reference to the leading incidents of this difficult period; on the attitude of Canning towards the Holy Alliance in general and towards Metternich in particular; on his policy towards old and new Spain; on his skilful unravelling of the tortuous skein of Portuguese politics; on his firm, and judicious handling of the complex and threatening issues arising out of the revolt of the Greeks; and, above all, on his courageous recognition of the independence of the Spanish colonies in South America. Stapleton regarded the last as the most important measure adopted while Canning was Foreign Minister'; and Captain Bagot would seem to be at one with Stapleton.

In no direction did Canning show himself more truly the disciple of his master Pitt, and in none was his own policy more continuous and more consistent from the opening to the close of his career. So far back as 1790 Pitt had told Miranda that the emancipation of Spanish America was a matter which would infallibly engage the attention of every Minister in the country.* It engaged the attention of Canning from his first day at the Foreign Office until the final accomplishment of independence Thus the calling in the new world to redress the balance of the old' was, as Captain Bagot carefully and conclusively shows, neither a mere rhetorical ebullition, nor & sudden inspiration. It was a deliberate and essential part of Canning's policy, long contemplated and tenaciously adhered to. So far back as 1808, the separation of the Spanish colonies under British protection was an idea present to the minds of Canning and Castlereagh. Hardly was Canning back at the Foreign Office wher he wrote to the Duke of Wellington, then representing Great Britain at the Congress of Verona :

'Every day convinces me more and more that, in the presen state of the Peninsula, and in the present state of thi country, the American questions are out of all proportion more important to us than the European; and that, if we d not seize and turn them to our advantage in time, we shall rue the loss of an opportunity never, never to be recovered.'

President Monroe sent his famous message to Congress

* Col. E. M. Lloyd, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, xviii, 82. Bagot, i, 258, 266.

Quoted by Col. Lloyd, ap. Transactions, supra, p. 85.

on December 2, 1823; and at the beginning of 1824 Canning writes to Sir Charles Bagot:

'I have very little doubt that the President was encouraged to make his declaration about the South American States by his knowledge of our sentiments. . . . The effect of the ultraliberalism of our Yankee co-operators on the ultra-despotism of our Aix-la-Chapelle allies gives me just the balance that I wanted.' (Bagot, ii, 215, 218.)

Just a year afterwards he writes exultingly to Frere :

The thing is done. . . an act which will make a change in the face of the world almost as great as that of the discovery of the Continent now set free. The Allies will fret, but they vil venture no serious remonstrance. France will fidget, but till be with a view of hastening after our example. The Tankees will shout in triumph, but it is they who lose most your decision.' (Festing's 'Frere,' p. 267.)

The new material provided by Captain Bagot tends, in the main, as I have hinted, to substantiate rather than correct the received opinion of Canning's foreign policy. I have therefore touched lightly on a matter which is, in itself, of pre-eminent importance.

The special value and significance of this latest addition to Canning literature may, by this means, be most early indicated. The Bagot Letters will indisputably are an important place among the illustrative sources of English history for the period which they cover. No bsequent historian of this period will be able to ignore them. Valuable to him, to the biographer of Canning they of course be indispensable, but less, I think, as a mmentary on policy than as a revelation of personality. Canning the man even more than Canning the statesman that these letters make manifest to the world. As husband, father, and friend we here see him, perhaps for the first time, as he was-one of the most sensitive, most tender-hearted, most generous, affectionate, and lorable of men.

'J. A. R. MARRIOTT.

Art. 11. THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE OF COM MONS IN REGARD TO FINANCE.

1. Journals of the House of Lords, 1509-1908. 2. Journals of the House of Commons, 1547-1908. 3. Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commo By J. Hatsell. New edition. Four vols. London, 18 4. A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, a Usage of Parliament. By Sir T. Erskine May. Eleven edition. London: Longmans, 1906.

5. The Procedure of the House of Commons. By Jo Redlich. Translated by A. E. Steinthal. Three v London: Constable, 1908.

THE question of the privileges of the House of Comm is one of considerable antiquity and interest. As a r it slumbers peacefully, while the House of Comm waives its privileges on many occasions; but occasiona a crisis occurs, when on some subject the two Ho take different views of what is desirable, and the doctri of privilege is used as a convenient weapon by the although its employment is often protested against by other. Such a case occurred last year in connexion wi the Old-age Pensions Bill. In the final debate on th measure, July 31, 1908, the Lord Chancellor said: 'Let me for a moment point this out-that the privilege the House of Commons is admittedly somewhat indistinct its borders. No one can read the history of this question the various Resolutions which have been arrived at and various acts which have taken place, without seeing there is a certain borderland which is indeterminate and a certain extent indefinite.'

