The Sun. — London, England, 1849-05-23 00:00:00

tho House of Commons in 1734, and supported by Mr. pa,lteney and others, which motion was rejected in a Rowse of more than 400 Members, by a majority of on ly sixty-three. The Septennial Act continued to produce so much mischief, and excited so strong a feeling in the public mind against it, that at length a cry was raised for a general reform of Parliament, and toe question of shortenine , the duration of Parliaments became emerged in that of a general reform in the re presentation of the people. The reform which was con tended for consisted of two branches, the one being the amendment of the representation of the people, and the other being an increase of the responsibility of Members by more frequent Parliaments. The declaration of the " Friends of the People," with Lord Grey at their head, recognised this as the legitimate division. Well, in March, 1831, his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell), on introducing the Reform Bill, knowing that the whole nation expected both branches of reform to be embraced by that Bill, thought it needful to explain that the question of the shorter duration of Parliaments had been considered by his Majesty's Ministers, but that upon the whole they thought it would Le better to leave it to be brought before the House by any Member who might choose to take it up, than to bring it in at the end of a Bill regulating matters totally distinct. (The Right Hon. Member here read the passage in the Noble Lord's speech relating to this subject.) The friends of short Parliaments, though na turally disappointed at the omission of that branch of reform from the Bill, felt much consoled by the prospect of having it discussed by itself at a future time. He (Mr. T. D'Eyncourt) accordingly brought the question forward in 1833, again in 1834, and again in 1837. The Noble Lord opposed the motion on all those occasions; but he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had never had the benefit of the Noble Lord's opinion whether he really thought seven years a fit term for the duration of Parliament or not. All the opinion the Noble Lord had given was that be would not vote for his motion, because it did not state the term to which Parliaments should be shortened. His (Mr. D'Eyncourt's) answer bad always been that he was willing to leave that point to the decision of the House itself, but that if forced to name a term, he should of necessity adopt that which had been sanctioned by the constitution prev i o usly. Would the Noble Lord tell him whether he agreed in that opinion?—(Hear.) In 1333 his motion was rejected by a majority of only 49. In point of fact, it was lost by the weight of the Admi nistration —because, but for the votes of the Ministry and its adherents, his motion would have been carried. He begged the Mouse to notice, also, that his ,motion was not met by a direct negative, but merely by the previous question. In 1834 his motion was rejected by a majority of 50, and in 1837 by a majority of only nine. —(Hear, hear.) The question had remained in that position till the present moment... The House might rely upon it, how ever, that the absence of petitions and the want of public meetings out of doors to urge the question upon the at tention of Parliament afforded no evidence whatever of the want of interest in this question on the part of the public. The question was one upon which interest was always felt, and which would continue to be urged upon the House at all times of public excitement, until at length they might be forced to consider it under circum stances which might be painful to deal with. They would therefore do more wisely to consider it now, be fore any such painful necessity arose.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") He asked how it was possible to ascertain public opinion clearly and satisfactorily unless by means of frequent elections? New questions of importance must alWays arise within that -coutse'nf" three or four yeara, triit ttpOil - w'hich there- ectricknot pessiblY 'have been arty pre vitiate urblerstanaing between representatives and their 4' coustituencies, and when this happened, as it frequently did, the consequencelwas that many constituencies under the present system were unrepresented, if not absolutely misrepresented, with regard to such questions. If the House wished to secure a universal feeling of agreement between the Crown and the people, there was no means so sure of effecting this as frequent Parliaments. By these means they would at once increase the confidence of the people in their representatives, and diminish the corruption and influence which were at present almost unavoidably and imperceptibly exercised by Go vernment over Members. There was no other country in Europe which had so long Parliaments as we had. Why should we be behind other countries? If the Noble Lord should say he was in favour of five years as a good and wholesome term, so far as he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) was individually concerned he should be perfectly ready to concur; but, until he heard some proposition of that kind from a high authority, he would not compromise the constitutional demand for triennial Parliaments. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill. Lord DUDLEY STUART—I rise, Sir, to second the motion that has been made by my Right Hon. Friend. I consider this subject, Sir, one of the most important that can be discussed by this House, and I am well satisfied that it is ene which the people out of doors feel a desire shall be discussed and carried. This is a subject which has claimed the attention of the House on former occa sions, and one on which the House has heard many able arguments. But, perhaps, it has never been discussed precisely under the same circumstances, and therefore there is room to hope that, although it has not been carried formerly, it may now find favour with the iii House; and I am sure that the House by passing it into a law would find favour with the country at large.— (Hear, hear.) Upon former occasions when this ques tion was brought forward—and it has been brought for ward again and again ever since the Septennial Act passed, previous to the time when the Reform Bill was enacted—it was said and felt that by shortening the duration of Parliament and repeating the frequency of the appeal to the people, constituted es Parliament then was, was to do nothing but to make a reference to an oligarchy ; and, since the great Parliamentary Reform Bill has been carried, whenever it was proposed to enact short Parliaments, we were always met by the appeal that a great change has just been made; give it time to work, give it a fair trial, and do not produce any additional alteration. That argument cannot be used now. I admit that it was an argument immediately alter the passing of the Reform Bill. I felt it so much, that when my Right Hon. Friend first brought forward this question, I did not vote with him; I remained absent, and gave no vote, because I thought I would wait to see what would be the effect of that great measure of reform on the coun try. But now sixteen or seventeen/years have passed away since that great measure—that great and peaceful revolution in the country—was carried. I ask, Hon. Members, do you think that the people are satisfied with the system under which we now live? Do you think that system is so perfect that there is no objection to it, and that it_ is looked upon by the people at large with . _ entire satisfaction? I do not know what may be thought of it in the saloons and ball-rooms of this great metro polis, or in another place not far off, or, perhaps, on that race-course to which some Honourable Gentlemen are so anxious to hasten to-morrow, to the disregard of the public business of the country; but I ask you to converse with the people on railways, in omnibuses, and steam boats; to go among the middle and trading classes of the community and the people at large, and see; whether the people are satisfied with the constitution of Parlia ment as it now exists. I think, then, the argument which has been renswed, that we have made a great change and that we ought to give it time to work, can not now be used, because there has been time, and the system has been tried.—(Hear.) There has been a great deal of controversy whenever this question has been brought forward as to whether frequent Par liaments were constitutional or not. Until the reign of Henry VIII. no Parliament was prorogued, and previous to that there were instances where there occurred one general election every year. For a long time the danger was, not that dissolutions should not be frequent enough, but that there should not be a sufficient fre- quency in the assembly of Parliament. Until the reign of Henry VIII. no Parliament was prorogued, but Par liaments were always dissolved after one session; but the Long Parliament of Charles and of the Common wealth led men to see the necessity and importance of frequent elections, and the Bill of Rights at the Revolu tion claimed that Parliaments should be frequently holden as a part of the constitution.