The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-16 00:00:00

~: IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 71 - OtISE OF LORDS, May I<4. The 'rouse proceeded to general business at half-past 5. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from the churchwardens and others of a parish in Warwick, praying for protection to the established church. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented petitions from different places in Gloucestershire for the better ob servance of the Sat;nath. The right rev. prelate also pre sented petitions against the Beer Act ; and from Stow-in the-Wold as;ainst the claims of dissenters to take degrees in the ur.cversities. Thr. Bishop of LINCOLN presented petitions from pa rist*.es within his diocese for the better observance of the Sabbath. Lord BEXLEY presented a similar petition from a parish in Kent. The Marquis of CHOLMONDELEY presented simi. lar petitions from parishes in Derby. Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from Birken head, Cheshire, against the holding of vestry meetings in the parish church. The noble lord expressed his'eoncur rence in the prayer of the petition. A place consecrated to holy purposes ought not to be used `.or objects which frequently led to brawls and dissenon. The Earl of HADDINGTO;oI presented a petition against any change in the P:stem of church patronage in Scotland. The petiti,:ners prayed their lordships not to break down the bul:vvarks of the Scotch church in obe dience to a sprit of rash and speculative innovation. The Ea.: . o f wiN CHILSEA presented a petition from a Pari'd in Northamptonshire for protection to the church. SABBATH BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know 'from Lis noble and learned friend ( Lord Wynford) whether it was his intention to go on with his bill for enforcing the better observance of the Sabbath—whether he was serious upon the matter ? (A laugh.) His reason for asking if he was serious was, that the bill brought in by his noble and learned friend, unknown probably to his noble friend, prohibited, under heavy penalties, any person whatsoever in his Ma jesty's dominions, of whatsoever station, from doing any work whatsoever, not upon the Sabbath only, but upon any other day in the week. (Laughter. ) Lord WYNFORD said he should persist in his bill, and if any such provision was to be found' in it as his noble and learned friend had described it must have got there by a misprint. IRISH CHANCERY AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of Lord PLUNKET, the house resolv itself into a committee on this bill. Lord PLUNKET said that he expected e: ..rty 4 , 01 the neat session to be able to bring in a bill ..aw assimilate the r Bankruptcy Laws of Ireland to those in operation in this country. He intended to con `....tidate the bankruptcy and the insolvent laws, and to - missioners of th e In s ol ven t , - ~rnpower the present com- -Court to administer the whole of the new system, " be effected to th e which a considerable saving would r .. The several e' p .ote. ....uses of the bill were agreed to, and the hous e havirr f s resumed, the report was brought up, and agreekt,,„, and the bill ordered to be read a third time to- THE ADJOURNMENT. 'The Duke of , CUMBERLAND wished to know from the noble earl opposite when the house was to adjourn for the Whitsuntide recess and on what day it was proposed that their lordships should meet again ? Earl GREY replied that it was intended to adjourn from en-morrow to Wednesday or Thursday next. THE PORTUGUESE PAPERS. The Marquis of LONDCWlTifrti;isliedto ask the 'noble lord when he would be prepared to lay upon the table of the house the papers for which he had moved rela tive to the case of his friend Sir John Campbell. He had hoped that these papers would have been placed upon their lordships' table previous to the adjournment ; and fearing that his hon. friend might be still languishing in a prison, he begged to say that unless the noble earl's answer were satisfiictory, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject under their lordship's consideration again. Earl GREY hoped to be enabled to lay the papers alluded to by the noble marquis on their lordships' table to-mor row. They should have been produced sooner if they could have been got ready. The Marqu:s of LONDONDERRY was aware that the Foreign-051e had been a scene of unutterable confusion for the last w'zek or ten days, owing to the noble lord at that departnyent not finding the policy of his friend Prince Tal leyranit se, propitious as he had anticipated. (A laugh. ) however, as these papers were important, he hoped the house would be put in possession of them with as little *1 , 4 as possible, when the conversation dropped. BETTER OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Lord WYNFORD rose to move the second reading of the bill which he had introduced for enforcing a better ob tervance of the Sabbath, but we regret to say that owing to the low tone of voice in which the noble and learned lord spoke, and our being unable to catch more than an oc casional sentence here