alone was likely to move discussion, should be kept in reserve; and that their immediate reply should be only to that part which treated of the demise of the late, and the accession of the present sovereign. Upon this subject was proposed an address of combined condolence, congratulation, and respectful homage. This was entirely acquiesced in by all parts of of the House, Mr Tierney only murmuring a little at the expression, "experience of the past," as seeming to imply approbation of measures lately pursued. The same unanimity attended an address of condolence on the death of the late Duke of Kent. Even in this first debate, however, the opposition members gave notes of warlike preparation against the intimated proposition, paving the way for an immediate dissolution of Parliament. Mr Tierney eagerly endeavoured to draw from Lord Castlereagh a statement of the precise nature of the measures to be submitted; but his lordship contented himself with saying, " they would be only such as were indispensable, and which the House might easily understand;" which last proposition Mr T. strenuously denied.

On the following day, Lords Liverpool and Castlereagh laid fully open the views which had induced them to advise the proposed dissolution. The former observed:According to the common law, Parliament expired immediately on the demise of the Crown. He was aware that a specific act had been introduced to regulate the dissolution; but as far as he could trace the principle on which that act had been adopted, it appeared to be a desire to avoid any inconvenience which might arise from a disputed succession. While, however, he stated his opinion as to the origin of the act, he was sensible that many other cir

cumstances, besides a disputed succession, might render the sitting of Parliament on such an occasion as the demise of the Crown highly proper; but for this purpose it was sufficient that the principle should remain in force, and that Parliament should immediately assemble. Accordingly, it was only the assembling of Parliament that was imperative; it did not follow that they were to continue to sit and transact business. How far they were to proceed in the consideration of public affairs was left to the discretion of the Crown, whose prerogative it was to dissolve Parliament whenever such a proceeding should appear proper. He could, however, see no reason, public or parliamentary, why the course now proposed should not be followed. When their lordships considered the circumstances arising from the loss his present Majesty had sustained, the nature of the business which would have to come before Parliament, and particularly the consideration of the civil list, he would leave them to judge, whether, with reference to all they knew respecting the details of public business at this period of the session, the important subjects to which he had alluded were likely to meet the attention which was due to them; and whether that event, which would only postpone the bringing them forward for a few months, was not one which would place Parliament in a situation to consider them with greater deliberation.

Lord Castlereagh, in the House of Commons, more particularly observed:-The alternative to which, in his opinion, his Majesty's government was reduced, was this either that the existing Parliament should go through the entire business of the session, and prolong its deliberations as long as might be requisite for that

purpose, or that a new Parliament should be called with as little delay as possible. On adverting, then, to the two branches of this alternative, the House must be aware that a measure begun and not completed, before a dissolution, was upon a far less advantageous footing than if it had not been at all introduced. It was desirable also for the public in terest, welfare, and tranquillity, that the country should not be exposed for an extended period to the agitations incident upon a general election. The only question would then be what were the measures of such pressing necessity as to fall under the immediate cognizance of Parliament? He knew that it had been usual in practice to vote a great portion of the civil establishment of the Crown in the first instance; but as this would comprehend a variety of details, involving much consideration before they were brought under the review of Parliament, as well as much discussion perhaps afterwards, his Majesty's ministers had felt that, without an extension of time beyond the limit he had referred to, it was not probable that this could be arranged by the present Parliament. They were anxious that the great interests of the Crown and of the country should be deliberated upon with calm minds and in a full attendance. Each of these desirable objects had now become hopeless, and upon a view of all these circumstances his Majesty's ministers had deemed it their duty to advise the Crown to reserve for a new Parliament the consideration of the public business of the year.

The opposite party, without absolutely attempting to thwart the proposed measure, insisted that it was at least highly irregular. Ministers, it was urged, were compromising the rights of the crown, when they suffer

ed the dissolving of Parliament, which was the King's sole and unquestionable prerogative, to become a subject of discussion in the Houses themselves.

