would beare erument at t osrate the f

1. Gentleman. llor of the Ex

v had not we

have me cb be bar: ut even the , the objects Member's s

ce said, that would not t of, unless is k

wn discreti He was dre Id not be sath added to th

in doing it. He wished his hon. friend
would visit the city, and dine for a few
weeks with the citizens. That would,
perhaps, give his hon. friend a salutary fit
of the gout, and lay him up for a week or
two, and then they would see whether his
observation were not correct, and whether,
in the absence of his hon. friend, the pub-
lic business could not be got through much
more speedily, he would not say better;
the fact was, that while those Members
who had the faculty of speaking half a
dozen times in the course of a night per-
sisted in exercising that faculty, no regu-
lations would do any good.

with it, and which often tended rather to
obscure than to throw light upon the sub-

be the last person to deny; but he was
quite sure that his hon. friend took up no
very small portion of the time of the Houseject before the House. Some of the sug-
gestions that had been thrown out were,
he thought, obviously impracticable. If,
for instance, they should agree to adjourn
the House for an hour, at five o'clock, in
order that Members might take their din-
ner, such a regulation would, he was sure,
make no alteration in the dinner-hours of
the majority of the House. They who
were accustomed to dine at seven o'clock,
would still dine at that hour, and not be-
tween five and six. Then again as to the
proposal of the hon. member for Water-
ford (Mr. O'Connell) of setting aside three
days for private business, he thought they
would rather lose than gain by that ar-
rangement. It was impossible to get
through the public business in three days,
and the evenings of the three days
devoted to private business would be spent
in some other way, and not in that antici-
pated by the hon. Member. Indeed, he
did not see how Gentlemen who had been
attending committees all day could be ex-
pected to devote their evenings to a simi-
lar employment. What he proposed,
therefore, was, that the House for the
future should meet at three o'clock; that
the time from three to five should be de-

public business should always commence
at five o'clock. If, however, this did not
meet the wishes of the House, then he
thought the only course to be taken was
to appoint a Select Committee on the sub-
ject, as his hon. friend (Mr. N. Calvert)

Sir Robert Peel said, that all that had
taken place during this discussion con-
firmed him in the opinion he had ex-
pressed at the outset,-namely, that the
question was one of extreme difficulty.
All that could be hoped for was, that hon.
Members would use their individual dis-
cretion. Any Gentleman might, if he
pleased, detain the House for four or five
hours, and unless Gentlemen would cur-
tail their speeches, or the House put down
the practice of enlarging unnecessarily
upon fertile topics of argument and ora-
tory, he did not see what good any regu-voted to private business; and that the
lation could answer. They had got now
into the habit of printing almost every
petition, and the reason assigned for this
course was, the prevention of lengthy dis-
cussions upon petitions; yet, since this
plan had been adopted, he was sure that
debates upon petitions had been consider-opposite had recommended.
ably lengthened. All that could be done
by way of regulation on the subject was,
as it appeared to him, to give up two
hours to private business, the public
business being brought on always at five
o'clock. At the same time it should be
understood, that any Gentleman who
thought proper might present a petition
at any other period of the evening, if there
should be no public business before the
House. After all, however, almost every
thing must depend upon the individual
discretion of hon. Members, who could do
much more than any regulation could
effect towards the attainment of the de-
sired end, if they would address them
selves fairly and seriously to the subject
under debate, laying aside all extraneous
matter, and not indulging in surplus elo-
quence which never carried conviction I to determine, on motion made at the time,

Mr. J. Wood begged to know, whether there was any understanding with regard to the hour of adjournment. If there was, it ought to be made a Standing Order. He begged also to know, whether Wednesday was to be added to the days of public business, and whether, during the time. set apart for receiving petitions, one of the Ministers of the Crown would be always present.

Sir R. Peel thought it impossible to fix any hour for the adjournment of the House. A regulation of that character would, he was convinced, be extremely mischievous. They must not make it peremptory to break off in the midst of a discussion, no matter how important and how pressing that discussion might be. It would be better to leave it to the House

1

whether they should adjourn or continue
to sit. As to adding Wednesday to the
days of public business, his only objection
to that was, that he thought it beyond the
strength of hon. Members to sit for five
days in succession. If it should be in-
sisted upon that Wednesday should be a
day of public business, he was quite sure
that on Friday hon. Members would find
themselves too much jaded-too much
exhausted, to apply themselves to the
public business, so as to transact it in the
manner its importance required. He could
not, as he thought the House would see,
promise to be present every day during
the presentation of petitions. The duties
of his office would not allow him to make
any such promise. This, however, he
would promise-namely, that he would
do all he could, consistently with his duty
to the country, to be present every day.