and there, it is impossible for us to *do more than give a very imperfect outline of his observa tions. The noble and learned lord was understood to say that he had seldom experienced more, anxiety about any measure than he felt respecting the fate of this bill, know ing as he did, that among its opponents would be many lords whose sentiments, generally speaking, were in unison with his own. He could, however, assure their lordships that he would bring no measure forward which he did not think absolutely necessary. The feeling that prevailed throughout the country on this subject was very strong, as the petitions which had been presented, not only to their lordships but to the other house of Parliament, in favour of legislative interference to insure a proper observance of the Sabbath would testify. By different sects the Sabbath was differently observed. The dissenters observed it dif ferently from those who belonged to the Church of Eng land ; and as each party desired a different mode of obser vance, instead of making new laws he proposed doing little more than rendering the laws which already existed effec tual. In short, all he intended to do was to prevent per sons from doing that which tended to demoralize the labouring classes of the community, and which was cal culated deeply to wound the feelings of the friends of order and religion. This was the extent of the bill now under their lordships' consideration, and if he had attempted to carry it further he would have - been wrong. There were, however, two or three provisions of the bill which were not to be found in the existing laws, but with these exceptions the object of the measure was to render the enactments of the old laws which were now inoperative effectual. The noble and learned lord pointed out the imperfections of the present laws, and explained how he proposed remedying the defect to which he alluded. It was lamented by Col. Rowan and another equally intelligent magistrate of great experience, that the laws relating to the observance of the Sabbath were so imperfect, and it had been complained by that excellent, pious, and learned man, Dr. Doyle of Lam beth, and the Rector of St. Giles's, that they could not pass to their respective churches on Sunday mornings without witnessing scenes of immorality and debasement, which so deranged their thoughts as almost to unfit them for performing their sacred duty. Since the bill had been introduced he had received communications from all quar ters and all classes of persons earnestly imploring him to rere in his efforts to carry the measure, and the bane eefilects which beer-houses and gin shops had produced on the morals and habits of the poorer classes had been strongly and feelingly urged upon his attention. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack would, he had no doubt, confirm all that he' had said respecting the inadequacy of the present lawS relating to the observance of the Sabbath, and if they were on all hands acknowledged to be defective, surely it was the bounden duty of their lordships to supply that which was wanting. The present system of penalties was perfectly nugatory ; and, therefore, instead of a delin quent being subject only to single penalty, no matter how frequently-he violated the law in the course of the day, his bill proposed that each separate offence should be visited with a distinct penalty. This, he submitted, would be a great improvement. He did not mean to interfere with Sunday travelling, because he knew it to be wholly una voidable ; but, although that was the case, he thought that the transmission of goods from place to place on the Lord's Day should be prevented. He could recollect the time when nothing of the kind ever took place, but now it was as common to see waggons and other vehicles travelling with goods upon the Sunday as on any other day in the. week. The statute of Charles the First contained provisions to check this abuse, but then that statute was a dead letter. He also proposed altering the law relating to, not only beerhouses and ginshops, but to all houses of public resort, and to make a different arrangement for opening and closing them on the Sabbath Day to that which now existed. He intended empowering constables to enter places of this description during divine service, and to take all persons who might be found drinking into custody. They were not, however, to be brought before a magistrate, but merely detained until they got sober, as it was not on such unfortunate persons that penalties should be levied. Another provision of this bill went to do away with the present practice of giving secular notices in churches during divine service., The practice was rendered necessary by the present law, but still as it was not free from objection ; it ought to be done away with. lie proposed that all such notices should be affixed to some conspicuous part of the porch of the church, and that plan he thought would be quite as good as the present, and infinitely less objectionable. It was also intended to place bakers under fresh regulations. He did not think it would be advisable to