The Marquis of Lansdowne would venture to say, that in the whole history of the country there was not an instance to be found of a monarch proposing to Parliament the propriety of its own dissolution. That was a proceeding which, according to the constitution, .could not be made a subject of discussion. But what necessity had the noble Earl made out for the course of proceeding he proposed? He had intimated yesterday that he separated the consideration of the different parts of the message, as this subject would be more properly explained by itself. This explanation might be made in some quarter or another, but it had not yet been given there. The noble earl had indeed adverted to a public necessity arising from the difficulty of transacting business, as the ground of his proposition, but he had by no means explained that necessity. If he alluded to certain public services which were to be provided for, and to provision to be made for the dignity of the crown, for his part he could see no reason why these subjects should not be taken into consideration by the present Parliament. The civil list, being a subject connected with the dignity of the Crown, was one which, he admitted, required deliberation, but its consideration had hitherto been submitted to the Parliament which assembled on the demise of the Crown. He readily admitted that he knew of nothing in the act to prevent the Crown from dissolving Parliament on the very day of its assembling, but then that was to be done on the constitutional responsibility of ministers; and since the passing of

the act, all ministers had chosen to exercise that responsibility in a different way from that which the noble earl now avowed. According to the statement, which he had in his hand, of what occurred on the accession of Queen Anne, of George I., George II., and George III., in general only a few days had passed, and in no instance had many weeks elapsed, before Parliament proceeded to the consideration. Parliament assembled on the 8th of March, on the accession of Queen Anne, and on the 9th proceeded to the consideration of the civil list. The accession of George I. took place on the 1st of August, and Parliament took the state of the civil list into consideration on the 5th. George II. ascended the throne on June 11, 1727, and on July 11th the consider ation of the civil list took place. In the case of his late Majesty, who succeeded to the throne on the 25th of October, 1760, the civil list was brought before Parliament on the 5th of November. Thus all precedents were against the noble earl, and he had assigned no sufficient reason for departing from the established course.

In the Commons, Mr Tierney observed:-In all former cases of exaltation to the throne, it had been judged proper to bring down a very different kind of message from the Sovereign, and to make some communication to Parliament indicative of his Majesty's feelings and intentions, and of the general policy to be adopted under a new reign. What, however, was the amount of the communication which the House had actually received? They were dryly told, that it was deemed convenient to postpone all public business, and that they therefore were to be turned about their business. No view was afforded of the principle upon which

the government of the country was in future to be carried on, or of the policy by which it would be directed. He was not apprized of any power by which the existing civil list could be applied to the purpose of a new reign. It appeared to him very strange that Parliament should be dissolved before any provision was made on so important a subject. He was satisfied that there was some reason for all this beyond what had been assigned, and that no minister would adopt such a proceeding for his mere amusement. The noble lord talked of the inconvenience which would be produced by keeping the country in its present state with reference to an approaching general election, and appeared to think the beginning of May an excellent time for entering upon public business. He had always been taught to believe the exact contrary, and his experience confirmed this belief. At such a period of the year it was vain to expect a full attendance, and public business would become a dead letter. But the noble lord had even found out that it was convenient to have an election at the same time that the assizes were holding; and was it possible then to doubt that he must have some reasons, of which the House at present knew nothing? He was aware, however, that all op. position was useless, and that it was impossible to secure attention. heads of honourable members were now all in the country, and filled with cockades, music, and returning officers. He was contending, however, for a constitutional principle, that the Crown ought to have no revenue independent of Parliament.

The

Lord Castlereagh vehemently denied the allegation of ministers having any intention or motive beyond what they had openly avowed. Mr Brougham, however, after decla

ring his acquiescence in any measure which increased the frequency of elections, roundly asserted:-No man could doubt what the real reason was, not for dissolving Parliament, but for postponing the consideration of the civil list. There was not a gentleman in the House who would not laugh at him, if he doubted that the short account of the matter, instead of going over the prolix statement of the noble lord, was merely this: that it was deemed more convenient not to broach that question in the present Parliament, but to discuss it in the new; because it was a more handy thing for ministers to propose it in the Parliament about to be formed, rather than to submit it to, and have it considered in that Parliament which was on its death-bed, and could not, at the utmost, exist longer than a few months.

