hon. friend intended to propose was, merely to prevent any arrear in the interval between the dissolution of the present and the meeting of the next parliament. As to the hereditary revenues of the Crown, those which were strictly hereditary were so inconsiderable, that no rational difficulty could be contemplated in making a parliamentary arrangement with respect to them. There could not be the smallest doubt that the House would be disposed to act with respect to those revenues as formerly. He could assure the right hon. gentleman, that he did ministers great injustice, if he supposed that they entertained any distrust of the present parliament on that subject. For himself, he never knew a parliament to whom he was persuaded might be more safely confided the duty of making such an arrangement with respect to the revenue of the Crown, as should evince at once a becoming economy, and a disposition to prevent placing the Crown in such a situ. ation as would endanger the incurring of debt. At the same time, his majesty's government claimed the opportunity of a full deliberation on the subject, before they submitted it in its details to the judgment of parliament; and it was therefore that it was proposed to postpone it until the meeting of the new parliament.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed, that the Crown was at this moment without any other revenue than that portion of the hereditary revenue which belonged to the civil list, amounting to between 500,000l. and 600,000l. He would on Monday move that one quarter's revenue of the civil list, at its present rate, which would become due on the 5th of April, should be paid; this would carry on the royal establishment up to the 5th of July, before which time, the necessary steps would be taken by the new parliament. By this means all inconvenience would be avoided. In the arrangements to be adopted, a considerable saving would be made.

Mr. Hume said, that by the 54th Geo. 3rd, chap. 16, a sum of 35,000l. was settled upon the late Princess of Wales, now our Queen. On the demise of his late majesty this grant ceased; he asked, therefore, whether this provision was to be continued, or whether any and what other was to be substituted in its stead?

Lord Castlereagh said, that every pains would be taken to prevent any inconvenience arising in the quarter alluded to, from the dissolution of parliament..

Mr. Brougham could not help expressing his surprise at the extraordinary nature of the proceedings adopted by ministers. With respect to the subject alluded to by the hon. member who had just sat down, it was not then his intention to offer a word upon it. This was the first message which so precisely and so specifically pointed out the dissolution of parliament. Whenever parliament interfered with the prerogative of the Crown, they were told by ministers that they were not competent to entertain the subject of the termination of their existence as a body-that the Crown alone was to decide upon.it. Without meaning to deny the right of the people to control ministers in the advice which they gave the Crown as to the exercise of its prerogative, he could not help noticing the strange position in which parliament was placed. They were called upon to give an opinion whether the proposed dissolution was a well advised measure or not. Thus called upon, it was no wonder that they should enter upon the discussion. For himself he was as little averse to an immediate dissolution of parliament as the noble lord, or any of his colleagues could be. He had, however, one remark to make upon this advice given to the Crown; he presumed that ministers had maturely weighed the inconvenience to which the country would be put by having the election come on in the middle of the assizes. On the former dissolution of parliament the term was postponed, but it could not be done in the present instance. The next point to which he should refer, was more material. He could not help congratulating the House upon the admission which had been, though slowly, wrung from ministers. Not long since they were told, that so great was the alarm in the public mind -so inherent was vice in the countryso great was the number of discontented and designing persons, who were plotting the subversion of the constitution-that it was found necessary to call upon parliament to pass the most harsh and restrictive measures, in order to put down the turbulence of the country. But now the fact was, that one of these restrictive measures expired with the parliament, and as ministers did not exercise their discretion in proposing its renewal, it showed that the necessity for it had ceased, or else they were about to plunge the country into a situation which not many weeks since was said to be incon

sistent with its safety. There was another point to which he wished to advert. Every one who heard the luminous speech of the noble lord-luminous, not because it enabled them to understand the reasons contained in it, but because it was so transparent that every one could see through it-must perceive what was the real motive for postponing the discussion of the civil list at present; it was, because it was thought more handy, to bring it under the consideration of a new parliament, than before a parliament which was on its death-bed-before a parliament that could not sit more than six months, but which might be dissolved the day after it had voted the civil list. This was his decided conviction. For himself he had no objection to the dissolution, as he thought frequent parliaments were beneficial and refreshing to the constitution; yet he felt it his duty to point out the motives by which those who advised the measure were actuated.

Mr. Canning said, he could assure the House, that the civil list would be arranged with every view to economy, and a proper attention to the dignity of the Crown. The hon. and learned member had taken a constitutional objection to the discussion of the dissolution of parliament, observing, that nothing of the kind had been previously done. That hon. member ought to recollect, that parliament had on a former occasion presented an Address, praying that the Crown might not interfere with its operations by dissolution. What was to prevent the House from now entertaining such a question he was yet to learn. It was argued also, that a prorogation was the old wholesome law of the constitution. But the law was the other way. The old practice was, that parliament died immediately on the demise of the Crown; and it was by recent enactments that a sort of period of grace was extended, and parliament allowed to sit six months after such demise, the power still remaining in the king to dissolve at pleasure. This enactment was made in the reign of king William, and the specific ground for it was, that at that time there was a disputed succession, and it would have been inconvenient that parliament should be instantaneously separated. This act was made permanent in the reign of queen Anne, when a foreign succession was again contemplated. It was an act which was analogous to, and by no means opposed to the spirit of

the constitution. In the reign of George 1st, and the two following reigns, the revenues of the Crown were settled before parliament was dissolved; but the gentlemen on the other side themselves acknowledged that those cases were not analogous to the present. Let them look at the state in which parliament was at the period when the late melancholy event took place. They had before them a variety of business which it was hopeless to expect could be dispatched within any reasonable time. The country, from whatever source, were told that a dissolution of parliament was about to take place. If he were to name the individual who had been the first to sound the alarm of dissolution, the House would perceive that the hon. and learned gentleman ought to be the last man to cast an imputation of precipitancy upon ministers. He felt convinced that the House would see that ministers had given that advice which was calculated to advance the best interests of the country.

