I gave his majesty the best advice which, under the circumstances of the case, it appeared to me practicable to give.  I advised his majesty to send for that right hon. gentleman (Sir R. Peel), a member of the House of Commons, who seemed to me to be the most fit and capable person to place at the head of the new administration, as first lord of the treasury.  That right honourable gentleman was then in another part of the world, and some time must necessarily elapse before it would be possible that he could return to this country.  It appeared to his majesty and to myself, however, to be essentially necessary that, in the meantime, the government should be taken possession of and administered.  This step I considered to be absolutely necessary, and I also felt it to be absolutely necessary that, whoever might exercise the authority of government in the interval, should take no step that might embarrass or compromise the right honourable baronet on his return.  It was only on that ground that I accepted, for the time, of the offices of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the home department.

The noble viscount has made a little mistake in alleging that I was appointed to three departments at once.  He makes it a matter of charge against me that I exercised the authority of the three secretaries of state; but the noble viscount knows very well that the secretary of state for the home department is competent, under certain circumstances, to do so.  It was for the public service, and the public convenience, and no other reason whatever, that I, my lords, consented to hold, for a time, the situations of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the home department.  But I want to know whether this was, as the noble viscount insinuates, an unprecedented act?  When Mr. Canning was secretary of state for the foreign department, he was appointed first lord of the treasury.  The latter office Mr. Canning received on the 12th of April, and he did not resign the seals of the foreign department until the 30th of that month.  During the whole of that period Mr. Canning discharged the duties both of secretary of state for foreign affairs, and first lord of the treasury.  My lords, I am quite aware that there were at that period, two other secretaries of state, but the fact is as I have stated it, that Mr. Canning exercised at the same time; the functions both of first lord of the treasury, and secretary of state for the foreign department.  The transaction in my case was, therefore, not unprecedented; and I must also say, that when the noble viscount thought proper to blame me, as he did, he was bound to show that my conduct, in that respect, had been attended with some evil or inconvenient result.  Now, it does not appear that it has been attended with any such result.  The fact is, that during the whole of the time that I held the two offices.  I cautiously avoided taking any step which might be productive of subsequent embarrassment or inconvenience, and when my right honourable friend took possession of his office, I can undertake to say that he did not find himself compromised by any such act.