Phillips, Sir R. B., Bt. Thicknesse, R. Phillips, G. R. Phillips, C. M. Polhill, Captain F. Price, Sir Robert Robinson, Sir George Robinson, G. R. Rooper, J. B. Ross, H. Thompson, P. B. Townshend, Lord C. Vincent, Sir F., Bart. Walker, C. A. Sebright, Sir J., Bt. Sheil, R. L. Lefroy, A. Sinclair, G. Skipwith,Sir Gray, Bt. White, Colonel H. Lefroy, Dr. T. Smith, J. A. Lindsay, Colonel J. Whitmore, W. W. Lyon, D. Maitland, Hn. Cap. A. Maitland, Lord Maxwell, II. Miller, W. H. Mills, W. Morgan, C. M. R. Peach, N. W. Pelham, C. Perceval, Colonel Pollington, Lord Perceval, S. Pringle, A. Sibthorp, Col.C.D.W. Trench, Col. F. W. Tullamore, Lord Walrond, B. West, F. R. Wetherell, Sir C. Wood, Colonel T. Wynn, J. Wynn, C. W. G. Young, J. From this time till after three o'clock, strangers were excluded from the Gallery. A desultory discussion took place during the period, and several divisions, of which the following is believed to be an accurate account: The question was again put, that the Speaker do leave the Chair; whereupon it was proposed by Mr. Cresset Pelham, that the House do now adjourn. The House divided on the Amendment Ayes 90; Noes 286-Majority 196. Question again put that the Speaker do leave the Chair Sir Charles Wetherell rose, and moved that the Debate be adjourned to Thursday. Lord Tullamore said, it was his intention to support the Motion, and expressed his determination to move a further Adjournment; as the noble Lord opposite, by the course he had pursued, had endeavoured to check free discussion. Lord Althorp assured the noble Lord, that he had not made any such statements as the noble Lord attributed to him. The noble Lord had said, that it was his wish to stop free discussion on this great subHe would appeal to the House, ject. whether the question had not received the most ample, and the fairest possible attention. He had consented to adjourn his motion, on an understanding that no further proceeding should take place towards continuing the present discussion. Lord Althorp said, as it was now too late to proceed with the debate, he did not contemplate any further proceedings, and would agree to the noble Lord's proposition. ments in every case, where, by doing so, that object could be promoted; but, on the present occasion, he should be wanting in his duty, if he did not mark the opinion which he entertained of the Motion now made, by continuing his opposition to it. Colonel Davies said, that it was impossible to mistake the motives which prompted the motion for adjournment. The motion was made to create delay, and throw obstacles in the way of the great measure under consideration. The country would understand what was meant, and the public would duly appreciate, both the conduct of his noble friend in resisting such a course, and that of those who sought to pursue it. Sir J. Brydges said, the question did not appear to him to have received sufficient discussion; the question of Reform certainly had, but the question now under discussion was, whether Counsel should be heard at the bar. Lord G. Lennox said, that the interruptions which had been complained of, as having been given to the hon. member for Boroughbridge's speech, could not have taken place, for he had counted eighteen hon. Gentlemen asleep during different parts of it, including the right hon. member for Tamworth, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir C. Forbes declared he would not act under a mask, but would fight under an able leader, if one could be found. He had fought to the utmost, and would still continue to persevere. He only wished he could turn Ministers out. His object was to throw out the Bill and Ministers too. Mr. Lefroy hoped, that he might seize the moment of good humour to propose that both sides should now consent to adjourn. Alderman Waithman hoped, that the Ministers would have the firmness to resist the motion for an adjournment. The country could not mistake the true motives which actuated those who brought it forward. What was the use of continued discussion? He had listened to all that had passed to-night; he had heard a most sudorific speech from the hon. member for Boroughbridge, and what was the result? Nothing but a repetition of what he had heard be fore. Mr. G. Bankes hoped that the discussion might now be brought to a close. Lord Ingestrie proposed that the member for Boroughbridge should withdraw Lord Stormont refused to be a party to withdrawing the motion. Lord John Russell stated the inconvenience of having no person with whom an arrangement for facilitating the business of the House could be made. He had fixed this day for going into the Committee on the Reform Bill, on an understanding with the right hon. member for Tamworth, that the House should do so, and he should have fixed an earlier day if he had not believed that this understanding would have been adhered to by the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Spencer Perceval would consent to the motion being withdrawn, upon an understanding, that the debate could again be resumed to-morrow on the Speaker leaving the Chair. Sir C. Wetherell would not consent to withdraw his motion. The House divided. For Sir Charles Wetherell's Amendment 63; Against it 235-Majority 172. The question was again put, that the Speaker leave the Chair. Lord Brudenell said, when the hon. member for Dundalk first moved the adjournment, he thought it was too early, and they had better let business proceed, but as certain Members had unfairly created uproar and confusion, he felt it his duty to convince the Ministers that they on that side of the House were not to be browbeaten. He begged leave therefore to move, that the debate be adjourned until this day at five o'clock. If he were defeated, he would sit there till five o'clock the next day. The motion being seconded, the question was put. Lord Althorp said, that he did not think the noble Lord had any reason for his motion, because his object to make the House hear the debate, having been gained, he hoped that the noble Lord would then allow the Speaker to leave the Chair. Mr. Courtenay begged to put a question to the noble Lord. There was an impression on his mind, that if he would use his influence to allow a discussion at the next sitting, on the question then before the House, the present embarrassment might be avoided. He thought this was