pur

which omitted all mention of reform, and of reduction of taxation, the two topics which agitated the whole empire, from one end of it to the other. He would show the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was not insensible to the propriety of his suggestion respecting speech-making in that House. He would make a short speech, and not dwell uselessly upon any but important topics. He must, however, be allowed to say one word upon a topic which was not connected with the matters which he had risen for the pose of addressing himself to. He alluded to the question of repealing the Union with Ireland. It appeared to him that to agitate such a question could lead to no good, but that, on the contrary, it was calculated to open afresh those wounds which late measures, he had hoped, and still hoped, would perfectly heal. After this observation he would address himself to the two topics he had before mentioned. First, his Majesty, in his Speech, said nothing about reduction of taxation. The word economy was used in the Speech as usual; but so it was last and yet year, they had no reduction in consequence. He meant, no reduction in consequence of any thing in the Speech; for he was convinced that the reductions which were effected had not been contemplated by the Ministers, but were forced upon them by the voice of the House. This was all owing to the labours of the Finance Committee having been stopped. Then, as to reform, how had the Ministers treated the country? He did not know whether it would be considered irregular for him to allude to what had taken place elsewhere, but they must all be aware, that in another place, a Minister of the Crown had distinctly said, that there should be no reform. Nay, this Minister had gone further, and described the present system as an excellent one, as a system which worked extremely well.

Mr. Hume said, that the right hon. Gentleman was not the only Minister of the Crown. All he required was, that some Minister of the Crown should be present during the presentation of petitions.

Mr. C. W. Wynn thought the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) took a very extraordinary view of this subject; for if a petition related to a matter connected with the Home Department, the presence of the Colonial Secretary, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not be much more desirable than that of any other Member. The way, however, of obviating the inconvenience which the hon. Member appeared anxious to guard against was, as it appeared to him, obvious enough. When any hon. Member had a petition to present which he thought required the attention of Government, let him make a communication to the Minister to whose department the subject-matter of the petition belonged. This would ensure the attendance of that Minister.

The usual Sessional Orders were agreed to, it being understood that after Thursday the House should meet at three o'clock.

REPORT ON THE ADDRESS.] On the Motion that Lord Grimston bring up the Report on the Address,

That it did work

very

well he was ready to admit. It worked well for governors, but it worked ill for the governed. For instance, how was he represented? He resided in Surrey; and that county was said to send fourteen Mr. Maberly said, that he rose to enter members to Parliament. Now by whom his protest against the very extraordinary were these Members sent? The two for Speech they had heard from the Throne. the county, two for Guildford, and two He called it extraordinary, because he for Southwark, were sent by the people; thought that nothing could be more ex-the two members for Haslemere were the traordinary than for the Ministers to put nominees of a certain noble Lord; the into the mouth of his Majesty a Speech two members for Gatton were the nomi

the othe

2

145
nees of another noble Lord; the two
members for Ryegate were the nominees
of two noble Lords; and the members for
Bletchingly were the nominees of a large

the Address.

146 of society in this country demand, you may cry out against the reformers as revolutionary, but it is you that are bringing in a revolution, by refusing to reform From his knowledge

rht hon. Gent coal-owner. Now was this condition of the Parliament."

ot insensible representation such as the people ought of public opinion, he would say, that they

to

tion respecting set House. He t

nd not dwell tant topics. H wed to say one

s not connected had risen for himself to. Hei repealing the peared to

tion could lead

the contrary, fresh those he had hope rfectly heal d address

before ment

his Speech i'taxation. 1

the Spe

year,

conseque

conseqar

for be

which lated by

would have to repent grievously if they allowed the present Session to pass over without granting that which the people claimed. He would put it to those Members who really had constituents, whether they would allow the nominees of Peers and of coal-owners, to overpower them in that House.

Lord Eastnor observed, that it was not inconsistent for the King to omit, in his Speech from the Throne, any recommendation of Reform, for such a recommendation, he believed, had never been made in a King's Speech during the last 200 years. With respect to reform, about the necessity of which so much was now said, he must declare that he had never seen any plan to which he felt he could accede, and he believed few of those who advocated it were agreed upon the sort of reform that was necessary.

