guised manner, and had collected more numerous and active partisans than she had ever been able to do at any period of the war. Peace had returned, but it had not brought a revival of our manufactures and commerce: on the contrary, these -having been long thrown into an unnatural state, by the duration and peculiar character and tendency of the revolutionary war, and having accommodated themselves to that state, and actually derived vigour and nourishment from what, it might have been supposed, would have proved their poison-languished and drooped when the war terminated. In addition to the thousands who were necessarily thrown loose on society by the reduction of the army and navy, there were thousands more stript of the means of subsistence by the decline of manufactures and trade. The meeting of parliament, therefore, was looked forward to, by many, under the expectation and belief that ministers would propose, or at least adopt and support, some effectual measures for the relief of manufactures and trade. What these measures were to be, few had formed any very clear or definite idea; all, however, imagined that a diminution of the taxes would effectually remove the evil. But there were other subjects which it was naturally supposed parliament would discuss, the anticipation of which gave to their approaching meeting an interest as deep, though of a very different nature, as that which had usually preceded their meetings in time of war. We allude to the call which there seemed to be for their interference, in order to repress that spirit of dissatisfaction, and that apparent determination, in various parts of the kingdom, to carry through sudden and extreme changes in the constitution, by the most violent and illegal me thod. There were subordinate topics, the probable discussion of which during the session of 1816 gave to the approach of that session no common degree of interest. We allude more directly and particularly to the poor-laws, or rather to the excessive pressure of the poor, rates-a burden which, the more heavy it grew, the less effectual it seemed to become. Our last volume has shown in what respects, and to what degree, these anticipations of the proceed. ings and acts of parliament, during the session of 1816, were realised, In the first place, with respect to the relieving the distressed manu facturers, ministers justly contended that, unless they could create a demand for their goods, no relief they had it in their power to afford could be real or permanent. the same time they expressed not merely their readiness, but their determination, to take off the pressure of taxation, as much and as speedily as it could safely and prudently be taken off. At In the second place, although ministers were fully aware of the prevalence of a very active and determined spirit of disaffection, and could not be ignorant that radical changes in the constitution were in the contemplation, if not actually planned, by many, who would not scruple to employ the most violent methods to effect these changes; yet, believing or hoping that the regular course of law was amply sufficient to protect the constitution against the measures of these persons, they were unwilling to have recourse to extraordinary means, such as would infringe on the li berty of the subject, or suspend for a time the blessings of the constitu tion. The pressure of manufacturing and commercial distresses and difficulties still continuing at the be ginning of the year 1817, and the violences at Spa Fields (detailed in our last volume) having been committed after the close of the session of 1816, as well as manifestations of a turbulent spirit having displayed themselves in many parts of the kingdom, the session of 1817 was naturally looked forward to, with no common interest and anxiety. Besides these reasons for interest and anxiety, there existed another, which, however, operated less generally than those which we have detailed; we allude to the financial measures that the minister might be supposed to adopt. The revenue during the year 1816 had fallen off very considerably; and even had it been as flourishing and productive as during the most favourable year of the war, yet it could not possibly cover the peace expendi. ture and the payment of the interest of the national debt. Hence those who felt an interest in this branch of political economy were anxious to learn in what manner the minister would extricate himself from the financial difficulties with which he was pressed; and by what magic he would render a revenue scarcely equal in amount to the payment of the interest of the national debt-equal not only to that, but the defrayment of a peace expenditure of nearly twenty millions. Such were the principal sources of that interest with which, among most classes and descriptions of persons, the session of 1817 was anticipated.