HE Houses met on the 19th

commissioners appointed for that purpose informed them that his majesty would open the session in person so soon as a sufficient number of members should have been sworn in, and directed the House of Commons to proceed forthwith to the election of a speaker. The attendance in the House of Commons was more numerous than had ever been witnessed, not only on the first day of a session, but on the discussion of any great political or party question. More members were in the House than even the anxiety of party spirit had expected, and this circumstance somewhat disturbed the calculations which had been formed. Lord Francis Egerton, one of the representatives of the county of Lancaster, moved that Sir Charles Manners Sutton should be called to the chair. He referred to the circumstances of the country, and the discussions of vital importance to every interest in the state on which the House was about to enter, as showing the necessity of looking narrowly to the qualifications of the individual to

whom they would have to resort

For

maintenance of their privileges and constitutional independence, and for a due control over the fervour and excitement of political debate. He alluded to the destruction of the two Houses, and the loss of documents and records which that catastrophe had occasioned, and thought the House could not but acknowledge that their best hopes of substitution and repair would be founded on the unequalled acquaintance of the late speaker with the rules, forms, and usages of the Commons. eighteen years, and in seven successive parliaments, he had filled the chair, and had so filled it as to have secured the unanimous approbation of the assembly over which he presided. Where party feeling was strong, an individual might be elected, not because he was most competent to discharge the duties of his station, but because he was supported by the good will and partiality of those who lent him their voices from party motives; but in the case of Sir Charles Sutton, his unrivalled qualifications for the office had

been proclaimed and acknowledged by his political opponents no less loudly than by those who agreed with him on political questions. His Lordship then referred to the high eulogiums pronounced on Sir, Charles by all the leading members of the new opposition,-when they themselves proposed him for the chair in 1833, in the first reformed parliament, and proposed him simply because his qualifications were so pre-eminent as to render him infinitely more worthy of the office than any other member; and he reminded the House that these were not the testimonies of partial friends, but of honourable adversaries; they were not the eager opinions of advocates, but the calm decisions of jurors. All these opinions, however, it was understood, were now to be trampled under foot, and the very men who, two years before, had unanimously agreed that Sir Charles was the only proper person to be speaker, were now to maintain, when his experience had increased, that he was utterly disqualified. At the same time, he did not expect to hear him opposed on the ground of any of those notoriously absurd charges which had been thrown before the public during the last two or three months-that red-letter circulars of the privy council would be construed into high treason or an indictment framed on the authority of the mirror of fashion. If what had been published elsewhere were correct, the opposition was to be founded on what was called a great public principle. But Lord John Russell, who seemed to have acted as leader in support of it, whether self-elected to that dignity, or borne upon the bucklers of a tumultuary host who, though

angry antagonists before, had united in one common band to reinstate him in office, had left this great public principle involved in such cimmerian darkness, that there was no coming at its real, or even its intended meaning. The only public principle discoverable in this proceeding was that which had been displayed on election banners, and shouted on the hustings-the principle of condemnation without trial. If this was the principle which was to flash conviction upon the doubtful, to fix the waverer, and again to unite that phalanx which had been almost disbanded by various. accidents of secession and other causes, he trusted that those who supported it would set themselves to the task of convincing the House of its justice without violating their own consistency, and of showing that it differed from the principle to which, at the last election of a speaker they had been so strongly opposed, viz., the principle of preferring political considerations to those of fitness from talents, ability, and experience.

The motion was seconded by Sir C. Burrell, who said that though he had supported Mr. Wynn as a candidate for the chair in 1817, in opposition to the late speaker, he had never since found reason to regret his want of success on that occasion ; for the choice, which the House then made, had been fully justified by the ability, efficiency, and impartiality of Sir Charles Sutton, which had produced an universal conviction of his superior fitness for the office over every other member in the House.

Mr. Dennison, one of the members for Surrey, proposed that Mr. Abercromby should take the chair,

and the motion was seconded by Mr. Orde. Both of these gentlemen expressed the pain which they felt at being compelled by an imperative sense of public duty to oppose the re-election of the late speaker, and declared their sincere concurrence in everything that had been said regarding his excellent qualifications; but they maintained that a great public principle rendered it necessary that those qualifications should be disregarded. The majority of the present parliament, they believed, were steadily attached to the principles of reform, and it was incumbent on the House to place in the chair a person assimilated in principle and opinion with the body over which he presided. Looking at the important discussions which must necessarily arise, involving, among other things, the dismissal of the late administration, and the unprecedented assumption of all power, for three weeks, by one in dividual, it was necessary to have for speaker a gentleman, who, while acting with dignity and impartiality, would still have a bias to the opinions of the majority. A difference of opinion, too, might arise between them and the other House of Parliament; and in such an emergency, it would be requisite to have in the chair a person who was in principle a reformer, and whose sentiments were completely identified with the reform bill. These qualifications would be found in Mr. Abercromby, distinguished by the uniform consistency of his political character, extensive information, profound legal knowledge, long parliamentary experience, and habits of business, combining the coolest temper with the clearest head, and attached, as he had proved

himself to be, through many trying and important contests, to the rights and liberties of the people, and to the great principles of the reform bill. It was true, that the first reformed parliament had elected Sir Charles Sutton to be its speaker, and his election had been proposed by the reforming government; but the present circumstances were totally differ ent from those which had existed two years ago. It was not surprising that the ministers of the day, with the overwhelming majority of sincere reformers of which they knew the House to be then. composed, should have availed themselves of the experience of the late speaker, notwithstanding their knowledge of his political opinions, to conduct the proceedings of the first parliament which assembled under the reform act. The election of speaker was not taken then, as it was taken now, as any test of the strength of political opinion, or as indicative of what the decision of the House would be on far more important topics. If the House, by their very first vote, should give a proof of confidence in his majesty's new advisers, by placing in the chair a member who thought with those advisers, and not with the majority of the House, they would greatly and bitterly disappoint the just expectations of the country.

