The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-04 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL. COURT.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to assimilate the practice of the Central Criminal Court to,
other Courts of criminal judicature in England and Wales,
with respect to offenders liable to the punishment ofl
death. The Noble Lord stated that the object of the,
Bill was to obviate the necessity of the Recorder reporting,
to the Crown.

After a few words from Mr. SHAW, leave was given
to bring in the Bill.
Lord PALMERSTON obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to continue the Slave Trade Treaties Act.

Lord J. RUSSELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to suspend the militia ballot.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
tained leave to bring in a Bill to postpone certain provi-
sions of the 3d and 4th George IV. (Bank of Ireland) for
another year. The Right Honourable Gentleman also
obtained leave to bring in a Bill to extend the exemption
granted by assessed taxes of last session to amend the laws
as to assessed taxes.

Captain PECHELL obtained leave to bring in a 13i1
to amend the law of coverture.

The other Orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned, at a quarter-past one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Jerzy. 3.
At Four o'Clock the LORD CHANCELLOR, Viscount DIIN•
CANNON, and Earl SitAFTESBUBT, took their seats in front

of the Throne, as her Majesty's Commissioners to give the
Royal Assent to several Bills.
In the reading over of the Royal Commission,we noticed'
that the name of the Kier, of Hanover was omitted as one'
of her Majesty's " dear and well-beloved Counsellors," and,
that the name of the Duke of Sussex now stands first on
the list.

The Royal Assent was then given in the usual manner to
the Sugar Duties Bill, the Wills Bill, Limitation of Actions,
Bill, Dublin Police Bill, Great Western Railway (TrowH
bridge) Bill, Great Western Railway (Paddington) Bill,l
London and Dover Railway Bill, Slamannan Railway
Castle Eden and Merrington (Clarence and Hartlepool
Junction) Railway Bill, Dundalk and Ballibay Railway BilLi
Durham Junction Railway Bill, Liverpool Improl emend
Acts Amendment Bill, Montrose Harbour Bill, Duke of
Beaufort's Estate Bill, Lord Dynevor's Estate Bill.
The House then adjourned during pleasure.
The House resumed at Five o'Clock.

Captain JONES and other Members of the House of
Commons, brought up the Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly
Drainage Bill, the Cork and Passage Railway Bill, the
Civil Courts Bill, the Coroners (Durham) Bill, the Forth
and Clyde Canal Bill, and several private Bills.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a petition
from Northampton, in favour of Church-rates.
Lord CHICHESTER presented a petition from Poole
against Church rates ; also a petition from the Dissenters
of Lewes to the same effect.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petit
tion against the Dublin and Kilkenny Railroad Bill
:rem the Inland Navigation Company, on the ground that
a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the pre
piety of establishing rail-roads, which had not yet reported.i
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought that the pro-
per course would hare been to have waited for that report,t,
but as the Bill had been passed by the other House, and
the Company had been at great.
expense, and none oft.
the landholders were opposed to it, he had therefore
come to the conclusion not to oppose the Bill, as it
could be so passed as not to interfere with the Report z;
of the Commissioners when made. g

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Grand
Canal Company, who were the petitioners, would hare op-4
posed the Bill in the Commons, but that they thought it.,4
would have been opposed on the Report of the Commis-F4
sioners, which it was expected would have been made.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he was surprised ,
that this Bill should be proceeded with this Session. Op-•
position to this and similar measures was general
reserved till they came before their Lordships' House,
as their merits were more carefully considered ini,:
their Lordships' Committees.—( Hear, hear.) In respacul
• to this Bill he knew nothing of its promoters, but he had;
received a letter from Ireland, stating that the
Report of the Commissioners was ready to be printed,
and that the proposed line was contrary to the recom- •
mendations in it. He thought the Bill should be postponedj.
Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition fromfi
Carlow, in favour of the Dublin and Kilkenny Railway Bill. f'
On the motion of the same Noble Lord, the Foreign i
Offices Bill was read a third time. al
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petitionOZ
from a large number of places in the counties of Wilts and
Gloucester against Church-rates.
FA
On _the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY, several'
Private Bills were advanced a stage.
ki CHURCH EXTENSION—SCOTLAND. h
Lord BELIIAVEN presented a petition from Kinross
in favour of the better observance of the Sabbath. Also 3
a petition from the General Assembly of Scotland in favour,
of the extension of Church accommodation in Scotland. 4
He trusted that means would be taken to the effect prayed 4
in the petition, which would afford general satisfaction. r
After a few words from Lord HADDINGTON, fil
Viscount MELBOURNE said that the discussionil
which took place when the petition had been agreed toi,:f.
-,
had been characterised with great temper ; many obser--,.
vations had been made on the speech which was attributel
to him when the subject was discussed in their Lordships'
House, and he was attacked for what he then said. What ..i4
had been said by Dr. Macleod in the Assembly was)
contrary to what he had heard. He (Lord Melbourne):s
thought that the subject of Church extension in Scot-:
land should be taken into the consideration of Mi-A
nisters, but the question was not a single one,tiy
or one which could be considered abstractedly.
They must see that there was a want of Church room and:
of pastoral instruction—that these were the evils before
they applied themselves to remedy them. For he ;:•,
doubted much that if a man desired to go to Church,l
that if he was anxious and zealous to attend a place of'..,-
worship, he could not be prevented by a want of Church-"j
room at present. But he was ready to consider the subject.
He was ready to go further. He would promise the assistance -'1
to the object of the petitioners which had before been pro- '1

