The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-10 00:00:00

;ultation with several Hon. Members around him, left
the House.

Mr. W. WYNN said that some words had just fallen
froM the Hon. Gentleman opposite, which appeared to
be very offensive to his Hon. and Gallant Friend who had
just left the House. In order, therefore, to avoid any
offensive proceedings, he should move that the Hon.
Member for Lineoln be ordered to attend in his place
forthwith.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") Honour-
able Gentlemen might laugh at him, but he made the
motion on his own knowledge.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion having been put, and the Speaker decid-
ing that it was carried in the affirmative, the Sergeant
was despatched after Colonel Sibthorp.
The report in in the meantime was ordered to be re-
ceived.

The Deputy-Sergeant then entered and informed the
Speaker that he had served the order of the 'House on
Colonel Sibthorp. He had served it on him in the pas-
sage leading tp the House ; and he believed the Hon.
and Gallant Member was then in one of the Committee-
rooms.

COL SIBTHORP having then entered, accompanied by
Sir E. KNATCHBULL,

The SPEAKER said that having been given to under-
stand that some words had been used by an Hon. Mem-
ber which had been considered personally offensive by
the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln, he felt it was
his duty to call on the Hon. Member to retract the ex -
pressions. He also wished to say that he considered the
Honourable Member had retracted the expressions or else
he should certainly have called him to order. When
the Hon. Member had commenced his speech he Lad
used words which might have been thought offensive,
upon-which he (the Speaker) called him to order, and
the lion. Member as he understood then retracted his
words. If, however, that were not the case he was sure
the Hon. Member would see the necessity •f now re-
tracting expressions which were considered by another
Hon. Member as personally offensive.
Mr. FOX MAULE said he was aware that there was
neither honour nor anything else to be gained in pro-
longing such a discussion. He did not want to conceal
that it had been his wish to mark strongly his sense of the
words which had fallen from the Hon. and Gallant Member.
If, however, he had violated the orders of the House,
he was ready to retract the expressions he had used.
He would again repeat, that the statement brought
against himself and his Hon. Friends around him, was
such that he wished strongly to mark the sense which he
entertained of them.

Colonel SIBTHORP said that he had been actuated
by only one motive, and that motive lie had a right to
act upon. • He should always exercise in that House his
right of expressing his opinion with regard to the con-
duct of public men. He had left the House, as he should
always do upon such occasions ; and though he was
ready to bow to any just authority, he considered that
the guardianship •of his own honour and of his
own character, both -as a public and it private' man, should
never-prevent him from protecting that honour and that
character in-the manner most consistent with his feel,;
ings; and with what he- -owed to his'. duty and himself.
If he 'rightly understood the-Hon. Gentleman,-he had= not
retracted the -etprestionihe -liad,used.. If he: had.done
so,- he,
.(Colonel Sibthorp) *IA perfectly satisfied --; but
hd thought he had it.right-to put it tOthe Chair Whether
he was hotind to consider that the -.Words'and 'imptcta
tiOnedireeted against hint Were Wholly and -entirety r 64
tracted ?

t•
Sir R. PEEL submitted that the Hon. Gentleman had
done all that could be expected from him, and that his
Hon. and Gallant Friend should be perfectly satisfied.—
(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said, that such being the opinion
of gentlemen careful of their honour in that House, he
would rest satisfied.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE attempted to address the House
amid loud cries of " Order, order, chair, chair."

The SPEAKER said he would subinit to the Hon.
Member whether he did not think that the matter had
gone far enough, and that there was no occasion for
further prolonging the discussion?—(Hear.)
The subject was then dropped.
CLERK OF THE PEACE COMPENSATION
BILL.

On the Order of the Day being read for the bringing
up the Report on the Clerk of the Peace (Lan-
caster) Bill,
Mr. DUGDALE moved that the Bill be recommitted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion 5l

Against the motiou 5O
Majority —l

The Bill having then been ordered to be recommitted,
Mr. DUGDALE moved that it be an instruction to
the Committee to grant compensation to the Town Clerk
of the Peace for the Borough of Birmingham.—Agreed to.
Mr. COURTENAY moved that it be an instruction
to the Committee to grant compensation to the Clerk of
Justices of the Peace for Manchester.