—It is surprising, however -when we consider how long the reading of the debates of parlia ment has been common among the people of this country,-how few there are who can explain or understand the forms of proceeding, In fact, the forms of proceeding in parliament are but little known in comparison of other parts of our laws and institutions. They are regarded by many as mere arbitrary ceremonies, the reasons for which, if they did not originate in caprice, have been now altogether lost, as the Turks show the same reverence by uncovering their feet as we do by uncovering our heads, and as some of the South Sea islanders deem it as disrespectful to stand in the presence of their superiors as Europeans do to sit down. It will be found, however, on a little reflection, that those forms are of someimportance, which keep up the distinction between a deliberative assembly and a tumultuous meeting, and that the species of discipline is not the least worthy of attention which preserves order in a body of which all the members are equal in autho rity. It is in fact by the strict observance of these forms, and by the introduction of the system of representation, or rather delegation, in modern times, that all the objections to a popular government have been done away. An account of some of the forms of proceedings in the house of commons, and an explanation of some of the terms used in describing them, may be also of service to the readers of par liamentary debates. Time of meeting.-The old parlia ment hours, as lord Clarendon tells us, was from eight in the morning to twelve. The afternoon was reserved for the business of committees. At present the house of commons meets between three and four, and prayers are immediately read by the chaplain -The morning is A 3 occupied occupied by such committees as happen to be sitting. As soon as there are forty members in the house, the speaker takes the chair; but if, at four o'clock, there are not forty present, he adjourns the house to the next day of sitting. The reason why this hour has been fixed upon for an adjournment, is supposed by Mr. Hatsell to be, that by act of parliament (12th William) it is ordered that members who are introduced for the first time into the house shall take the oaths of supremacy, abjuration, &c. at the table, between nine and four. When the king or his commissioners summon the house to the house of peers to hear the royal assent given to bills, or for any other purpose, the speaker, on his return, takes the chair without counting the house; but if any member demand that the house be counted, no business can be done till it appear that at least forty members be present; and if it happens, after four o'clock, that there are not so many present, the house is immediately adjourned. In the house of peers three lords make a house, and very often there are not more than three present while judicial business is transacted; viz. the lord chancellor, the chairman of committees, and the junior bishop, who reads prayers. Questions. When a proposition is submitted to the house by the speaker, it is called "putting the question." It was anciently-in times when the proceedings of the house must have been much less regular than they now are the practice for the speaker to collect the sense of the house from the debates, and thence to frame propositions. When he had done this, he used to "put the question" to the housethat is, ask them did they agree to this proposition? Hence the name originated. The present practice is, that a member who has a proposition to make shall put it in writing: he reads it, and delivers it to the speaker. When this "motion" is seconded, it is proposed by the speaker to the house. It cannot then be withdrawn, except by the leave of the house, at the request of the mover; and, till it is agreed to or negatived, no other motion can be discussed, with the following exceptions: 1st, A motion to adjourn-2d, A motion for reading the orders of the day-3d, Or, for the previous question-Or, 4th, from an amendment on the motion proposed. This general rule, which confines the attention of the house to a particular subject, and that digested into a regular proposition, is indispensably necessary to the dispatch of business; and it is to the want of such a regulation that much of the disorder in inexperienced popular assemblies, such as the national assemblies in France, and the cortes in Spain, is to be attributed, -A practice has prevailed in those bodies (drawn from the practices of the French parliament, which were judicial and not legislative bo dies) of collecting the opinion of members, not simply by an aye or no to any question, but in any manner in which the individuals thought fit to deliver them. The menber delivering that opinion was called an opinant. The inconvenience of this practice in a legislative assembly is, that, independently of the time consumed in the process, the various conflicting opinions are so numerous that no decision can be recorded, unless it be that-not of the majority, but of the greatest number who are of one mind. 'The opinants also frequently went, like all other makers of speeches, into matters quite irrelevant to the sub ject. ject. The exceptions to the general rule in the house of commons are as necessary as the rule itself. 1.Adjournment.-Whatever subject is under discussion, any member may move "that the house do now adjourn," and this motion must take the precedence of every other; for as it cannot be calculated at what time any emergency may render an adjournment necessary, so the house cannot preclude itself from taking this step, hotwithstanding it may not have decided on any motion which has been proposed to it.-A motion for adjournment may be repeated any number of times; and there was an instance in the last session, when Mr. Wynne moved the standing order for excluding strangers, that Mr. Brougham moved an adjournment three several times, on each of which the house divided. 2. A motion for the orders of the day also takes the precedence of other motions, and is employed to get rid of any proposition to which the house may not wish to give either an affirmative or negative. When a motion has been made, any member may move that the orders of the day (that is to say, the list of proceedings which have been ordered to be taken into consideration on that day) be read. The motion cannot be employed to put off the discussion of any proposition which is to be found among the orders themselves. 