niscd, if the property, which was the property of the
Church, was now at the disposal of the Crown and
Parliament—the hereditary revenues. lie would be ready
to consider w hether these funds were not available for the
purposes in view, and whether these could be effected in
he manner in which it was now supposed they could.
If these funds were found insufficient, and it was reported
• to be wise and expedient, then he for one would go farther
upon the subject, and say that the subject ought to be im-
mediately taken up and receive serious consideration.
The Earl of ABERDEEN was very sorry that the
Noble Viscount had not said a little more upon so impor-
t' tent a matter. He had now only repeated what had fallen
from him three years ago ; he was then prepared to take
the subject into his immediate and serious attention, yet
' nothing had been done, and the Noble Viscount was
, only yet ready to give his attention to it. If it was reported
4to be wise, prudent and desirable, then he would give his
serious attention to the matter, in order to see whether it
would be expedient to take from the fund created by
Bishops' rents and tithes for Church extension. That
tfund was, in the opinion of one of the first of lawyers
and authorities in Scotland upon such a subject, inviolable,
and could not be applied to any such purpose—he meant
• Lord Moncrieff, whose decision he thought would be
respected by the Noble Viscount.
Earl BELHAVEN could assure the Noble Lord that
Lord Moncrieff's opinion was, that fiends belonging to pri-
vate persons were inviolate.
The Earl of ABERDEEN.—It was not so reported in
the account he had seen of the proceedings of the General
Assembly.
Earl BELHAVEN could assure the Noble Earl that
such was the opinion of Lord Moncrieff, for he had not
only heard the speech in question, but had conversed with
him upon the subject.
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN said, the reported opi-
nion of Lord Moncrieff, as given by his Noble Friend
(Belhaven), agreed with a report he then held in his hand.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said he had then been
misled, but whether so or not, it would bo neither
more nor less than taking the money as a grant from the
Consolidated Fund.--( Hear, hear.) He could assure
the Noble Viscount that there was no political feel-
ing upon the subject. It was universal in Scotland ;
and, even on the score of economy would be beneficial,
for many were of opinion that there would be a great dimi-
nution of crime, if there were an extension of Church ac-
commodation and spiritual instruction.—(Hear.) Ho had
the honour only a few days ago of seeing her Majesty take
a solemn oath to preserve inviolate the Scotch Church.
It depended upon the Noble Viscount whether that
oath were kept in spirit and sincerity. Most certainly the
Noble Viscount would not give satisfaction to the
country if he did not agree to their almost unanimous 1
prayer.
Lord CAMPERDOWN said that the subject was
one of the greatest importance, and occupied a great
portion of the public attention in Scotland. He
did not, however, agree with the Noble Lord opposite in
respect to the conduct pursued by his Majesty's Ministers,
for if they had been remiss, or negligent of the subject,
Ihe would have been the first to complain of it ; but
on the contrary he did not see what other lino of conduct
could have been pursued by Government than that already
adopted. The Commission appointed by it had already
reported in a large district, and Governnment had acted on
it, and in reference to the opinion of Lord Moncrieff he had
stated that it it was impossible for Government to do what
was urged by the Noble Lord opposite. He (Lord C.)
Thad waded through a large portion of the Report, and he
found that in Edinburgh there were 21,000 seats unappro-
priated, and this did not evidence a want of Church accom-
modation. He did not wish to introduce politics in religious
!discussions, and he had read with dissatisfaction the
declaration of Dr. Macleod, that although politics
should be on every occasion expelled from the pulp,
yet as electors, the Clergy of the Church of Scotland
had a right to come forward as electors ; for the clergy of
that Church, by pursuing an opposite course, had acquired
the affection of the people.
The Earl of HADDINGTON defended the conduct
of the Scotch clergy in coming forward, particularly when
they considered the Church Establishment in danger ;
and, he considered the Noble Lord had done them such
injustice, that he felt it to be his duty to defend them in com-
ing forward in opposition to a Government who, whilst
professing to support Church Establishments did so with
heavy blows and great discourgement. The Clergy of Scot-
land did not seek for the franchise ; but this having been
given to them, a duty was imposed on them which they were
bound to perform. The Clergy of Scotland did not de-
serve the attack made on them ; and he was sure that,
in exercising, their political rights, they would acquire
the affection still more of the people of Scotland,
in maintaining by it those establishments to which the people
)f Scotland were sincerely attached. About two years ago
t commission had been appointed, and that commission had
!made one report. if there had been no want of Church
accommodation a sum voted by Parliament had been very
uselessly expended ; but he would contend that it had been
applied to a just and a pious purpose. A sum of 50,000/.
was voted for the building of churches in the Highlands,
and that sum was of course voted upon the admission of a
want of accommodation. A further sum of 50,000/. was
voted by the House of Commons, but the Bill was lost in
that House, and the people of Scotland had never had the
benefit of that sum. It was well known that the people of
Scotland were not much addicted to unnecessary subscrip-
tions ; but they had subscribed the sum of 150,000/. for
this purpose ; and did not that fact prove that a want of
accommodation existed? He would take the statement of
ais Noble Friend as a beginning, and he trusted it would

