gainst the ballot, he had
signed his own death-warrant, and chalked out his political grave. On a
division, Mr. Wakley's amendment was negatived by five hundred and nine
against twenty; and his two other amendments, pledging the house to the
vote by ballot and the repeal of the septennial act, were then put, and
negatived without a division.

The question having been again put on the address, Mr. Harvey proposed
an amendment to this effect:--"That whilst this house is desirous
of making the most liberal provision for the support of the becoming
splendour and just dignity of the crown, they feel that the same ought
to be derived from obvious and direct sources; and that to such end
every branch of the hereditary revenues of the crown ought to be
placed, without reservation, and without exception, under the control
of parliament, as the surest means of protecting the crown against
exaggerated impressions of their amount, and as a security against
their misapplication." The amendment further set forth, that in the
arrangement of the civil list, the house confidently relied upon the
ready co-operation of her majesty, in promoting all needful inquiry into
the claims of persons to be continued as recipients of state provision.
In moving this amendment, Mr. Harvey observed that the former part of it
was in substance the same with the proposition ministers had themselves
made on the subject when in opposition. He pressed the second part of
his amendment, on the ground that a strong feeling existed in the
public mind against it as it now stood, which feeling was materially
strengthened by the late alteration in the poor-law system. He assured
ministers that they had not a superabundance of popularity, and he
predicted that Lord John Russell's declaration of that night would
operate fatally to his government. In reply, Lord John Russell contented
himself with stating that an account of the actual and average receipts
from the duties in question would be laid before the committees; and
that with respect to the pension list, the precedent of 1831 would be
strictly followed. Ministers agreed in thinking it far wiser to provide
against abuses for the future, than to take away pensions already
granted. If the revision proposed by the hon. member should be adopted
by parliament, ministers would claim the right of further consideration,
before they decided whether or not they should give it their support.
After a few words from Mr. Harv