omes daily of more pressing importance to the security
of the state, and to the contentment and welfare of my people." The
other parts of the speech referred to the distress which prevailed; to
the appearance of the cholera morbus; to the agitation prevailing in
Ireland; to the Portuguese affairs; to the separation of the states of
Holland and Belgium; to a convention entered into with the king of the
French for the suppression of the slave-trade; to the estimates; and to
the recent riots. The address did not produce any division, but several
parts of it were objected to in both houses. In the lords, the principal
matter of discussion was found in those parts of the royal speech
which regarded the foreign policy of the government, the opposition
particularly objecting to that part of the address in answer to it
which expressed satisfaction that an arrangement had been made for the
separation of the states of Holland and Belgium. At the suggestion of
Lord Harrowby the paragraph was slightly altered, so as to meet the
views of all parties. In the commons, Sir Charles Wetherell brought
under notice that part of the speech which related to the riots at
Bristol, in the course of which he made some severe remarks on the
libels of the press, which had charged him with being the author of
those events; the charge was false, he said, in all its parts, and known
to be false by those who made it. Sir Robert Peel proposed the same
alteration in that part of the address that related to the affairs of
Holland and Belgium, which Lord Harrowby had suggested in the upper
house, and it was adopted. In his speech, besides adverting generally
to the other topics in the address, he protested against a precedent now
established, that of assembling parliament for the dispatch of business
without giving the usual notice. He admitted that, by the letter of the
law, government was entitled to call parliament together after fourteen
days' notice; yet it was laid down by the highest authority that, up
to the period when the old law was altered, it was deemed of high
importance that forty days' notice should be given of the meeting of
parliament. Of the allusion in the speech and address to the necessity
of a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the reform question, Sir
Robert said that he would not object to it, as ministers had declared
that it was not intended to express any pledge. He would candidly avow,
however, that he despaired of seeing the