, he thie befgsinninlg odf a great and important benefit to the
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN explained.
The Earl of BELHAVEN replied and the petition was
,ordered to lie on the table.
QUARTER SESSIONS COURTS.
The Earl of WICKLOW rose to move for a document
. which he did not think would be refused. It was well
known that there were few institutions productive of more
, good and less open to objection that the Courts of Quarter
"L 1
Sessions. The mode in which the business had been con-
tducted was such as to give uni'ersal satisfaction ; and, not-
' withstanding this, her Majesty's Ministers bad thought it
littecessary to carry their passion for Reform into these in-
stitutions. They were then not only desirous of reforming,
'.but also of creating patronage, and, therefore, under the
upretence of assimilating these Courts to the Courts of
il Assize, they determined to create an entirely new class of
.officers-34 Crown solicitors for conducting the criminal
ibusiness of the Courts of Quarter Sessions. He (the Earl
.f. Wicklow) did complain of the manner in which persons
[
=tad been appointed to this office, who were notoriously op-
'c+posed to the institutions of the country, and advocated a
iif, .
',tepeal of the Union ? The document he was about to move
If for was a copy of a circular of the Attorney-General for Ire-
rl and, addressed to the solicitors of each county, requiring them
•',,to forward to him all information taken before the Magistrates,
-.;,'i, order that he might arrange them, and decide which cases
louglit to be brought to trial. This, it was stated, was to
I!
plassimilate the practice of these Courts to that of the Courts
"';of Assize. He (the Earl of Wicklow) presumed that it
was in order to give the Attorney-General a check over the
proceedings of the Crown solicitors. This was one of the
'i.peints on which he was desirous of obtaining information.
rile next point was, in what manner was the Attorney-
; General to be remunerated for his services ? One of the
"'sources of the revenue of the Attorney-General was a fee of
',fifteen guineas for every batch of cases submitted to him
Oefore the Assizes. Now, if the payment for the cases
.;,.before the Quarter Sessions were to be the same, what an
~'=immense increase would be made in the revenue of that
lotfieer. The cases heard at the Quarter Sessions were just
'l,lotir times as many as those heard at the Assizes. Although
,this question might at the first view appear to be an Irish
't;one, yet he thought he could prove to the House that it
ttiwas also an English question. In this country the costs of
,t he prosecutions were paid by the county, and therefore, the
'county had a controul, and could prevent any jobbing ; but
31to such practice prevailed in Ireland. All the fees came
(out of the Consolidated Fund, and no application to Parlia-
, ‘ment was necessary. Having made this statement, he was
/Jlanxious to learn, first, on what ground this circular was ad-
,*dressed to these Cro:vn solicitors, and next, how it was in-
-44t ended
rten,.e. to remunerate the Attorney-General ?
i The Earl of MULGRAVE said that the Noble Earl
!moved for a letter dated the sth of May from the Attor-
?ney-General, referring to an alteration in the Courts of
Quarter Sessions, The Noble Earl said if the alteration
','lead worked well, what was the use of this letter ? Perhaps
tithe House would be surprised to hear that it was no new
:(•ircular, but that it was precisely and technically a common
''form, addressed to the clerks of the Crown at the Assizes,
land for the clerks of the peace since the alteration. The
letter might have been more stringent in its terms, and felt
nis such by some individual clerk of the peace ; but the
'4ractice was this—every Crown solicitor wrote to the clerks
','of the peace for the informations, and if he did not get them
•wvithin a reasonable time, the name of the Attorney-General
1,:, was mentioned. This was the history of the whole matter.
Fr The object of the alteration in these institutions was in order
r' to establish a more effectual system of prosecution in the
Courts of Quarter Sessions, and to put down those brutal
~ j.and ferocious habits which the people were accustomed to
''', exhibit at fairs and riots. He held in his hand a letter from
...,; Mr. Howley', the assistant barrister for the county of Tippe-
Trary, who said that the offences triable had greatly decreased
;'within the last twelve months, and that for the same period
rz, there had not been any faction fights, riots, waylayings, as-
Pisaults, 'rescuing prisoners from the police, or any single oc-
L- currence of that description. With regard to the opinion of
rp,
~, this gentleman upon the subject it might be sufficient to
say that every man in the county bore testimony to his ad-
, miral,le chsel'arze of his flutieg. He (Earl Mulgrave) met

