back to the periods of the accession of our sovereigns, since the reign of William III., when the act was passed authorizing the parliament to continue sitting six months after the demise of the crown, that at periods much more inconvenient than the present, parliament had continued sitting, and had, before their separation, uniformly passed the civil list bill. Thus, on the accession of queen Anne, in March, on that of George I. in August, of George II. in June, and the late king in October, the parliament in each case continued sitting, and passed the civil list bill within a short period of their meeting. Why these precedents were in this instance to be departed from, and the civil list bill to be postponed to a new parliament, the noble earl had not explained. Neither had he explained, and which was certainly most essential, how the public service was to be provided for in the interval, or how the dignity of the crown was to be provided for, the civil list bill having now expired. There was another consideration also of great importance; he alluded to the increase of the military force of the country, to the amount of 10,000 men, to which he was certainly friendly, considering, as he did, that there was a spirit of disaffection in certain districts, operating upon , the distress of a numerous class of the community, which required an addition to be made to the military force of the country. But agreeing, as he did, in the necessity for this addition to our military force, he considered it of the greatest importance, in a constitutional point of view, that the parliament should have an oppor

tunity of taking into consideration such increase. Was it intended by the noble earl that no opportunity should be given to the present parliament to express an opinion upon so important a measure? Was it intended that only a short mutiny bill should be brought in, which would not afford any opportunity of considering the amount of the force? There were other considerations which called for attention when looking to this subject; and he could not but observe that the tone in which the noble earl spoke of measures intended to be proposed to a new parliament, which it was not thought expedient to introduce into a parliament so near its dissolution, was calculated to excite an anxiety, if not a suspicion, on the part of the public, as to the character of the measures so to be proposed. As he had been unable to discover any reason why the precedent in former cases should be in this instance departed from, and as he could not sanction an opinion that there were any circumstances existing that rendered the present parlia ment, in comparison with a new one, incompetent to enter upon the consideration of the requisite measures, he could not give his vote for the address now proposed.

The earl of Harrowby observed, that the argument of his noble friend who had just sat down, as to the present measure being unprecedented, had been completely answered by anticipation by his noble friend at the head of his majesty's councils. It must be, in his opinion, obvious, that with all the preparations and arrangements that were making, as appeared

appeared in all the public papers, with a view to a dissolution of the present parliament, which it was known must take place within a certain period, and that by no means a distant one, it was impossible for the members of the other house to pay that attention which was requisite to the measures to be proposed to them. This consideration applied equally to measures like the civil list, which perished of themselves, and to measures which formed part of a series, with a view to improvement in our system of laws. With regard to the civil list, the crown having waived its immediate consideration, there was, of course, an end of all impropriety in postponing it. With respect to other measures, forming part of a series of improvements in our laws, it must be evident that they could be much better carried into effect by those who had a chance of remaining to overlook their operation, and maintain the system which it was proposed to carry into operation, than by those who at all events could remain but a short time, and whose attention in the interval must be distracted by the arrangements rendered necessary to them by the expectation of a speedy dissolution of parliament. As to any difficulty in providing for the public service in the interim, the course to be pursued was intended to be the same as in 1807 and in 1784, when a dissolution took place about the same period; and with regard to providing for the dignity of the crown, though there might perhaps be some slight difficulty, yet it might be done by a vote of credit out of the remain ing hereditary revenues of the

crown. As to the measures to be proposed when the new parliament met, their lordships would, when that period arrived, be enabled to judge of them; but certainly there was not the slightest reason to attach any character of suspicion to them, as was attempted by the noble marquis. He (lord Harrowby) could answer for himself, and he was confident he might answer for his colleagues, that nothing was intended to be proposed which was inconsistent with the utmost fairness and propriety."

Earl Grosvenor contended, that there was time enough to complete any measures that might be necessary, without dissolving parliament, and objected strongly to the continuance of so large a standing army in the time of peace. Why, he would ask, was such an army to be kept up? Was it to support the arbitrary government of Spain-was it to support any of the despotic powers of the continent, who, having promised free constitutions to their subjects while in adversity, violated those promises under circumstances more favouable-or was it to keep down the disaffected in our own country? They had heard it repeated, even to nausea, that the disaffection was put down long ago, by the wise and vigorous measures for which the ministry took credit to themselves; it therefore could not be for that purpose. Was it, then, for a purpose which they could not avow-was it to support themselves in administration, that this extraordinary burthen should be continued in the present distressed condition of the country? He, for one, could never give his vote for such measures.

The

The earl of Lauderdale thought that great inconvenience would be found to attend the immediate dissolution of parliament. The noble earl (of Harrowby) had observed, that if parliament was not dissolved for six months, the members would have so much of their own business to attend to, that the business of the public would be neglected. But, if there was any thing in that argument, he would ask, did it not apply equally to all the other cases? Yet this was the very first case in which the argument was urged. The pub lic business would be as well at tended to in the present instance, as it was in other instances when the same apprehension might, with as much propriety, have been suggested-what then became of the noble lord's sole argument? With respect to the consideration of the civil list, he thought it would have been better that it should be arranged by parliament, instead of being submitted to the public as it was, in effect, by being postponed until the general election had taken place. The house would recollect, that there were such things as instructions from constituents to their representatives, and that he thought should have suggested itself to the noble lords as one of the inconveniences attendant upon the course which they recommended, It had been said, that the civil list was to be provided for out of the hereditary revenues. But they "should consider how the hereditary revenues were applied already, and they would find, by the 48th and some succeeding clauses of the consolidated fund act, that the hereditary revenues were appropriated to make up the defi

ciencies of the consolidated fund, in the event of the king's demise. If those deficiencies could be made up in the mean time, he should have no objection to the plan, but until he was assured of that he could not say that he was satisfied.

