blow, such as stopping the supplies, or obstructing some important bill, he preferred settling the controversy in this open and direct manner. His resolution affirmed two propositions-the first of which was, that the Ministers did not sufficiently possess the confidence of the House to enable them to carry measures which they deemed of essential importance to the public welfare. Was it necessary for him, looking at the whole continuous course of their legislation, to adduce detailed proof of that proposition? If this were incontrovertible, then the second proposition would necessarily follow, that their continuance in office was at variance with the spirit of the constitution, such as it had been ever since the accession of the House of Hanover. In affirmance of his view he could cite the authority of every important writer, and the practical course of every Administration. He began with Sir Robert Walpole. That minister had held office for a period of twenty-five years. A motion was made by Mr. Pulteney, which implied a withdrawal of the confidence of the House. This was defeated by a majority of 3. But subsequently Sir R. Walpole, finding himself in a minority upon the Chippenham election, notwithstanding the slight majority on the question of confidence, relinquished office. In the year 1782, Lord North, after he had defeated two resolutions of want of confidence, though by but small majorities, yielded to what he felt to be the sense of the House of Commons, and resigned. In the year 1804, Lord Sidmouth, finding his majority reduced to 37, thought it his duty to retire. In 1812, a majority of four upon the motion of

Mr. Stuart Wortley was decisive of the fate of Lord Liverpool's Administration. The next Administration which yielded to the force of public opinion, was that of the duke of Wellington in 1830. Being defeated by a combination of parties entertaining opposite opinions, on a motion to refer the Civil List to a select committee, that Ministry retired from office. The last case was that of his own Administration, in 1835. The first time that he found a positive obstruction presented to any act of legislation, he had felt it his duty to resign. For some time previous to his retirement, Lord John Russell was day by day referring to what he called "the old constitutional doctrine," that the Government ought to possess the confidence of the House of Commons, and as soon as he carried a resolution, that no adjustment of the Irish Tithe question could be satisfactory, except the one he advocated, he (Sir R. Peel) gave up the reins of power.

In his enumeration of precedents he had omitted one, that of Mr. Pitt, in 1784. As this case was relied upon by the Whig party, as affording a justification of their course, Sir Robert Peel entered into a minute recapitulation of all the circumstances connected with the transaction. He pointed out the distinction, that in Mr. Pitt's case the resolutions, repeatedly carried, by which the House of Commons disaffirmed their confidence in the Ministry, were previous to any one act of his Government being submitted to the House of Commons. After stating the facts, he thus deduced the inference:

"The objection, then, to the continuance of Mr. Pitt in office,

was not that the confidence of the House of Commons had been withheld from the measures he produced there were surmises, there were allegations, that Mr. Pitt owed his power to the exercise of undue influence that the king's name had been made use of for the purpose of influencing elections. Resolutions were affirmed implying objections, not to the acts of his Government, but to the principle on which it was constituted; and the battle which Mr. Pitt was then fighting was not in opposition to the principle that a Minister ought to have the confidence of the House of Commons for the purpose of carrying on the Government, but Mr. Pitt contended that Mr. Fox, having a majority in the House of Commons, was attempting to control the constitutional prerogative of the Crown; and, without reference to attempts at legislation, without reference to public acts of the Government, was denouncing that Administration, and implying beforehand the want of confidence in it. Is the present, I ask, a case at all analogous? Am I obstructing the course of a Government at its first formation? am I depriving it of the opportunity of submitting its measures to the consideration of Parliament?"

He then quoted the opinions of a series of high constitutional authorities upon the point, reading passages from Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, and from the writings of Lord John Russell himself. He would refer to three events in the history of the present Administration, which peculiarly illustrated the evil of attempting to govern without possessing the confidence of the House. The first was the Appropriation Clause, which, after

