The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-30 00:00:00

THE sUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1840.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OP COMMONS, .jlo'
, The SiElikti took the 'Chair shoilly before Four
o'Clock.
Mr. KEMBLE brought up the Repert of the Com-
mittee on the Bishop of Carlisle's Estate 1311:
Bill was ordered to In. re-committed to tie Middlesex
(Ist : the Committee to sit on Fridayoext,,
Mr. HINPLE-V pititintbd n .peotion from Gateside
in farobr'ef Medical Reform.
Lord JAMES STEW ART presented a petition from
certain proprietors of steam boats in Glasgow
for the abolition of Light-h'usee...nd Pilot dues.
Mr. WAKLEY prestoted a petition from the free
gardeners of Wakefield, signed by 240 persons, nom-
plaining of the treatment of a person named Crabtree,
and praying the House to interfere for his relief.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the
solicitors of Hampshire, praying that. the Courts of
Law might be removed from Westminster to Lincoln's
Inn.
Mr. EASTHOPE presented a petition from attor.
net's and solicitors at Leicester, praying for the removal
of the Courts of Law to the neighbourhood of the Inns
of Court.

Mr. GOUL BURN presented a petition from Hert-
fordshire against the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from Leeds
against the encouragement of idolatry in Infia.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Leeds, signed
by 16,000 inhabitants, stating that eight years had
elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill, and
that they were sorry to see the results of that
measure were rather the reverse of what they had ex-
pected, there having been no diminution of taxation, nor
increased privileges granted to the people. Aod they
therefore prayed for the extension of the Reform Bill,
!or Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, Triennial Par-
liaments, and the abolition of qualification for Menthe; s
of Parliament. Also a petition from the filth
ward of the borough of Paisley, complaining of the dis-
tre,s prevailing among the industrious classes, which
they attributed to their exclusion from political privi-
leges, and praying for short parliaments and the exten-
sion of the suffrage. Also a similar petition from the
Royal Burgh of Kirkaldy, in Scotland.
Sir IL H. INGLIS presents; a petition from
Leighton Buzzard, complaining of the manner in which
the tithes of that place had been commuted, and
praying for relief for the spiritual desti'ution
which exists there. Also a petition from the Clergy of
the Archdeaconry of Norwich, praying for an altera-
tion of the system of the commutation of tithes.

coffee that qAA in bond in this country, or that had
etlsu,tit that an
been ordered before the change of duty was contem-
plated . - . .
Mr. LATIOILICHERt id T-ten- the Right
v,,Oen.neri,nnntgl
set
irt,tlinga
oni; he
stated ta ;t, attention oawtutassi:u
.1
the '..e a
brin~i
that he
for the signing of the treaty with France. This and
other causes had rendered it impossible that he should
lie able to fitting in the measure before the
waitedayin
middle of next week ; and, therefore; he thought
in fairness to the trade, the pubtie, and the House. he
ought not to press the measure at a period when it
could cot receive an ample discussion, and he had come
to tt!e determination of not proceeding further with the
Coffee Bill at present.
Sir R. PEEL was understood to ray that he hal in-
tended to support the principle of the Bill, as the pre-
sent
system required alteration, and was, in some re-
spects exceedingly absurd.
Mr. HUME asked was it intended to allow the pre-
sent system to continue, of sending coffee front Hayti
to the Cape of Good Hope, and importing it as the
produce of British p.issessions?
Mr. LABOUC HERE had already stated what be
thought of the inconvenience of the present system.
But it would nut be fair to the trade or the public to
bring on the discussion at this period of the Session.
Mr. KEMBLE hoped that in future Bills the Right
Hon. Gentleman would be more careful to consider the
subject before he brought it before the House.—(Loud
cries of "Order, order.")
Mr. PAKINGTON begged, before the House went
to the Order of the Day, to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was intended to
lay before Parliament this Session—if not, at the be-
ginning of the next—the ordinances of the Governer
and Council of Lower Canada, which had been passed
under the Act of last Session ? '

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that the ordi-
nances would be laid before the House on the first day
of next Session. The ordinances would be in operation
till disallowed.