Lord Bloomfield coming down to the House, and that
Noble Lord had said that he could never thank him
enough for having sent Mr. Howley to the county Tippe-
rary. With respect to the patronage, the utmost extent
which could be received for these offices was 50/., and very,
often it wus not more than 101., as the fees had been re-
duced, under the new arrangement, from two guineas to
one guinea. With regard to the distribution of the pa-
tronage of the Government of Ireland, he begged, once for
all, to say that he was ready to take the whole responsibi-
lity of it upon himself. He desired to shift it upon no one.
With regard to the peculiar instances to which the Noble
' Earl had alluded, of the appointment of these solicitors,
who were called bar attorneys in Ireland, the only object
which his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Attorney-Gene-
ral) could have was out 'of them to recommend to him
only those who were best fitted to discharge the duties of
the offices which they were called to fill. With regard to
their religion, Mr. O'Loghlin had stated to him that it had
never been his practice to ask those solicitors any questions
in that respect ; but that he had found it impossible in many
places to recommend any but Catholics, because none but
Catholics could be found in the profession. The Noble Earl
had also been pleased to complain of them as being what
he called " public agitators ;" but if there was anything
which rendered them obviously unfit for their situations,
a specific motion should have been made on the subject.
He thought be had given sufficient explanation of the
grounds on which those appointments had been made, and
he was himself perfectly satisfied that the system would
answer well. But the Noble Earl thought that it was pro-
bable to confer some great emolument on the Attorney-
General : now he need only say that latterly the Attorney-
General had declined any remuneration ; but, supposing he
had taken it, he (Earl Mulgrave) had been informed that
in the Munster Circuit, for instance, the amount would have
been 50/.. ; the rate of remuneration, he understood, to be
15/. for every fifty cases, and that was a considerable re-
duction from the amount which the Noble Lord had ap-
peared to intimate.
The Earl of WICKLOW replied.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH was sorry to see poli-
tical agents appointed to such situations ; but the fact could
not be denied. He knew that in the county of Sligo the
gentleman appointed was a member of the treasonable so-
ciety in Dublin ; and in the county of Westmeath the gen-
tleman appointed although he wished expressly to
avoid saying anything against his character—was yet
notoriously known as an active political agent.
The Earl of GLENGALL said, the great evil of which
they complained was the appointment of persons as Crown
solicitors, who were the members of the Association in
Dublin ; that was the conduct with which they really found
fault ; and he was himself aware of four or five Crown
solicitors, also members of that body. Now it was well
known that the members of that Association were pledged
to obstruct the law as regarded tithes ; and that the Crown
solicitors were sworn to protect them. What, then, be
wanted to know was this : whether in such a case they were
to attend the pledge given to the Association, or the oath
which they had taken to maintain and administer the law i
Lord DUN ALLY was understood to deny some of the
assertions of the Noble Earl respecting the state of Ireland.
Lord FITZGERALD observed that while he concurred
in opinion with the Noble Earl as to the valuable services
rendered by Mr. Howley towards the production of tran-
quillity and peace, he was at the same time glad to have
the opportunity of vindicating the magistrates, the asses-
sors of the county, and he was the more glad because parti-
cular credit had been given to the Government for making
those appointments in consequence of the conduct of the
magistracy ; and because they had been said to be par-
ticularly valuable, as the magistrates, so far from being
desirous to put down these disgraceful outrages, had en-
couraged, or, at the least, connived at them. On the part
of the magistrates of that county, he denied the truth of
that statement amongst so respectable a body, who dis-
charged duties not only of obloquy but also of considerable
danger ; no such feeling would be allowed to prevent the
zealous fulfilment of their obligations. He entirely ac-
quitted the Noble Earl himself of any desire to advocate
his appointments on that ground ; he had placed them on
the proper footing, of their own merits.
The Earl of MULGR AVE felt that to the cordial co-
operation of the bench of Magistrates he was indebted for
much of his success. With regard to the motion, perhaps
the Noble Earl would think it necessary to press it, as the
circular had been a matter of form for many years.
The Earl of WICKLOW consented to withdraw it,
and the discussion then terminated.
THE REGENCY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose for the purpose of
moving the second reading of this Bill, and thereby asking
their Lordships to provide for an event which, although
they all hoped that it might be very remote, was still pos-
sible ; but undoubtedly it was the duty of Parliament to
provide for every event which might by possibility interfere
with the administration of the Government of the country.
Under the present circumstances of the Royal Family, the
Heir Presumptive residing out of the boundaries of the
kingdom, it was obvious that whenever the demise of the
Crown should occur there might be considerable difficulty if
some provision were not made for carrying on the ordinary bu-
siness of the Government. When he (the Lord Chancellor)
hod introduced the Bill to their Lordships, he had intimated
that the statute of Queen Anne had been adopted as the pre-
cedent to be followed on the present occasion. The machi-
nery introduced into the Bill of Anne appeared to him free
from all objection. That measure had provided that five
persons, holding any important office in the State, should,
with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief
Justice of the King's Bench, be constituted Lords Justices
for the purpose of carrying on the executive functions of
the Government ; and further, in order to give the heir of
the Crown the power of enabling them to come into his
place, it was provided that be should have the power of no-
minating an indefinite number of persons whose names were
to be made out in three lists, to be kept in the charge of
three officers appointed for that purpose-Ist, an officer,
to be nominated by the heir presumptive-2d, the Lord
Chancellor ; and 3d, the Archbishop of Canterbury.—
( Hear.) Those three lists were to be kept sealed until the
event should happen, when they were to be taken and
opened before the Privy Council ; and it was then provided
that the persons so appointed by the heir presumptive should,
with the seven other persons, be constituted Lords Jus-
tices to exercise the sovereignty of the kingdom. That was
the proposed scheme, to which it had been necessary to
refer as a precedent for the present case, with the exception
of that part of it which restricted the justices from perform-
ing any other powers and duties attached to the Crown. It
had been provided that the Lords Justices should not dis-
solve Parliament, and should not give the Royal assent to
any Acts affecting the prerogatives of the Crown or the in-
terests of the Church. He would now suggest to their
Lordships that that precedent should be follovved, that the
power of the Lords Justices should be restricted in a simi-
lar manner, and they should not be allowed to create
peerages, make grants, or interfere with the privileges of
the Crown, except so far as might be necessary for the pur-
' pose of carrying on the Government of the country. In the
second section of the present Bill there was s provision upon
which it was his intention at a future stage to move
an amendment. It had been thought inconvenient
that the Lord Justices should consist of an indefinite,
unlimited number of persons ; and, accordingly, as
the Bill then stood, the presumptive heir was to appoint
so many persons, " not exceeding seven in the whole,"
giving thereby a clear majority over those in whose hands
the Executive Government rested at the time. Subse-
quently, upon reflection, it was considered better to leave
it entirely, both in point of numbers and all other respects,
to the discretion of the presumptive heir. That altera-
tion, therefore, it would be his duty to propose to their
Lordships at the proper time, when they had gone into
Committee upon the Bill. With the exception of that
variation, the provisions of the former Bill were adopted in
that the second reading of which he then moved.