• Immediately after the Revolution in 1689—the first year after—a Bill was brought into the House of Lords for limiting the duration of Parliaments, but it was lost. In 1693, in the second Parliament of William 111., a Bill passed the Lords, and went to the Commons. Great opposition was made to it, and endeavour was made to swamp it on the ground that the Lords were interfering with that which was particularly understood as affecting this House; but the current ran too strong, and even those who felt this keenly, even those who were indignant at this interference of the Lords, still felt the thing was go important that they were disposed and determined to give it their support. In 1693 Mr. Harley said, on this subject, " the Bill is a plausible panegyric on this Par liament for its funeral oration;" and Mr. Goodwin Wharton said, in the same year, "I believe they (the Lords) thought not ill of this House; for only a good House will consent to such a Bill." Again, Mr. Neale said, in February, 1693, "It is objected that it came from the Lords.' A good thing sometimes may come. .We are told this is not a proper time,' but I think, that in so good a reign such a good law is to be ob tained.' Again, Colonel Titus said, in December, 1693, " IL is no objection that this Bill comes from the Lords. Itear not a good thing from them. We have had none a to;ltt,' while. The Lords prescribe us times when to meet, sod when to be dissolved. St. Paul desired to be dissolved, but if any of his friends had set him a day he would not haie taken it well of them. As for the disobligation to the people, good Parliaments they desire, and I never saw long Parliaments good ones. A picture new drawn may be like the person it represents, but in time the colours will fade, and it so alters from itself that no one can tell what it represents. If we would have a picture like, it must be new drawn." The importance attaching to this subject was evinced by the pertinacity with which both Houses demanded it, and yet William 111. resorted to that prerogative which has so very seldom been exercised in our consti tution, and refused to give it the Royal assent. Yet it was again and again brought in ; he could no longer oppose it, and it p asse d i n 1694, five or six years atter the Revolution carried out the Bill of Rights ; indeed it was in terms a declaratory Act. It has ever since been ardently desired by the people ; and it was repealed 22 years after it had been the law of the land, in order to mee t a temporary crisis and danger, which has long and for ever passed away. It is not for me, against the opnions of so many statesmen and able orators, to say that the proceeding of passing the Septennial Act was unjustifiable. I know it has been held by many that there were circumstances at that time which justified this moat extraordinary measure ; but it will be conceded that if it is to be justified at all, it is to be justified only and solely by the necessity of the case. Now, although the people acceded to it then, they have, from bat a shot t time after the Septennial Act passed, never ceased to demand its repeal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") In 1734 the first motion was made on the subject, only eighOen years tattier 43 en*ciment. then - ~+~ unnecessarily by Members anxious to take part in the deliberations of Parliament, but who had hitherto not had seats. In the third session there would, on the , ether hand, be an indisposition to decide any thing which Haight have an effect on the approaching elections. The time would be lost in the first year by the went of ex perience, and in the last year by looking ton earnestly to the new elections. I would ask whether within the last few years reesons have appeared which should lead that Parliaments should be trien us to suppose that is of more importance than in the he number of measure before liberate upon, speak tniima l e; o f our o a ancestors nom pare them with the extent do of that immense em- Ind o i f te affa a i n r o s th a e t r ho d m a e y , we airs time consider ipnirge one e los d e ay aff o a f irs aff of f nd ercial policy is a ff ili i s r o s as in sin C g ana w d h a e , th a e n r oth o e u r r day of s a an g d re d a e t ha pa t r in t g of va o r u i r ons questions of hardly attach too much importance to the consideration consider ing administration ia i s n itrrs a a l it l ni o r ne Ireland, s a p n e d et s l e , g islation, you will see the you can that this ought to be a House of practical business, rea sly to undertake the business before them as men used to transaction of business, and able to decide on the gree: and important questions on which the welfare 01 the country depends without fear of their constituents. But I admit, and freely, that these advantages would be dearly bought if you found that the opinions of constituents and of the public at large did not sufficiently influence the opi nions of Members of this House. Considering the experi ence I have had of this House since the Reform Bill, my opinion is that there is that general attention to the opi nions and wishes of constituents and of the public which leads me to believe that the opinions of constituents and of . the public have as much influence as they ought to have on the opinions and votes of Members of this House, and that if you carried it much further you would find Members, instead of voting for measures which they thought for the public good, deferring in too many instances to some temporary and transitory passion prevailing among the body of the electors. Many in stances I have seen in which Members have voted against what appeared to be the opinion of their constituents, and yet when, a year or so afterwards, they had to test the opinions of these constituents, many of those who thought them most wrong have come to the conclusion that they had worthily and properly discharged their duties, and have again entrusted them with the same functions, in the fullest confidence that they would dis charge those functions for the public benefit. The Bill with respect to the College of Maynooth, pro posed about th ree years ago, is an instance to be referred to in illustration. Greater clamour has seldom been raised against a measure than against that Bill. Innumerable letters were received by Members of this House (myself among the rest), threatening that, it they persisted, they would never again obtain support from those who wrote the lettere. But the Bill went on. The Members of this House did their duty. I believe they did right in voting for that Bill ; an d they voted for it notwithstanding the public clamour. They might anticipate that, in due time being given for reflection, public opinion would in the end come to the conclusion that the measure was a right and wise measure, and that the Members of this House had done their duty in supporting it. But I will not say such would be the case if you so shorten the duration of Parliament, that in the knowledge that every three years there is to be an election, those persons who are disposed to spread about exaggerated reports with respect to the effect of measures before Parliament shall be encouraged to excite a public feeling against those who have supported par ticular measures. I doubt whether Members would be able to discharge their duties as they have been accustomed to discharge them. With respect to another part of the question, my Bight Hon. Friend argues that there are greater means of corruption in long Parliaments than in short Parliaments. He did not give any reason for that opinion. I do not myself be lieve, considering the force of public opinion at this time, that the influence of the Crown under any Administra tion of late years has prevailed to an extent dangerous to the independence of Parliament. But it the question were, with whom it was likely to prevail most, it might be found that those who, being placed for a short time in this House, might obtain the patronage of the Crown, would be more likely to be influenced than those Mem bers who had been elected for a longer period, and who had experience of repeated refusals and disappointments. I certainly have come to the conclusion that there is no reason for disturbing the present Act with respect to the duration of Parliament. Whether it would be wise or not, supposing the ques tion now open, to settle upon six years—for that is the actual time—as the period which shall be the precise duration of Parliament, is a matter on which I think it hardly necessary to give an opinion. Whether you have actually five years or actually six years does not appear a matter of great importance. I certainly thought at one time that five years was the better period. I don't remember, though my Right Hon. Friend says so, that I was in favour of three years. I certainly was of opinion that five years would b e better. But I don't think there is any sufficient reason for making a change which should merely diminish by one year the duration of Parliaments. I believe that, practically, a duration of six years, which is not constantly the duration, but t he duration to which Parliaments may extend, is a duration which is not excessive. It is not a constant duration; for from 1826 to 1841 six Parliaments were held, having an average duration ot from two-and-a-half to three years. If you much diminish the duration of Parliaments—if you diminish it to three years— you do curtail the prerogative of the Crown, which in certain cases, on th numbers on each side 1 being equally balanced, or when the majority has op• posed the ordinary supplies or the ordinary measures of Government, enables the Crown to take the decision of the people. Of course you curtail that prerogative to a considerable extent when you restrict the duration of Parliament to a much shorter period than the law now permits. My Right Hon. Friend remarks that we have a different duration ot Parliament from other countries, and that, looking into other Constitutions in Europe, we cannot find any one which provides for a duration of seven years in the case of a Representative Assem bly, and that five and four years are the more frequent limits prescribed for the duration of popular assem blies. With great deference to my Right Honourable Friend, I am not disposed to quarrel with those new Con stitutions of other countries. We have seen monarchy' in France overthrown. We have seen the advisers of the Crown in that country exposed to violent popular disapprobation, and the Throne itself perish beneath the ruins of that general convulsion. But we have seen, likewise, that the form of government which has suc ceeded has not established itself in popular opinion, and that those who, eith the most brilliant talents and the most unquestionel