Mr. M. PHILTPS opposed the motion, no petition
having bee* presented in its favour, and the feeling of
the inhabitants of the town being unanimously against it.
Strangers were then ordered to Withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For the instruction — 28
Against it 65
Majority against it _ —37

Mr. AINSWURTiI moved that it be an instruction
to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill should
be extended to the borough of Bolton. It was called for
on precisely the same grounds as the borough of Man-
chester.

Mr. GRIMSDITCH opposed the motion. In the case
of Manchester a decision as to the question of the va-
lidity of the charter had been decided by a Court of
Law, but the question of the validity of Bolton charter
was in dispute.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the motioa
had no tendency whatever to decide the question of the
validity of the charter. It merely went to decide the
question of compensation in case the charter should be
found to be valid.
Mr. AINSWORTH said that the parties to the litiga-
tion of the Bolton charter had agreed to abide by the de-
cision of the Manchester case, and therefore it could not
be said that no decision had been come to on the question.
Mr. WYNN opposed the motion, on the ground that
the people of Bolton ought to have had due notice by the
introduction of a Bill for that special purpose, so that they
might have an opportunity of petitioning against it.
The gallery was then cleared, but the motion was
negatived without a division.
The House then went into Committee.

On the motion for introducing a clause to include Bir-
mingham in the provisions of the Bill,

Mi.. HUME hoped that the same course would be pur-
sued as in the Bolton case, and that a special Bill would
be required for the purpose.
Mr. DUGDALE said that the compensatien was not
objected to by any of the authorities of Birmingham,
and, therefore, he should move the insertion of the
clause.

had said that he (Lord John Russell) had not gone on
with extreme diligence with respect to this measure.
That was very easily said, but it must be recollected, that
considering that the Army Estimates, and several other
questions of importance had to be discussed, as much
of the. time of the House as could well be spared had
been given to the subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman
he stated that with regard to the administration of jus-
tice, th ere was no necessity whatever for the measure
coming into operation before the month of October.
Now, fior his own part, he thought it would be a matter
of extreme convenience that the whole provisions of the
Bill should be well understood, that all the appointments
under it should be made, and every arrangement per-
fected, in order that when the Courts met in Michaelmas
Term, Counsel and all parties should understand the
course they had to pursue. By that means every ar-
rangement might be made with regard to the sitting of
the different Courts, and the legal business of the
country i placed upon a proper footing. The Right
Honourable Gentleman had stated freely and frankly
that his object in moving the introduction of
the present clause, was not for the purpose
of expediting the administration of justice, but because
he thought that as the House had passed a vote of no con-
fidence in Ministers; that therefove they were not fit per-
sons—that the Lord Chancellor was not a fit person, to
make the appointments which were contemplated by the
Bill. He (Lord John Russell) could not assent to such
reasons. It was impossible that he should assent to such
grounds without admitting, which he could not admit,
that no appointments ought to be made by any Member
of the present Ministry because the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, the Member for Tamworth, had obtained a
vote from that House of want of confidence by a majority of
one. He denied the authority of the vote to prevent the
Ministry proceeding in its usual course, unless that
vote was backed by the opinion of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) Why, he would ask, should it be said or in-
sinuated that the Lord Chancellor, because he might be
might be about to retire from office, was unfit to nomi-
nate individuals to office under the Bill? He thought
that the course which the Lord Chancellor had hitherto
pursued had shown a determination on his part not to
appoint individuals to unnecessary offices, and as an in-
stance of that—as an instance of the desire on the part
of the Lord Chancellor not to avail himself of the exer-
cise of the patronage he possessed, he might refer
to the cases of Mr. Justice Erskine, and Sir George
Rose. In both those cases the Lord Chancellor
considering the appointments which those learned
gentlemen held to be unnecessary, refrained from ap-
pointing any successors to them. Such being the con-
duct of the Lord Chancellor, he would ask whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman was justified in coming forward
and placing every obstacle in his power to the further
proceeding with a Bill for the better administration of
the justice of the country, and at the same time to en-
deavour, if possible, to fix a stigma upon the Lord Chan-
cellor, because it was thought probable that he would
shortly retire from - office?—(Hear, hear.)` The Right
Hon. Gentleman, with' the candour.; for which he Nyas
eminent, had not veiled the' purpose he had in view
in pursuing the course ,ha.: had done. He had
stated that • hit:. reasons for proposing the - clause
was, 'that the House had come to a vote of = a 'want of
ocuifidence in Ministers ; as he had said before, he'consi-
defect the adoption of such acourse totally uncalled f0t,.1
as he felt convitieed'Alitit the Lord,Chancellor, in any
recommendations he might make, would be guided alone
by a desire for the pure administration of justice.—
(Cheers.) He could only look upon the clause pro-
posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman as one, the object
of which was to declare that Lord Cottenham was totally
unfit to make any recommendations for the appointment
of officers under the Bill.—(Cries of " No, no.") That
must be meaning of the Right Hon. Gentleman. —(Cries
of " No.") What else could it be ? The effect of the
interposition of the Right Honourable Gentle-
man's clause was that which he had stated,
a determination to say that the present
Lord Chancellor was not fit to dispose of the appoint-
ments which would be given to that high legal officer by
the Bill. The present Noble Lord who filled that. office
had been respected by the country for the impartial man-
ner in which he had administered justice in the disposal.
of every cause which had come before him, and the clear
and lucid nature of the judgments that he had given ;
and yet a Learned Judge who had so acted, and who
was so respected by the country, was to be con-
demned in the House of Commons, because, on a
party question, the other side of the House had gained a
temporary victory by a majority of one. Upon this ques-
tion he (Lord J. Russell) must defer to the opinion of the
House, but he would never allow the name of the
Lord Chancellor to be branded with odium.