Sir Charles Manners Sutton assured the House that he did not rise to state his own qualifications for the office, for he was so circumstanced that the House and the public must form their own judg ment on the manner in which he had discharged its duties; and much less did he rise to disparage the qualifications of the gentleman who had been proposed against

him, but simply to meet the imputations to which, for some time past, he had been so lavishly subjected. Those charges affected his honesty and integrity, as one whose highest pride it ever had been, and ever would be, to have been for eighteen years the servant of the House; and he had considered it most respectful to the House, as it certainly was most consonant to his own feelings, to submit to them patiently till he could answer them in his proper place on the floor of the House itself. The charges against him, when stripped of all circumlocution, were substantially these: That, being speaker, he had busied himself in the subversion of the late government; that he had next assisted with others in the formation of the new government; and that he had, last of all, counselled and advised the dissolution of the late parliament. Now, in all those charges collectively, and in each of them individually, there was not one word of truth from the beginning to the end. With regard to the first charge, that of having intrigued for the overthrow of the late government, Sir Charles stated, that on the close of the session he had gone down with his family to Brighton, the court being at Windsor; that he was recalled from Brighton by the destruction of the two Houses of Parliament by the fire, which had likewise consumed his own private residence; that the same event had brought the king to London; that, between this time and the dissolution of the ministry, he had been in communication with the king, but these communications had reference only to what the fire had rendered necessary to be done for the future accommodation of par

liament. Lord Melbourne, and other members of the government, were concerned in them all; and on one occasion when he attended the king at Windsor by the king's commands, and had a long audience of his majesty, he requested and obtained the king's commands to communicate everything which had passed at it to Lord Melbourne. He did not request permission to state to parliament what had passed at that audience; but if any one entertained doubts, he begged to refer them to Lord Melbourne. On these interviews seemed to have been raised the charge that he had been intriguing for the overthrow of the late government. Upon such a point it was impossible for any man to speak but upon the sanction of his own personal honour; and under that sanction he now declared that he had no anticipation of such an event. The first information he received of it was from one of the morning papers. He had heard nothing, he knew nothing of it before.

The next accusation circulated against him had been, that he busied himself in the formation of the present government, and the overt act to prove this was, that he had attended a meeting of the privy council. So he did, but in what circumstances? On the Monday after the dissolution of the late Ministry, he received his majesty's commands to attend him at St. James's. There he saw many members of the late government. They had audiences, he had none. After the audiences a message came out to all those in the outer room who were privy councillors, to go in and sit in privy council, and he went in with the others. He had first received

a summons to attend a privy council in the form of a printed summons, and those who were privy councillors knew well that such a printed notice never stated the subject for deliberation. Meetings so called differed from deliberate councils in this, that in the former mere matters of form alone were transacted. Under the peculiar circumstances in which he stood, it might, perhaps, be excusable in him to state what occurred on this occasion, but he did not feel it would be consistent with the obligation of a privy councillor to do so. Many of the members opposite were privy councillors, and the council books were open for their inspection. He would satisfy himself with saying, that at no privy council which he had attended had any business been done but of the most formal description. Neither had he been consulted by the new minister. The day after the return of Sir R. Peel, he notified to Sir Charles a wish to see him, and the visit was paid; but excepting that visit, and of another which he paid to Sir Robert, for the purpose of getting his sanction and signature as chancellor of the exchequer to the payment at the bank of the salaries of the clerks of the house, it so happened that he had never been within Sir Robert Peel's door from the time the latter assumed the government. Yet it had been stated and circulated that he had been in constant communication with this one and that one-that he had been at the Home Office day after day with the Duke of Wellington before Sir Robert Peel's return, and with the latter, week after week, subsequently-statements immaterial even if they had been well founded, but in which

there was not a single syllable of truth. He was aware, in common with the public, of the appointment of Sir Robert Peel, the lord chancellor, and the Duke of Wellington: but he had never advised nor suggested; he had never been in any way consulted; and he never knew of the appointment of any individual till after it had taken place.

Lastly, he had been accused of having counselled the dissolution of the late parliament, and the overt act here was, that he was present at the privy council which resolved on the dissolution. Now he was not present at that privy council. He was not even summoned to it; he never advised, counselled, or was consulted, about the dissolution; so little did he know of the steps which had been taken on the subject, that owing to an accident, arising from the indisposition of a person in his own house, he did not know of the fact until it was announced in the Gazette. It came to his knowledge too late to save that night's post, in consequence of which he was put to much inconvenience. If he had been so confident of an approaching dissolution, why had he not taken those steps prospectively which others took to secure their re-election? But in point of fact, he had no communication on the subject with any of his constituents, till he had ceased to be speaker. In short, he would repeat, that in respect to his having had any communication with any human being at any time, or upon any occasion, in reference to the dispersion of the last government, or any interference at all in any appointment, or anything to do in the way of advising, suggesting, or counselling the dissolution of