prevent the poor from having their dinners baked on Sunday, but then there would be no hardship in enacting that no dinners should be sent to the oven later than ten o'clock in the morning, or delivered from thence after two in the afternoon. The object of his mean re was, if possible, to relieve the poor from the state of moral .degradation in which they were plunged, and not to debar them of any rational enjoyment which they ought to have. Even in point of economy, a restraint upon Sunday trading would be of immense ad vantage to them. The noble lord concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time. The question having been put, The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he, as well as his noble and learned friend, felt strongly the great im portance of this measure, and he freely admitted that a subject of such deep and vast interest ought to receive their lordships' most serious consideration. It was their duty, undoubtedly, to remedy any defects which might exist in the resent laity, but it was no less their duty to guard 'agarnit 'taking any step that instead of removing . the evils complained of might rather have the effect of increasing those evils. There could be no denying that a Nep in terest was felt on this subject throughout the country, and that the number of petitions which had been presented to both houses of parliament, praying the legislature to take measures for remedying the inefficient observinet of the Sabbath Day was almost unprecedented. Nevertheless, he looked, as every one of their lordships was bound to do, with a strong feeling at not only the great importance but the great difficulty of the question with which they *ere called upon to deal. If they did nothing, the eamtry would naturally complain ; but still, having before their eyes the fact that every attempt that had hitherto been made to legislate on this sr..l-eci only went to prove the diffi culty in which ii was involved, they would be acting most unwisely if they were to do any thing which could not be safely and effectually, and without the possibility of creating mischiefs as bad as those which at present existed. He freely confessed that he did not object to encounter the risk merely because other measures had failed, but before any proposition was adopted it should, he thought, be made clear not only that it was safe that no fresh evil could arise from it, but that it would not have the tendency of making the observance of the Sabbath less strict than they knew it now to be. (Hear, hear.) He was averse to any mea sure interfering with the ordinary avocations of the humbler classes, or the mode in which they passed their time, which could render the due observance of the Lord's Day either burdensome, unpopular, or less favoured than it now was, but he was at the same time desirous to do all that might be necessary for preventing any unbecoming conduct on the part of the less scrupulous portion of the community. If any law could be framed, such as was suggested by the right rev. prelate (the Bishop of London) the other even- Mg, there would be no objection to it if it could be held without incurring any risk. He (the Lord Chancellor) had often stated when petitions had been presented on the subject, and he then repeated it, that the Sabbath - better observed in England, and it was undo'fatedlv the case in Scotland, than in any other countr‘;', o E ar , pe , had visited mos t o f the C on tin en t a l - Antes, and We lieVer found anything like the same reri, o4 to t h t uktaity of the Sabbath as in this great me!..(l, I 5.. lt then they had su c h an advantage as to hav: d t h u sttn„hy so well observed with out legal interfer was some r- -.00„, they' "- Should well consider that there ur deavo- ,44 . of minting what they already had by en entirce the better observance by means of ...a toreiralsion. At present th e S a bb a th w as res p ec t e d toy dye 'people not merely from their religious habits, but its *day on which there was a relief front worldly occupa tions. The higher classes reorded Sunday as a day of rest for the lower classes, and the humbler classes regarded it as a day of religious rest, and also as one of relaxation front their secular callings. There were also other causes for the proper observance of the day which he would not more particularly allude to. At present it might truly be said that the reason that the Sabbath was so well observed ht this country arose from the moral and religious feeling of the people as the laws did not interf e re to p ro d uce this r e su lt. In this case, therefore, the old maxim, logis sine moribus, was reversed, and there existed more sine legibus, and great caution, therefore, must be exercised in interfering in the matter. With all gratitude then to his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) for the pains he had bestowed on the bill, and for the candour with which he had spoken of it, he (the Lord Chancellor) felt bound to state after all the consideration that he could give to the matter, that his noble and learned friend did not appear to legislate on a right understanding