Mr. HUME objected, on the principle laid down by
the Hon. Member for Montgomery.
Mr. C. DOUGLAS said that compensation had been
given to the Clerk of the Peace of Warwick, and that
the case of the Town Clerk of Birmingham was precisely
similar.

Mr. WARBURTON said they had nothing to do
with the merits of the ease. The House had decided in
the case of Bolton that a preliminary objection existed
in point of form, and precisely the same objection
existed to the present clause.
Sir R. PEEL thought that the tow.i of Birmingham
having had notice, and not having petitioned against it,
it would-be pressing the matter too far to oppose this
clause.

Mr. WARBURTON asked how they were to know
that the people of Birmingham had had sufficient notice ?
Mr. G RIMSDITCH said that he had understood
from the Members for Birmingham that they would not
interfere.

Mr. HUME said that there was a Member for Bir-
mingham in the House, who would not declare one way
or the other ; and therefore how could they tell whether
the inhabitants had or had not had sufficient notice?

The clause was then brought up and added to the Bill.
The House then resumed ; the Report was received, and
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the further con-
sideration of the Report on this Bill.
Sir E. SUGDEN said he thought this Bill would not
have been brought forward at this period of the Session,
still he would not oppose the Bill if some modification
were proposed in it. It would be extremely inconvenient
to establish a new Court of Chancery at this period of
the year. He knew from experience how difficult it
was to conduct the business of the Courts during a gene-
ral election. With the approach of the election it
would be highly improper to add a new Court to those
already in existence. He (Sir Edward Sugden) was
rather surprised, under all circumstances, that the
Bill should be pressed upon the House. The House had
declared their want of confidence in the Government,.
and the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) had been
found wanting. He was now about to appeal to the
country and to stand upon his trial. Still he would not
altogether oppose the Bill. What he would propose was
this—That a clause should be added, providing that the
Bill should not come into operation until the 10th of
October. Iu the present position of the Government,
was that, or was It not a reasonable proposition ?
(Hear, hear.) The result of the elections would be
known in two or three weeks. He could not consent to
place all this patronage in the hands of the Government
until it was known whether or aot ' they possessed the
confidence of the country.
He trusted that no Ministers placed in the delicate situa-
tion in which the present Ministry were, would be al-
lowed by that House to make the appointments to which
he alluded, He should therefore move that the follow-
ing clause be added to the Bill ;—" And be it enacted,
that this Act shall commence and have effect on and
from and after the 10th day of October next, and not be-
fore, except where a subsequent day is hereinbefore
fixed."