Lord BROUGHAM said that undoubtedly this Bill
followed the precedent of the 6th of Anne, excepting that
part which provided for an unlimited number of Lords
Justices ; but upon that he would not dwell. There was,
however, another subject to which he felt bound to call the
attention of their Lordships. Whether at that late hour,
and in the empty state of the House, he ought to proceed
to enter upon it he would leave to the pleasure of the
House. It would be sufficient for him to postpone it until
a future stage, and only in the meantime to enter, as it
were, a caveat against the measure, so that he might
not be supposed—for his objection went, in some de-
gree, to the principle of the Bill—to agree en-
tirely even in its principle.—(Hear, hear.) The gene-
ral aspect of the difficulty he could state in a few
words. At the period of the passing of the 6th of Queen
Anne the Royal Family were placed in different circum-
stances from those which existed at present. There was
then the Queen herself, and the Electress Sophia, and the
heirs of her body, to whom the Crown was limited ; but
the rest of the family were placed in the peculiar position
of being denounced by that very Act as persons to assert
the title of whom was declared therein to he high treason ;
consequently, any provision which took place with respect
to them must be wholly out of the question. Disposed as
he was to regard that precedent with all respect—the re-
spect which was always due to precedents in matters of
such importance as those touching the succession to the
Crown, and the respect which was especially due to it, in
consideration of the great and eminent lawyers with whom
it originated—it was at the same time his duty to con-
sider whether they would probably have pursued the
same course had the circumstances heel different ; and
whether in that case they might not have doubted the
expediency of Lords Justices altogether as being an
expedient and makeshift for another office—the custos
regni ; but, be it that they might have preferred that
scheme of Lords Justices. as for v.ry obvious reasons