In answer to a question from Mr. KEMBLE,
Lord PALMERSTON stated that her Majesty's
Government were fully sensible of the value of the ser-
vices of Capt. Douglas, who by his gallantry, and on his
own responsibility, had contributed most materially to
the safety of a large body of British subjects. He
was now in communication as to the means at acknow,
!edging those services.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know whether the
Hon. Member for Ipswich intended to proceed
then, as he was entitles to do, with the further censi-
deration of his Bill on the punishment of death, or
whether he would give precedence to him (Lord John
Russell) with the Regency Bill. If the Hon. and
Learned Member wished that his motion should COlie
on first, he (Lard J. Russell) would not oppose
Mr. KELLY said that as he believed the Regency
Bill could not lead to any protracted diSeusston, he
was willing that it should have precedence of the mo-
tion he had to make.
REGENCY BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL in moving the second reading of
the Regency Bill said, her Majesty has thought it due
to the interests of this country that her Majesty should
call on Parliament to provide for a contingency, which
I am sure, if the wishes and prayers of her people were
to be heard, we should not have reason to dread.
But as no doubt it is the duty of Parliament to provide
for the exercise of the Royal authority in any contingency,
and we are now called on to provide for that purpose,
the question for us to consider is in what manner we
may best provide for the exercise of that authority in
case of the termination of her Majesty's life, while she
left an offspring, but under that age at which Princes or
Princesses might be fit to exercise the regal autho-
rity in this country. In stain.; •he provisions the
are proposed to be made it will not be necessary
that I should enter into what has been formerly
done on similar occasions, except in a single instance.
The precedents on the subject, generally speaking, are
very unsatisLctory, having generally been made the
occasion of a good deal of party differences, and the
provisions made being generally encumbered with stipu-
lations and provisions extremely doubtful in their effects.
The only precedent on the subject to which I think
Parliament can look with satisfaction is that which we
nave proposed to follow in tins instance, namely, the
by
provisions made in the Regency Bill of the year 1880,
introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, then Lord Cnanceilor,
wits
a Bill which the
in the other House of Parliament, and cor-
supported'l hat the
provided Government
he
exerciseperisd.
o
of the Royal authority : it was a Bill which received
the sanction of both Houses, of all parties in the
country, and which met with general concurrence.
The principle of that Bill I take to have been to pro-
vide as fully as possible for the exercise of the Royal
authority while that Royal authority was in the hands
of a Regent. Such was the principle stated by Mr.
Fox in the discussion which took place in 17S8,
and such was the principle which I think was
stated as fully and as strongly in the speech of
Lord Lyndhurst in 1830. It is desirable, as he
said, that when you have the Royal authority somewhat
diminished, by not having the name and title of the
Sovereign, tout you .1,04:1doot have R0v,,1
you consider ueuessary for the preservation
and the balance of the Constitution, further limited by
parliamentary business and regulations. For this pur-
pose, in order to keep the Royal authority unimpaired, I
conceive it is necessary in the first place hat it should
be exercised by one individual only. It is obvious that
the division of the authority amour, a Council, espe-
cially where some of teem might be persons of the
very highest rank, would only tend to weaken and en-
feeble the Royal authority. It is therefore proposed
that the power of the Regent should be placed, not in a
Council of Regency, but in a single person. In the
next place with regard to the power of the Regent—
it was not proposed to limit or to fetter those
powers, except in cases in which it seems absolutely
necessary so to do, those being the cases of the succession
to the Throne, and the preservation of the Throne,
as established by law, by the Act of Uniformity of
Charles 11. in England, and afterwards in Ireland by the
Act of Anne, as fully as it was in England, and likewise
the Church of Scotland, as established by law. There
is also a limitation with regard to the marriage of the
Regent, and those are the only limitations the 13iii con-
tains as to the powers of the Regent. The only re-
maining question is, in whom shall this high authority be
vested? According to the precedent of 1830,that authority
was vested in the surviving parent. According to all rea-
soriable and natural considerations the surviving parent,
to whom a child of tender years would be most dear,
would be the person to whom the guardianship
should be confided. Such being the precedent, and
such being the decision to which I think Parliament
would come with respect to the guardianship of the
heir of the Crown, it seems, I think, most desirable
hat, the guardianship should not be divided Irons time
Royal authority, but that the Royal authority
I.mould be exercised by time surviving parent. We
are • now supposing a case which might unfortunate
happen of the termination of her Majesty's life before
! any issue of her Majesty might have attained the
age of 18 years. It. is, therefore, proposed that
this authority shall be invested in his Royal High-
uess Prince Albert, the present Consort of time
Sovereign.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It appears to me this
is the most proper and constitutional mode in which,
in such an event, time Royal authority should he exer-
cised. It is my most earnest prayer that the provisions
of this Act may be rendered unnecessary ; but as
it is incumbent upon Parliament to provide for
such a contingency, I know of no better
mode of doing so than that adopted by the other House
of Parliament with the consent of all parties, and
which is in conformity with the precedent of 1830, and
which appears to rue to be most in consonance with the
monarchy and the best interests of the country. I
have, therefore, only to move, Sir, that the Bill be now
read a second ti ne.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I most heartily concur
in the prayer which has been offered up by the
Noble Lord, and with which I believe every Mem-
ber of this !louse is in unison, that it may please
Almighty God to avert the contingency for which
this Bill is intended to provide, and to make the enact-
ments of this measure of no effect ; but it being neces-
sary to provide against any contingency that might hap-
pen, I cordially concur in the provisions of the Bill.—
' (Hear, hear.) It is founded entirely upon the pre-
cedent set in 1880 by the Government of which I was
then a member, when a similar measure was
introduced in time House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst,
and to which it would have been my duty to have asked
the sanction of this House if that Government had re-
mained in office.—( Hear, hear.) We, however, gave
every consideration to the measure when it was brought
into the House by another Ministry.--(Hear, hear.)
I entirely concur in time principle of t.his Bill,ith
which constitutes a sole itegent unfettered
Council.-_( Hear, hear.) A Regent must necessarily
have powers less than a Savereign, but it
to me that no gooi object could be attainedei Regency.
by ft
of
tering, the Regent with a Council
fettering
I entirely concur also in the policy of not I
time Regent by any restriction whatever. concur
also in the principle on which the Bill was framed, in
avoiding precautions against every possible cantin•
gene). 1 think nothing would be more unwise
tatm to go beyond the tieecsity of the case,
attempt to provide for every contingency, as 1
enink it better to leave for a future Parliament the
making provisions for a remote Owl UnprObilbk contin-
gency, which would be better provided for by the P irlL-
ment in being at the tune. I must also say, in ap-
proving the principle ofselecting a sole Regent. unfettered
I think Parliament lied
by a Council of Regency,
decided wisely in giving the guardianship of the future f
Sovereign to the nearest relative, and in not separating the
functioas of the Regency and time guardianship of the child,
Tois was the principle on which they had acted in 1830
with rennet to the Duchess of Kent. They considered
the mother bad the deePeit interest not only in time cus-
tody of the 'child, but in the trade of admipistcrino-. tbo
Government which was to precede time accession of
the child. They had also framed a Bill on the con-' "