Mr. RICHARDS said that he believed the appoint-
ments which the Lord Chancellor had made in the
Chancery and the Exchequer, had given general satis-
faction to the profession. He had come down to the
House that night prepared to vote against the proposi-
tion of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon,
because he thought its effect might be to throw the Bill
over altogether, but as he now found that the proposition
was only to postpone the appointment of the new Vice-
Chancellor, he did most cordially support it.
Sir R. PEEL said that if the Lord Chancellor was
obstructed in the exercise of the legal patronage of the
Government by an Address to the Crown, he should con-
sider that as implying distrust in the great officer, and
he could not consent to it. But he thought that there
was a clear distinction between refusing to be a party to
any arrangement that implied confidence in the Govern-
ment, and that of distrusting one of its highest officers.
In the present case he considered there was a great ju-
dicial arrangement under consideration.--(Hear.) The
Executive Government, had been shown not to possess that
confidence of the House of Commons. It was true that
the Noble Lord had said that the next Parliament was
to decide whether the present Government was to re,-
main in power or not, and such being the case, he
thought, when a great judicial arraugemer,t was
under consideration, it was inconvenient, for the
House, placed as it then was, to pror_eed with it.
He thought the best course would be ttiat the present
Bill should be withdrawn ; and if the.: Noble Lord on the
meeting of a new Parliament sh'ould find himself in a
condition to carry on the attan•s of the country, then he
(Sir R. Peel) should have no objection to support him-in
the present measure, and thereby all imputations upon
the Lord Chancellor would be prevented. He (Sir R.
Peel) disclaimed any intention of making any personal
attack upon the Lord Chancellor, and he thought, con-
sidering all the circumstances of the case, that the course
he had pointed out was the best that could be pursued.
He hoped, therefore, that the Noble Lord would post-
pone the Bill for the present Session, and bring it in in
' the next if he found he was in a condition to carry on
the Government, and then he could assure him that he
should have his support. The Noble Lord, however,
must not charge him (Sir R. Peel) with obstructing
their great judicial improvement.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he did not rise to express
any opinion as to the course which it was advisable to
take with regard to this Bill, but to protest against the
doctrine of the Right Hon. Gentleman, which he re-
garded as at once novel, dangerous, and unconstitutional.
—(Hear, hear.) He looked upon the motion as intended
to deprive the Ministers, for the time being, of the pa-
tronage which was usually enjoyed by the Government.
—(Hear, hear.) He would not enter into any defence
of the Lord Chancellor, believing that his character
did not need vindication.—(Hear.)
Sir E. SUGDEN explained. His Right Hon. Friend
said he had not the slightest intention of casting any
reflection upon the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. HUME said it seemed to him, looking at both
sides of the Houso, that the question was, who should
have the appointment of the Judges.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman who had proposed the amendment,
might have saved himself a great deal of trouble by tell-
ing them that on the 4th of Octobethe expected his party
to be in power, and he wished the appointment to be
postponed to that period.—(Hear, and a laugh.) It was
obvious that there was no analogy between this case and
that of the Corn-laws. The question had not yet been
discussed, and upon it there existed great difference of
opinion, whilst the Bill before the House was admitted
by every one to be a fit and proper measure. They had
been told that this was not a question of party. Did
party ever appear in a stronger light ?—(Hear, hear.)
He admitted that there had been a majority of one against
the Government, but although a majority on that particu-
lar vote, it was not a majority of the House. What
would the Hon. Baronet have said had the opposition
taken such a course when he held the reins of office ?
(Hear, hear.) The plain truth was, that the
present Government would have the nomination, and the
Lord Chancellor would have the recommendation of the
proposed Judges. Thpse who now stood in the way of
justice opposed the Bill in order to secure the patronage.
That was the fact, and it would be Much better to admit
it.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Noble Lord would take •
the sense of the House on the clause.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For Sir E. Sugden's amendment. lOl
Against it.. Bl
Majority lB
_

