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Ferguson, R.

Stuart, V.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Strutt, E.

Gillon, W. D.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Vigors, N. A.

Harland, W. C.

Wakley, T.

Hastie, A.

Wallace, R.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, r. h. Sir J.

Wilbraham, G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, G. W.

Hume, J.

TELLERS,

Hutt, W.

Maule, F.

Ingestrie, Lord Vis,

Steuart, R.

Clause agreed to; as were also clauses 19, 20, 21, and 22.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
[We insert the Lists of the first and the last Divisions. The second so closely resembles the first, that it is not necessary to repeat it.]

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Captain the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, Earls of HAREWOOD, and WICKLOW, Lords ASHBURTON, ELLENBOROUGH, DACRE, and a number of other noble LORDS, from a great number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

THE MINISTRY.
Viscount Melbournemoved the adjournment of the House.
The Earl of Winchilsea: My Lords, before the motion of the noble Viscount is put, I must pray your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments, while I offer some brief observations, in the hope of eliciting some information from the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, as to the principles which are to guide his Government with respect to our foreign, our colonial, and our domestic affairs. My Lords, under any circumstances under which the members of a Government thought it their duty to resign the high offices of trust which had been confided to them, into the hands of their Sovereign, I should be prepared to contend, that the people of this country had a constitutional right to expect an explanation and a statement of the grounds that led to such resignation. My Lords, I am equally prepared, when the same individuals return to the same offices which they had abandoned, to contend, that the country has a fair right to expect and to receive information as to what are the principles of that Government; because, my Lords, I am prepared to contend, that the public announcement of the abandonment of office, and of that resignation having been accepted by the Crown, put an end constitutionally to that government. I am, my Lords, also prepared to contend that, under the existing circumstances of this country—for at no time was change of Government so frequent as it had been of late years, which, I think, is much to be deplored—knowing that the evidence of the history of past ages, and the experience of our own times, have unfortunately taught us that continual and frequent changes lend to shake public confidence,

1157
to unsettle the public mind, and thereby to prejudice the interests of the people, as well as the authority of those who rule over them—I will ground my statement and my appeal to the noble Viscount, upon the declaration which he has himself made, as to the grounds on which he surrendered the offices which the noble Viscount and his colleagues' held, into the hands of the Sovereign; and for fear I should misstate any thing that fell from the noble Viscount on that occasion, I will read the words in which the noble Viscount made that declaration, and I will further state, that I did at the time think, and I still believe, that in expressing his sentiments on that occasion, the noble Viscount expressed those of the great mass of his fellow-countrymen, when he stated that he thought he was in a situation in which he could no longer hold the reins of Government, either with honour to himself, or with advantage to the throne, or to the general interests of this great country. What was the statement then made by the noble Viscount? He stated, that
"In consequence of the vote to which the House of Commons has come this morning, and which your Lordships may all see by the votes of that House of Parliament—a vote which, though not immediately fatal to the measure against which it was directed, yet, at the same time, is one which it must be obvious to all who are acquainted with Parliamentary proceedings is such, as that they must know that it is of such a nature or kind, as to render the final success of the measure totally impossible; and considering, my lords, the measure as of the highest possible importance, of the most paramount importance to the welfare of the great island to which it related, and to the working out of the great measure of negro emancipation, which was voted by both houses of Parliament with so much satisfaction, and for which such great sacrifices were made; considering, I say, this measure of the utmost, the most paramount, and indispensable importance for that great object; in considering, also, that the vote on this occasion is not only necessarily fatal to the ultimate success of that great measure, but that it also does with sufficient clearness and distinctness indicate a want of confidence on the part of a great proportion of that House of Parliament, as to render it absolutely impossible that, we should continue to administer the affairs of Her Majesty's Government, in a manner that can be useful or beneficial to the country, and which render it impossible that we can take measures of energy and importance that are absolutely required by the situation and circumstances of the country; but which, my Lords, if they
1158
are taken, allow me to say, that then there is no danger or peril whatever to be apprehended in any part of the conflicting and difficult matters of this country."
My Lords, here I am prepared to rest my appeal to the noble Viscount, and to ask him, if the same principles which directed and guided the Government, which I maintain, was constitutionally extinct upon the resignation and the acceptance of the resignation of the noble Viscount and his colleagues by the Sovereign—to ask, my Lords, if the same principles guide, and influence, and direct the present Government, as directed the late Government, of which the noble Viscount was the head—which Government, I have a right to say, taking the noble Viscount's own declaration, has not the confidence of the other House, and consequently cannot carry on the business of the Government, either with benefit to the Sovereign, with interest to the country, or with that honour and dignity that becomes the Ministers of the Crown? It is, my Lords, impossible for any man, who takes a view of the situation of this country, whether as affecting our foreign relations—whether as affecting the fate of our colonies—or whether as affecting the internal state of the kingdom—without having just cause of fear and apprehension, that this country stands in the most imminent danger. My Lords, as respects our foreign alliances at the present time, compared to the state in which we were at the termination of the last war, I fear it will be found that many of our old alliances, which bound us to foreign countries, if not broken up, are so shaken, that those countries cannot be expected to be found fighting with England, if, unfortunately, we should be involved in foreign war. It is impossible to see the attitude that some of the powers of Europe are taking, without fearing that this country will soon be hurried into a war of which no man can conceive the consequences or the termination. But, my Lords, let me turn from our foreign affairs, and look to the state of our colonies. Let us look to the East and to the West—let us cast our eyes over the foreign possessions of the country—and I ask, will any man in this House, or out of the House, have the boldness to say that there is not just cause of fear and apprehension—that the spirit of rebellion and insubordination which has prevailed in a great part of our colonies, does not

1159
justify alarm and apprehension as to the security and maintenance of those colonies? If the Government of this country—for, my Lords, I know not what measures the noble Viscount alluded to when he made his declaration—whether they are measures affecting the colonies or the internal state of this country—for if we look to the internal state of this country, whether as relates to Ireland, where there is at this moment an organised state of rebellion and conspiracy to destroy the English connection—or if we look to that most fearful conspiracy that is going on in this country—a conspiracy which, I believe, your Lordships have little idea of its extent, or how long, or how fearfully that organization has worked for the last five years—I say, my Lords, if we look to all these things, and have a Minister of the Crown declaring, that he is not in a situation to carry out those measures of energy which are of the greatest importance as affecting the peace, the tranquillity, nay the very existence of this country—I ask your Lordships and the country whether I have not a right to expect at the hands of that Minister some declaration, some statement, when on the 7th of this month he made a declaration that he could no longer carry on the affairs of the Government with honour to the Crown, or with security to the interests and the welfare of the country? One of two things is clear: either there has been an abandonment of principle on the part of the Government, or on the part of some portion of its supporters; for the Government is, we know, supported by three distinct parties. There is one party which I hope—and, my Lords, I still cling to the hope as the only one in which I see the future safety of the country—the hope that, although I think that they are greatly mistaken in many of their political opinions, and the principles which they advocate—yet I hope and I believe that there is one large portion of the noble Viscount's supporters who are constitutionally attached to the institutions of the country. But, my Lords, there is another party, the members of which have openly declared, that they are bent on revolutionizing the country, and overturning the form of monarchial government under which England has been so happily governed, and which has given to the people of this country the greatest extent of civil and religious liberty that has ever blessed any nation,
1160
There is a certain portion of those to whom political power has been conceded belonging to the Roman Catholic church—and my Lords, I give them credit for it—for if I were a conscientious member of that church, I should feel bound to do the same—who use all their power, and exert themselves to the utmost, for the restoration, not only of religious, but civil power to that church. My Lords, I may be mistaken, but I think that the Chartists in England will be found hereafter to have been allowed to go too far. I believe there is an organised confederacy going on throughout this country to render the people of England disaffected, and to bring them into a state of revolution. My Lords, when such a spirit is showing itself, we ought to have a firm, constitutional, and united Government; but not supported, as the noble Viscount and his colleagues were supported, by men who advocate opinions and measures that must prove detrimental, not merely to the peace and tranquillity of this country, but to the peace of Europe. My Lords, I deeply regret the advice which was offered by the noble Viscount to his Sovereign upon a misunderstanding on the part of the Sovereign, which led, I will say, to the downfall, or rather which prevented the formation, of a Government which, I believe, would have discharged ably, honestly, and constitutionally, the duty of governing the affairs of this country. I say, again, that I have no party but my country, and the measures which I advocate have but one object, and that is the general welfare and happiness of the country to which I am most devotedly attached. But if our situation is such, that a Minister of the Crown comes one day and makes a declaration that he no longer possesses the confidence of the representatives of the people so as to carry into execution those measures which he thinks absolutely necessary for the welfare and security of the country. I do say, that the time has arrived when I may fairly and constitutionally, in the name of the people of England, call for an explanation from the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and ask him to state why he is better prepared now, and better able to carry on the affairs of the Government, than he was a few days since.
Viscount Melbourne.My Lords, the observations which the noble Earl has made, render it necessary for me to take up your