of the subject, or on sound princi ples. If they attempted to interfere with that which was now done by the voluntary feelings of the people, they would be running risk of danger even if they succeeded in their object. In short, it appeared to him doubtful whether appealing to the inflexible hand of the law was the right mode of legislation. The subject was, in point of fact, nothing more nor less than an attempt to improve the morals and habits of tl.is country. ( Hear.) If he said that he thought that the present bill never could be taken in the shape in which it was, he did not say more than he believed, as it was most objectionable in its cha racter. The defects and errors of which he complained did not exist merely in one part, but prevailed throughout all parts of it. It was a bill to make business stand still, not merely on Sunday, but on every day of the week. (" No, no," from Lord Wynford.) He (the Lord Chan cellor) had no doubt that the noble and learned lord thought so, but still what he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated was the case. The clause runs on—" If any person enter into a bond or deed, or any party becoming a party to any such deed or bond, or exposing any article to sale or being a party to the exposure of such article or articles to sale (and he begged their lordships to remembe" that nothing was said about Sunday, for it was immaterial, ac cording to the clause, whether it was Sunday or any other day), shall be liable, &c." He asked their lordships whether this would not put a stop to all trading whatsoever. This defect was not merely a misprint, for it extended throughout the bill. It was the case in the second clause ; it was also the case in the fifth clause and others that he could refer to. He was aware that a great number of pe titions had been presented with respect to the state of the morals of the people, but he had never heard of petitions presented to prohibit drunkenness on any day as well as Sunday. Drunkenness was undoubtedly a very odious vice, but there were many others equally so ; for instance, a want of chastity was a much worse vice, as it affected others, than drunkenness ; and yet his noble and learned friend did not propose to interfere with it in any manner. His noble and learned friend, in point of fact, said that a man must not get drunk on any day of the week, but that he might as far as his bill was concerned practice all other vices with impunity. (A laugh.) His noble and learned friend made no exception against the commission of other vices on Sunday; but he (Lord Wynford) was satisfied that one vice was so odious, it was so obnoxious to his feelings, that he would put it down every day in the week. (Laughter. ) Now he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask whether there could be a grosser injustice to the poor publican than the course which his noble and learned friend wished to pur sue ? It would be almost impossible for the publican to escape punishment. The noble and learned lord proposed that the publican should be punished who allowed any man to get drunk in his premises. Not one man in ten thousand who had sat as long as his noble and learned friend in a court of justice, or had had experience of courts as his noble and learned friend and himself (the Lord Chancellor) would be able to explain this clause in any other manner than that which he had stated. It proposed to punish the publican for allowing any person to get drunk on the premises. Why one man might get drunk after two or three glasses, and another man might be perfectly sass after two or three bottles. (Laughter.) How could the poor publican judge to which class those who wished to become his customers belonged ? Could his noble and learned friend furnish such information to the pub lican that he could take upon himself to say to one, you are a two glass man, and to another, Oh, you are a three bottle man ? (Laughter.) By the bill of the noble and learned lord, if the publican furnished a bottle or a pint to the two glass man, and it made him tipsy, the publican would be liable to a penalty. The publican, however, might be most anxious to prevent those men who avoided the " golden mean" from drinking in his house, and yet be liable to the penalty. Thus a man might get one glass in one house and go to another and get a second, which might make him drunk, and the consequence would be that the publican must be fined for letting a man get tipsy on his premises. The unfortunate publican might say to his guest " Before you pass into my house I will impannel a jury—not of matrons but of waiters (Loud laughter)— and you shall be tried in the bar, and I will be chairman, and a verdict shall be returned as to whether you shall or shall not drink in this house. (Renewed laughter.) And yet, notwithstanding all his care, the publican might be deceived, his guest might get drunk, and he be exposed to punishment. To be consistent, there must be a punish ment for those who did not inform the publican whether they had been drinking in another house. He might think that he was perfectly safe in what he allowed his