so much excitement, the Ministers finally abandoned. The next was the Jamaica Bill, on which these Ministers themselves expressed a strong practical opinion of the unfitness of retaining office without the confidence of the House. He referred to the language of Viscount Melbourne on this subject. The third case was the recent Budget. After the importance attached to that measure-after the ministerial declaration that it was to be considered as a whole→→→ was it becoming in the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move, without a word of explanation, the renewal of the usual Sugar-duties? Was this for the credit of the House of Commons? It might appear, that the strength of the Crown's prerogative would support the Ministers against the House of Commons; but this was a superficial view. The interests of the House of Commons and of the Crown were identical; and you could not intrench upon the one without injuring the other. They might perhaps say, with Mr. Pitt, that if they had not the confidence of the House, they had the confidence of the country; but it had been well said by Mr. Fox, that the sense of the country could only be constitutionally evidenced by the votes of its representatives. So far, however, as any proof was afforded by popular elections, of those which had recently occurred a large majority had gone against the Government. It was pleaded that they intended to appeal to the people: in answer to this allegation he thus expressed himself:

"I know nothing whatever upon that subject: as a Member of the House of Commons I can have no evidence of the intention of the Crown. I know you have the

power at any time of dissolving; I know that you can choose the most favourable time for dissolving: no doubt that is the prerogative of the Crown-a prerogative of a delicate nature, with which it is difficult for the House of Commons to interfere. But I shall have no additional confidence in you, if, after exciting the public mind upon such a subject as that of the subsistence of the people, you intend to take that opportunity of dissolving Parliament and appealing to the people on that question. I firmly believe that you are not advancing, by that course, the interests of the Monarchy of which you are the advisers."

He pointed out the inconsistency of abandoning the Poor-law Bill on the ground that it would lead to protracted discussion without any result, and to speeches made for the hustings rather than for the House, while they persevered in announcing a discussion upon the Corn-laws, which must be equally without result and still more conducive to agitation. He believed that their weakness was the main cause of all their embarrassments. The Post-office revenue had been given up to conciliate those of their friends who had shown a disposition to secede on the Jamaica question, and he believed it to be the same sense of weakness which had suggested the new schemes for the removal of protection upon sugar and timber. He briefly indicated his doubts as to the policy which had recently governed our foreign relations, especially as to China and France, but repeated his reliance upon constitutional principle as the main ground of his motion. He had been asked to bid against the Government for popular favour.

He would do no such thing. He had on various former occasions expressed his opinions upon all the great constitutional questions of the day-upon ballot, extension of suffrage, duration of parliament, &c.; but he would not now prematurely throw out opinions upon temporary questions of finance. To show that his conduct had been uninfluenced by party-spirit, he referred to the support which he had repeatedly lent to rescue the Ministers from impending defeat, and to instances in which he had differed from many of his own friends, whom he was proud to see still retaining their confidence in him; especially to the question of parliamentary privilege. In conclusion he said, that the present House of Commons had been elected under a new constitution, of which Lord John Russell was the author, and under the auspices of his Government. If it had upheld the Ministry, they would have insisted on the reverence due to it; now that it declined to sanction their policy, it was equally their duty to respect its decision.

The debate which ensued lasted for five nights, being interrupted by the intervention of the Whitsun holidays after the second night of the debate. A great number of speeches were delivered on both sides, but, speaking generally, the character of the discussion was by no means of a high order for ability or eloquence. A summary of the arguments of a few of the principal speakers will furnish a sufficient sample of all that is really worth preserving in the debate. The nearly balanced state of parties caused additional interest to be felt as to the course which might be taken on this occasion by those Members whose strong attachment

to the interests of agriculture on the one hand, and their accustomed support of Whig policy on the other, seemed to place them in an embarrassing dilemma, when called upon to pronounce an opinion on the confidence due to a Ministry, which threatened an inroad upon those laws which they, in common with many others, regarded as essential to the protection of the farmer. This was the situation of Lord Worsley, one of the Members for Lincolnshire, and a warm advocate of the agricultural interest. His views, however, were not long left in doubt. He rose next after Sir Robert Peel, and in a few words declared his resolution to oppose him on the question. Although he had voted against Ministers in the late division, he would lend his aid on the present occasion to keep them in office; but he should not support their proposal respecting the Corn-laws. Approving their general policy, he thought himself guilty of no inconsistency in the course he was now taking.

