The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT:

---...--,-.

- HOUSE OF COMMONS_(TEIS EVENING).
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE
onN BUSINESS.
The following bills were cidered, and ordered for third
reading :—Hertford, Luton, and Dunstable Railway
Kingston-upon-Thames Gas and Tweed Fisheries._
Price's Patent-Candle Company, - and Trinity House of
Leith Bills were read a second time.
The report a the committee upon the Indian and Aus-
tralian Telegraph Company (No. 2) (Agreements, &c.) was
received, and the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. C. FORSTER moved that the Dundee and New-
tyle Railway Bill be recommitted to the former committee,
with leave to the committee to sit and proceed on Thursday
nest.—Agreed tt).
Mr. FITZROY moved the following resolution :
" That in case the committee on any private bill, or group
of such bills, sha.ll report their opinion to thouse that an
bill or bills not yet considered by them should not be entered upon, or that the consideration of any bill already
partly considered should not be proceeded with, all further
proceedings upon such bills shall be suspended during the
present session."--Agreed to.
Mr. FITZROY then moved to repeal standing order 169,
and to move the following order in lieu thereof :—" There
shall not be less than three clear days, nor more than seven,
between the first and second readirg of any private bill,
unless any such bill:nave been referred to the examiners of
petitions for private bills, in which case the bill shall not be
read a second time later than seven clear days after the re-
port of the examiner, or of the select committee on standing.
orders, as the cast; may be."
The motion wo.s agreed to.
NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. AYRTON presented a .petition from the Association
for the Repeal of Taxes on Knowledge, in favour of the
bill before the house for the abolition of the registration of
newspapers.

SUPPLY.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Lord PALAIERSTON took the opportunity of making
a personal explanation, rendered necessary by something
said with regard to his conduct by a person whose autho-
rity in this country was considerable. He had been accused
of unconstitutional conduct in questioning the prero-
gative of the Crown to dtssolve Parliament, whenever
the advisers of the crown might think fit, and upon what-
ever subject they might deem it right to dissolve upon. He
never said anything that could bear that construction—no
man in his senses who knew anything of the British Con-
stitution could question the prerogative of Minis-
ters to dissolve in any state of public business, but there
happened to be conditions of public business at certain
periods of the cession at which the advice could not be
given and acted upon without injury to the public service.
When the supplies had not been voted, and no appropria-
tion bill had been introduced, it was open to the house to_
refuse their concurrence in a dissolution by withholding-
supplies,and what he said was Government could not onthis
occasion dissolve Parliament without the consent of the house.
The house might have refused to agree to the dissolution,
and they might have gone further and addressed the Crown
in favour of the introduction of another Reform Bill by the
Government, or to dismiss the Ministry. This would have
been a perfectly constitutional course, and he, therefore,
repudiated the charge that the opinion he held was repug
nant to the prerogative of the Crown, or in any way con-
trary to the fundamental and fractical principles of the Bri-
tish constitution. He should not have advised the course
to which he had referred ; he thought it better to accept
the challenge to appeal to the people, because
he felt perfectly confident of the answer that
would bo given to the challenge. There was
another point to which he• wished to refer on that occasion.
The noble lord :the member for London and himself con-
curred in the resolutions which were proposed, and he
agreed in the general outline of a Reform Bill which was
stated a few nights ago by the noble lord. He was in favour
of a reduction of the county franchise, of a reduction of
the borough franchise and a transfer of seats ; but with
regard to the particular limits which the noble lord, sug-
gested these principles should le carried, and he retained
the opinions which he had on former occasions expressed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON observed that the language of a
noble lord in another place was not open to the remarks the
noble lord had made in regard to it. The same language
was used by him (Sir J. Pakington) in that house, and. he
must retain his opinion that the language of the nobly; lord
on She occasion alluded to was not consistent with res-pect to
the Crown, and did tend to call in question the prerogative
of the Crown with regard to the dissolution of Parliament.
But the speech of the noble lord in the debate upon the
second reading, and his speech on Monday last, were en-
tirely different ; and he was
.glad to see that the nobje lard
had altered the intention which he at firtt expressed.
Sir G. GREY vindicated the observations of Lora Pal.
merston. He thought that the house had done well to leave
the responsibility of the dissolution exclusively upon the
Government ; but, in regard to' the observatieas made in
another place, he characterised the notice taken there; of
the noble lord's speech in the House of Cor,mons as a most
irregular and unprecedented proceeding.
After some remarks from Colonel PPENCII,
MALINS complained of the course taken by the
Opposition in regard to the Refor.ir. Bill, and observed that
the issue before the country, iD •tho appeal that was about
to be made, would be whethr or not te people had confi-
dence in the present Ministers
Sir G. C. Lewis note; the precedent of Lord Grey's
Government in 1831, show that the question which, in the present appeal t",) the country, was to be placed before
the country, war, whether the Government Reform Bill was one that F'dould be adopted. It was a mistake to sup-
pose that atywant of respect to the Crown had been shown
by the way in which this measure had been treated, because
the question had been well, considered on the introduction
and debated for seven nights upon the second reading.
Sir J. PAKINGTON explained that the expressive want
want of respect to the Crown, as used by him, referred not
to refusal to entertain the bill, but to the observation of the
noble lord with regard to the dissolution.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he used the words in reference to
a chargd made in that house and elsewhere, that disrespect
to the Crown had been shown by the bill not receiving due
consideration.
Mr. BERNA.L OSBORNE eaukl make excuses for the
observations of the hon. member for Wallingford, as he had
not had an opportunity in taking part in the debate upon
the second reading, but he protested against a printer losing
lus pay by an address from that house to the constituency.
He thought the debate on the Reform Bill had better be
adjourned to the hustings.
Mr. SOTHERTON-ESTCOURT characterised the
speech of the noble lord opposite, to which reference had
been made, as one of absolute defiance, and the course which
upon the second reading was one that no member could
pursue.

(LEFT SITTING.)