Mr. Macdonald said, it was singular, that though ministers confessed that there was a series of precedents before them, they should think it necessary to deviate from them without assigning a reason for their conduct. It was admitted that all the kings of England since the Revolution, had felt it necessary to throw themselves upon parliament for a suitable provision to support their dignity, nor was there any instance where the people did not ratify and approve of the conduct of their representatives on such occasions. The present was the first time that the civil list was not noticed in the message from the Crown. Was it that the present parliament, which had gone so far with government, were not to be trusted? or was it that the loyal and generous people of this country would feel displeased at making a suitable provision for the Crown? It was said that economy would be looked to in providing for the civil list; but it was known how little value was to be set upon such statements. The impression upon his mind was, that there was something in agitation, which, if brought forward now, would not bear the test of a general election.

The question was put and carried.

GRAMPOUND, PENRYN AND CAMELFORD.] Lord John Russell said, that in bringing forward his motion with regard to those boroughs in which bribery had

been proved to exist, he should not detain the House more than a few minutes. Provision was, he understood, to be made for the civil list, and also for the further continuance of those acts which would otherwise expire with the present parliament; he thought, therefore, it was necessary that parliament should alse provide for the preservation of its own dignity and character. They ought to look with a jealous eye at any attempt to invade their privileges. In furtherance of this he intended to propose, that the writs for the boroughs of Grampound, Penryn and Camelford should be postponed to the meeting of the next parliament. For this there was a precedent in 15 Geo. 3, chap. 20. The borough of Shaftesbury having been convicted of bribery and corruption, the writ had been postponed from time to time, and at length it was postponed to the meeting of parliament after a prorogation. He proposed that this principle should extend to the dissolution, which, in his opinion, was analogous to a prorogation. In the case of an impeachment, Mr. Fox was of opinion that a dissolution did not operate otherwise than a prorogation of parliament did; with this difference only, that the former gave men a better opportunity of reviewing their opinions. Viewing the case in this light, he felt that there was no impropriety in bringing the present bill before the House. There was one borough (Barnstaple) which he wished to exclude, as proceedings had already been instituted with respect to it. He should, therefore, move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the issuing of writs for the boroughs of Grampound, Penryn and Camelford, until the meeting of the next parliament.

Lord Castlereagh agreed in the principle of the bill, but suggested that it was likely, in the event of the bill going to the Lords, they would call for the information upon which the Commons had acted.

Mr. Wynn was of opinion, that Barnstaple ought to be included in this bill. Ample evidence had been given at the bar, of the existence of bribery in that borough, and the other House was proceeding upon a similar inquiry, when their proceedings were put an end to by the prorogation of parliament. No one could deny the plenitude of the authority of parliament, on this as on other subjects. But it would certainly embarrass the proceedings if members were returned

for these boroughs at the ensuing elections. It might then be objected, that though they had once fallen into acts of corruption, they had, in this instance, elected members without having been guilty of similar practices, and that therefore it was no more rational for the House to recall the former offences of these boroughs than of any others. However corrupt in principle and practice these boroughs might be, it could not be doubted, that under the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, they would abstain from open corruption. It would also afford an instance of practical inconsistency, if, while they in a future parliament proceeded to disfranchise these boroughs as radically corrupt, they allowed the individuals who might have been elected for the boroughs to sit to the end of that parliament. He allowed that the case of the borough of Shaftesbury was different in form, but it was equally an interference with the common course of law with the bill which was now proposed. It was as imperative in any case of vacancy during a prorogation, on the Speaker to issue his writ, as on the lord chancellor to issue his writ to the sheriff to direct his precept to the boroughs after a dissolution. bribery had been practised in these boroughs to the extent to which they had reason to believe it had, it was imperative on the House to take such measures that the dissolution of the present parliament would not prejudice its inquiries, and to refuse to concur in certain bills till they had a reasonable security on a matter so closely affecting its privileges. The noble lord had very properly alluded to the case of impeachment as a parallel case; and as a dissolution was held not to affect a measure of that kind, so it should not affect proceedings of equal constitutional importance. He should therefore give his hearty support to the bill. It was advisable to show by such a measure, that there was a power in the constitution to meet any emergency.

If

Lord J. Russell said, that he had no objection to include Barnstaple in the bill.

Leave was given.

THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.] Lord Jocelyn reported the King's Answer to the Address, as follows: "GEORGE R.

"I receive with the truest satisfaction, the loyal, dutiful, and affectionate Address,