inconvenience.  These circumstances have most forcibly struck my mind.  I have had the subject under consideration for some days; I have conversed with others respecting it; and it appears to me that some plan ought to be devised in order to bring these railroads under the supervision of parliament at some future period.  I therefore am anxious that the further proceedings in all these bills[18] should be suspended for a short time, in order that I may propose some clause, or introduce some measure, to meet the object to which I have referred.  I think it is a subject the consideration of which ought not to fall on any individual.  It is, I conceive, a matter which the government should take into its especial consideration.  I am, however, perfectly ready to share with the government the responsibility of proposing such a measure to the house.

[Footnote 18:  Some railway bills before the Home of Lords.]

June 3,1836.

* * * * *

Moderation of the Opposition in the House of Lords towards the Melbourne Government.

From my own experience, I must take the liberty of observing, that I consider the conduct pursued by noble lords on this side of the house, throughout the present session, to have been marked with the utmost moderation.  For myself, I think I am correct in stating, that since the address to the throne in answer to the king’s speech, with the exception only of one occasion, when I requested the noble viscount to postpone the Corporations (Ireland) Bill till after the Easter holidays, I never entered the house till after Easter.  Since that period, I have certainly taken part in the proceedings that have been going forward in the house, and I have felt it my duty to oppose some of the measures of government; but I think I shall be borne out when I say that I have accompanied the vote which I have given with observations expressed in terms of great moderation.  I have acted on all occasions to the best of my opinion, and in a way which I thought most calculated to be beneficial to the country.  The noble viscount has been pleased to taunt us for not having addressed the king with a view to obtain his and his colleagues’ removal from the situations which they hold.  If the noble viscount would look at the manner in which they were appointed to office, if he would look at the whole history for the last twelve months I think he would find sufficient reason for our not having adopted that course of proceeding.  The noble viscount knows very well upon what ground he stands, and knowing that, it would have been just as well in him if he had avoided his taunts against us for not having asked the king to remove him from office.  I would take the liberty to recommend the noble viscount to consider himself not as the minister of a democratic body in another place, but as the minister of a sovereign in a limited monarchy, in a country, great in point of extent, great in its possessions, and in the various