1161
Lordships' time, for a very short period, with the few remarks I have to make in consequence of those observations. I certainly entirely admit that the noble Earl, and the House in general, and the country also, have a perfect right to expect from me an explanation of those circumstances to which the noble Earl has adverted; but, my Lords, I think, considering the whole of the speech of the noble Earl, and considering the whole of the circumstances he has stated, that I have already given to your Lordships that explanation. I have already stated to your Lordships the grounds of my resignation; these grounds have been perfectly well understood, and completely apprehended, and most distinctly and accurately stated, by the noble Earl. I stated, also, very shortly, very plainly, and very distinctly, those circumstances which induced me to resume the situation which I hold—circumstances which have been already discussed in both Houses of Parliament, and to which I will not again advert, but circumstances which allow me to say in the continued existence of the state of things which caused my resignation, notwithstanding the continuance of the difficulties by which the Government was surrounded, yet circumstances of such a nature as made it impossible for me with a due regard to the interests of the country, which made it impossible for me as a man of honour, and a man of feeling, to act in any other manner than I have done. My Lords, this is the explanation which I have to give of the conduct which I have pursued, I am prepared to admit that the difficulties with which I had to contend, as far as I know, are still undiminished; sure I am, that they have not been diminished by any abandonment of principle on my side, and sure I am that the Government will not be conducted on other principles than those on which I understood it was originally formed, and on which it has been throughout conducted. Those principles are principles unquestionably of progressive reform, adopting every measure that is for the good and the advantage of the country; but, certainly I never have been, nor am I now for purchasing or obtaining support by bringing forward or supporting measures contrary to my opinions, or contrary to my conscience. That is what I understand to be the general principle on which the present Government is founded. I am not myself
1162
a very great friend to declarations of general principles on the part of Government. They are so extremely obvious, and in themselves so very universal, as in fact to be admitted and professed by every Government, and they have the disadvantage of being interpreted by every body according to his feelings, and according to his own wishes and opinions, and often produce subsequent difficulty and subsequent embarrassment, and subsequent disappointment. I am, therefore, perhaps lot a friend to such general statements, but at the same time I admit, upon an occasion like the present, that it is perfectly necessary. As the noble Earl has stated, that some declaration of this nature should be made, I think upon a former occasion stated that there were censures to which I was differently sensitive, but I think I am the most sensitive of all to the censure of having deceived any one, or of having given a notion that I professed opinions which I did not really hold and maintain. That cannot, I trust, be said of me. My opinion on most of those subjects and principles, the discussion of which agitates the public mind, are perfectly well known. They were perfectly well known in 1835, just as well known as they are at present. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to declare or repeat them on the present occasion. I can only say, that to all those measures of Reform which I conceive to be really measures of Reform, I am a warm and an anxious friend, but I am not prepared to adopt measures contrary to my feelings, contrary to my opinions, contrary to my conscience, for the sake of obtaining any support which they might obtain. The noble Earl has adverted to the difficulties with which this country is surrounded, both internally and externally. I do not mean to extenuate the difficulties that prevail even in this country. I do not mean to extenuate the danger that exists from the feeling of disorder and tumult that has been raised and is existing within the bosom of this country. I conceive that at the present time, at which I, like others, have not been an, inattentive observer of the feelings of the people, there is something of a nature that is new; there is a symptom at the present day, I know not whether more or less dangerous, that whereas in former times those designs were always glossed over with something of an intended measure of reform and remedy; in the present

1163
day there has been unquestionably at public meetings, and upon the part of persons of no small influence and no small power, open professions of an intention to plunder, violence, and bloodshed. I know not as I before said, whether this be more or less dangerous; I trust it is less dangerous, because if it be more dangerous I must suppose that this country is infected to its core, and that it is impossible almost to hope for salvation in any course of measures that can be adopted, I admit my Lords, that there are great difficulties also of a foreign and external nature—difficulties which have been adverted to by the noble Earl, and which necessarily call for your Lordships' serious attention and consideration. There are difficulties in many parts of the great and extended empire which has been committed to your Lordships' guidance, various parts of which are actuated by a discontented feeling, and the seeds of disorder must necessarily be expected to be germinated and to show themselves. A great change has lately taken place in the constitution of this country; yes, my Lords, a very great change has taken place of late years in the constitution of this country, a change which has excited very considerable alarm in the minds of many who have had great experience and great knowledge of public affairs. What, my Lords, was the opinion of one of the ablest and most experienced statesmen in Europe with respect to—those changes? Why, that they might do very well for times of peace—for times of tranquillity—for times when there is no great financial difficulty; but let difficulties arise, let us be involved in war, let us find the pressure of pecuniary difficulty, and we should see how our new constitution would work. My Lords, the remedy for that danger, if danger there be—must be found in the prudence, the wisdom, the firmness of Parliament; in the entire absence of party, and in the manner in which Parliament discharges its duty, I trust and hope that the expectations which I have referred to will be disappointed, and that those changes in our constitution will be found to act well at all times, and that we shall be prepared and ready to meet all exigencies and all difficulties; but unless there are wisdom and firmness on the part of Parliament, and on the part of the people, prudence and a due regard to common sense, unquestionably it will not
1164
be easy to obviate the difficulties in which in the opinion of some, the country is exposed. My Lords, I have stated the reasons why I have resumed the Government, and, in fact, I have, I believe, essentially and virtually answered the questions that have been put to me by the noble Earl. With respect to the result of what has taken place, I am anxious, undoubtedly for the great interests committed for the present to my charge—I am anxious for the sake of the country, but with respect to myself I am very little anxious. With respect to the country in general, I know not who are the persons best fitting for the exercise of power within it. It is represented by Bishop Burnet in a conversation which he had with King William, a man of the greatest prudence, and of a most impartial mind, that King William said, "I am considering the question between a republican and a monarchial government, and I do not know which is best. I think a great deal is to be said on both sides; I think a great deal may be said for one as well as the other, but though I cannot tell which is the best, I can tell which is the worst, and that is a monarchy, which has not the power to carry into effect those measures which are necessary." I am sure, my Lords, I do not know which is the best ministry, or which is the worst in itself considered; but this I do know, that unquestionably the worst ministry is that which does not possess sufficient of the confidence of Parliament and the country to take those measures which are necessary for the safety of the country, but f trust, that for the benefit of the country, if there is a deficiency in that respect, the wisdom and prudence of Parliament and of the country at large will remedy the defect.
Lord Brougham,My Lords, many considerations well nigh dissuade me from taking any part in the discussion which has arisen; the part which I have always taken in common with my noble Friends near me, upon almost every occasion joining with them the habits of official intercourse which for four years prevailed between us, the long and sincere personal friendship which has attached me to them, and which still unites me with them, unbroken by the incidental circumstance of my having ceased to be in office with them, unimpaired by any political differences that have arisen within the last two

