The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

AIPERIALL_PARL I AMEN T.


110 USE 'OF CO MINIONS. ( YEsT.tatatr.)
'I he SPEAF-F33, took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were considered, and ordered for third.
reading:—Hertford, Luton, and Doubtable 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 ofthe committee ap_on..iltendian
tralian Telegraph Company (No. 2) (41:cements, Su:.) Nina-
received, and the resolution was agreed to. .

Mr. C. FORSTERmoved 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
next.—Agreed to.
Mr. FITZROY moved the following resolution :
" That in case the committee on any private bill, or group
of such bills, shall report their opinion to the house that any,
bill or bills not yet considered by them should not be
entered upon, or that the consideration of any bill Nlready
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 have 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 case may be."
The motion was agreed to.

NE .S—P. APE S •
Mr. AYRTON presented aletition from tho AosoeiatiOs
for the Repeal of Taxes on li.novvlecigo, Jtt fhVotir of thi
bill before the house for tho abolition of the registratiog 4
newspapers.

StIPPLY.
THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.

The question having been put that the Speaker should
leave the chair in order that the house might go into coM.
mittee of Supply,
Lord PALMERSTON rose and said—l wish, sir, to take
this opportunity of making a personal explanation, rendered
necessary by something. that was said with respect to my
conduct—where andhy whom I am not according to the
rules of the house at liberty to.specify, but it is sufficient to
say, by a person whose authority in this country is consi-
derable—(hear; hear)—not longer ago than on Monday last
•
I have been accused of unconstitutional conduct in ques-
tioning the prerogative of the Queen to dissolve Parliament
when her advisers
,may think fit, and upon whatever sub-
ject they may deem it right to dissolve. Now, sir, I never
said anything that could bear that construction. (Hear,
hear.) No man in his senses who halms anything of the
British constitution can question. the prerogative of the
Crown, upon the advice of responsible Ministers—because
the Crown can exercise no part of its prerogative except
by the advice of responsible Ministers—to dissolve Parlia-
ment at any period of the year,
.or in any state whatever of
public business. But there happens to be conditions of
public business in this house at certain periods of the ses-
sion at which that advice could not be given or acted upon
without throwing all the transactions, business, and ser-
vices of the country into utter confusion. • While the sup-
plies are not all voted, while no Appropriation Act has been
passed, and while no financial statement has been made,
it is obvious that the advisers of 'the 'Crown cannot
without great inconvenience to the public service recom-
mend the Sovereign to dissolve Parliaseent, and carry that
recommendation into effect, unless the' House of Commons
makes itself a party to the transaction, accelerates its
proceer.,ings, and concess in the temporary expedients
which are necessary in order to place the public busi-
ness in a position in which a dissolution would not be
attended with inconvenience to the interests of the
country. That is exactly the` state of things in which we •
are now, and what I said upon a former occasion was that
the advisers of the Crown could not obtain a dissolution of
Parliament at the present.moment without the consent and
concurrence of this house. . What is the othercourse which
might have been pursued? The Ifonse of COIIIIIIJIIB might
have said,—" We will not be parties to these temporary
expedients; bring in all your estimates, we are ready to
discuss them ; we do not mean to refuse the supplies;
bring in your Appropriation Act at the proper time ; go
through the businesg of the session, andwheuit has arrived
et that point at which' a dissolution is practicable without
interference with the public interests, of course you. .will
then exercise with the permission of the SeVereig*" the , •
prerogative of the Crown.' What I meant to imply was,
that Suring that delay it Was possible that this house migh
interpose other measures—that they might address the
Crown; praying that it would neither dissolve nor prorogue
Parliament until the house had hadthe opportunity of con-
sidering another Reforin Bill, to be presented by the Go-
vernment. They might have gone a step further, and, pend-
ing the course of public business, have addressed the Crown
to dismiss the xmesent Ministers. All these would have been
perfectly constitutional proceedings, and therefore I utterly,
repudiate the charge that anything which I said, that any
doctrine which I held, was in the slightest degree repug-
nant to the prerogative of t'he.Crown, or •in any degree
whatever contrary to the fundamental and practical prin-
ciples of the British constitution. , This house has not
thought fit to adopt any of the courses to which I have just
referred. I certainly should not have advised it to do so.
I think it far better that we should accept the challenge of
her Majesty's Ministers, and appeal to the sense of the
people ; and I feel perfectly confident as to the answer which
will be given to that, challenge. (Cheers.) There is another
point of far less importance to which also I wish to advert
while I am upon my legs. My noble friend the member for
the city of London and myself entirely concurred in the
resolution which he felt it his duty to propose ; and that
perfect concurrence and identity of opinion being .generally.
known, many persons suppose that there is the same per-
fect identity of opinion between us in regard to that general
sketch or outline of a Reform Bill which my noble friend
gave us a few nights ago. I would only say that I entirely
concur with him in the principles upon which that outline
is founded—viz., the reduction of the county franchise, the
reduction of the borough franchise, and the transfer of
seats ; but, with regard to the particular limits to which in
his sketch he suggested that those principles should be car-
ried, I retain the opinions which I have expressed upon
former occasions. (Hear, hear.)