integrity, have declared themselves favourers of the form of government thus established, adissatmurebepdopaunldar broken —constitutions tuotivoenrs have fallen themselves within th ese f ew d a y s un d er t h e When in other cou n t r i es we see ai G displeasure overn of m th aimed the monarchy.ent voted which are lever put in force—constitutions which have long existed overthrown, and cast in the dust— men seeking for same form of government to which they can attach themse,ves—for some leader who is worthy to guide them—l find no fault with those who, exposed to such storms, are seeking for better forms of political government ; tie imperfect forms under which they have long lived may have rendered ne cessary' such struggles may have awakened doubts, may have made such lamentable contests inevit able; but I rejoice that we ourselves have long ago passed through sech contests ; and I for one ens not prepared to imitate any part of those constitutions which I see so little trusted, which are still so uncertain, which are still so little litely to endure. Far from me be the sen timent that it is agreeable to stand on the shore and see others labourin; in the depths, to behold the storm without having any part in the danger ; but, on the other side, when I see that storm rising, when I see otherbarques labouring under the effects of the winds and waves, I am not prepared to launch my vessel into the same ocean to be exposed to the same perils. My Right Honourable Friend must, therefore, excuse me if I am disposed at this lime, whatever I might be at an other, rather to cling to the security and to the advantages we have, than be caught by the prospect he holds out to me, when be tells me that other nations have no laws similar to those which he wishes us to change, I conclude, as I concluded on a former occa sion, by opposing ray Right Hon. Friend's motion. I don't think the duration of Parliament, as at present fixed, too long. I think that public opinion has a very great and a sufficient influence on Members of this House, and that if yOu made elections so exceedingly frequent as my Right Hon. Friend proposes, you would lose much on the ground of public security, much on the ground of habits of business, much on the ground of stability of councils and due deliberation on mea sures; and you would not gain, in respect of public li berty, anything to countervail the disadvantages I have stated.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. S. CRAWFORD did not think it would be worth while to alter the law merely for the purpose of shorten ing the duration of Parliaments to five years; but, understanding that the object of the Right Honourable Member for Lambeth was to reduce the duration of Par liaments to three years, he should vote for the motion. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority .... —s The announcement of the numbers was followed by loud cheers. THE WORKING CLASSES. Mr. SLANEY then moved the appointment of a standing Committee, or unpaid Commission, to consider and report from time to time on practical measures (unconnected with political changes) likely to improve the condition of the working classes, to encourage their industry, and increase their contentment. He had not to apprehend opposition or contradiction from the House at that moment. What he had rather to dread was, that Hon. Members would quietly and silently steal forth from that House, and leave him with so small an audience that he should be counted out. If such were to be his fate, he trusted a good cause would procure for him a hearing on some future occasion. But, if he were permitted to proceed, he should ob serve that the improeement in the condition of the working classes had not kept pace with the improve ments in the condition of the more opulent classes. With respect to the peasantry, the Parliamen tary committees of 1817 and of 1819 reported that abuses prevailed in many of the southern counties. And the same result was shown from the proceedings of the Committee of 1824 on labourers' wages, over which the Noble Lord at the head of the Government presided. He then referred to the reports of a Parliamentary Com mittee of 1830 and a Commission of 1833, for additional evidence of the unsatisfactory and neglected condition of the agricultural labourers, which he said led them to commit acts of outrage in the southern counties. Then was passed the stringent law of 1835, which had slowly effected some improvement in the agricultural districts. The evils which that law was intended to remove had been admitted to exist for 20 years before the remedy wad applied. 'hot cvtlld u 9; bon hoppelled if thew 1144 there have been I know not how many motions on the subject. Lieutenant Trowbridge made an annual motion on it for sixteen or seventeen years consecutively ; and there are a great number of other men well known in Parliament who have brought forward this subject from time to time. It was brought on on the presentation of the famous petition of the Friends of the People by the late Lord Grey, then Mr. Grey ; and it has formed a part of every great scheme of reform, with the single exception of that which now exists.—(Hear, bear.) Now this question is not epen to the objections that are made to some other branches of reform. It is no innovation. On the first debate which took place on the subject in 1793, it was said by Colonel Laword, " this Bill takes care of our constitution; it does not innovate it !" It was not an un-English or revolutionary measure, as the ballot has been said to be, because it involved no new principle. Now after this Bill has been passed through all the branches of the Legislature, and has I endured as the law of the land, and that during the most glorious part of our history, for twenty-two years, it is no innovation, it is not un-English, because it was brought forward and passed by some of the best English men that have ever lived.—(Hear, hear.) It is no revolu• tionary measure because itinvolves no newprincipl!. The principle that there shall be a limit to the duration of Parliaments, independently of the will of the Crown, ii now in full operation. Now, it is only a question of de gree; it is, in point of fact, a question whether you will have a real or a sham representation; for I contend that the Parliament which is not so frequently elected as that the Members of it should undergo continual—though not a tyrannical—control from their constituents, is not, and cannot be, a real representation of the people. It was said . long ago in the old bo o k s , th a t it i s b e tt e r that the King should rely on his people, than his Minis.• tars—not excepting the present Ministry—and that is a sentiment which I cordially adopt. It is as good in the reign of Victoria as it was in the reign of William and Mary.—(Hear, hear.) Let Gen tlemen only reflect on what is passing, and on what has been passing in the last year and a half, on the conti nent, and let there ask themselves whether it is not of the utmost importance that the Legislature should be a full, fair, and real representation of the people. One trembles when one thinks what evils and dangers await the country, where those who call themselves, or are called, the representatives of the people, are not really so. Look at what happened in France. Louis Philippe had large majorities in his Cham bers of Deputies and of Peers, and yet those Chambers did not represent the people (Hear, hear) and in a moment he was hurled from his throne, and the country was thrown into anarchy and confusion and left without a Government, because the Legislature, instead of being a fair representation of the people, was nothing but a delusion, a mockery, and a snare.—(Cheers.) Now one argument against short Parliaments is, that short Parliaments will occasion a greater degree of expense, and one of the reasons for the Septennial Act, as alleged in the preamble, was, that larger sums were spent and greater beats and annimo sities occasioned by elections than had ever been known before. Why, will any one contend that the heats, the animosities, and the extravagant expenditure which oc curred during the twenty-two years of triennial Parlia ments, can be compared for one moment to either the violence or the extravagance which has existed since, under the Septennial Act? Did gentlemen ever then go to that extravagant pitch of expenditure that we have seen since? Was there then anything like the 1 violence and bloodshed which we have know) even in ourtimes under the'Septennial Act? Do any gentle men remember what has occurred with respect to different elections, the enormous sums of money that have been squandered in many cases to 'the ruin of great families, who have for 50 years afterwards felt the consequences? In 1768 there was a famous contest for the borough of , Northampton—not in one of the large constituencies of the country, but for a moderate sized town. On that election the influence of three Noble Lords was brought to bear—the Earl of Northampton, the Earl of Halifax, and Earl Spencer. Two of them spent 150,000 L each, and the third 100,0001:—(Laughter.) There was 400,0001. spent on a contested election for. one borough, and that was under the Septennial Act which was passed in order to diminish the expenses at elections. There were two reasons then for passing the Septennial Act; one was to prevent the danger arising from the machinations of the Pretender, and the other to diminish the expenses at elections. The one has completely and entirely passed away, and for the other the Septennial Act has proved wholly inefficacious. I say, then, it is time to do away with it. As to the expense being greater in shorter Parliaments, I think it is doubtful whether that would be the case ; but, perhaps, if you take a term of 50 or 100 years, there would be more frequent elections of the whole House, and larger sums of money would be spent; but then it is not that large sums shall be spent