On our return to the gallery we found
Lord J. RUSSELL declaring that he was sorry to
differ from the opinions of the majority, of the
House, but he could not consent to be a party to
proceeding with the Bill as amended.(llear, hear.)
He should, therefore, move that the further considera-
tion of the Report be postponed to that day three weeks.
Sir E. SUGDEN disclaimed all intention of casting
any imputation on the conduct of the Lord Chancellor.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that the Bill was to be
postponed for three or four months, merely for the pur-
pose of exercising patronage. He hoped that that would
go forth to the public. It should be marked in that
House, as it would be elsewhere, that this Parliament,
which was declared to be a monopolist Parliament—
(Conservative cheers)—had also given the present fur-
ther proof of flagrant partizanship.
Lord STANLEY said he could not let the speech of
the gentleman who had just sat down pass without ob-
servation. The effect of the vote which had just
taken place, had it not been for the course.
which it was thought right by . the Government
to pursue, would not have for a single instant post-
.poned the beneficial operation of the Bill. The Act
could not, for any beneficial purpose, come into operation
previous to the Ist of November next, and, by the amend-
ment which had. just taken place, it had been decided
that the persons in whoni the appointment of the judicial
officers should be vested, should be the Government of
the day, by whomsoever the Government of the day
was conducted ; and by the 14th of October, a fort-
night before th Bill could possibly come into opera-
tion, her Majesty's Government, the Government on the
other side of the Hon se, without one word of opposition,
or a single day's delay, would have exercised the power
which Ministersof the Crown ought to dowith hoth sides of
Rouse, a power recognised by
malting those judicial ap-
pointments, long previous to,,the time
,when. the country
could. benefit from the operq,tir of the Bill,
Illoadouse, had thought otherwise • those functionsof
the Executi.
ve,Uoymploptwould be exerOsed 4y
sters who were
at the present moment in ahoyance—
(Conaervatiye cheers)--whp were hol4in4 officw wider

Leave was then given to the Hon. Gentleman to bring
up the clause, which was read a first time ; and on the
motion that it be read a second time,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose and said that he had hoped
that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would have
been satisfied with the obstacles he had already thrown
in the way of the
House proceeding with the Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) He had hoped that the time had come
when that Right Hon. Gentleman would have con-
sidered further interposition and obstacles on his part
unnecessary. The Right Hon. Gentleman had made
observations that night with respect to him (Lord J. Rus-
sell) and the other inemhers of the cahinet as reasons why
the Bill should not he alleived to proceed further in the
Rresent session. At those observations he (Lord John
ussell) had been greatly surprised, because the Bill in
its presiult state had been supported not only.bY Lord
LyndhiirSt and L4d Brptighim,. but the; majority of
the Peers in th 4 ; qnti; Such being,. Abe. case, he
had '41;0 ihlit the- itikfitlion. Qerttleinan wadi& not
have pursued the eourSe he had. to en by, continuing his
offOsitl9l4 to the 44pcom, Tio Itipt goo. Gen

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1841.

a conditional resignation, until a decision was come
to whether they were fit to carry on the Government.
or not. It was the Noble Lord's own doing, and no one
else's, if the country sustained the least delay, impedi-
ment, or difficulty in obtaining the benefits that would
arise from this Bill. Notwithstanding the steps taken
by the Noble Lord, supposing a new Parliament was
called together at the time it was expected, he would yet
have time to introduce a new Bill, precisely in the terms
of the present Bill, and if he was then the Minister of the
Crown, he had the undisputed power of the appoint-
ments to those judicial offices.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the speech of the Noble
Lord only confirmed the impression on his mind, that
the decision of the House established a principle equally
novel and unconstitutional. He begged to state that
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had
not justified their course in the present case by
adducing one precedent. He heard with regret the
speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth on this subject. It was at variance with the
opinions which he had heard the Right Hon. Baronet
uniformly maintain on those subjects.
Mr. VILLIERS said it had been stated by the Noble
Lord (Lord Stanley) that no inconvenience would arise
to the public from the postponement of the measure.
Lord STANLEY—By the. amendment. _