1165
years; but my devotion to what I deem the service of my country, my deep sense of those interests, which I firmly believe to be nearly touched by the present position of the administration, my anxiety to discharge my public duty, without regard to any personal hazards or feelings, have overcome those motives which would have imposed silence upon me, for those motives have been greatly increased by the singular peculiarity of our present position, which, though not adverted to by my noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne), formed the sole subject of the observations and statement of the noble Duke opposite, on the occasion to which my noble Friend has referred the noble Earl, as one in which he gave, as he flatters himself, a complete and satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon in the political world of which he is the subject, and on which the noble Earl is the commentator; but with that, a peculiarity has been mixed up, and studiously mixed up, by all my noble Friend's supporters out of doors, by all the Ministerial Members who have addressed their constituents, by all the most powerful of the Ministerial supporters in both parts of the empire, who have addressed large bodies of their fellow citizens, and all without exception tending to augment the difficulties, and to exacerbate the feelings of the people, as all those exertions and efforts to support and prop up a falling administration have uniformly centered, had their beginning, continuance, and ending, in one topic, and in one topic only; not a measure, not a principle, not an opinion; not anything that has been done in Parliament, not any course of measures or policy professed to be pursued henceforth in Parliament, but the name of the Sovereign of these realms has been put forward as their only argument; it has been brought out and tendered to the country in lieu of all explanation, and the private, individual, personal feelings of that illustrious Princess have been made the topic of every riotous meeting after meeting, of every still worse meeting of mobs, and of all the demagogues who have set to work to support a sinking administration. They have nothing to say of themselves; they have no measures to promise; they have no fence of their policy to make, but the cry of "The Queen! the Queen! the Queen!" The feelings of their Royal Mistress, the bedchamber quarrel with respect to promo-
1166
tion, and to sum up all in one word, and that fairly and impartially in the words of a friend of mine, but no kinsman; but of a friend of my noble Friend and his kinsman also, his private Secretary and nephew, who stated that Sir R. Peel's formation of a government was defeated by two ladies of the bedchamber. I know that those feelings are natural in men and women, and I know that an appeal to such feelings in this country is never made in vain, but I also know, that at this moment I feel deeply impressed, though not oppressed, when I think that the discharge of my public duty is trebly difficult to me without incurring the hazard of giving offence elsewhere in a high quarter; for that is the unfair, the unmanly nature of the question; and we are called upon to discuss great questions of State, to consult touching the affairs of the whole realm which is committed to the care of the Queen, and at the same time we are called upon to discuss them upon terms, for so the issue is put, which makes whoever doubts or dissents from Government, incur the hazard of being taken to make a personal, invidious, and offensive opposition to the Sovereign. As I know my own heart on this question, as one of those servants who are most devoted to her service, and who feels the most profound veneration for that illustrious Princess, because I entertain feelings of the deepest gratitude for those kind acts of condescension with which from her and her illustrious family I have uniformly, without the slightest interruption for one instant, I have ever been received; I know, because I do not feel anything that a man ought not at once openly and publicly avow upon this delicate and painful topic; and I also know, that there is so much justice, so much kindliness of feeling, so much inflexible can dour and integrity swaying the royal bosom, that my motives have no risk of being misconstrued, and that the mean and dastardly attempt to mix up this question, not indeed in the case of my noble Friend, but in the case of many of his supporters out of doors; I say I am absolutely certain, that as far as I am concerned that attempt will fail. Yes, that attempt will fail in the high quarter' towards which it was on the one hand pointed, and that it will fail in another—it will fail if it was meant to deter me as well as others from the discharge of a public constitutional duty. He en-

1167
tirely agreed with the noble Viscount that general avowals of principle made by men possessed of the powers of Government were not greatly to be commended. His noble Friend illustrated the position in his own practice; his avowal was in fact little better than nothing—a mere vague, fruitless, useless generality, and might be made by one man just as well as another. There was not a single word in it which he, although differing in some material points from his noble Friend, could not have altered—not one word which the noble Duke, or his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), though differing still more from the noble Viscount, could not have re-echoed. What was the noble Viscount's profession of his principles? "I am a friend," said the noble Viscount, "to all progressive improvement;" who ever heard of any one getting up and saying, "I am a friend of all retrograde movement." "Then," said his noble Friend, "I am a friend of all safe measures of reformation, if you will only prove them to be such;" would not the noble Duke say the very same thing? "I am a friend of all measures of reformation which you can prove useful and safe." Then came the qualification, and each would just add the same qualification, which told them absolutely nothing—"I am against giving up my conscientious opinions on important questions in order to conciliate any support." Really he believed anything more safe or more simple than this kind of political placebo never was heard of being administered to a deliberative assembly. It happened, with respect to the great political questions that occupied men out of the House at the present day, that the noble Viscount had left them at the close of his statement precisely as they were at the commencement. The noble Earl opposite put a question to the noble Viscount and expressed a hope, that it would be satisfactorily answered. Now, he must say, that he never heard a question, that was more plain or more easily to be answered, if an answer was to be given, but he had never yet heard an answer that answered so little. The question was precisely where it was. As to the future conduct of the Government, it was left precisely in the same state of doubt in which it had been before his noble Friend addressed their Lordships. He now, however, came to a different ground—it was
1168
one, that had been adverted to by his noble Friend, who had spoken that night of the great difficulties with which the country was surrounded; his noble Friend had referred to their external relations, and to the difficulties that presented themselves at home in many of the manufacturing districts— to the difficulties they had to encounter in the colonies—in more colonies than one; but then he had said on the 7th of May, that though those difficulties were various, there were none of them which a vigorous Government might not conquer. His noble Friend had not that night disavowed this opinion, he had marked his observations, as he believed, that it was supposed, that he had disavowed them, but, he must say, that he did not think, that his noble Friend had differed in his statement that night, from the statement he had made on a former occasion. But then his noble Friend had expressed an opinion which his noble Friends and he, knew was entertained by men of very great weight, and of high authority as statesmen both at home and abroad. They had both thought and said this—he knew it perhaps better than his noble Friend, that their new constitution, as they called it, of 1831, might do very well for fair weather; but, that it might be a very different thing if a tempest had burst against the constitution, either in a foreign war, or in domestic convulsion, and above all, in a pecuniary convulsion; and something had been said by his noble Friend, which showed, that he was rather of that opinion himself. If such was the case, then he was of a different opinion. It was a matter of faith with him, that the new and the reformed constitution was as well fitted for the storm as the calm. Upon that subject he had long and deeply considered, as far as he could go deeply into a question, and the opinion at which he had arrived was this, that they might entertain no doubt, hesitation, apprehension, or alarm whatever. He said, that if it were good for the calm, it was yet better for the tempest. He said, that in smooth water, the vessel which was well trimmed, and well found, and well manned, and all her rigging tight, and all her timbers sound, by having with her the hearts of the people, and the goodwill of the constituents in the other House, and the good inclination of their fellow subjects in this House, was still better in the tempest, where the more stress was laid on