frequently, as that larger sums shall be spent less often. Happily, the extravagance of elections has now very much dimnished, but that cannot be referred to the Septennial Act. The improvement in this respect is rather to be referred to the Reform Bill, which shortened the duration of elections from fifteen days to two, and then to one in boroughs ; and this is a reason why we should remedy a contrary state of things with respect to elections. But it is not on the ground of economy that I support this motion, and that I am anxious that it should be passed, but on account of the impossibility as, I believe, of without it' obtaining a full, fair, and efficient repre \sentation of the people. ~That is to be the desideratum of all true reform. Without repeating the arguments which were to be found in the debates of our ancestors on this question, such as the well-known illustration of the manna from heaven, let me ask Hon. Gentlemen if they do not Welt men in general are more likely to do their duty honestly and faithfully by their constituents if they are elected for three years, or for more than three, at a time ? Have lion. Gentlemen never seen such things in their experience as a Member appearing on the hustings and making all sorts of promises of what he would do and of the votes he should give, and after• wards find him act in a very different way, forgetting perhaps those promises, perhaps remaining away on im- I divisions, perhaps actually voting against those measures which he had promised to support, perhaps preferring to the business of this House the amusements of the chase or the battue, or travelling on the Conti nent, or going to the Derby—(A laugh)—or any other amusement; and then, when he knew the time when Parliament must be dissolved was approach ing, returning to this House and then perhaps, by I some flashy motion or speech, endeavour, and perhaps succeed in winning back the good graces of his consti tuents, whose business he hits during a length of time abandoned ? Do not Hon. Gentlemen think they would I be much less likely to see such a spectacle during short Parliaments than long ones? Have you not seen men whose duty sits so lightly upon them, and whose con science is so easy as to adapt themselves to the wishes of their constituents, when it suits their interest to do so ? And would not such men also be disposed to vote against the wishes of their constituents, and according to the views of Ministers, when it may suit their views? I know very well that the corruption which formerly ex isted has entirely passed away with regard to the Members of this House. I know that formerly Members used to receive bribes, and actually money used to be paid to them for their votes. There is no such thing now. [Mr. B. Osborne—There is a Committee now inquiring into the practice of bribery.] My Honourable Friend says there is a Committee sit ting to inquire into it; but I hope and trust that no such thing does occur, and all I can say is, that I shall not believe it until it be proved by any Member of this House. Still Members may be influenced, for all that, in various ways. We cannot say there is no danger at all that the patronage exercised by the Government shall exert any influence upon them.—(Hear, hear.) That patronage, be it observed, has of late years very much increased.—(Hear, hear.) We all know there are Gallant Officers, in this House who may expect appointments, or Hon Members may expect appoint ments for gallant gentlemen, their relatives ; there are such things as appointing persons to ships ; gallant officers sometimes are anxious—and are there not other ships besides those at the disposal of the First Lord? Are there not lordships, commonly called peerages ; are o there not baronetships, judgeships, inspectorships, con sulships, and clerkships innumerable? All these things may certainly be supposed, and may at one time or other have an influence which perhaps they would not have, if Members were aware that they must very soon appear before their constituents. But then, by shortening the duration of Parliament, you in some degree interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown. In former days it has been objected that, by shortening Parliament, you increased the prerogatives of the Crown. Now, it ap pears to me that the theory of the prerogative of dis solving is not that the Crown should have the means of intimidating the Members of this House, and of saying if you don't vote the same way as my Ministers, if you don't carry that measure brought forward by my Govern ment, you shall be sent back to your constituents, and put to the risk, annoyance, trouble, and expense of a general election ; but it means that when the Crown bas a doubt whether the House does really represent the 1 wishes of the people or not, then that the Crown may I have the opportunity of dissolving, of ascer taining the fact.—(Hear, hear.) If you shorten the duration of Parliament the Crown will still I have that opportunity should it be required , and some times it is required in a very short space of time. Wil liam IV. dissolved a Parliament after it had endured supposing that it did not faithfully representonlynineth the mon wi s sbes of the people ; and certainly it turned out that the supposition was well founded, because the Parliament, which was afterwards elected, passed that great measure of reform by a large majority which the former Parliament had refused to pass.—(Hear.) But the Sovereign, under the triennial system, would have the opportunity of appealing to the 1 people whenever it was thought necessary , while at the same time the people would have the opportunity of sig nifying their wishes every three years. It may be also observed that as a Parliament elected for a short time is much more likely to represent the wishes of the people than a Parliament for a long time, it is much less likely that the Crown will resort to this exercise of its preroga tive. I might also observe that short Parliaments appear to be of conscquenee with regard tc, the House of Lords. I amnot one of those who look upon that institution with any degree of hostility ; I am for the Constitution of England—Queen, Lords, and Commons; and I would preserve to the two fir 3 brunches of the Legislature all their just rights, while I would make this House prove the real representatives of the people. The House of Lords are supposed to have what are called more Conservative tendencies than this House • they are less disposed to change, and hav e o ft en incur red considerable odium for resisting measures which this House bas desired; and it is said that the House of Lords has been frequently a clog on the wheels of the State, when advancing in the path of improvement. I con • fess for myself that I believe that that clog, or drag, is not without its advantages, and often proves salutary. I am, therefore, not disposed to object to the interference of the House of Lords ou measures about which I feel most warmly, for I have observed that that House, when ever tile 1104130 of c 91111219114 hila CitOlitied iW opizkio, or contended for any length of time in a decided manner, so as to show what are the wishes of the people, the House 1 of Lords, as experience shows, has never continued its opposition to the wishes of the people. But this House does not really represent the people. Now as to the term which Parliament ought to endure, I am not wrong in supposing that my Hon. Friend wants to re• enact triennial Parliaments; but the motion is not for that ; the terms of the motion are for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Septennial Act, and to shorten the dura tion of Parliament. I apprehend, therefore, that all Gentlemen who think that seven years is too long a term, may, and ought to vote, with my Right Hon. Friend. If there be any Member who think that five years is a better term than seven, he will vote with my Right Hon. Friend; but I apprehend that the people in general —at least, I speak for myself—will think that the old system, which was the law of the land so long—which was adopted by our ancestors immediately after the revolution, is the term which it is best to adopt. Some Hon. Gentlemen may be for a still shorter term, for annual Parliaments. I don't know whether there are a great many such in this House, but I would say to those Honourable Gentlemen vote for this motion, if you are for annual Parliaments, for it is a step towards that which you want, and after that, if you can bring forward a good argument in your favour, that a Parliament elected for three years would be quite as likely to pass your measure as any one in the present system. But I don't suppose that there are many Gentlemen who will prefer annual to triennial Parlia ments, although the Noble Lord at the head of the Government is one, because last year, when my Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose brought forward his motion for a reform in Parliament, the Noble Lord declared it as his opinion that annual would be better than triennial Parliaments. I don't think though that was " open," that it was "advised speaking"—(A laugh)—on the part of the Noble Lord; and I think if it came to a vote on the two I should have his support of the proposition for a longer term. But I think that three years is the limit which would always secure the continual control of the people over their representatives, at the same time that it is long enough to allow him to recover from the fever and excitement consequent on a general elec tion. I, therefore, should be for triennial Parliaments. How triennial Parliaments would be supported, I do not know; of course not by those who are against all re form, and who take to the measure of reform which we have because they cannot help it.