reasonable and usual, especially on considering the short discussion that had taken place, and the number of hon. Gentlemen who wished to speak on the question. If the noble Lord did not agree to this he must desert his colours, to his motion under which he had sailed the last hour. Lord Althorp said, the opposition was very factious, because it was open to any Member to pursue the course advised by the hon. Member. Lord Ebrington wished to know why the opposition was continued, as no object could be gained by it. An Hon. Member said, the House was evidently struggling on a false point of honour. Did any Gentleman believe he would acquire a greater claim on the attention of the House by wearing out those hon. Members who had serious business to transact. These Gentlemen, for instance, who had public business in Committees to attend to, they certainly would not be induced to attend to speeches from protracting the sitting of the House. Colonel Wood said, he had risen in all the divisions against adjourning, and he now begged to remind the noble Lord (Althorp) that the Government had always, after such a struggle, given way, and to suggest the propriety of its then doing so. He had witnessed many of these absurd disputes in the course of his parliamentary career. They always led to a most unprofitable waste of time. He was aware that such motions were the only protection the minority had; nevertheless, if the amendment was pressed he would vote with the noble Lord, should he resist the Motion for an adjournment. Mr. Stanley agreed with the gallant Colonel, that the privilege of moving an Adjournment was one of the most valuable privileges of the minority; but he requested hon. Gentlemen on the other side to consider whether they might not strain their opposition and their valuable privilege of moving the adjournment too far. The only difference between them was as to a point of form, and not to any substantial advantage on either side. He thought the Minority of 63 should give way to the Majority of 235. The minority would lose nothing, and the majority would gain nothing but the advantage of not yielding. If the minority would consent to the House going into a Committee, pro forma, the House would be as ready to hear the opponents of the measure when it came next under discussion, as if they were not to go into a Committee at that time. Sir Charles Wetherell said, since he had been a Member of the House, he had never heard the question of Adjournment put on that ground before. If he recollected right he had known the question of adjournment moved five times in one night by the hon. Gentlemen who had taunted them with factious opposition. He thought the motion might stand adjourned till five o'clock, as he considered it for the advantage of the country that the debate should be adjourned. He had chosen this path to shew the public that the Opposition would not be put down by clamour, but would assert their privileges of being heard. Such motions had been frequently made by the Ministers when they were in Opposition. Lord Althorp had never moved an adjournment when in Opposition, and had seldom supported such a motion. He had seldom seen a case important enough to warrant a minority in insisting on an adjournment. He could not, consistently with his duty to those Gentlemen who supported him, give way. Mr. Spencer Perceval said, he had hitherto voted in the minority, to maintain the principle of fair discussion, but as an assurance was now given, that the minority would have a right to address the House again, when the Bill was in Committee, the case was altered. He should then vote with the noble Lord (Althorp) and would have done so before, had he expressed himself in the terms he had now adopted. Mr. Praed said, he had hitherto given his vote in opposition to the principle that the debate should terminate at twelve o'clock, but it appeared now, they were only required to consent to the motion for going into a Committee, to satisfy the dignity of the opposite party, which he, for one, could not agree to. There were loud calls for "Question!" before the hon. Member concluded, and on his sitting down, strangers were again ordered to withdraw. On a division there appeared, For the Adjournment 44; Against it 214 Majority 170. List of the Minority. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Pelham Cressett Sir Charles Wetherell said, after the repetition of the majority in favour of Ministers, he trusted they would now grant the minority the privilege to which they were entitled, and no longer oppose the adjournment of the House; they would derive no advantage from persevering in their present course. He moved that the House do now adjourn. The Attorney-General expressed his hope that his noble friend would persevere to the last in opposing the Motion for adjournment. The conduct of the Opposition was a great abuse of the important privilege of the minority; they proceeded on the principle that at two o'clock some hon. Gentleman fancied he was not receiving a proper degree of attention, and he persevered, consequently, with his friends in throwing every obstacle in the way of public business. They must not submit to this proceeding; and he trusted, therefore, that all who were of his opinion would determine to keep their seats to the last. For the consequence of yielding would be, that the same course which the Opposition had now taken, they would take on Wednesday, and on Thursday; that the same course which they had taken on the 12th of July, they would take on the 12th of August, on the 12th of September, and so on, until, by these repeated delays, on affected pretexts, they would defeat the great and important measure which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Government. VOL. IV. {T} Series Mr. Cressett Pelham observed, that on former occasions a minority had successfully persevered in a similar course, and trusted they would do so in the present instance. He remembered the then hon. Member for Durham dividing the House seven times on the introduction of a measure which the then Government were anxious to hasten through the House. He trusted Gentlemen, taking that case as a guide, would divide over and over again before they would submit to see any further stage of the Bill proceeded with. Mr. John Campbell expressed his