Mr Macdonald, on the other hand, insisted, that such an uninterrupted series of precedents ought not to be passed over without some special reason assigned. Why was it that now, for the first time, it was not formally notified to Parliament that the civil list had expired? Could it be supposed, in this instance, that the House would not most cordially assent to any arrangement with the Crown?-that they would not at once agree to make such a provision as would be honourable for the pecple to grant, and worthy of the Crown to receive? There could be but one other reason for not bringing the subject forward. It was not connected with economy; but was this that probably there might be something in the views and intentions of ministers that would not stand the test when a general election was approaching. Had the Parliament met at an uncommon or inconvenient period of the year? Did

their meeting at this moment interfere with the country gentlemen's Christmas? No such thing. It was a singular fact, that they had assembled at the very time which ministers themselves designated for the transaction of public business. Here they were met, according to law, with a much longer period before them than the transaction of the public business, in its regular course, required. He was very far from disputing the power and prerogatives of the Crown, if it even dissolved one Parliament this week, and another the week following. At the same time, he entirely agreed with his learned friend, that ministers were as much responsible for the advice they gave to the Crown on this, as for that which they offered on any other subject.

Notwithstanding the warmth of these debates, no attempt was made to divide either House against the motion, which went to present an address to his Majesty, approving of the intention expressed in his message to call a new Parliament, and engaging to make such arrangements as might be necessary for carrying on the public business till the session should commence.

Ministers now proceeded, without delay, to bring forward the arrangements which they judged necessary for the above purpose. Several votes of money were therefore proposed, of which the most important was one of £200,000 for the discharge of pensions, annuities, and other payments, which would have been chargeable on the consolidated fund and civil list, if the demise of his late Majesty had not taken place.

This gave occasion to introduce a subject already felt to be of extreme delicacy, though no one yet foresaw theportentous issues to which it would lead. Mr Hume had already broached

the question, and observed with derision, that ministers, amid their ostentatious professions of attachment to the House of Brunswick, had never made the slightest allusion to that illustrous person who now held the name and dignity of Queen. It was not his intention to find fault with the exercise of any power belonging to his Majesty for regulating the forms of the Church in the performance of divine service, although it was certain that very considerable difference of opinion was entertained upon that point, and that the late order had occasioned much surprise. He understood a proposition was to be submitted in the committee for a vote of credit to the amount of one fourth of the civil list. This, however, he apprehended would not suffice to provide an adequate establishment for the Queen, whose former allowance, as Princess of Wales, had ceased at the moment of his late Majesty's death. Was she then, the Queen of this country, to be left wandering in beggary through foreign lands, or would not Parliament rather make a provision for her support in a manner suitable to her rank and station ? He submitted, therefore, to his Majesty's ministers, whether it would not be right to propose a distinct allowance, and must contend that they were bound both in justice and honour to disclose to the House all their views upon this subject.

Lord Castlereagh, while he declared his readiness to communicate ⚫any information which could be useful, conceived that he would best consult the feelings of the House and of the public, by declining to go into any detail on this topic. He only gave assurance, that the high person in question would experience no additional difficulty or personal

embarrassment in consequence of the event which had occurred.

Mr Tierney regretted that the subject had been introduced, but conceived it necessarily arose from the omission of the Queen's name in the church service. He would not grant to a person labouring under a heavy cloud of suspicion any portion of public money until that suspicion was removed. He could not suppress his conviction that somebody had been scandalously ill used either the King had been betrayed, or the Queen had been insulted. He would not consult any feelings, nor yield to any supposed delicacy, which would impose silence upon him after what had taken place. It was time to speak out openly and honestly. He, as well as many others, had certainly heard rumours extremely injurious to the Queen's character-rumours which, if true, he had no hesitation in saying, proved her unworthy to sit upon the British throne. But it was impossible for him to act upon rumour, upon what might be mere idle calumny; this would be deemed gross injustice in the case of the humblest individual. It was, however, asserted, that a commission had been sent out for the purpose of collecting evidence on this subject. Was that true? and if so, did the noble lord imagine, that, with such evidence in his pocket, he was not bound to produce it to Parliament before he applied for a vote of money to the person whom it affected? If the rumours to which he alluded had any foundation, it was the duty of Parliament to take some steps in order to rescue his Majesty from the degradation of sharing his throne with such a partner. If they were false, there could be as little doubt that it was their duty to maintain her Majesty in all her rights and