—(A laugh.) Neither by those, who having voted for the Reform Bill, think we have got quite enough of it, and now sail under the flag of finality. Nor do I know how the Government will meet this measure. It must be considered doubtful, for the Noble Lord at the head of the Government has vacillated se much during his political life on this ques tion, that he may be said fairly to have " boxed the compass upon it."—(Laughter.) First of all my Noble Friend declared himself in favour of triennial Parliaments; he would vote for any measure that would limit the duration of Parliaments for three years ; and then, when the Reform Bill was brought on, though triennial Parliaments certainly formed no part of that measure, but the mode in which the Noble Lord referred to that subject, in bringing on that measure, was such as that any man might consider him as holding out an intimation that if any independent Member of Parliament proposed such a measure, the Noble Lord would not be averse to it, although he did not think it proper to make it part of his great scheme. In 1833 came the motion of my Right Hon. Friend. The Noble Lord op posed it in the most violent terms, declaring that "it was incompatible with the maintenance of the Constitution and the stability of the monar chy." Afterwards, in 1834, he contented himself ' with giving a silent vote against it; and in 1837 he F thought the country did not require the change; and F last year, on the motion of my Hon. Friend the Member ; for Montrose, he said sooner than triennial Parliaments he would have annual Parliaments. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I was against both. Lord DUDLEY STUART—I knew the Noble Lord had said he was against both, but the impression left on the public mind has been that be preferred annual to triennial Parliements, and it made a great impression on the country. Now, I would appeal to all those who are in favour of progressive reform, to those who wish to see this country governed, not by a faction, but by public opinion—who wish to carry out the spirit of the Reform Bill—who wish to destroy all buses in the Church, in the army, in the representation of the peo ple, and in every .other department. I would appeal to men of all descriptiocs to vote for the repeal of the Septennial Act, for that repeal which has been demanded by the people for upwards of 100 years—which has always been understood to form part of every great scheme of reform—which has been advocated by a Chatham, a Pitt, a Fox, a Romilly, and a Macintosh—which is not revolutionary —which is no innovation—which interferes with no other measure of reform, but, on the contrary, promotes and completes all the others, and which, more than any other single measure that can be named, by placing this House in constant harmony with the people, tends to the security of the Crown and the well-being of all orders of the natior.—(Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I consider this as, in effect, a motion for shortening the duration of Parliament to three years. The Right 'Honourable Genntleman who ' made the motion admitted that such was his object ; though he said, if Government wished to propose the term of five years, he would accede to such a propo sition, but that he did not mean to remove from the grounds he had taken, and which he considered the ancient constitutional grounds, for supporting triennial Parliaments. There is, certainly, no reason why thig question should not be very calmly discussed. My Right Hon. Friend says, very truly, there is not much agitation in the public mind on the subject; and though my Noble Friend who seconded the motion says that persons in omnibuses, steam-boats, and other modes cf public conveyance—(A. laugh)—find fault with the ex isting state of affairs, I doubt if they will be found to say they wish the duration of Parliament short ened. As regards the general expression of discontent to which my Noble Friend refere, I confess I do not— and I have been long used to this country, attach much importance to the usual expressions that there is much to be found fault with and much to be amended. I re member an Englishman of considerable talent, who had passed much of his life abroad, used to observe that if a man on coming to this country were to shut his eyes and open his ears, he would conceive it to be one of the most miserable nations in existence, but that if he were to take the other course, to open his eyes and shut his ears, he would think it one of the happiest in the world.—(A laugh.) Such is the disposition of this country, and I for one believe it to be one from which a great deal at improvement flows, and which has caused great anmend ments to take place. My Hon. Friend says that, owing to the want of general excitement with respect to this particular subject, he has not made the motion for the last twelve years, and implied a sort of threat that if his motion were rejected he would not again bring it forward for a similar period. I confess I think he takes a very prudent and wise course, and trusting, as I do, that he will not be in the majority to-night, I hope he will allow 12 years to pass before he brings it, calmly and ably as he has done, under the coaeideration of the House.—(Laughter.) The Right Honourable Gentle man and my Noble Friend went into the history of the duration of Parliaments, and spoke of the ancient Par liaments not existing usually above one year. But the reason of this is tolerably obvious, and does not well sup • port the motion now before the House. In those more ancient days persons did not consider a seat in this House an object of ambition, as it is now—they did Lot desire to be taken from their business and occupations, and were very glad when another session was to be held, and when the burdens of representing cities and boroughs were to be imposed on others. He said it was the object at the time of the Revolution to have new Parliaments, but he should bear in mind that though new Parliaments were held to be desirable, that which was desired above all things was, that there should be inter mission between each Parliament, and accordingly in the Act to which he refers—the Triennial Act—there is one of the principal clauses to provide that if Parliament should be dissolved another should be called within three years at the latest. I think that was the grievance against which our ancestors thought it necessary to provide—a grievance with which we are not at all likely to be afflicted at the present time, owing to a variety of circumstances. However, it is quite true that it was enacted in 1694 new Parliaments should be nominated every three years. That was the great object of the 'popular party at the time, and one to which King William was brought to consent with very great difficulty, but after an experience of 21 years we find the very party instrumental in carrying that measure make com plaints of its operation ; and in this respect my Right Honourable Friend has scarcely git en full weight to the complaints in the preamble of the Septennial Act. The framers of the Act not only tsate that expenses at elections had become greater, but that more " violent and lasting heats and animosities between the subjects of this realm had been occasioned than were ever before known, by the triennial clause." Now this, I think, might be very well the case with triennial Par liaments then, and mi g ht be the case if you establish them once mo re . Y ou fi n d not on ly that there were greaterwnuwould h expenses m nrn at continuous, u e I p e c t t h i o e la r e e , g p ts e t r r s i o e s n s a t i n a t e c r u e n s t t n d u i a n l t e he b u ti a t us t e h , at he t i h n e g expenses would be more continuous, because, being frequent h x e p m e n would e a s v u e ni o , t k h e e e n p , is the result of experience as to triennial Parliaments, and these were the grounds for the change, so far as the present long duration of Parliament is concerned. There was a part of the Bill which made this permanent change. There was another part which provided that the then existing Parliament should continue. The :reason for the latter was temporary, that excite ment was created in the country by the Jacobite party, which was endeavouring to restore the house of Stuart. For the temporary evil this was the temporary remedy; while the permanent alteration was introduced for two permanent reasons, which are found expressed in the preamble. You have the question be fore you tested by the experience of that of which our ancestors tried the effect, the very measure which they rejected, but you now recommend. They found it to be noxious and injurious, and came to the conclusion that the law should be altered. There are, I think, other considerations en this subject which ought to have very great weight. My Right Hun. Friend who makes the motion asks me it I am now prepared to state that seven years is the best term for the duration of Parliaments. Atter the experience we have now had for a good many years since the passing of the Reform Bill I can state that my decided opinion is that we ought not to alter the duration of Parliaments. It you had triennial Parliaments, even if your proposition were literally carried into effect, which would not likely be the case, I think you would find, and those who have had recent experience will say whether or not I am right in observing that you would find dtiring the first session of such a House of Commons a great deal of time wasted from the want of experience among latigllbe; of Members, frcw the prolenga(ieet Of debates THE SUN, . LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 23, 1849. existed some Government department whose duty it would have been to watch over the condition of the working classes and endeavour to improve it. What now was the condition of an agricultural labourer ? When he attained the ago of seventy all he could hope for was to be able to eke out a miser able existence by means of parochial aid. The Hon. Member then proceeded to the case of the population of large towns, of those engaged in manufactures, mines, and railway construction, and