The earl of Carnarvon said, he had waited with great anxiety, in the expectation that something more would be offered in favour of the course adopted by ministers, than the meagre information already before the house. The noble earl who spoke first, had alluded to some things that were notorious, and others that were less so, but he had not made out one strong ground of justification. The noble earl who followed him, had admitted that that was the first instance in which the propriety of dissolving parliament was submitted to the consideration of parliament itself; he had followed up the expression, however (as if conscious of some inconsistency), by stating that parliament was not called upon to advise his majesty to dissolve it, but to consider whether it would adopt those measures which were to carry the dissolution into effect. How then had they got rid of his noble friend's constitutional objection? His noble friend had shown, that if it was convenient at any time to continue the sitting of parliament, it was convenient now. But then it was objected, that members of parliament would have so much of their own business to attend to, they would neglect the business of their constituents. For his own part, he should have drawn the very contrary conclusion. If there was any period when members of parliament attended

which must defeat their own ad

another, it was when they were about to be dissolved. The noble lords had not succeeded in assigning even a plausible reason for their departure from precedent, and resort to temporary expedients. It rested with them to show, that there was some difference in the circumstances of the present day, as compared with the circumstances of former days, that rendered a different mode of proceeding necessary; and if they neglected to do so, the inference was, that they had some reason or other which they were unwilling to state. In the present condition of the country, a strong ground should be made out to justify an immediate dissolution; and he had no hesitation in saying, that those who could give such advice without such a ground, had not done their duty either to the king or to the country. Inquiries had taken place in the other house respecting the conduct of certain boroughs, some of which were held to be unfit to exercise the elective franchise, until an arrangement could be made. In the case of one borough, leave was given to bring in a bill to transfer the right of election to some other place; but by dissolving parliament before those measures could be brought to a conclusion, the boroughs so convicted of abusing the right, would be sent again to exercise it contrary to the intention of at least one branch of the legislature. It was reported that ministers themselves admitted the necessity of a change in one of the boroughs; yet they now came forward to recommend a course,

Earl Bathurst observed, that the whole business of the session was yet to be done, and contended that it would be impossible to get through it in time to prepare for a dissolution at the end of six months. With regard to the precedents alluded to, he would have their lordships to consider in what state the public business was on those different occasions. The death of queen Anne took place in the month of August, when the business of the session was at an end; that of George the first took place in June, when the public business was considerably advanced; and that of George the second in October, when the business was concluded. In those cases, therefore, there was no necessity for adopting the course which under the present circumstances appeared expedient. Be sides, since the death of his late majesty, there was more emotion throughout the country, on the prospect of the new elections, than probably existed at any former period. Perhaps there was not an instance known before, in which the same paper that communicated the death of the king contained an advertisement from a candidate for the representation of a county. The example was followed in other instances, and upon the whole there was a degree of ferment in the country which rendered the proceeding advisable. -Know

-Knowing this, and knowing that, if they entered into business now, it must occupy at least five or six months, they had taken the middle course, as the one most suitable to the circumstances in which they were placed at the moment. Lord King said, that the immediate dissolution would bring them to May before the new parliament could meet; and he would leave it to the house to consider to what time the session must extend in that case. It was true that they had a balance of convenience and inconvenience to decide upon; but then there was uniform practice on one side, and that practice was, that after the demise of the king, parliament should proceed, with as little delay as possible, to the arrangement of the civil list. By dissolving now, they would leave the crown without a civil list. The hereditary revenues of the crown were divided into two branches: -one, by far the smaller branch, was strictly the hereditary reve. nue; but the other, which was considerably more extensive, depended on the vote of parliament. No man, he presumed, would attempt to apply that part of the fund to the purposes of the civil list, without the authority of parliament; nor was he sure whether there was not some portion of the hereditary revenues that expired with the late sovereign. Upon the whole, he was adverse to the immediate dissolution of parliament, without taking the civil list into consideration, as it was a mode of proceeding not respectful to the new sovereign.

The lord chancellor said, he would state in few words the grounds on which he gave his

vote, especially as some noble lords, whose opinions were entitled to respect, had intimated that those who supported the motion sanctioned the ministers in venturing unconstitutional advice to the crown.

But that was not his

view of the question; for, according to the law of parliament in former times, on the demise of the crown, the parliament was ipso facto dissolved. He did not mean to say that it was not right for parliament to have extended its own existence for six months after the demise of the king, as was done by the act of William the third. His notion was, that the enactment was properly made, with a view to the public interest; but by that act it was not determined that the parliament should necessarily exist for six months after the demise-it was still left open to consideration how far the public convenience required that it should continue so to exist, or not. If, on the other hand, they thwarted the purpose of dissolving parliament, by going on with business when the public convenience did not require it, they were the persons who took upon themselves to say that the crown should not dissolve the parliament. If they threw obstacles in the way of the dissolution, they took upon themselves the authority of deciding the question; and therefore he would vote with his noble friends, not with a view to break in upon the prerogative of the crown, but to prevent the prerogative from being interfered with.

The marquis of Lansdown asked, whether it was the intention of ministers to apply that part of the hereditary revenues which were

strictly