1169
the sails, for then the rigging and the timbers, and the repairs which they had made, and the bold hands they had placed in her, would prove, when there was a necessity for their exertions, and when they were most wanted, that they would not shrink; and those repairs would become the more invaluable, because they were the more necessary when the storm began to beat against the bark of the constitution. He knew he did not share this opinion with a majority of their Lordships he feared he hardly shared it with his noble Friend himself. But, however that might be, he perceived by the ominous silence of those who surrounded him, that his noble Friends who used, in former times, when it served the purposes of the hour, now participated in the opinion, though they were then the great advocates and the leading assertors of reform doctrines. He was afraid, that that was the case. He hoped it was not so, and that he was, in entertaining the opinions he had expressed, not to stand almost solitary in that House, when he declared, that he looked for the safety of the country under the Reform Bill which they had passed five or six years ago. But let that be as it might, he stood undismayed—his position might be displeasing, but to him it was not new; he had frequently stood up alone in that House, when a measure was proposed in it, to oppose it. There were many occasions on which he was not supported that he believed others were now sorry they had not supported him at the time. There was, for instance, the Canada question, on which, if he had been supported, he believed matters would not have gone to their present length; but of that enough for the present. The opinion to which he steadily stood, was this, that if the Reform constitution was good for ordinary occasions, it was still better for such occasions as his noble Friend had adverted to; although, God forbid, that either should live to see the day in which the bitter calamities should occur, in which they must have the full experience of its efficacy. He felt, he must say, that an answer should be given to his noble Friend's observations, when he said, that there were difficulties existing abroad and at home, in the colonies and the mother country, which did require a Government that was deserving the name of a Government, which, in order to grapple with all these difficulties ought to have the confi-
1170
dence of the Houses of Parliament; and this brought him to the question, which had been put to him by his noble Friend. How did it happen, that his noble Friend in that House, and another noble Friend in the other House of Parliament, should have declared, that they had lost the confidence of Parliament, that they had lost the confidence of the other House of Parliament, and that as to this House, as they never had possessed, they could not lose it, and that they had no hopes of being supported in the country, or they should have had recourse to the usual expedient in such cases; but, having lost the confidence of all, they had the undoubted support of the Crown; and thus they determined, that for these reasons, and under these circumstances, they gave up the Government surrounded with difficulties both at home and abroad. This happened on the 7th of May, and then on the 13th of May, or it might be the 14th—upon that very day week, his noble Friend in the very same place came forward and stated, that notwithstanding all he had said the week before, he was about to resume the Government, and therefore meant to ask of the House to adjourn for ten or twelve days. Many thought, and he was amongst the number, that when in the middle of the Session, and when hardly any business had been done, and when it was so much out of the ordinary course, the Whitsun holidays generally lasting but for two days, and one day for the birth-day, that asking for so long an adjournment must betoken the intention of considering the constitution of the Government, or of altering its policy; and as they had lost the confidence of a great part of their supporters, they were about to occupy a week in taking measures to restore their confidence, or of appealing to the country. He no more doubted this, than that he heard the question put from the Woolsack. Their Lordships would never have consented to the adjournment, except it was with the supposition, that it was to afford time for making a new Government. Then there would be a good reason for it, as, in that case the necessity was urgent, but if after a Government had been made, if it continued as it was before the crisis took place, he did not see why there ought to have been the delay of ten or twelve days. The delay must have been either for the Government to alter the course of proceeding—perhaps to alter its constitution, or to

1171
enable its supporters out of doors to get up an outcry—to raise a clamour—to make an appeal to the ignorant mob, to make an appeal to that mob who were naturally not very knowing in those matters, and to urge and enforce such an appeal to them, by the grossest and most scandalous misrepresentations, and he could conceive that by such unworthy means an attempt would be made by those who could not gain the confidence of Parliament, to obtain at least, by delusion, the confidence of a part of the country. This was a very intelligible, though not a very creditable course of proceeding. It was not, he was sure, the intention of Government! They must have had some other object! But although that was not their intention, still that was the way in which the ten or twelve days had been so used by their supporters. Meetings were got up in all the corporate towns, and in the counties. There were meetings of all the corporations, beginning with the towns of Liverpool and ending with that of the common council of the day before. The battle had been fought throughout the land—it had been fought everywhere, and with various success. The noble Duke opposite, who knew more of these contests, might not say with various success; for he must say that he never knew a cry raised upon any public occasion which failed more signally than this. At Liverpool, a person arrived the same night on which the Government was restored, and he declared they were about to call upon their former supporters—that they were about to propose a new set of measures, and to throw overboard for ever the finality doctrine, and to look only to the progressive doctrine of reform. Upon this assertion they held a meeting at Liverpool, they voted an address, and at the same time they said to their informant, "if we are deceived, you shall see what you shall see." The person who said this was one of very great note, of very great ignorance, or of very great fancy. It was true that his hon. Friend had seen a deputation, but then he had given them no answer. Then, any thing more untrue than that on which the Liverpool address was founded there could not be. As to Yorkshire and other parts of the country, he had the authority of a noble Friend of his—a Whig, too, and a supporter of the present Government—who declared to him that "he never knew ouch a failure in the country." How had
1172
these attempts at excitement been made? The ten imes reported falsehoods, ten times distinctly contradicted, ten times amply and intelligibly exposed by statements, the real truth of which could not be controverted—all these falsehoods were brought forward—all truths were perverted, that they all might reproduce ten thousand shoots of lesser fabrications; and upon them were grafted slanders the most despicable, though the most ridiculous and contemptible, and which surpassed all the tricks of all former factious proceedings; and yet not the less indecent, because they depicted the malignant, false, and corrupt nature in those who would make them the subject of their discourse or in those who could patiently sit and listen to them. He deeply regretted that he had lived to see the day when a great name should be mixed up with such falsehoods; it showed him, for the second time. what he had once before told their Lordships, that common reason, and common sense, and common charity, were no longer to be found hereditary in families which in former periods of their history were illustrious for all that reason and sense, and charitable and kindly feeling, with which man's nature can be adorned; and which were combined with that genius and that spotless integrity which once made the name of Henry Grattan to shine with surprising brilliancy and lustre. But he should say no more of slanders, which might be ascribed to weak tempers and to weak minds. He should no further assail them; but there were others for whom, neither on account of past or of present time, did he feel any such sentiments of tenderness or pity. He warned his noble Friends who would not give up their conscientious opinions to win support from others, that they ought now, for their own sakes, plainly to express their disgust at these things; he warned them not to suppress their feelings with respect to such baseness from any fear of losing any of their supporters. Let them, he said, be well advised, that if they persisted in treating with such persons, they would themselves be deserted—that if they truckled to such persons, they would be themselves abandoned; that if they associated with such persons, they would be despised; that if they promoted them, they would be opposed; that if they contaminated the bench with them, they would be impeached. The honest and the manly course was