read extracts from the re port of a Parliamentary Committee of 1840, of the Poor law Commission of 1842, of a Commission issued under the Government of Sir Robert Peel in 1843, of the Mining Commission of 1843, of the Handloom Weavers' Commission of 1841, of the Committee on Railway La bourers in 1846, and of the Sanitary Commission of 1842, to show that, as regarded the sanitary, moral, and religious condition of those classes, improvement was imperatively demanded. At this time notice was taken that forty Members were not present, and the House thereupon was adjourned, at a Quarter past Eight o'clock. We are requested to state that Mr. Bass paired in fa voir of Mr. D'Eyncourt's motion with Mr. Simeon. NAVIGATION BILL. HOUSE OF LORDS, AlAr 21. The following is the list of the Ala' jOrity in Committee :—.. Lord Chancellor Fingall BARONS. ---" DUKES. Grey Ashburton Argyll Granville Arundell :I edtord Glasgow Beaumont Ili. c clench Kingston Byron Devonshire Ke =aro Camoys Leeds Lindsey Carew Lei nster Liverpool Carrington Norfolk Leicester Crewe _ __ Wellington Mint° Colborne MARQUISES. Morton Campbell Abercorn Morley De Manley ' Anglesey Oxford I)unally Breadalbane Rosebery Dormer Clanricarde Suffolk Erskine Donegan Scarborough Eddisbury Headfort Spencer Elphinstone Lansdowne St. Germans Foley Nonnanby Sefton __ ' Gieneig Sligo Strafford Godolphin Westminster Shrewsbury Howard de Walden EARLS. Wicklow Bowden Aberdeen Yarborough Hatherton Besborough Waldegrave Keane Bruce Zetland Kionaird Burlington Lyttelton Carlisle VIsCOVNTS. Leigh Cowper Canning Lovat Clarendon Harding° Montfort Craven Hawarden Monteagle Camperdown Ponsonby Milford Cianwilliam Sydney Poltlmore Chichester ARCHBISHOP. Sudeley Courtoun York Stuart de DecieS Devon BISHOPS. Saye and Sele Ducie Durham: Stourton Denbigh Manchester Vaux Essex Oxford Vivian Effingham Peterborough Wharncliffe Fitzwilliam St. Asaph Wodehouse Fortescue Tuam Wrottesley litzhardinge Worcester PAIRS. FOR. AGAINST. Lord Dunfermline Viscount Hereford Archbishop of Canterbury Bishop of Cashel Bishop of Salisbury Bishop of Bath and Wells Bishop of Norwich Lord Bayning Lord Wenleek Duke of Rutland Earl De Grey Marquis of Ailesbury Lord Abercromby Lord Templemore Duke of Sutherland Earl of Munster Earl of ROSSI:I.IOre Earl of Beverley Earl of Pembroke Earl of Ranfurly Earl of Wicklow F sr! of Bandon - _ _. Lord Cremorno Lord Denman Earl of Rose Bishop of Rochester E Earl of Roden Duke of Manchester Earl of Darthmouth f Earl of Winchilsea EarlMA a r qb o oui f sh L t Too o xpf v b e o l idm c gD e eou,n ror Lord Manners Lord Willoughby d'Eresby Lord Langdale Earl of Orkney Lord Portman Viscount Exmouth Earl of Ripon Earl of Clare Lord Hey t eshury Earl Somers Earl Howe Earl of Tankerville Bishop of Ilereford Bishop of Llandaff Marquis of Northampton Earl Brownlow Viscount Clifden Viscount Canterbury Duke of Somerset Earl Digby Lord )fostyn Earl of Chesterfield Earl Cornwallis Viscount Beresford Bishop of Ripon Earl Darnley Bishop of London Bishop of Bangor . _ Duke . of Roxburgh Lord Saltoun Viscount Massareene Earl O'Neille Lord Churchill Lord De Freyno Lord Shelborne Earl of Castleinalne Lord nacre Viscount Lorton Marquis of Conyngham Lord Gray Earl Radnor Lord Bagot Lord Suffield Earl of *osslyn Lord Stafford Duke of Atholl Lord Holland Lord Douglas Lord Auckland Viscount St. Vincent Earl of Gosford Earl of Erne Earl of Leitrim Lord Farnham Lord Cloncurry Earl of Enniskillen Lord Belhaven Earl of Lauderdale PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Conuncoss.) TUESDAY, MAY 22. PARLIAMENTS. Motion made, and Question put, " That leave be given to bring in a Bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments." The House divided:— MAJORITY—AYES, 46. Adair, Hugh E. Gibson, Thomas M. Power, Dr. Adair, R. A. Granger, T. C. Saiwey, Colonel Alcock, Thomas Harris, Richard Scholefleld, William Berkeley, H. F. Hustle, Alexander Somers, J. P. Bouvcrie, E. P. Henry, Alexander Tancred, H. W. Bright, John Heywood, James Thicknesse, Ralph Clay, James Humphery, Ald. Thompson, Colonel Cobden, R. Kershaw, James Thornely, T. Crawford, W. S. Lulling ton, C. Walinsley, Sir J. Deirereux, John T. Mowatt, Francis Wawn, J. T. Duncan, George Nugent, Lord Westhead, J. P. Evans, Sir De Lacy O'Connell, John Williams, John Evans, John O'Connor, Feargus E wart, William Osborne, Ralph TELLERS. Fagan, William Pearson, Charles D'Eyncourt, C. T. Fordyce, A. D. Pechell, Captain Stuart, Lord 1). Fox, W. J. Pilkington, James MINORITY-NOES, 41. Abdy, T. N. ZTalford, Sir Henry Power, Nicholas Adderley, C. B. HE, wes, Ben j. Russell, Lord John Baring, Sir F. T. Herbert, H. A. Russell, F. C. Brown, W. Howard, Lord E. Rutherfurd, A. Buller, Sir Y. Jermyn, Earl Slaney, Robert A. Campbell, W. F. Jocelyn, Viscount Somerville, Sir W. Colvile, C. R. Labouchere, Henry Stanton, W. S., Crowder, R. U. Lascelles, W. S. Willyams, H. Cubitt, William Me'gaud, Viscount Wilson, James Elliot, J. E. Mihies, R. M. Wood, Sir Charles Farre7, James Mitchell, A. T. Wyvill, liarmacittke Fergus, John Mostyn, E. Freestun, Colonel Ogle, S. C. TELLERS. Grey, Sir George Paget, Lord A. Tufnell, Henry: Gwyn, Howel Paget, Lord C. Ebrington, Viscount tiaal WA'PEE, AT LONDON lilt LI Hit:, True DAT ling, 11 min, after 2 Evening, 35 min. after 2 To-Moaaovr—Morning, 58 min. after 2 I Evenin,, 23 min. atter 3 ht . cf .. 4 ,-..,,,,.. .... , ,!kat4 I • ' ~..1 - 7 . 2 4 _,,, ›,,_. al fe )• 4 :404 41' , ir. • ~. .....,,,,T atil 211 4 ~,..47.1 i , • • 11 4 ., IA ' 1 4, ' --4 . . ''. , ..:'' -. 1 ) : ' ''' . Ni.,......„- . .l#' _,____ - ,,, ,."141;._ I ) lEti ~ , a.Sr ill lW 7 l4l o"4 ' null .: '' ' "" '- - i, . r - , .1 * 111.1 HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE. Last Appearance of Mdlle. Carlotta Grisi, being her Benefit. TO-MORROW EVENING Will be per LA GAZZAformed RossiniLADßA.'s celebrated Opera, In the course of the Evening a Selection from LA ESMERALDA. To conclude with the Second Act of LA. GISELLE. _ . Application for Boxes, St.;lis, and Tickets to be made at the Box-office of the Theatre, whefe Pit Tickets may be obtained, as usual, price 10s, Gd. each. Doors open at Seven ; and the Op:l'a to commence at Half-past Seven o'clock. THEATRE ROYAL, DRURY-LANE .—GERMAN OPERA. THIS EVENING, (For the last time) DER FR EISCHUTZ. Agatha, Mdlle. Romani; Annchen, Mme. Marlow; Max, Herr Erl ; Casper, Herr Stepan ; supported by A Band and Chorus, each consisting of 60 performers. Performances to commence at Eight o'clock. Private Boxes and Places may be obtained at the Box-office ; and at Messrs. Jtillien and Co.'s, 214, Regent• street. ROYAL ITALIAN OPERA, COVENT-GARDEN. TO-MORROW EVENING Will be performed LES HUGUENOTS. With the following powerful ensemble, viz.:— Madame Grist, Mdlle. Angri, Signors Tamburini, Marini, Lavia, Rache, Soidi, Tagliatico, Polonini, Luigt Mei, Mario, and Mr. Sims Reeves. Composer, Director of the Music, and Conductor, Mr. Costa. The performances will commence at Eight o'clock precisely. LiEATE.E ROYAL, IiAYMAIuiEI. Mr. B. Webster. Bale Lessee and Manager. Old Brompton. THIS EVENING, Will be performed THE STRANGER. After which a Classical Extravaganza, called THE SPHINX. To conclude with TWICE KILLED. THEATRE ROYAL, ADELPHI. Under the direction of Madame Celege. THIS EVENING. Will be performed WHO'S YOUR FRIEND ? After which a new grand Extravaganza, entitled THE DEVIL'S VIOLIN AND THE REVOLT OF THE FLOWERS. To conclude with a Farce, called GOING TO THE DERBY THE DERBY DAY. Mr. Jeremiah Twiddle, Mr. Wright ; Mr. John James Chucks. Mr. Paul Bedford ; Captain Nobble, Mr. Worrell ; Mrs. Chucks, Mrs. Matthews ; Mrs. Twiddle, Miss Woolgar. NATAL LYCI.UM THEATRE. Under the Management of Madame Vestrls. Sole Lessee. Mr. Charles Mal he Ws. THIS EVENING Will be performed KILL OR CURE. After which a new Piece entitled HOLD YOUR TONGUE. Cha racters by Messrs. C. Mathews, Selby, and Parselle ; Miss H. Gil bert, Miss Jane Coleman, and Madame Vestris. To be followed by BOX AND COX. To conclude with THE SEVEN CHAMPIONS OP CHRISTEN DOM. Dress Boxes, be. ; Upper Boxes, 4s. ; Pit, 2s. ; Gallery, ls. No salt-price to any part of the house. The New Box-office, No. 2, Wellington , street, is opea to the public ..fiery day, from Ten till Six. PRINCESS'S THEATitE. Mr. J. M. Maddox. Sole Lessee and Manager. TO-MORROW EVENING, Will be performed the Opera of LA VIVANDIERE. After which A CONCERT. To conclude with THE WATERMAN. Tom Tug, Mr. C. Brehm, ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE. Proprietor, Mr. W. Batty. Under the Patronage of heri nceaj esty M the Queen, his Royal Highness Pr Albert, Ike. The following eminent artistes form the greatest amount of female equestrian talent ever engaged in this or any other establishment at one time : Mdlles. Adelaide Minnie, Valentine, Louise Touirnaire, La Jeane Josephine ; Miss Woolford, Barrand, Davidson, Avery, and La Petite Jeanette. In addition to the above Mr. Batty has great pleasure in stanounc ing that he has engaged that peerless equestrian asarie Macarte, whose brilliant triumphs on the Continent and in America have ac quired for her the appellation of the Equestrian Enchantress, and whose first appearance will be duly announced. Last Week of the grand Easter Spectacle. In active preparation, and will be produced at Whitsuntide a new grand Military Equestrian Spectacle, entitled MOOLTAN and GOOJERAT ; or, the Conquest of the Seikbs. TIIIS EVENII•aI, The performance will commence with a Grand Equestrian Spec tacle, by Fltzball, entitled THE WHITE MAIDEN OF CALIFOR NIA ; or, the Horse of the Ocean. To be followed by an inimitable display of SCENES IN THE CIRCLE. in which the first Equestrian talent of the day will appear. To conclude with the favourite Afterpicce of CHERRY BOUNCE. Box-office open from Eleven till e our. Stage Manager, Mr. W. West. THE PLANTAGENET RAZOR GUARD.