Mr. VILLIERS--The object of the amendment was
to prevent the Bill coming into operation; and did the
Noble Lord mean to reconcile the public by stating that
no inconvenience would arise from the Bill being with-
drawn ? The complaint of the public was the positive
denial of justice, and when they wire on the eve of
having a Bill passed to remedy the grievance.eQmPlained
of, the-Bill was to be postponed for the purpose of allow=
ing the party who might be hereafter in power exer-
cising patronage. The public had more right to feel
aggrieved at this than at any other act of party.
Mr. PEMBERTON said the public had a right to feel
aggrieved ; but with which party did the blame rest ?
He was as anxious as any one that this Bill should pass,
but had Gentlemen on the other side-of the House always
exhibited anxiety on this subject? From 1836, when
the King declared that the first duty of the Sovereign
was to forward the speedy administration of justice, to
1840, no step whatever had been taken by the
Gentlemen on the other side to remedy the -evils
which it was now sought to put an end to.
The Bill provided not only for the appointment of
Judges, but of registrars and other officers, nOl) of
whom could be appointed before the month of Aiigust,
and the Court would not come into operation until. No-
vember. The clause would not delay the operation of
the Bill for a single hour, but the proposition of the
Noble Lord would. When complaints were made as to
its not passing in, the Parliament, they should recollect
that whatever responsibility there was, attached to the
Noble Lord.

Mr. WAKLEY thought the Noble Lord could not
have acted otherwise than he had done,;, he was anxious
that it sh9.tild be known that these -violent attacks upon
the prerogative :came not from the_ Raclieal party.—
(Cheers.) The Radical party, had _never Made any
proposals Affecting the Royal_ prerogative,:_ had
been •made = fit that House 'during the last „ three
-Weeks.:---(Hear, hear.) IC these . proceedings con-
tinuedi. the days of the Monarchy were numbered
The people were discontented at being unrepresented.
When the people eame to the House, inefelye askinglor
their merciful interference with the executive Govern-
ment and the Crown, they were told by both sides of
the House not to interfere with the Royal prerogative.
Such was the language of the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth—(Loud cheers)—but when the
interests of party were concerned, then the prerogative
was a shuttlecock, and to be considered of no more
value than a stone in the street.—(Loud cheers.) He, as
a Radical Reformer, while he was anxious for a more
extended representation of the people, was also anxious
to uphold the Royal prerogative. He had never coun-
tenanced any attacks on that prerogative, but he must
say, that he thought the example set by the majority of
that House in their recent attacks on that prerogative,
would be one of fearful import if Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite did not speedily recover their senses. He did not
charge- Gentlemen with being actuated by improper mo-
tives, but he stated what was, in his opinion, the in-
evitable consequence of the course which they had
pursued. .
Sir R. PEEL thought that the real cause of what had
happened was quite evident.—(Hear, hear.) The cause
of it was neither more nor less than the attempt of Mi-
nisters to carry on the Goverment without the confidence
of the House.(Opposition cheers.) There had clearly
been no other course for the Government to pursue after
the House of Commons had declared that they did not
possess its confidence than either to resign or immediately
to dissolve the present Parliament. By an immediate
dissolution he did not mean a dissolution without the ne-
cessary grants to carry on the public service. He
did not mean a dissolution, without those legis-
lative Acts which would enable them to levy
the usual duties ; but le should say that no
contested motion of any kind whatever—that no Act
of the Rouse of Comn..ons which implied its confidence
in the Ministry, sl:iould have been proposed. Their
present embarrimment arose from their anomalous, and
extraordinary, acid unparalled position, they being placed
in a minority o'u the vote of confidence, and yet coming
and asking the House for a fresh demonstration of confi-
dence ; and they might depend upon it, it was impossible
that a Government could go on upon such a principle.—
(Hear, hear.) The proposed devolution of power
would imply confidence ; and ,if they had passed
that Act, would not Honourable Gentlemen oppo-
site be themselves the first to turn round and tell
their, that such a proceeding was inconsistent with the
vr.)te they had come to on Friday night ? for he re-
peated that it would be a demonstration of confidence to
give Ministers the authority to make great judicial ar-
rangements. He was perfectly confident that they would
have been taunted with inconsistency by Hon. Gentle-
men opposite, who would not have drawn a distinction
between the ordinary constitutional and legitimate pre-
rogatives of the Crown, and the powers conferred for
the first time by a legislative Act, to which the House
of Commons must be a party. There -was clearly
a distinction between devolving new prerogatives
upon the Crown and respecting those which it
possessed ; and they might depend upon it that
if this precedent was adopted, that a Government being
not only in a minority in the House, and unable to carry
its principles, but not having the confidence of the House
of Commons, should ask for a new demonstration of con-
fidence ; but then, depend upon it, that the House would
not consent to such a course. They could no do it with
consistency. Hon. Gentlemen opposite complained of
the attempt on the part of the House to interfere with the
prerogatives of the Crown. Now, they should also claim the
prerogatives of the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
They claimed for the House a perfect right to consider
legislative measures—they claimed the perfect right, when
an Act was proposed to them to enable the Government
to make an appointment on the 15th of August, to say
whether the 15th of October should not be inserted in its
stead in the Bill. It was a perfectly new doctrine to
maintain that the House of Commons was not com-
pletely at liberty, with respect to mere legislative enact-
ments, to exercise its own discretion ; and so far from
thinking that the Monarchy would thereby be placed in
the slightest danger, if that was really the opinion of the
Hon. Gentleman opposite, he (Sir R. Peel) did not re-
collect a time when a higher prerogative was claimed
for the Crown than that the House of Commons should
not have the power of considering a legislative mea-
sure submitted to its decision, and of substituting the
15th of October for the 15th of August. No
man could contend more strenuously for the le-
. gitimate prerogative of the Crown than he would
do ; but if a Government, not having the con-
fidence of the House of Commons, should attempt to
conduct the administration of affairs, they might de-
pend upon it that they would be obstructed, that they
would be thwarted, and if the prerogatives of the Crown
did in that case sustain any injury, it was not because
the majority in the House of Commons claimed for the
House its due privileges, but the fault lay entirely with
those who, being Ministers of the Crown, did not do ho-
mage to the principles of representative Government,
but continued not only to administer executive functions,
but to propose to the House legislative Acts which
would imply a vote of confidence in them.—(Hear.)
Mr. lIAWES said it would have been much better on
the part of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when the Bill was
announced to the House, to say at once that they would
not proceed with a legislative measure. They had done
no such thing, however. They consented to everything
contained in the measure, but they scrambled for the pa-
tronage. He had never witnessed a more shabby pro-
ceeding in that House.
Mr. B. WOOD put it to the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite whether the people of England would not call
into question the integrity of the Judges, while they saw
two ()Teat parties contending for their appointment ?
The Bill was then withdrawn.
The Banks of Issue Bill then passed through Com-
mittee. DEBTS OF PARISHES' BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be committed.
Mr. FOX MAULE objected to proceeding any fnrther
with this Bill