1173
open to them. He knew the difficulties of their situation; but then they ought to refuse from calumniators the hateful and foul offerings of their praises—they ought not to join hands with those whose contact must contaminate them—they should prefer hostility to support from certain quarters—and think an alliance more dangerous than the hostility of those whose fulsome flattery it was harder to bear than their foul abuse; for such was the feeling of the sensible and honest portion of the community, that the slaver was more pernicious than the tooth. Then he came again and he asked the question, after having dwelt upon the history of the last twelve days, and the failure of the attempt which had been made, he put the question of the noble Earl, which had not yet been answered. What was there now, on the 31st of May to show that the Ministers had more of the confidence of the House and the country than they had on the 7th of May, when they resigned? That was the question which was yet to be answered. He was most anxious to see an end to the finality doctrine, which had occasioned his opposition to the Government. He was anxious again to extend to them the right hand of fellowship, and to co-operate with them for he had never ceased to be their friend personally. He had that feeling, and it was that which induced him to hope that they really did mean to make such a change in their policy. He knew that supporters of theirs, at the meeting he referred to, had made a statement to that effect, and that Lord John Russell, the great supporter of the finality principle, was about to retire—never was there so foul a slander as that which thus referred to Lord John Russell; for if there were a stout Reformer in the cabinet, Lord John Russell was that Reformer. There was not one of the colleagues of Lord John Russell who did not participate in his opinions upon the finality principle. They were, he was sure, too manly to deny this. He knew the fact of his own knowledge—he first of all heard it from those who had it from themselves; besides, if these were not their opinions, they ought to have said so, and not to have let him over and over again charge them with agreeing with Lord John Russell, and never once giving an explanation. The fact, however, could not be denied, that the whole of the cabinet was of the same opinion with Lord John Russell, with re-
1174
spect to the finality principle. But then they might have abandoned that opinion; they might have reconsidered it. He hoped and prayed that they might abandon it, and he knew, and so did every noble Lord in that House know, that such was the strong feeling of Reformers, who had fought in the same ranks with them. Such was his and their hopes; but they had been dashed by the opinions and the generalities which they had heard that night. Nevertheless, he lived in hopes that they would be speedily brought to bear. It was on this account that he supposed that Ministers themselves would have been led to consider the basis on which their new Government was to be placed; for new it was to be called, on account of their former declaration, that they had lost the confidence of Parliament, and therefore were to stand upon a totally different foundation; and he was quite sure that it would be a constitutional one. This he supposed; for, from all he had ever heard or dreamt of, he never thought of any, and above all, a Whig Government, standing upon such a one as the present—namely, a bed-chamber question—a question of personal feeling towards the Sovereign; or that they should have resolutions calling upon them to stand by their Sovereign, and attacking others for attacking the Sovereign, and a rallying cry to defend their Sovereign. That was the ground for resuming office, upon which the Government now stood, and it was, too, upon that ground they appealed to the country for support. One of the first falsehoods in support of this plan, which was spread all over the country, had been this, that an attempt had been made by Sir Robert Peel, to deprive her Majesty of all her ladies of all kinds. He had seen this over and over again stated, and anything more false or more foul, had never been uttered or printed. There had been a misapprehension in the breast of the Sovereign, which his noble Friend had admitted; but what was the advantage of satisfactorily contradicting it in Parliament, when they saw a Ministerial Member declaring in public, that an attempt had been made to violate the sanctuary of the Sovereign, and to drive from her all her ladies? There was, too, another falsehood circulated, which was calculated to produce a deep impression in England. "Only think," it was said, "of those politicians (meaning their opponents) who want to take from

1175
the Queen the society of her earliest friends —those friends who were attached to her in childhood—who watched over her in her sickness—who cheered her, and made her happy in her hours of health, and who were her old and constant companions." Her gracious Majesty was now about nineteen years of age, or near twenty, and how many years did they suppose these old, and constant, and tender companions were known to her? Exactly one year—so that they were eighteen years unacquainted with her, and during all that time not one of them had approached her. Now if there had been one man, woman, or child, whose feelings had been excited by the statement of the alleged misconduct of noble Lords opposite, there had been one hundred, one thousand, aye, ten thousand amongst the younger persons especially, whose feelings had been excited by this appeal to the public, and by the statement of this outrage upon the feelings of a young lady, in taking from her her dearest friends, her youngest companions, and her oldest acquaintances. And yet it was all fancy, it was all a fabrication—and there was not a shadow of truth in it. There was no one who would stand up in that House, and declare that it was ever the intention to have removed any one who had associated with her Majesty for two years. But then it might be said in the removal of some, why not allow the lady of the noble Marquess, and the two sisters of a noble Friend of his, the Secretary for Ireland, why not suffer them to remain? They might have remained: all that was stipulated for was, the power of removing them. Another doctrine had, upon this subject, been broached, which was quite new, unheard-of, and monstrous; but the object of which was perfectly obvious. It was said, that it would be a natural arrangement, to have one set of men in office, and another set of women in office also. And this doctrine was reserved for the year 1839—it was reserved, too, for the Whigs, who, in 1812, had maintained an opposite opinion, and who had refused to come into office, because lords of the bedchamber were to be retained by the Sovereign. This was certainly an extraordinary position; but it threw a new light upon the formation of a Government —that when Ministers say they resigned, it meant only, that the husbands were to resign, and the wives would not act in conformity with them, for they would not resign—that the half was to go
1176
out, and the "better half" to remain in, and that in a Government coming down and saying "we only are in office until our successors are appointed," was to mean that "we are only out of office until our wives and sisters prevent those who might be our successors from forming a Government." It was really a painful thing to be called upon to discuss a subject with which ladies were mixed up; but it had become a state question; the ladies of the bedchamber had been converted into a political engine, they had been made the pivot upon which the Ministry was to turn. A ministry was no longer to be formed as the wisdom of Parliament should require, since the ladies of the bedchamber might stand in the way of those in whom the Parliament might confide. Those ladies had ceased to be the mere companions of the Sovereign's private life, they had become an engine of the state, they had actually become statesmen, though not clothed in male attire, and stood between the wishes of Parliament and the granting of those wishes. If it had not been for this part of the case, he should have felt it his duty to maintain that silence upon the present occasion which he had willingly observed when the original discussion took place. But the question was a constitutional one; there were grave matters mixed up with it: it had great constitutional bearings, and was connected with many and serious consequences. Entertaining a much stronger opinion than King William did in favour of our ancient monarchy, contrasted with other forms of Government, he would willingly be relieved from the necessity of comparing them. This, however, he would say of our constitution, that it was a perfectly justifiable ground for a Government in office to remain in office if that Government held opinions consistently with the opinions of Parliament. But if the two Houses differed, it was equally justifiable and constitutional to remove a Government upon the ground of not having the confidence of both Houses of Parliament. The remedy was an appeal to the people. If the House of Lords differed from the House of Commons, and that the Sovereign, not remaining as a cipher—a doctrine for which no one had a greater contempt than he had, for the Sovereign by remaining a cipher, in his opinion, ceased to be a monarch —but in the exercise of that discretion and high prerogative with which the Crown was invested, agreed with the

1177
House of Commons and differed from the House of Lords—if that difference was upon a trifling matter, the Government could proceed; if it was upon an important matter, the course was equally plain, because the constitution had chalked it out, namely, to dissolve the House of Commons, and if upon a new election it was clearly shown that a decided majority adhered to the Commons and differed from the Lords, then would he say, that according to the constitution of the country the Lords must give way to the Crown and the people, otherwise the monarchy could not be called a limited monarchy. That, however, was not the position in which they were now in. There was no difference between the two Houses of Parliament. Neither had confidence in his noble Friend's Government. Both desired a change, by both was his noble Friend abandoned, or of one at least had his noble Friend lost the confidence, and of the other he never had any to lose. His noble Friend's Government had not lost the confidence of the Sovereign; that was all; but upon what ground he should like to know was it that that confidence seemed of so much more value on Monday the 14th of May, than it did on Monday the 7th of May? Upon what ground was it that that continued, but not increased confidence, enabled the present Government to carry on the business of the country in the face of the two Houses of Parliament? That was a question which remained to be answered. Was it come to this, that the Parliament and the country was bound to yield to the caprice of the Ministers? It was not the caprice of Parliament, Parliament could have no caprice; it was "the wisdom" of Parliament. Then it might be the caprice of the Sovereign. He knew it was not. He had the honour of knowing that illustrious individual from her earliest childhood, and he unhesitatingly asserted that there never was a person having less of caprice than that illustrious Princess. Now, if they supposed the Sovereign to say, "I don't care for the House of Lords, I don't care for the House of Commons, I don't care for the country, not a jot, and I insist upon keeping in my Ministers, because I will not part with those two ladies of my bedchamber," then their Lordships would be supposing that position of things which they were now gravely told was the case by the existing Government. That was their case, that was their
1178
representation, stripped of all those exaggerations and falsehoods which had been grafted upon it—the real unmingled and unadulterated statement of the constitutional principles and the constitutional conduct which his noble Friend had to lay before Parliament that evening. This was new, this was portentous, this was strange and uncouth language to address to Parliament. He had thought they belonged to a country in which the Government by the Crown and the wisdom of Parliament were everything, and the personal feelings of the Sovereign absolutely not to be named at the same time, to be named certainly in connexion with personal matters, to be named upon all things which belonged to mere individual topics, to be kindly treated, to be most respectfully venerated, to be touched with a most tender, cautious, and thrilling hand, but never to be allowed to interfere with the sober judgment of Parliament, to countervail the highest interests of the state, to regulate or guide the Government, or to sway the state affairs of this realm. That was the language of the constitution. If it was not, then he would say that they did not live under a limited, but under an absolute, monarchy; that they had an absolute monarchy clothed in the form of a representative government, which had become a mere pageant, and an useless and insulting mockery. He little thought he should have been obliged, in this advanced period of our history, to argue this question, and argue it, too, with Whigs, with the kinsmen, the descendants, the representatives of the Ministers, or rather of those who, because they would not subscribe to this creed, refused to be the Ministers of 1812. He little thought he should have lived to hear it said by the Whigs of 1839, "Let us rally round the Queen; never mind the House of Commons; never mind measures; throw principles to the wind; abandon opinions; leave pledges unredeemed; quarrel with your supporters in both Houses of Parliament, but for God's sake rally round the Throne; the Princess who fills it deserves to be the object of your reverence and respect, and whatever pleases the Princess let it be the law of the land." He was old enough to recollect that in the reign of George 3rd, who had swayed the sceptre of these realms with undiminished popularity, or rather with a popularity which increased with his years, he (Lord