--Whoever has not tried this safeguard of the toilet can form no notion whatever of its efficiency. Having tested the improvement ourselves we can say most positively that every one of the advantages claimed for it in the advertisement are correctly stated. That advertisement will be found in another column. The guard is judiciously named, for it renders the in implement a o s f o s h h a a v n i g n e g d t a b e s o v n e r r o y e Plantagenet o n f o y r a n f l o o r s. e 1 n tr lh o ' s e positive luxury. • MRS. TROLLOPE'S NEW NOVEL. Now ready, at all the Libraries, in 3 vols., THE LOTTERY of MARRIAGE. By MRS. TROLLOPS. " One of Mrs. Trollope's best productions."—Jehn Bull. " Mrs. Trollope . has scarcely ever written a more clever book, or one that will afford a greater amount of amusement to her numerous admirers."—Messenger. Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street In 2 vols., Bvo., with Port rails, Second Edition, CHARACTERISTIC SKETCHES OF ENGLISH SOCIETY, POLITICS, AND LITERATURE, Comprised in Letters to THE COUNTESS OF OSSORY. By HORACE WALPOLE, Earl of ORFORD. Edited from the original MSS. By the Right Hon. R. VERNON SMITH, M.P. " An important part of Walpole's vreat history of his own times, and contributions to the history of society, always entertaining."— Quarterly Review. " Interesting to all classes of readers."—Morning Herald. Richard Bentley (Publisher in ordinary to her Majesty). NEW WORK BY MR. CHARLES DICKENi. On the 31st instant will be published, the Second ,amber, price One Shilling, of THE PERSONAL HISTORY, ADVENTURES, EXPERIENCE, AND OBSERVATION OF DAVID COPPERFIELD, the YOUNGER, of BLUNDERSrONE ROOKER'!" : (which he never meant to be published on any account). By CHARLES DICKENS. With Illustral ions by II ABLOT K. BROWNE. To be completed In Twenty Monthly Numbers. . . London: Bradbury and Evans, 11, Bouverie-street. ST. JAMES'S THEATRE. Season 1849. FRENCH PLAYS and OPERA COMIQUE. THIS EVENING, The Performances will commence at Eight o'clock precisely, with LE DOMINO NOIR. Lord Elfort, M. Chateaufort ; Juliano, M. Soyer ; Horace, M. Couderc ; Gil Perez, M. Buguet ; Angele, Mdlle. Charton ; Brigitte, Mdlle. Martial ; Ursule, Mdlie. Morel ; Jaciathe, Madame Mancini ; Gertrude, Male. Vigny. To conclude with LES RENDEZVOUS BOURGEOIS. Mr. Mitchell begs also to announce that, notwithstanding the in ireased expenses of the present entertainment, the prices of admis ton are determined as follows : Boxes .. • • • • • • • • Cs. Od. Pit • • • • • • •• • • 33. Od. Amphitheatre .. • • .. Is. Od. Subscriptions for the season may be arranged at Mr. Mitchell's Royal Lihrary, 33, Old Bond-street; Mr. Sams', St. James's-street ; Mr. Andrews', New Bond-street ; and at the Box-office of the Theatre, which is open daily from eleven till five. IMMENSE AND UNPARALLELED SUCCESS. Under the patronage of her Dies: Gracious Majesty, her Majesty the Queen Dowager. his Royal Highness Prince Albert, &c. ROYAL SURREY ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS_ The Nobility, Gentry, and the Public are respectfully informed that this favourite place of fashionable resort is open every MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, AND THURSDAY. Representation of the STORMING of BADAJOZ by the British Army, under the command of the illustrious Wellington The distinguished patronage which this establishment has for a lengthened period enjoyed, and the triumphant success of each suc ceeding spectacle, has stimulated the proprietor to increased exer tions to maintain its envied celebrity. Messrs. Danson, by whom the present subject has been modelled, designed, and produced, have devoted many months to it, and the un rivalled skill which they possess, assisted by Messrs. Turner, Adams, and other first-rate artists, have enabled them to produce a picture unequalled for magnitude, accuracy, and beauty of execution. The ZOOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT is extensive and varied, and has lately been enriched by several rare importations, including the splendid presents of his late Highness Ibrahim Pasha. The Embellishments of the New and Magnificent ORCHESTRA are now complete. REMINGTON'S .SERIAL BRIDGE. The BAND, conducted by Mr. Godfrey, has been selected from the most talented Artists in the profession. Among ethers of first rate ability will be found—Mr. Baker, Messrs. Richardson, Collins, jun., George and Viotti Collins, Griesbach, Hardy, Egerton, Shearon, Catkin, Winterbothaus, Boileau, Stevenson, and Reynolds. The VOCAL DEPARTMENT will be sustained by a succession of the most popular and favourite Singers. First appearance of Miss Ellen Rowland and Mr. George Tedder. The FIREWORKS by the Messrs. Southby, whose skill in Pyro techny has been too long established to need eulogising. REFRESILMENTS.—The frequenters of these Gardens have long complained that Refreshments from the Confectionary rooms only could ba procured. Arrangements have been effected, and a distinct portion of the Gardens set apart, where Refreshments may be had of the first quality, and at the usual Prices. Doors open at Nine o'Clock.—Admission One Shilling. Children admitted to the Reserved Seats and Shilling Gallery at Half-price. Feeding of the Carnivora at Five. The Pelicans, &c., at Half-past Five. Concert at Six o'Clock. Pyrotechnic Exhibition at Dusk. Mons. JULLIEN will give a Series of GRAND CONCERTS during the Season. Due notice will be given of his first appearance. TO NEWSPAPER FANCIERS. In these stirring times of Racing and Politics, we should feel much obliged to those who are in the con stant habit of taking a fancy to The Sun not to ap • propriate papers directed to other people, because it occasions serious disappointment, but to send their addresses to our office, and they shall have a paper sent to each when any important event comes off— such as the Derby, &c. This will serve two pur poses—their character and the feelings of our forlorn subscribers. We hope this hint will be taken for the future. Complaints to the Postmaster-General are useless, because he cannot help us. THE WEATHER.—SnN OFFICE, MAY 23. THEBNOBINTEEL, Lowest, 47; Highest, 63 ; Noon, 63 BAROMETER, 30.1. WIND W.S.W.—Morning, light breeze and showery ; Afternoon, fine. Obienbut LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1849. Like the question of the Ballot in 1848, the ques tion of Triennial Parliaments in 1849 has received the approval of the House of Commons. We are progressing. Little by little we are grasping the skirts of those glorious reforms which have hitherto seemed to be as impalpable as theories, as inacces sible as the mountains of the moon, and as unattain able as the aspirations of a dreamer. On the evening of Thursday, August 8, 1848, the division in the Lower Chamber of the Legislature presented a ma jority of FIVE in favour of the Ballot. On the even ing of Tuesday, May 22, 1849, the division in the same great assembly presented a majority of FIVE in favour of Triennial Parliaments. Small as those majorities may appear, they are decidedly a step en avant, and, as such, are deserving of our serious felicitations. To render the triumph of course the more decisive, it must be remembered, that in both instances the propositions come from Members apart from the Administration, and that, in fact, the prin ciples embodied in those propositions are directly an tagonistic to those constituting the policy of the present Government. Yet, in spite of that formid able opposition—an opposition embracing those who are ranged on the Ministerial benches, and those who confront them on the benches of Conservatism— both the advocates of the Ballot and of Triennial Parlia ments have, within ten months, been successful. Nay, it will go hard but what the approbation of the Com mons shall be pronounced, both on the one and on the other, within an interval of little more than forty eight hours. For it can scarcely be forgotten that the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Bristol is to be repeated again this session, and to be repeated moreover to• morrow evening. Doubtless, the decision pronounced last night upon a congenial proposition will act as an additional encou ragement to the supporters of the motion of the Hon. HENRY BERKELEY. The felicitous result which has followed the endeavour of the Right Hon. CHARLES TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT cannot assuredly affect the promoters of the cause of radical reform otherwise than as a direct and very stimulating incitement. It is objected to those who, like ourselves, look fa vourably upon the project of diminishing the duration of Parliaments to three instead of . seven years, that, to say the least of it, the difference is of comparative unimportance. In other words, it is maintained that the representatives elected by the possessors of the franchise are not more identical in opinion with their constituents at the beginning of the seven years, than at their termination ; and that consequently no adequate reasons are appa rent to justify the Legislature in making an experi ment calculated to produce such frequent periodical excitements. Such are the arguments of no mere amateur politicians, of no mere dilletantis in the science of legislation, they are the opinions ex pressed by men who have acquired reputation for their statesmanship. The Prime Minister of Eng land, the man who had the glory of introducing the Reform Bill into the House of Commons, reiterated those opinions and those argu ments as recently as last evening. N ow , without entering into any very profound line of reasoning, we do think that it will be anything but difficult to demonstrate that the views enter tained upon this point by my Lord JOHN RUSSELL smack somewhat too little of that sagacity of judg ment which is essential to the First Minister of the Crown, and somewhat too much of that ever-detestable and abominable Finality which is the abhorrence of the whole British Empire. For proof of this we shall go no further back than the time which immediately preceded the