To the same effect, the Marquis of Lansdowne remark 'Whenever the question of privilege arises, there are t entirely distinct points. In the first place, is the House of Lor amendment, or is it not, an infringement of privilege? a secondly, if it is an infringement, is it the desire of the Hot of Commons to insist upon its privilege to the utmost tremity? The first point is, I believe, usually decided by t authority of the Speaker. The other point is one that on t advice of the Government of the day has very often be decided on the side of this House. There is this great dif culty, that nowhere is there anything like a clear a

thoritative description of what is and what is not the ivilege of the House of Commons. There is no statute

aling with it. There is no written constitution to which can appeal. There is no compact even between the two uses. It is an attempt on the part of one House to limit opportunities of the other.'

Many other observations were made on the same day, both Houses, with respect to the Lords' amendments the above-mentioned Bill-observations which show at conflicting views may be held by members speaking ith the greatest authority and the greatest experience the procedure of either House. The following remarks were made in the House of Commons:

Asquith: 'We are here dealing with a question which yopinion is of the greatest importance to the procedure privileges of this House. If the House, whatever may opinion on the merits or demerits of a comparatively change in the Bill, were to allow the precedent-it uld be a precedent-to be set of accepting an Amendment is kind, in my opinion we should very greatly impair the ats and privileges we have always hitherto asserted, and should be doing so for a price which is not worth eting.

Mr Balfour: I put the point of order; are there not ntless precedents for this House waiving its privileges in se matters and accepting an Amendment from the Lords ch technically violates its privileges?'

Mr Speaker: I think almost every year, certainly very quently, this House does not insist on its privileges. It pts Amendments, and, in sending a message to the other e, the statement is made that this House does not insist its privilege.'

regard to one of the Lords' amendments, by which proposed to add certain words to clause 4 of the the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted that this endment was also an infringement of the privileges of House. The Speaker replied:

The

way it occurs to me is that I think the words of the ds' amendment are really an explanation of the words profitable use." . . . I think that it would be the doctrine privilege run mad were we to insist upon this as being a each of privilege. It seems to me to be purely a matter of planation. (Times,' August 1, 1908,)

Vol. 211.-No. 420.

S

With a question admittedly so indefinite, with interest in the question freshly excited, and with a general expecta tion of the introduction within a year or two of a most important Bill, that on the reform of the Poor Law, bristling with points on which privilege may undoubtedly be claimed, some enquiry into the subject seems to b desirable-an enquiry dealing not so much with the theor of the privileges of the Commons as with the principl on which they have frequently consented to waive the privileges, and the practical steps which are habitual taken, and taken successfully, to prevent any collisi between the two Houses.

For such an enquiry I may fairly claim to have certa special qualifications. For thirty years it was my du as Clerk of Public Bills in the House of Lords, to atte to the official communications on the subject between t two Houses; in the course of those duties I collected t precedents which occurred during those years, and b also placed at my disposal the valuable collection earlier precedents formed by Mr W. Rose, formerly det of Public Bills in the House of Commons. Without suc assistance it is difficult to deal completely with the subjec for the Commons' Journals contain no record of poin decided by the Speaker and not submitted to the Hou The principles involved are set forth in Sir T. Erski May's book, the accepted authority on parliamenta subjects, and more recently in Dr Redlich's remarkal work, in which a foreigner has succeeded in masteri all the peculiarities and complexities of our Constituti and procedure; but the records must be sought in t Journals of the House and often in the diaries of Simonds D'Ewes, Andrew Marvell, and others, or Hatsell's Precedents.'

The question of the privileges of the House Commons is by no means simple; and precedents may found to support whatever view the enquirer may wi to adopt. For the Commons' privileges, if pushed to extreme, would almost deprive the House of Lords of power in matters of legislation; and since, until recent there has been no desire to achieve such a result, t Journals of the two Houses abound in instances whe the Commons have received the Lords' amendments