they certainly might, then arose a question of consiuc
cable doubt whether those famous Constitutional lawyers
would have entirely omitted the names of any members of
the Royal Family of mature age, and resident within the
realm ; and whether they were not more likely to have
acted on the principle of including the members of the
Royal Family within the lists of the Lords Justices. His
object was not at present to object to the proposal of the
Noble Lord ; he merely desired to call the attention of the
Government to the plaint to which he had just adverted,
if it had not already been maturely considered. They
c uld take time at the present moment to examine the
point, and at a future stage it could be discussed. It was
sufficient for him now to enter his caveat against the Bill
on the score of his present objection, and to declare that if
the measure was not altered he should bring forward a mo-
tion with a view to improve it.

Lord WYN FORD said, that if any part of the great
officers of the kingdom were chosen, the whole ought to
be included. He thought it would be the best course to
allow the next successor to the Throne to choose, and to
give him a controul over the power which might be dele-
gated to these functionaries. For his own part, he was
perfectly content With the measure in its present state, and
saw no necessity for a change.
Lord BROUGHAM wished to remark that the Con-
stitution recognised the claims of the heir apparent or the
heir presumptive, as it did the office of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, or any other functionary. He referred is his
remarks not to the King of Hanover alone but to any one
who might be next heir to the Throne.
Lord WYNFORD explained.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the objec-
tion seemed easy of settlement if the Government was car-
ried on in the absence of the Sovereign. At the same
time he thought that there existed an absolute necessity
that the proper administration of the Government should
be secured during the interval which might elapse between
the decease of one Sovereign and the arrival of the other.
What was the Government then to do ? Why, in or-
der to effect the desired object, the Chief Justices and
certain other great officers of the Crown were to be ap-
pointed, and the successor should have the power of add-
ing others, at his option. In exercising that privilege he
should be invested with some power as the Sovereign ab-
solute, and he might appoint any of the Royal Family to
exercise the functions if they were proper persons. The
Members of the Royal Family were not imposed on him,
but if they were eligible persons they might surely be se-
lected to conduct public matters in his absence. The
House had a competent precedent before them, and he
thought it best to adhere strictly to that precedent, and
there was no more prudent mode of acting in case the So-
vereign did not immediately arrive than to instruct the Lords
Justices to act in his absence.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite (Brougham) had forgotten to
allude to the arguments used in the case of George 111.
The right of the heir apparent was strongly urged in that
case, and eventually George IV. was obliged to act with
such restrictions as Parliament imposed.
Lord BROUG HAM said that he merely desired to im-
press on their Lordships that the precedent of Queen Anne's
time did not strictly apply. He should like to be shown a
single instance where the Royal Family were excluded from
the Regency, provided they were resident in the realm and
of proper age and faculties. In Queen Anne's time this
was not the fact, and in this respect he maintained the cases
were different. He desired to remove the possibility—the
bare possibility—of any misunderstanding on the question.
The Bill was then read a second time.
THE COMMISSIONERS OF BANKRUPTS
(IRELAND) BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM said that as this Bill had been al-
tered, and the causes of objection had been removed, he
should not offer any opposition to the measure.
The Bill was than read a third time and passed.
The House then adjourned.