Sir E. KNATCHBULL believed the Bill was satis-
factory to all the parties concerned, and therefore he
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to go on.
Mr. I)ARBY hoped the Bill would be allowed to pro-
ceed, for he knew several gentlemen who with disinte-
rested motives had advanced money to different parishes.
Mr. FOX MAULE objected to the Bill without fur.'
ther explanation for the Hon. Member on the subject. •
Mr. B. WOOD wanted to know what these debtS
were. It was not Pair to saddle the present rate-payers
with debts of a hundred years' standing. He should
move that the Bill be committed that day three weeks.
Mr. DARBY said the rate-payers could not be bound
unless the parishes had acknowledged the debt.
Mr. WARBURTON thought the House ought not to
legislate on a subject affecting numerous parishes on the
mere statements of individual Members. The subject
ought to be investigated before a Committee before the
Bill was entertained.

Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL explained. He had
been in communication with the parties concerned—he
had beon in communication with the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, and all were agreed as to the necessity of the
measure. He knew several cases of great hardship,
which called for some such measure as the present for
their relief—eases in which parties had lent money to
parishes to enable them to establish their legal claims to
properties, when the parishes, by the aid of such
money, had done so, and were, at the present mo-
ment, in the enjoyment of the property so acquired:;
and yet, according to the opinions of the Poor-law Com-
missioners, it was not competent, under the Poor7law
Aot, for such parishes to pay either the principal or in-
terest of such moneys out of the rates. it was for these
reasons that he wished to press the Bill.
Mr. HAWES opposed the. Bill.
After same ihrther conversation, the debate was, by
consent, adjourned till Friday.? - • •
The-Metropolis I MentS (No -2 ) Bill **at read
second time • - •

The other Orders of the Day vere then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Que o'Clook,