Mr. Christopher, the colleague of Lord Worsley, expressed his astonishment at the speech of that noble Lord, who, at the late important meeting of his constituents, had distinctly declared, that as the Government were endeavouring to overthrow the agricultural interests, he was prepared to assist in the overthrow of the Government. Lord Worsley's only qualification of that statement had been, that he would not go the length of supporting Sir Robert Peel on his expected succession to office. But not a man had left the Lincolnshire meeting, without a full conviction that it was Lord Worsley's intention to assist in the removal of the

present Government. Yet now Lord Worsley was the man to volunteer his services in favour of the AntiCorn-law administration.

Sir J. Hobhouse, after attempting to vindicate Lord Worsley's consistency, recapitulated the measures which, in spite of the late King's aversion, and the opposition of the House of Lords, the Ministers had succeeded in carrying. These were the English and Scotch Municipal Reforms, the Registratration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages; the Irish Tithe; the Rural Police; the Reduction of the Postage; the Irish Municipal Reform; the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill; and the Union of the Canadas. During the same period, they had conducted the foreign affairs of the country in a manner which had acquired the highest honour throughout Europe to his noble friend, Viscount Palmerston. They had, therefore, until the present month, been actually able to carry their measures. It was true, that Sir R. Walpole had finally yielded to the House of Commons; but when he was gone, it was felt that his conduct had been in the spirit of the constitution. Sir R. Walpole, however, had before been beaten on his great financial measure of the Excise, and yet had not then resigned. Undoubtedly it was true, that a Government ought not to hold office against the House of Commons; such a Government was no Government at all. Mr. Pitt had been defeated eleven times; yet he had persevered, and ap pealed to the country. It was

said that the Government knew they could not carry the repeal of the Corn-laws. The same thing was formerly said of the laws against the Roman Catholics; yet

those laws had been repealed. Perhaps the day would come when those who had repealed the laws against the Roman Catholics would repeal also the laws against the Importation of Corn. Gentlemen complained of Government for creating agitation on the Corn question. If the question created agitation, the blame was not with the Government. Sir Robert Peel found fault with Ministers for their Budget; but he did not state what be would do himself. Sir J. Hobhouse then observed upon the diversities of opinion which had formerly prevailed, between the united forces opposite to him, upon various questions, such as Catholic Relief, and Parliamentary Reform. Their leader's public life, too, had been such as had not obtained for him the confidence of the people. He had generally resisted improvements at first, and subsequently, but too late, had yielded to necessity. There was no prospect that any change advantageous to the country could be wrought from the existing materials. He was satisfied that the present Ministers had done their duty in propounding their recent measures; and that ere long, whatever the fate of those Ministers might be, their measures would be the law of the land.

The next speech which deserves particular notice was that of Mr. Macaulay, who joined issue with Sir Robert Peel on the constitutional doctrines which he had laid down. He observed, that the right honourable Baronet had now departed from his usual cautious reserve, which generally made him avoid the enunciation of any general principles. He had now laid down a general proposition, but it seemed to him (Mr. Macaulay) very indiscreet formally to pro

nounce upon the spirit of the constitution. It must be evident that, if the assertion that this or that course was inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution were placed on record in the journals of that House, and the principle should prove fallacious, the House might nevertheless consider themselves bound to act in conformity with their recorded opinion, and the greatest inconvenience might ensue; for it could not but detract from the character of that House, if, on after-consideration, they felt called upon to declare that which they had pronounced to be the spirit of the constitution null and void. Indeed Sir Robert Peel's principle might be reduced ad absurdum, by showing that what he pronounced contrary to the spirit of the constitution might be inevitable.

There were 658 Members in that House; what security was there in the constitution of this country against a state of things in which 320 members of that House might be found strong and zealous Tories; and, on the other hand, 320 equally strong and zealous Whigs? Between these two great parties, it might be supposed perhaps that seventeen or eighteen could be found adverse to the strong opinions entertained on either side of the House, and equally inclined to interpose obstacles to any measure originating with either party. Under these circumstances, how could the Government be carried on? The case supposed was neither impossible nor improbable; it had actually occurred: Government and the opposite party in the House each entertained in Irish affairs a policy diametrically contrary, and had each proposed to give effect to their policy in a bill;