1179
Brougham) had regarded with the greatest contempt the principle of those noble Lords opposite, which showed itself in the constant attempts to cover their failures by appeals to the "good old King." If they were at an election, and no man suffered more from elections at that period than he did, the usual cry was, "Oh, never mind the Catholic question, never mind reform, go for the good old King, who is broken down with sickness, who is labouring under a load of years, and who has reigned over you for half a century." "This is his jubilee year." The Walcheren expedition and the jubilee coincided in time, but the "good old King" was the stalking-horse for all failures. But it was not the Whigs who did that; for if there was one thing more than another of which the Whigs then expressed their abhorrence, it was of that appeal to the "good old King," which they condemned and ridiculed as hypocritical, because they knew what was meant by "my good old King;" they knew very well that it meant "my good old pension," and "my excellent old place." That "God save the King" meant" God save my pension;" and that "give me a long-lived king," meant "give me a long-lived Minister, who will give me a better pension and a larger place than I now have." Such were almost the words of Mr. Tierney on one occasion, when a Speaker in the other House was talking of nothing but the "good old King," It was during the discussions on the regency, and Mr. Tierney remarked "I dare say, if the Prince of Wales was on the Throne, we should have nothing but ' the good young Prince.' And if, unhappily, anything should befal that illustrious personage, so that the Princess Charlottee should succeed, we should hear equally repeated 'the good interesting young Princess."' Little did he then think that the day would come when he should hear almost those very words, not from the unconstitutional, place-loving, place-hunting, King-loving Tories—the absolute-monarchy-loving Tories, who thought that the public was made for the King, and not the King for the public; but from the Whigs themselves, the colleagues, successors, and kindred of his noble Friend, the former head of the Government, and of the other distinguished chiefs of the party. It might be thought, but most erroneously that ridicule on this subject
1180
was inconsistent with argument. But jest and ridicule only could be effective to show the grossness and glaring nature of the inconsistency which had been exhibited in this matter. It was a most serious and important topic, and he would continue a minute or two longer upon it. What was the consequence of the present state of things. The Government had resumed office—not because they had regained the confidence of Parliament, but because the Queen would not change two ladies of her bedchamber. They said, "let the Government stand by the Queen, though without the confidence of Parliament." Would standing by the Queen get back the confidence of Parliament? He did not believe a word of it. Was there the slightest difference in the state of parties, persons, and measures, which had dictated the withdrawal of that confidence. He said no. The attempt to pass a falsehood upon the public had signally failed. He believed, indeed, that it had succeeded a little more than the noble Duke supposed it had; for he seemed to think that the conflict on this point had been carried on not dubio marte, but with the utter repulse and discomfiture of those who attempted to propagate the falsehood. But in its main purpose it had failed. The truth was known. The proceedings in Parliament had opened the eyes of all men to the fact that a change of measures was the only alternative—that nothing but a change of measures could win back to the Government the support they had lost. But where was the Government? where was the state? what became of the sum of affairs while the Government was trying to fish for support—while they were baiting their hooks. The Jamaica Bill, which was said to be a most important measure, was brought forward. The Government staked their existence upon it. They were not able to carry it, and therefore, they conceived they had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. They thought that measure one of paramount necessity. Was it less necessary now? They had not changed their opinion. They had given up their measure, but they retained the same opinion. His hon. Friend in the other House who brought forward the new measure had, as he was informed, said that he retained the same opinion that the other was the right measure. It' the other was the right measure, this was the wrong

1181
measure; if it was not right to adopt this, it was wrong to abandon the other. Oh! but that was altered. The Jamaica policy was to be new-fashioned—principles were to be given up, and measures abandoned, and all was to be completely changed, because of—two ladies of the bedchamber. If the case was ludicrous, it was not his fault. He was stating the case of the Government in their own language—they said they would not adopt a measure or join in a vote contrary to their conscience—they would not adopt a Jamaica Bill contrary to their principles. But they gave up the right measures contrary to their opinions and conscientious convictions. And why? Not because their opinions had changed, or conscience seared, or their minds favoured with any new light since the 7th of May, but because of a squabble in the bedchamber—about the appointment of two ladies. Canada was a most important matter. It was referred to in the speech at the beginning of the session, and they had heard something since of measures on the subject, but not much. They had received a message from the Crown, recommending as a matter of necessity, attention to the affairs of Canada on a basis pointed out. He had put a question on this subject to his noble Friend the other night, and the answer —a not very satisfactory one—which he received was, that measures were preparing, and would be produced, unless circumstances occurred to prevent their being brought forward. Did not every man who had eyes to see what those circumstances were—not the circumstances of Canada, not the merits of the case, nothing in the measure itself, but—the ladies of the bedchamber. It was a question of court intrigue, how the Government would be best able to weather the storm, and if they thought they could whether the storm better by leaving out Canada than by taking it up, they would leave it out. There were other measures of great importance. Ireland for instance, called for attention, [A noble Earl—the Chartists]. He must relieve the noble Earl opposite of any apprehension of any connexion between the Chartists and the Ribbonmen. He had sat many weeks on the Irish Committee, and he could assure the noble Earl that he might repose on the most perfect comfort on this head, for he never knew of a more dreamy and baseless notion than that of a connexion
1182
between the Chartists and the Ribbonmen. He did not mean to say, that the Chartists were to be despised, or that Ribbonism did not exist, or that it ought to be despised. Far from it. But there was no connection whatever between them. If there was any relation, it was of opposition and hostility. Besides these things, there was the state of our colonial and foreign policy, which required a certain activity, a certain vigour on the part of the Government, and, therefore, a certain strength. Was the Government, now stronger to negociate with the Legislature of the island of Jamaica, after having been driven from the Jamaica Bill? Rather the contrary. Was it a temptation to slacken opposition to the second measure, that the opposition to the first had been successful? Was the self-stultification of the Government in announcing, that they had lost the confidence of Parliament likely to overawe the Colonial Assembly? He, humble individual as he was, and not knowing the whole mystery of Court intrigue, should think not. Then, with respect to foreign affairs, and this was a part of the subject which gave him the deepest concern; it was the first time in the history of this country, at all events, since the revolution of 1688, that it had ever been avowed—publicly and openly avowed—and by the liberal and constitutional party too, the Whig party, the framers of the constitution of 1688, that the Crown was everything and the Parliament and the people nothing. When he (Lord Brougham) said, in his place on the 20th of December, 1837, on the question of the civil list, that he was very averse to the unconstitutional use of the Queen's name, which had recently come into vogue by Whig lips, his noble Friend used some very remarkable expressions at that time. He said, as to the provision for the Crown, that he hoped he should never see the day when the resources of the Crown and its substantive and independent power, as a separate part of the monarchy, should be put forward against, or brought into any contact or collision with the other constitutional estates of the realm. But had not the Crown been recently so thrust forward? Was it not the society of the Queen as an individual, the ladies of the bedchamber of the Queen as the individual which from beginning to ending had caused these great changes in the conduct of the late