customer to drink, but it would be impossible for him to see what had taken place in another house. He might ask whether his guest was drinking on " a virgin soil," or whether one glass would make him drunk, for if it did, it would make one guilty of a penal act and liable to punishment. (A laugh.) He (the Lord Chancellor) was sure that their lordships must see what strong objections existed to such an enact ment. Would their lordships send to the Commons to ask them to agree to a bill containing such provisions? He repeated that whatever might be the intentions of his noble and learned friend, the general effect of the bill did not ap ply only to Sunday but to every day in the week. (" No, no," from Lord Wynford.) He (the Lord Chancellor) contended that it was as he had stated, and referred to the errors of the clause for confirmation of what he had stated. " If any person admitted or permitted to remain in any house licensed for the sale of spirituous liquors, or place licensed for the sale of beer shall be permitted to get drunk," &c. There was nothing about Sunday in the clause; after clauses of the bill alluded probably to Sunday, but the one he had read did not. He might be told that the clauses might be altered, but the errors or nonsense of which he complained ran through the whole of the bill, and it would not be possible to make any change which could make it satisfactory. The bill would put a stop to all business whatever on a Sunday, however urgentitmight be. He might be told that works of charity and necessity were specially excepted. Was it to be made a question to go to a jury to say what works were necessary ? The bill specially declared that no man should pursue his worldly calling on the Sunday, and no deed whatever should be valid that was made on that day. He (the Lord Chan cellor) was not of opinion that it was a work of necessity for a man to make his will on a Sunday under any circum stances; but he could imagine cases when it might be necessary to make other dispositions of property even on a Sunday. He said that he did not think that making a will was a work of necessity, as he thought that a man should always do so be fore he arrived at the day of his death. If the matter ever came before him he would at once decide that making a will on a Sunday was not a work of necessity. Again, the bill allows work to go on for the six days, and prevents all but the performance of household duties on the Sunday. NOW he (the Lord Chancellor) would ask what business had a lord, because he happened to be rich and to live in a great house like a palace, to call for the labour of those under him, while work for the poor man was prohibited ? A no , . bleman or other rich With might. give t dinner to '2O on a Sunday, but whit business had he to endanger the salvation of the soul of his cook o'r his bUtler b'ygiVihg 1, feast on that day? As the gervints 'Of the nobleman were employed for hottsehold purposes he would not be liable to any penalty; bat tnpposing a poor man wished to start in a sta.ge,O9ach to visit a sick child, or any other work which he might consider of necessity, he would lie 'prevented doing so by this bill. In the one base the poor man who might be en gaged on a. Work apparently to him of necessity would be liable to a penalty ; and in the other the lord who unneces sarily gave a feast on that day might do so with impunity. He should like to know what magistrite=for be, it recollected that there was to be a sarniaa4 donVictian without the intervention of judge 'Or .jury—ciAld deter mine the merits and character of Vvobrks of necessity or charity ? He challenged any man to state distinctly what %vast *fork at necessity and what was not Oiie Mit‘i mi g ht say that it was a work Veces . sit:y t 6 WO and see a sic child or parent, and, inet_ e'r might consider that it was not so. Dim hi*Yi *might say that it was a work of neeessit , Ito male a will on Sunday, while he (the Lord Chineellor) did not think that it was so. He, however, thought that there might be a case in which it was a work of necessity to make a deed or mortgage no a Sanda,Y whereas it was stated i n one o f th e c l auses bt the hill that any deed or mortgage made en Sunday was void and of no effect. He doubted whether they could say what was a work of charity. He knew of no legal definitions in cha rity, unless in connection with charitable betpests or charitable institutions. He was unable to give any de finition as to what was a work of charity. Again he saw but whatever nothing in the bill to prohibit a post-boy fr`...,m driving a gentleman in his own carriage on might be the object to a per s on not v e , n i ng * carriage; 10.3 would be unable to t - t h \v as y ex his carriage ception t o .Ala g p r v ., ;6 l 7,: * h ° ,a . kee p ex to visit sick patieao . TVeie B ligh t be Cases which he t'aottght of th,c greateitt ttigency, namely, a parent or child thinin4 gero person was to be allowed to do so pro rideiA fit eould keep a carriage, but not so for a poor man. The noble and learned lord could not restrain the progress of disease ; he could not prevent the tide of