3. A motion for the previous question may be made to get rid of any other motion, whether it be found in the orders or not. On any proposition being submitted to the house, any member may demand that the house shall first decide whether "the question be now put," (this is called Moving the previous question), and if the house decide "that it be not now put," the original motion falls to the ground; but the mover is not precluded from bringing it forward at any other time, if he thinks fit. 4. An amendment may be proposed on any question; the form of determining on it is this: The speaker reads the original motion, and states that an amendment has since been proposed; he then puts the question that the words pro posed to be left out," or " the words proposed to be inserted, stand out of the question." If the house agree to insert or reject any words, he then reads the question so amended, and it is again put to the vote; so that if the house, on hearing the whole of the question, think fit to reject it, they may still do so. This regulation prevents the house from being taken by surprise, or from admitting words which might, in combination with the rest of the motion, bear a construction which they might not agree to. It is also to be remarked, that if any question respecting the privi lege of the house, or the order of its proceeding, arise in the course of a debate, it must have the precedence of any other matter under discussion. This rule evidently originated at a time when the connexion between the house of commons and the ministers of the crown was less intimate than that which exists at present. As the king was always eagerly expecting the subsidies which the house of commons might intend to grant, that body readily perceived that the best way to secure its privileges from any hostile encroachment, was to make another business give way to the discussion of such subjects. Thus in the parliament which preceded the long parliament (1640), the lords, who were devoted to the crown, A 4 took 1 took upon themselves to advise the commons to proceed forthwith to the business of a supply; but so far was this from answering the purpose of those who proposed it, that the commons immediately voted this a breach of privilege, and would proceed to no public business till the journals had been searched, and a protestation sent up to the house of peers, to be entered on the journals of that house. The mode of coming to a decision on a question is this:-The speaker, having read the motion, desires those who are of that opinion to say Aye; he then desires those who are of the contrary opinion to say No.' He then says he thinks the ayes (or the noes) "have it." If no one contradict this declaration, the vote is recorded; but if it be contradicted by any member, the house proceeds to a division. In the first place, all strangers are ordered to withdraw; two tellers are appointed from the Ayes, and two from the Noes. The Ayes (or the Noes) are ordered to go forth into an ante-chamber of the house called the lobby, the other party remaining in the house. One teller for each party counts the number of those who remain in the house; the other two count those who went forth as they return through the door of the house: the numbers are then reported by the tellers at the table; and if the numbers be equal, the speaker is called upon for his casting vote. It is to be remarked here, that as the tellers are chosen from both parties, they keep a check upon each other, and it is necessary that they should agree in their reports, otherwise the house must be counted a second time. Having thus explained the forms of proceeding in parliament, and the terms by which they are designated (for which we are convinced we shall receive the thanks of our readers) we shall now proceed to a detail of the parliamentary debates during the session of 1817. The session was opened on Tues day, January 28, by the prince regent, who delivered the following speech from the throne: My lords and gentlemen,-It is with deep regret that I am again obliged to announce to you, that no alteration has occurred in the state of his majesty's lamented indisposition. I continue to receive from foreign powers the strongest assu rances of their friendly disposition towards this country, and of their earnest desire to maintain the general tranquillity. The hostilities to which I was compelled to resort, in vindication of the honour of the country, against the goverment of Algiers, have been attended with the most complete success. The splendid achievement of his majes ty's fleet, in conjunction with a squa dron of the king of the Netherlands, under the gallant and able conduct of admiral viscount Exmouth, led to the immediate and unconditional liberation of all Christian captives then within the territory of Algiers, and to the renunciation, by its government, of the practice of Christian slavery. I am persuaded that you will be duly sensible of the importance of an arrangement so interesting to humanity, and reflecting, from the manner in which it has been accomplished, such signal honour on the British nation. India, the refusal of the government of Nepaul to ratify a treaty of peace which had been signed by its plenipotentiaries, occasioned a renewal of military operations. The judicious arrangements of the governor-general, seconded by the bravery and perseverance of his In majesty's |