to endure? They had last night passed
a resolution, that Peers should not inter-
fere in the election of Members of that
House; but was not such a resolution a
mere farce, when compared with facts like
those he had stated? Scotland was an
instance of the want of reform. Not one
Member of Parliament sent from that
county represented either the people or
their property. But the Prime Minister
had told them that reform was not neces-
sary and that there shall be no reform.
He would ask, how could his Majesty
expect a tranquil reign under such circum-
stances? His Majesty was made to ex-
press his confidence that he should trans-
mit the constitution unimpaired to poste-
rity, but he hoped that it was not in the
way meant by his Prime Minister, but
that his Majesty should transmit a re-
formed Constitution to posterity. In this
speech, with which the public had been
so much disappointed, there was hardly
a man in the country who did not expect
the introduction of some moderate reform.
He would ask those Members in that
House who had constituents, whether they
would not commit gross dereliction of
their duty to their constituents if they did
not at once raise their voices against those
nominees of Peers who were sent into that
House to overpower the representatives of
the people. If his Majesty would not re-
duce the taxes and reform the Parliament,
he was likely in twelve months to be the
most unpopular Monarch that ever sat
upon the British Throne. In saying so,
he was convinced that he only gave ex-
pression to the feelings of the people of
the whole empire. He was firmly im-
pressed with the conviction that the tran-
quillity of the country would not continue
undisturbed unless there were both a re-
form of Parliament and a reduction of
taxation. Those who opposed reform
might accuse the advocates of it of being de-
sirous of introducing revolutionary princi-
ples and doctrines, but the time might
shortly arrive when the advocates of re-
form could turn round upon them and
say "You who are against granting
those rights and privileges, which not the
lower orders only but all the middle classes

Mr. Tennyson said, he was one of the Members who sat for one of the rotten boroughs of Surrey, alluded to by his hon. friend, the member for Abingdon; but his votes always had been, and always should be, given solely with a view to promote the interests of the people. Yet he was not base enough to contend, even for a moment, in favour of the continuance of that degraded system on which the popular opinion had on various occasions been recently pronounced; and though there might be no inconsistency in the omission ofa recommendation of reform in the Speech from the Throne, the Ministers who framed the Speech must be afflicted with a terrible blindness indeed, if they thought that reform was never to be conceded to the people of this country. A Minister of the Crown had last night said, that while he was Minister the people should not have reform proposed to them by the Government. He warned the Ministry that it would not long depend on the behest of the Duke of Wellington, whether reform were granted or not. A time would come, when popular opinion must prevail over the counsels of Ministers; and he could only express his fervent hope, that the Government would not irritate the people, and that the people would have more discretion than the Parliament, and would not allow

themselves to be precipitated into the path of violence. There were some parts of the Speech which he was happy to be able to praise; he alluded to those parts which related to his Majesty's putting at the disposal of the Commons the revenues of the Crown. His Majesty had given up his personal revenues, as the Marquis of Camden had done on a former occasion. The noble Marquis had set a glorious example, and one which ought to be imitated. He must take that opportunity of saying, that there never had been a service that more demanded a favourable notice from the Sovereign than that of the Marquis of Camden, who had sacrificed his personal interests for the public benefit. He approved of that passage of the Speech which related to France, but was much disappointed in that which referred to the Netherlands. The public feeling of the country had been embarked in the cause of the oppressed Belgians; and under these circumstances, it was impossible for the Minister to use language more calculated to excite the indignation of the people of the whole of England, than that language so repulsive to their wishes, and so repugnant to the real feelings of the Kingwhich they had put into his mouth. He meant, therefore, in respect to that paragraph which related to Belgium, to move an Amendment, declaratory of the principle of non-interference. Such language was most unfit to be put into the mouth of the Sovereign, who had just ascended the Throne; but his conduct had shewn that that language, so opposed to the opinions of the people, was not the language of the King, but of his Ministers. The hon. Member said, he would move at the proper time, that instead of the fifth paragraph of the Address, relating to the Netherlands, the following be inserted :"That we lament, with his Majesty, that the Administration of the King should not have preserved his dominions from civil discord; but derive consolation from the hope that means may be found to restore tranquillity without any violation by the British Government of the wise principle of non-interference with the internal condition and public institutions of other

- to check

pulation would receive the Speech the Throne. It would be in a spint borrow a phrase from the Speech is of "grief and indignation." There particular passages in the Speech th were unexceptionable, but to other i must most strongly object. He bel that the hopes of the Ministry were int fears of the alarmists, and the latter probably the cause of the adhesions in a few days ago by certain great Pe The same thing had occurred in 17 and had been made use of then, as would be made use of now. form. He trusted, however, that suc schemes would be defeated, and that Pa liament would refuse any supplies to the amount of a single farthing of our mone or a single man of our army, to be sen abroad, for the purpose of interfering either between the King of Holland and the Belgians, or between the Belgians and any other nation. With respect to Do Miguel, if the Portuguese liked him, why let them have him and welcome: there could be no objection to the Government recognizing him, but the Government ought not to trust him; there was blood on his hands, he had violated his oaths, his promise of amnesty was not to be relied on, and the excited Portuguese could not depend upon it when given by him, though guaranteed by the British government, when they recollected how Ney had been murdered after the capi tulation of Paris. He wished that House to tell the King, that they viewed with "grief and indignation," certain things which now existed; and if he were asked what were these, he would point to the interference by Peers in the election of Members of Parliament; he would point to Stamford, to Ilchester, and to Newark; and would say, that those noble Peers who, in defiance of the Constitution, interfered in the election of Members of Parliament, were the men who excited dissatisfaction and discontent. In answer to the noble Lord who had said it was not inconsistent for the King to omit any recommendation of reform from his Speech, he would merely observe, that it was not only omitted from the Speech, but in a commentary on the Speech, given in another place, reform was positively and flatly refused. The Dictator of the Government had declared, that the people did not want reform, and should not have it.