life ebbing out during the time of divine service; but the apothecary of the poor man, who did not keep hit carriage, could not visit a sick patient at a distance during these hours. The noble and learned lord might say that the defects which he (the Lord Chancellor) had pointed out might be remedied ;- but the bill was so full of holes that however anxious he might feel to amend it, he was sure it would be impossible to do so. There were many other things in the bill as bad and objectionable as those he had mentioned ; for instance, in one of the clauses there was a positive inducement to conduct much worse than drinking on Sunday. It was pro posed in One of the clauses that any master paying wages to his workmen engaged at a weekly salary, on any other day but the day before market-day might be called upon to pay them over again. Was not that opening the door to constant disputes between master and workmen, and was it not also holding out an inducement to fraudulent conduct on the part of the workmen ? The dishonest workman might in some cases be enabled to get his wages twice • he might go to his master and state that his wife or his child was ill, and might work upon the heart of the master so as to in duce him to let the man have his wages, and a day or two after he might turn and say, " Ay, you paid me on such a day, but that was illegal, and you must pay me over again." There was no discretionary power given with respect to this clause, but the workman could enforce payment. He (the Lord Chancellor) had no doubt that this circum s tance had never been thought of by those who framed the clause, but it was a strong objection. He would suggest to his noble and learned friend whether it would not be better to let the measure stand over for the present. He (the Lord Chancellor) recommended this course, as he did not wish or mean to move its rejection. If a bill was sent up from the other house, both measures could be referred to a com mittee up stairs. As to sending the bill to a committee as it stood at present, he—with any disposition to give full credit to the noble and learned lord for his labours in it— felt that it was utterly impossible to vote for it. He (the Lord Chancellor), after what he had said of the bill, might move that it be read this day six months; but he would not do so, because it might appear as if their lordships were not anxious to concede to the wishes of the people on the sub ject. He humbly suggested to his noble and learned friend that he should postpone his measure until the bills on the subject came up from the Commons, when the whole sub ject could be referred to a select committee. The Bishop of LONDON, under all the circumstances of the case, and to avoid a discussion which might be pro ductive of results unfortunate to the measure, would re commend his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack. He (the Bishop of London) would also humbly suggest that it would be better to wait for the measure from the other house which would, more probably, be suc cessful coming from the other house than a measure would be sent down by their lordships. From what had taken place in the other house he thought that there was a fair prospect of something being done; at any rate there could be no great harm in waiting for a short time. Lord WYNFORD felt called upon to make some obser vations in reply to the speech of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack ; but before he did so he wished to observe that he thought he had told his right rev. friend that he did not intend to proceed for the present beyond the second reading of the bill. The noble and learned lord had grossly misrepresented the bill before the house. He had detected a literal error in the first clause, and hail assumed that the error applied to the whole bill. The noble and learned lord ought to have recollected that in a bill which lie had lately before the house there was an error much more extensive than any that had been found in that on the table. The noble and learned lord's bill in volved a mistake throughout. The LORD CHANCELLOR denied that it was so. Lord WYNFORD alluded to the bill brought forward by the noble and learned lord for the trial of offences in parts of Essex, Kent, and Surrey, at the Old Bailey, in which all mention of an extensive class of offences was omitted. The LORD CHANCELLOR—That was an error of the press. Lord WYNFORD—After the error of the press had been corrected the omission was still continued. The ob ject of the noble and learned lord in the extraordinary speech which he had made—and he (Lord Wynford) had never heard a more extraordinary speech from any noble lord —was, from the beginning to the end of it, to throw ridicule on the whole subject. The noble and learned lord had said that the Sunday was at present well observed. Where he got his knowledge on the subject he (b)rd Wynford) did not know ; but all the witnesses examined before the committee of the House of Commons gave an account of the matter directly contrary to that of the noble and learned lord. The noble and learned lord said that this measure would