1183
Government, and of the present presumed Government? This was the first time, that England had ever proclaimed to Europe that she was to be governed on such principles—the first time, that her statesmen had professed that the opinions of Parliament were to go for nothing, provided they retained the confidence of the Queen. Was this likely to raise the confidence of foreign countries in representative governments, or make them feel more respect for ours? Would they not know, that this must have an end? Would they not feel well assured—would not any honest man, who applied his mind to the matter, feel well assured, that this could last but for a very short time? The cry had not succeeded—it had been put down. Truth had made way, and the Parliament must prevail, if the Government did not change its course and conciliate its former friends; and foreign nations, with whom we had to negociate, must see every man in England could tell them, that this state of things must have an end, and Parliament must prevail in the struggle. If his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Foreign Department, were there, he would ask him what chance he had of a successful issue in his negotiations with any one power, while his Government was standing in these unparalleled circumstances—while it was so infirm, so tottering, and he would add, so rotten—for rotten must be the foundation of a Government which stood on such a basis. One word more with respect to what he took to be the most melancholy, and not the least interesting part of the question. He grieved deeply, that her Majesty should be placed in this position. It was not the fault of Parliament. Parliament had spoken its opinion fairly. And considering how inexperienced a person she of necessity was, it could be imputed to no fault of her own. She had reigned barely two years. But those who were about her, were bound to inform her of the solemn responsibility thrown upon her by the ancient and established principles of the constitution. There should be no force. Her feelings should be treated with all imaginable tenderness. Even where she might be wrong every conceivable excuse should be made, and even when difficulties arose, all reverence and tenderness, and the most profound respect and veneration of the most devoted courtier should be shown; but duty remained towering above all other
1184
and pettier considerations—the duty of men, of statesmen, of ministers, of sworn advisers—a duty the more imperative upon those who had been the first advisers and councillors of her earliest youth and more imperative still upon those to whom she had ever proved a most confiding and most gracious mistress. What was that duty? To tell her, that the constitution knew of no divisum imperium—no opposition of ladies of the bedchamber; that changes in those places—which ought to be carefully avoided if possible, and never to be resorted to one hair's breadth beyond what the individual case required—might yet be just as much necessary as changes in the husbands and brothers of those ladies themselves. He hoped, that such advice had been tendered he trusted, that such information had been afforded. But of one thing he was sure, that if, for want of due consideration, for want of appropriate councillors, for lack of requisite information, that most illustrious, most amiable, and most upright Princess should be brought prematurely, and at the beginning of her reign, into collision with the wisdom of Parliament—or the will, for that was the wisdom, of Parliament—Parliament having no caprice—and if the public affairs, the ardua regni should take any detriment from that collision, and the Crown fail, as fail it must, a bad service would have been rendered by bad councillors, bad friends, bad flatterers, and worthless parasites—if there were any such who had done so, and he denied the possibility of believing, that there could be such; it could not be his noble Friend. He knew it was out of the question; he did not tender such advice; but whoever, had done it, had rendered a bad, pernicious, and all but fatal service, to a confiding, amiable, and upright Princess. Then they should see the misery of a reign in which, having commenced with a personal conflict, always to be avoided even by a Sovereign under the weight of years—a Sovereign who had laid the country under old obligations by services rendered—but how much more to be avoided in the case of a Princess, who had just stepped upon the Throne, and had had no time to confer great benefits on her people—then, he said, would have been begun a reign under the most inauspicious of all circumstances; a coldness—he would anticipate no worse, for that was bad enough—a coldness and alienation between

1185
the Princess and the people—between the Crown and the Commons and Peers of the realm. He knew that his noble Friend who led the Government in that House, and his noble Friend who led it in the other House, were the very last men in all England to be anxious about retaining office. He knew it personally from their character, their habits, and from positive knowledge of the subject, that they would make no sacrifice of principle—no sacrifice of honour to retain their places. They were above mean and paltry motives, and felt in their position only the responsibility, the duty, and the difficulty, which belonged to it. But there were others who might counsel them—lovers of place wishing to keep place, or only hungering and thirsting to get place: whose appetencies had been sharpened by possession, or those to whose desire distance made it seem more sweet, and who had not tasted the bitters with which the possession of office is always mingled. If his noble Friends were above taking counsel from such advisers as these, he dreaded not the honest, wise, and well-considered opinions of his noble Friends themselves. The consequence of all this was, and it was this that gave him the anxiety with which he had all along viewed this question, and with which he now addressed their Lordships—that the principle of the monarchy had been put to a severe trial. Let them be assured of that, and let it not be tried more than it was prudent to try it. Let them not stretch it, lest peradventure it might crack. His noble Friend, who introduced this subject, had spoken of a conspiracy against the monarchy, and of those who would pull it down. He considered the country not exposed to imminent risk of revolution, and the destruction of the present regal Government. There might be some who entertained such views, but he believed they were few in number, not very respectable in force, and, he was confident, not very respectable in point of capacity, with very few exceptions. But if there were such a party, and if he were apprehensive of an assault on the monarchy from that party, he could not look upon it with any feeling but the most serious affright, alarm, and dismay, in thinking that the battle was about to be fought, after such an unwise, unprecedented, and reckless course as had been taken, in resting the Government upon a bed-chamber quarrel, and bringing the
1186
personal feelings of the Monarch into collision with the wishes, the will, and the wisdom of Parliament. God avert this omen! but upon his mind he had more explanations; the alarm would be great. [The noble and learned Lord sat down amid loud and continued cheers from the Opposition benches.]
The Duke of Wellington.My Lords, I certainly do not rise to reply, or make any comment upon the very able speech which has been just made by the noble and learned Lord. Still less am I disposed to interrupt the good temper of the House by any observations which I might desire to make upon matters personal to myself. I can assure your Lordships that upon those personal matters I feel at the present moment exactly as I did when I addressed your Lordships a short time ago. I think I have even more reason to be totally indifferent on the subject of the reports referred to by the noble and learned Lord, since these reports have produced no effect whatever on the country. I believe that no credit has been given to them anywhere, and I have every reason to think that I am not mistaken on the subject. I must say, that from the commencement of these transactions, I have totally and entirely acquitted the noble Viscount opposite of having had any concern in circulating those reports. On the day previous to that on which I addressed your Lordships, before it had been stated in another place that the illustrious person referred to had acted from a misapprehension of the circumstances, the noble Viscount stated that himself. But, my Lords, at the very time I addressed your Lordships, I had in my pocket an address from a relation of the noble Viscount to his constituents—I fully believe without the knowledge of the noble Viscount—but containing such language, that either the writer must have been misinformed, or have stated what he did without information. At all events, I felt confident that the noble Viscount had not given the information. I will go further, and say, I feel so confident in the force of truth, that even if the noble Viscount had given such information I should have felt the same contempt for the reports that I did feel at the moment I addressed your Lordships on the former occasion. I must fairly say, that I entirely acquit the noble Viscount of having made such a communication. As to other matters adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, I must confess that I am one of those who never