Sir J. PAKINGTON—I cannot allow the statement of
the noble lord to pass altogether unnoticed. What he has
said refers to the language held in another place by a per-
son whom the noble viscount says holds a very high posi-
tion in this country. Of course there can be no misunder-
standing on the part of the house to whom the noble* vis-
count refers, and, therefore, I think it my duty to say, so
far as I am aware, what was the language of the person to
whom the noble viscount alludes. lam not of opinion that
that language is at all open to the criticism which the noble
lord has passed upon it; but the noble lord must bear in
mind that the language so attributed to a noble earl in
another place was held by myself in this house,—not, of
course, in exactly identical terms, but certainly in terms of
a very similar nature. lam very glad that the noble lord
has offered this explanation ; but I must repeat that which
I ventured to express on a former day, that in my humble
opinion the language of the noble lord on the occasion re-
ferred to was not consistent with respect to the Crown, and
certainly did tend, as far as it was possible for the language
of a statesman in this house to tend, to call in question the
prerogative of the Crown in regard to the dissolution of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I am in the recollection of
those who heard what the language of the noble lord was,
and certainly if it tended to anything it tended to a direct
threat that, in the event of any attempt by the Crown to
exercise the prerogative of dissolution, the noble lord
and those who acted with him would refuse these sup-
plies--(hear, hear)—without which it would be impos-
sible, or, at all events, very inconvenient, that her
Majesty should be advised to dissolve Parliament. I think
there is no man in this house who was not struck by the
marked contrast between the language of the noble lord on
the occasion to which I have referred, and that which he
used on Monday evening last in answer to the statement of
my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that
her Majesty's Ministers had recommended the dissolution of
Parliament. The two speeches were as directly contrasted
one with the other as it was possible for two speeches to Le.
When the noble lord used that threatening language I was
surprised that he did not bear in mind the circutnstancea
which attended his adoption of a precisely similar course
two years ago. The only difference is that then the defeat
of the Government took place at the beginning of the month
of March, and now it has occurred at the beginning of the
month of April. The Government of the noble lord was
defeated, a vote of censure was passed by this house, and the
noble lord and his colleagues had the same option which her
Majesty's present advisers have had, either to tender their
resignations or to recommend the exercise of the prerogative
of dissolution. The noble lord advised the dissolution of
Parliament, and I beg to remind him that he was met by
the Opposition with no effort to withhold the supplies.
On the contrary, the Opposition of that day took the course
which the noble lord intimated on Monday night that he
should now pursue of affording every facility for an appeal
to the people. That was not the language which the noble
lord held upon a previous occasion. His language then
was threatening. I repeat it was, in my opinion, disre-
spectful to the Crown. (Oh, oh :) If it meant any-
thing it threatened an attempt to impede the exercise of the
prerogative. lam exceedingly glad that the noble lord has
seen fit to alter his tone, and to hold different language.
The noble lord says that ho is not apprehensioe of the result
of the appeal to the people ; to that I can only reply, that
her Majesty's Government regard that appeal with equal
constitutional
which
confidence. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY—I do not suppose that any member of
this house would suggest a doubt of its being within the
prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament, but when
the right hon, baronet says that it is disrespectful to the
Crown to suggest that the House of Commons will inter-
fere between thethaidnli, cesoafetrihfiecrie:nigpotnhseibrilgehGtos of
vernthmeehnot,uusepoina
which alone the Crown dissolves Parliament, and a disso-
lution,
ich ought not to pass without some comment.
(
The right hon. baronet must be aware that
iatii
it
manneritsic oatnrh:eh he
a irs I
privilege of this house to address the
Crown upon matters of public policy and importance ; and
if, in the opinion of this house, great public inconvenience,
great injury to the domestic interests of this country, as
well as great risk to the peace of Europe, as was suggested
by Members of the Government, were likely to result from
the dissolution of Parliament, it might have been the im-
perative duty of this house to take steps to interpose their
advice between that tendered to her Majesty by her respon..
sible Ministers and the act which was to follow it—viz.,
the dissolution of Parliament. My noble friend suggested
that it was not in the power of the Government to dictate
what it was intimated that they intended to recommnd—
an immediate dissolution; and he only reminded the house
that there were certain acts which ought to be done, and
which must be done, before a dissolution took place, which
rendered an immediate dissolution impossible, and that it
was only by the concurrence of this house, by its giving
the necessary facilities, that the advice which the
Government might feel it their duty to give to
the Sovereign could be acted upon. The Government hav-
ing recommended to the Sovereign an immediate dissolution
have done it upon their own responsibility, and I thin that t
my noble friend and those who act with him—l think
thatc
the majority of this house have acted wisely and judiciously
course exclusis el) upon
in leaving the responsibility of that

I ,! t t-`