In the

name of the people, he replied, that they did

Report on

{Nov. 3}

the Address.

150

pulation would want reform, and that they would have it. | Constitution would be lost if the Dissenters

re

the Throne. It wo

He did not mean to deny, that the repeal

should be admitted to places in CorporaThe measure was, nevertheless,

orrow a phrase front of the Union might be a foolish scheme; tions.

""grief and india but still he would assert, that the people carried by the good sense of the House, rticular passages of Ireland ought not to be prevented from and what was the result?-why, the Con

the

purpose the King of between the Be n. With respe Ortuguese Net! im and wel ion to the G but the G him; there n

violated

of

If the Duke of

stitution was not worse, but a great deal Catholic Emancipations

came next, but there was a loud outcry against it, and it was said that the Church and State were alike ruined, and that the Pope would reign in London. Yet the Relief Bill was passed, and a Speech was put into the King's mouth, in which that

measure was hailed as one essential to

the preservation of the Constitution. He therefore felt no alarm for the safety of the Constitution; and he was satisfied, if the House effected a reform, that Ministers would come down as usual, and that his Majesty's Speech would declare, that he had the happiness to transmit it, as he had received it, unimpaired to his successor. The Speech, however, which his Majesty was yesterday advised to deliver, would, he was quite sure, excite indignation throughout the country.

e unexceptionable meeting to discuss it. t most strongly Wellington thought he could easily pre- better for it. the hopes of the vent meetings in this country on the subof the alarmist, a. ject of reform, he was mistaken. He had bly the cause spoken of alarmists. He could not deny w days ago by but there were some strange coincidences me thing had in the conduct of our Government, and of been made the late Ministry of France. The first armade use of ticle of impeachment against them was, le trusted, be that they had interfered with the elections, ould be defeated, and had in that manner attempted to deald refuse any prive the people of their civil rights. Was single farthing there no alarming coincidence here? He man of our am, thought there was, and he advised the Ministers not to lay the flattering unction to their souls, that the Chamber of Deputies was the only place in which such a charge could be advanced. The Speech from the Throne then referred to the Constitution. Why what was the meaning of "the Constitution of this country?" It was nothing more than that form of government which each administration recommended the Sovereign to adopt. It was said, that the King acted according to the Constitution when Charles 1st demanded payment of Ship-money. In the same manner the Constitution was preserved when James 2nd proceeded against the seven Bishops; and in the time of William 3rd it was thought that the Constitution could only be preserved by the introduction of Dutch Guards. The Parliament, however, was of a different opinion, and the Dutch Guards were dismissed. In the reign of George 1st, the Constitution was again preserved by passing the Septennial Act, extending the power of the Members, by their own will, to seven years, though their constituents had elected them only for three. In the reign of George 3rd, it was according to the Constitution, no doubt, that the attempt was made by the King to tax America without allowing her representation. To be sure he lost the colonies in the attempt and after the loss, the Constitution was just as perfect as before. The Constitution, in fact, still exists, and the country was only taught that Kings and Ministers could accommodate themselves to circumstances which they had at a former time declared would be the destruction of the State. In the reign of George 4th the House was told, that the

sty was not xcited Pe on it when ed by thei recollected after the hed that E y viewed

Certain t e were

nt to the

on of Me

varke

fered

-

Mr. Leader said, that when he saw the gentlemen of influence and of property in England rising around him to express the feeling which his Majesty's Speech was calculated to produce on their constituents, he could not imagine but it would be some consolation to the people of Ireland, even though there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne which was calculated to awaken their hope, yet it surely would be some consolation for them to know, that their cause was not without advocates, and that there were amongst their Representatives, those who deeply sympathised in their state and sufferings. If it were the duty of the people to obey the law, it was no less the duty of their Representatives to inquire into the causes of its infraction. Representatives ought to be the natural guardians and protectors of the people, and he unhesitatingly declared that Ireland was now reduced to a situation requiring the strongest exercise of wisdom and of honesty to prevent her being rapidly precipitated into evils, out of which it would be extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, for her to extricate herself. It was his duty to state, in few words, the causes which appeared to him to have induced this distressing state of things in Ireland, and to assure the House of his sincere and anxious desire to do so with the strictest attention to impartiality