tingency of the Queen tioiriafteri- pregnant at the
death of his late Majesty, and in the even! of Ali birth f
of a posthumous child, prodding that Queen Adei,i?ffe
should have the guardianship, of, the ciold, and ex,'reise
the faCtions tick. j,t jtnecess;ary; therefore,
for me again to state, that :''*!'tf,;o.l.,l of the
and the selection made, I entirely concur, cod
will, therefore, say no more than express the hope that
the contingency will be averted, and that the mea-
sure will never come into operation.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRESHFIELD said he was aware it might ex-
cite some SerpriSe that so unimportant art indivi-
dual as himself 4hotild say that he also entirely con-
eurred in the measure before the House. But he wished
to cul the attention of the House and the Noble Lord—
rather with the desire ut information than of objecilott
to the suite of things which might exist in case of the
Pirl•tmerit being in a et.it,.! of prorogation or disso-
lution at the death of the Regent. He wm aware
in the ease of an accession the law provided for the
contingency, but he wag not aware of any provison for
the assembling of Parliament in cam of the death or
discpalification of a Regent. He was aware it was not
introduced in the BM of 1830, though he knew mat
why, nor of any inconvenience there could be in in-
serting it. He would now call the Noble Lord's atten-
tion to another point 3 which it appeared to him ought
to be provided for. In the precedent of 1811, his
Majesty b&ng incapable of c the Royal
prerogative, they had been obliged to resort to
a very crooked line of proceeding, namely, the passing
a Bill by both Houses of Parliament for placing the
Great Seal in Commission, without its sign manual,
and that Commission so executed gave their consent
to the Regency Bill. At that lime the proceeding was
very much objected to by the other side of the Douse,
and it was contended that the contingency should
have been provided for by a general law. Now
that was not a mere fanciful case, for they had
the Act of Parliament which repealed the attainder of
the Duke of Norfolk staring them in the face, and in
that case it was contended, and successfully, that the
want of the sign manual to the Bill of Attainder was a
ground for rescinding that attainder. Why should they
- not provide for such a case in the present Bill? He
begged to apologise for throwing out these suggestions.
—(Cries of " Question.")
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed to-morrow.