hope, that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not yield to this most improper and unconstitutional attempt on the part of the opponents of the Bill. They had heard it said, that in conformity with ancient practice, the adjournment should be allowed; and it was undoubtedly of consequence that the customs and usages of the House should be observed; but in the present case it was important to consider what induced the Opposition to act in the manner they had done. Was their object the legitimate one of protecting the rights and privileges of the minority? Far from it; as a proof of which they were deserted by their leader, who had been in bed these five hours. On the last division, the minority had amounted only to forty-four, and it was decreasing on every occasion. Their privilege had been made a sword not a shield. The hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had proposed that the present discussion should resolve itself into this question, "which party was wrong?" He should be happy to join issue on this plea, for he believed it would fully justify the course pursued by his Majesty's Ministers. During the last five hours they had had five divisions, on each of which the minority had decreased. He trusted that it would decline still more, and that he should have the pleasure of seeing the Speaker leave the Chair for the temporary formation of the Committee on the Bill. An Hon. Member said, that the Attorney General, in the course of the evening, observed, that Gentlemen who were opposed to the Bill would lose no opportunity of discussing its merits, by allowing it to go into Committee. Why, then, did Ministers continue to oppose the adjournment? They could not get more forward by that course. The cause of these repeated Motions for adjournment was the very im 2 P proper refusal of the House to hear the hon. member for Dundalk. The friends of the measure throughout had not been desirous to hear any but their own supporters, which evinced no great degree of argumentative strength. He therefore maintained, that if those who were opposed to the Bill, and who felt it to be their duty to advocate the rights of the persons who sent them there, thought proper to take the course which they had adopted, they had a perfect right to do so. Mr. Spring Rice observed, that the adjournment was proposed at the unusually early hour of twelve, after it had been decided but a few nights before that public business should commence at five and terminate at one. The continued Motions for adjournment, therefore, could not have arisen in consequence of the hour to which the original Debate had been protracted. He denied, that any interruption had been given to the hon. member for Dundalk, whose sentiments would have been listened to with the utmost patience. There had been some little impatience in the House, but there was no interruption attempted or intended. Every effort was made to induce him to proceed, but he refused to do so. Lord Althorp, in answer to those who contended, that to abandon the motions for adjournment, would be to admit one step of the Bill, and to allow that it was proper that the Speaker should leave the Chair, observed, that that was not the case. That the Bill should go into a Committee was determined immediately after it had been read a second time; and the only question to decide, therefore, was, when it should go into the Committee? If the House were now to go into the Committee pro forma, any hon. Member might again address the House on the recommitment of the Bill to-morrow, or for whatever day that recommitment might be fixed; and as that would be a new motion, the opponents of the Bill would enjoy the advantage of having the opportunity of repeating on that new occasion the speeches which they had made on the present. Mr. Maberly said, it was clear, that one side must give way. Now, when it was known that an arrangement had been made with the leader of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Bill should go into the Committee that night, he thought that, out of deference to that right hon. Gentleman, his friends might concede the point; a proceeding which, in his opinion, would be highly honourable to them. If they objected to do so, it would be quite clear, that the arrangement made with the right hon. Baronet did not meet with the approbation of his own party. Sir Robert Inglis was of opinion, as the noble Lord had said, that he should merely move, that the Bill should go into the Committee pro forma, that the case was on a different footing from that on which it formerly stood. For many reasons he felt inclined to agree to this course; at the same time he had recognized the propriety of adjourning in the early part of the evening, on observing that the hon. member for Dundalk did not receive the attention of the House. He therefore suggested to hon. Gentlemen the propriety of no longer resisting the Motion. The only question was as to the propriety of going into a Committee at all, but as that question had been decided on a former evening, he hoped no farther opposition would be made to then going into the Committee pro forma. Mr. Praed said, that whatever deference he might be disposed to pay to the right hon. Baronet to whom the hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded, his conduct could not be regulated by whatever might, perhaps, have been the opinion of that right hon. Gentleman four hours ago. As Ministers would gain a step by the House assenting to go into the Committee that night, he should support the adjournment. The very step which the Ministers wished to gain, was that which he and his friends wished to go on discussing. If there were nothing but a point of form involved in this discussion, he would not object to letting Ministers have the advantage of it: but it was a point of substantial advantage, and therefore he would not yield. Sir Edward Kerrison was resolved to it. It had been said, that the privilege of persevere. If the elder Members of the moving the adjournment, which was inHouse felt inclined to go into the Com-tended as a shield for the Minority, had, mittee on account of the lateness of the hour, he trusted the younger ones would remain and support motions for an adjournment till they succeeded. upon this occasion, be enused as a sword: he saw no reason why it should not. In the words of Horace he would say―— |