transference from the • shoulders of the ,Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth, to those I )( the Noble Lord himself, of all th ose p rert )gatives and responsibilities which devolve upon the First Lord of the Treasury. Take the situation of a ffetirs as they then stood, End answer if that situati on does not testify in a rather startling manner the i tecessity for some alteration of the present system, i n considera tion or the:peril, the actual peril, in which the country, the Legislature, the very C nistitution itst if is placed by the existing arrangement. Supposing —and this is by no means an extravagant call upon our imagination—supposing that some people bad had less magnanimity than, to their eternal glory, they then evinced ; supposi'ng that Sir ROBERT PEEL had shrunk from that m agnificent sacrifice which he did actually make for ti le good of his country ; supposing he had clung with desperate tenacity to office ; supposing he had, closed his ey es against the glaring deductions of experiet Ice; or posing he had preferred the retention of the allegiance of an obsequious but bigotted faction to the approv al of his own conscience and the homage of the people' and the admiration of posterity—what would hav e been the consequence ? There was the colinnuniti of an entirely different opinion to what it ,had held on the occasion of the last general election. At the period of that election it had, in the blindness of a very prevalent prejudice, sent to Parliamemt as i ts , representatives a large majority •of me n devote ( ' to the cause of what was believed to be $ blessed Protection, but what was, in fact, a most grinding Monopoly. Reason, logic, reflectio n ' t facts, and, among other facts the " Great Fact " of the Anti-Corn-law League, had opened the eyes of the multitude to the recognition of the truth of the file' trade doctrines some time before the expiration of th e inexorable seven years of the Parliament. Supposing' therefore, we repeat, that while the peoitle ba d emerged into the new light, their Protectionist rePre ; sentatives had continued obstinately i n their darkness ; supposing the leader of the majority °' those representatives had been a man w i t h ou t this large heart and capacious intellect which were esseo . tial for the emergency, and both of which Sir R. I ) s s/ : i showed that hopossessed in a manner that mut reclou n i ; to his imperishable honour—what we repeat would have been the consequence ? The People a nd OW so-called representatives would have been placed in direct antagonism. And there were no lack, be " remembered, of causes inciting to a still further es; trangement between the masses and the Governmen t! There was a frightful dearth arising from the poto t f rot—a dearth that in Ireland literally resulted' famine. There was an increase of mortality. There were embryo discontents in England, and others "' the sister country so far advanced towards state of maturity that somewhat later and they O a° a flame little short of the conflagrations of rebellie ll. There was a stagnation of trade in the manufactar leo districts. After that came, as the whole world knol ls .: the repetition of bad harvests; and then the appalli n g explosions of revolutions all over the Continea Common sense tells us that we have been saved fr oll is the extraordinary dangers of this prolonged ori a . —by what ? By the system of Septeno la t Parliaments ? No : but in spite of that 0 0 perilous system, that system which has hurried a to the very brink of destruction ! We 1361 11 e been saved from the most awful of ball calamities by those men who, under the guidance the illustrious patriot, the late Prime Minister of Eng land, conquered the difficulties and the almost /W r it mountable obstacles of the septennial system by their magnanimous disregard of obloquy, and overth r° " l and misrepresentation ! And yet it is with a recollection of these gr e t things before them, that men are still blind eoe"a to assert that the difference between septennial I f triennial Parliaments is one of comparative u ni " . portance! Happily there are others in Parliament who thin 11 / exactly the reverse, men who like Lord Dune STUART are not only capable of recognizing the force of the arguments in favour of triennial Parliame nts, but are capable also, like that Noble Lord , of entin ; elating their views with dignity, perspicuity, a n emphasis on the floor of the Commons. Than ks such bold and consistent Reformers as Lord DvDi l STUART and Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, the rad° propositions of the Right Hon. TENNYSON D'o l4 : COURT and of the Hon. HENRY BERKEL EY have ' l2 successive years obtained the approbation of far' liament. Let the triumph of yesterday be borne in mind '1 the supporters of the Ballot tomorrow evening. FHE FRENCH REPUBL We have received the Paris papers of yesterdss:iio, The Moniteur announces that accounts of by turbances at Montpellier have been receive d t he telegraphic dispatch. The elections are said to be th e pretext for these agitations. The hotel of e re Prefecture was menaced, and the authorities WAt compelled to order the arrest of several persons...,,te Cette there were some disturbances, which " t he quickly suppressed. On the night of the 19th , Attorney- General of the Republic at Lodefe Do t killed by a pistol•shot. The Government We _ . received any further details. juts La Patrie states that, although Several of a new Ministry were circulated in the Ne tL° et Assembly on Monday, no arrangement has beeti l og concluded, the PRESIDENT of the 'Republic 11 100 again declined to receive as yet the resignation °' Cabinet. . 4 8 The Evenement says that Marshal BUGEKUP 1 ; t he principal pivot of the combination preparing I l i i s t• Elysee, and which is said to meet with great reipot ante from M. ODILON BARROT. It is quite trne t i o o M. DUFAURE has not received any official prop ay of of any kind; bus it is also certain that the frier' to M. ODILON BARROT are in the field en d ea vourinSg. effect an arrangement which would include "T i t ird DUFAURE, LAMORICIERE, and even, it is said, $ " J O , member of the old Executive Government, in 6 .411' nistry with which M. ODILON BARROT WOU ld ingly associate himself." 40, It is said that the intention of the PitusiDEN!„bsi to form a Ministerial combination, of which Xi . , I P i 9s - BUGEAUD should be the chief, while A 11 91 , 130, BROGLIE and MOLE should have seats in the Cr ot The appearance of the ukase of the EinPer%ii o Russia., justifying Russian interference in the 1 17 0 0 of the West, renders the app o i n t men t of M. SO extremely imprudent. It would be throwing o ' g 9t mask too soon. With regard to Marshal Buns' - 00 the PRESIDENT has determined to test his tain t ; (10 larity, by ordering a review of the National GL — „a of Paris, at which Marshal BUGEAUD will assists ye unless the Marshal is very badly received indeed' will be appointed Minister. pit The following letter was addressed by the - a ft DENT of the Republic to General CHANG4OOIIs the review on Monday : "My Dear General,— beg you to testify to the 4 1 1, e :e:II corps which I have to-day reviewed, my lively at their tine appearance, and my gratitude for their si thetic welcome. 'll 5°12 " With such soldiers, our young Republic * ll l i o del i ,f resemble the old one, that of Marengo and of Nobel) a if foreigners should drive us there. And at 101- o'o ol l anarchists should raise their standard they will b e e reduced to powerlessness by that army, faithful to du cls to honour. 0 ° s atisfy " To praise the troops, is to praise the chief who cote them. " " Will you, my dear General, cancel punishments may have been inflicted for breach of discipline. 010 g to " I am rejoiced at having this opportunity of exer e , m bip 4 ; you my private sentiments of warm esteem and frierwl,. "Louis NA POLZON Every effort is made both by cajolery and C'etiollt to induce the troops to join the ranks of the retinie and also to misrepresent the troops and th e P et)r each other. .00! A vast appearance , of enthusiasm for the rs, s ;, - n tlo4 was " got up' by order, at the review on I", "" c rie`,; Each company, as the PRESIDENNT passed it' 0 141 out, at a signal from its captain, " Vive NAP°d is and then at once became silent. They m ile "i e sse; obedience to the orders of General CHANOtitivi ll ! and, as they had been drilled to cheer. 1; the , / obeyed orders by crying " Vive NApor,E°rls obeyed their own desires by:crying " Vi ve public," which they did continuously. APP ell be r The National, in describing the splendi-i, to ante of the troops at the review, says, ° L i " "ps Y e regretted that our glorious PRESIDENT that found no better part fur them to piay tl3lll soldiers of the POPE." f .rits lb The Ministerial journals all raise a so n g on the occasion of the review. n ce , Letters from Toulon of the 18th whiu" return of the steam-frigate La Pomone , deP ji veyed 111. LEssErs to Civita Vecchia. At tb°. 1 ,0 ture of the Pomone from Civita Vecchia, on tte l 01 . 5 inst., it was reported that General Ontd_riL'orded, again about to attack Rome. The fact Nos the con'j. however, as improbable. The fleet and titl e sbiro nand of Admiral 13 Aunm ` , composed of c_coppe9f the line the Friedland , Jena, H erc ule, an €'.,- s i o ncl °, and two steam-frigates, had anchored at the tau to ha d Hyeres. The steam-frigate Vauban, weed lately left Italy, has been ordered tn_Pr!:. Gaeta, to be placed at the orders of the ror., t w It appears that the Cabinet bits been br 1,‘,1)17100v conseq uence of the intrigues of AL D. 'c frilE LEGAL TITLE ASSURANCE COMPANY. (Provisionally Registered, January 17, 1849.) Capital, 2,000,0001., in 80,000 Shares, of 25/. each. Preliminary Deposit, 2s. 6d. pet Share . Pro pauses and full information may be obtained at the Tempo ary Offices of the Company, 13.4., Cannon-row, Westminster, on ap- Ueation to G. F. HOWE, Hon. Sec., pro tem.