1187
thought that the Government had, on the 7th of this month, any very good reason for resigning their offices. That was my opinion at the time, and it has been my opinion ever since; and the more I have reflected on the subject, the more convinced I am that my judgment was not very erroneous. In fact, my Lords, they could not carry, they found, that one question in Parliament relating to Jamaica. Why, my Lords, no man will tell me that there were not many measures that could be substituted for that measure. The noble and learned Lord says yes, they have found a measure, but not a good one; the former was the right, and this was wrong. [Lord Brougham observed, that he said, "If the former was right, the present was wrong."] I must say I felt at that time, that although they could not carry that measure, they might carry measures which might have been substituted for it. I confess I never saw any reason why the Government should retire, and I must add, after the discussion in another place on this subject, that those who undertook to carry on the Government felt extreme difficulty cast upon them. I think, as I have said, that another measure might have been substituted by the noble Viscount's Government, but that was a matter for them to consider, and not for me. I give your Lordships what was my impression at the moment the Government retired, and it is an opinion which has been confirmed by reflection upon what has passed since. On the other part of the subject, and upon what the noble Viscount has stated in answer to my noble Friend, I have but little to say. I am in the habit, at times, in my place in this House, of giving my opinions and sentiments to the noble Viscount. I earnestly recommend him to persevere in the intentions which he has announced in the course of the discussion this night. Let him honestly perform his duty in the Government of the country. He has failed in carrying one measure which he proposed to Parliament in a former Session. Let him persevere in the performance of his duty, not only in Parliament, but out of it, and let him trust to the good sense of Parliament and the country for his support. And although certainly I have the misfortune of differing from him on many subjects, I think I may venture to tell him that he will not find Parliament fail him if he will honestly and sincerely perform his duty.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that after the manner in which himself and a lady, a near relative of his, had been personally alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, he felt it necessary to make a few observations to their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord had talked of misrepresentation and slander elsewhere, but certainly he must confess he had never heard anything more like misrepresentation than what had been stated to the House by the noble and learned Lord that evening, supposing, indeed, that the noble and learned Lord had not used the expression in question in a moment of inadvertency. The noble and learned Lord had directly referred to certain ladies, attendants on the Queen, as agents in the transaction, and had described Ministers as having only resigned their places to give their wives and sisters at court an opportunity of effectually preventing the formation of another ministry.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had not for a moment imputed to these ladies that they had been agents in the transaction. He had merely referred to them in the way of argument.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he bad distinctly understood the noble and learned Lord as charging these ladies with having acted as agents in the transaction, and as speaking of what had actually taken place. [Hear, hear!]. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had passed unnoticed what had been stated on this subject elsewhere, in the shape of anonymous attack, but after what had been said by the noble and learned Lord, he felt it his duty, however painful, however delicate, however difficult the task, to offer a few words in explanation of how it happened that Lady Normanby's name had been mixed up with the circumstance. On the day on which the resignation of Ministers took place, he had a conversation with his noble Friend, near him, the noble Marquess (Tavistock) on the subject of the ladies of her Majesty's household; and while fully concurring with his noble Friend that there could be no doubt of the full right of her Majesty to retain these ladies, he remembered that he had stated he felt it might be very possible that his connection with the Government might place Lady Normanby in a different position from the other ladies, and he added, that if any intimation of this kind was made to him he should act upon it. Accordingly, when he heard of the difficulties

1189
stated to be in the way of the formation of a new Ministry, which was not till the meeting at his noble Friend's house on Thursday evening, he that very night communicated to Lady Normanby his feeling that it was advisable that she should resign her situation, and Lady Normanby tendered her resignation on the following morning. The note in which he conveyed this suggestion gave Lady Norman by the first intimation of this alleged difficulty. He readily conceived that it might be very convenient for those who had taken the line adopted by the noble and learned Lord on this occasion to mix up the question of the ladies of the court with the principle for which he and his friends had solely contended, the power of her Majesty to retain about her that portion of the household of which an attempt had been, for the first time, made to dispossess the Sovereign. This was the principle, however, for which he and his noble Friends near him had contended, and which they had felt bound to support. It had been his intention to have made a remark only on that part of the noble and learned Lord's speech which personally referred to himself and Lady Normanby; but, as he was on his legs, he could not help alluding to what the noble and learned Lord seemed to consider the unfortunate events arising out of her Majesty's conduct. The noble and learned Lord, in stating that a Government had been formed which had not the support of Parliament, seemed to regret that an opportunity had been lost of forming a "strong" Government, which should possess the confidence of Parliament. He thought that the answer of the noble Duke opposite would satisfy the country on this point; but, if it were necessary to have a more direct and distinct authority, this was to be found in what Sir Robert Peel had said in the other House. Sir R. Peel had avowed all the difficulties of his position; he had detailed measure after measure, and the different points of national affairs, in which he saw insuperable difficulties before him, and the result of Sir Robert Peel's statements and arguments was a distinct admission that he had a majority of the House of Commons against him: and had nothing happened since the occasion on which that admission was made? Had there been no trial of strength since? Had there been no means afforded since of manifesting on which side the strength of the House lay? Within the last few days there had been afforded
1190
a clear indication that Sir Robert Peel and his friends could not command a majority, that they, at least, were in a minority. Respecting the question of Jamaica, to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, on that subject he had always felt strongly; he had considered from the first that the experiment of negro emancipation would not be fairly carried out in the transition from one state of society to another without a temporary suspension of the constitution. He had, therefore, most entirely concurred with his noble Colleague in thinking that the virtual failure of the Jamaica Bill was an indication to which Government should attend. But though he still adhered to this opinion, though he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion in the House of Commons last night, that the measure which Government was obliged to surrender was the best, under all the circumstances of the case, yet on resuming the Government they had been able to provide for the great object of protecting the negro. He would only further trespass on the House on this occasion, knowing the critical hour at which he was attempting to detain the House, and therefore postponing for the present much he should otherwise have wished to have said. He should only, therefore, wish to make one remark on an observation of the noble and learned Lord, wherein the noble and learned Lord had seemed to wish it to go forth to the country that he was the only person of Lord Grey's government who adhered to the principles of the Reform Act. If the noble and learned Lord was so anxious to carry out the principles of that great measure, he would seem to be adopting rather an extraordinary mode of effecting this object, when he was endeavouring to the utmost of his power to restore a Tory Government.
Lord Broughamexplained, that he had not entertained the remotest idea of alluding to anything that had been done by the very amiable personage whose name had been introduced by the noble Marquess. His argument was, that women of the bedchamber would now become important political agents, and would be mixed up in political transactions of every description. His allusion was to consequences and not to past occurrences. He perfectly believed, that nothing of the description which was rumoured had taken place, and, he had taken occasion to contradict those rumours whenever he had

1191
heard them. He was not surprised at the tone of the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke opposite, after the Conservative declarations of the noble Viscount. Much stress had been laid upon the majority on the late occasion of electing a Speaker in the other House. Now, he could state that no fewer than nine of those who had voted for the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the Chair had distinctly declared, that they had voted against Mr. Goulburn in consequence of his conduct with reference to the Catholic question, and other matters; and that they would have voted differently from the way in which they had done, had they supposed the vote to be one of confidence in her Majesty's present Ministers. He was desirous to see an honest and a firm liberal Government. The noble Viscount was, he believed, deficient in the latter quality; and the next best thing to a strong liberal Government would, in his mind, be a good liberal Opposition.
The Earl of Winchilseathought, that none of his questions had received a satisfactory answer.
Question of adjournment carried.