be oppressive to the lower orders of the people, and inimical to their feelings. He was in an ex alted station, and had no means of becoming acquainted with their opinions on the subject. He (Lord Wynford) would venture to assert that the feelings of the lower orders were decidedly in favour of the bill ; and he had had many letters and other communications from public meetings of the labouring classes in which they urged him to proceed with his measure, and afford them relief and protection from the cupidity of their masters. (Hear, hear, hear. ) The noble and learned lord asked how the publican could judge, on Sunday or any other time, as to the quantity a person had drunk previous to entering his house. In an swer he (Lord Wynford) would only observe that, how ever learned the noble and learned lord might be on other parts of the law, he was completely ignorant of it on this point ; and, if he would look, he would find that there were laws in the statute book to prevent men tippling on Sundays in public-houses. He (Lord Wynford) was also surprised that the noble and learned lord had never seen the word " charity" used in any statute but that respecting charitable donations. The words " works of necessity and charity" were used in the statute of Charles 1., and in other statutes to which he could refer. The noble and learned lord also said that this bill would prevent a man making his will on a Sunday. There was nothing in it to prevent a man doing so. All that was prevented was the execution of deeds on that day, and he had told the noble and learned lord that he (Lord Wynford) intended to mo dify this part of the bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Any person not en gaged in works of necessity was to be liable to penalties. Would an attorney drawing a will be so engaged? Lord WYNFORD—Making a will on Sunday might be a work of necessity. The LORD CHANCELLOR did not think so. Lord WYNFORD—AII that was meant in the clause was that a man should not engage in trading in his worldly calling on the Sunday. He (Lord Wynford) begged to remind the noble and learned lord that it was customary to construe acts of Parliament by their general meaning, and not by detached sentences. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know whether an attorney making a will was not engaged in his ordinary and wordly calling ? Lord WYNFORD presumed that the noble and learned lord intended his observation for a joke, like the rest of his speech, which was merely a string of jokes. (A laugh.) The noble and l earne d l or d, w h en he alluded to the attor ney, ought to have remembered that when the principal was innocent the accessary was also innocent. If the noble and learned lord was determined to make so manY jokes on the bill he ought at least not to have misrepre sented it. He (Lord Wynford), in conclusion, would only observe, that in pressing the second reading of the bill he did not intend to press it until it appeared whether any measure would be sent up from the other house. The LORD CHANCELLOR was anxious to say one word in explanation. Every noble lord who had heard his (the Lord Chancellor's) speech must feel surprised at the accusation brought against him of misrepresenting the bill on the table. One of the clauses of the bill distinctly de clared that no trader, or artificer, or labourer, or any other person, should be engaged in his ordinary calling on the Sunday, or be employed in any other work. blight not an attorney be informed against under this bill for pursuing his ordinary calling ? Lord WYNFORD called the noble and learned lord to order. The LORD CHANCELLOR was not out of order, as he was explaining to show that he had not been guilty of misrepresentation. The noble and learned lord had taken credit to himself for his good humour, with which, how , . the present occasion he appeared to be tittle 1 troubled: Lord PLUNKET begged to ask the , noble and learned mover whether a marriage contract entered into on the Sabbath Day would be ITb:del - ea Mill and void by the pre *thit inetkire? Eord WYNFORD—Before I. answer that question I beg to be allowed time to consider of it. Lord PLUNKET was sure that the noble and learned lord would take plenty of time to consider on such a matter if it were his intention to enter ,again into the blessed state of matrimony: ) Ilia Was ektremei tb itiO'Ve as i.ll amendment that the bill should be read a eceilitt time that day six months ';but he felt that he would be obliged to a. to ,fthe noble and learned lord persisted in hts • ZOO NVIIXFORD said his great object now was to lia‘rethe bill read a second time. _ The Earl of WICKLOW deprecated the long string of witticisms in which the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had so copiously indulged. No single bill, no matter of what description, etlitildintrodoced house which, With the tents bowers p6S- SeSed by the noble and learned lord, might not be treated With exactly the same levity that the present bill was treated with. He, however, 'aloe that the piisea was not the most 'opportune oeesiieh . a. nis-play of those pe culiar pOW-eit . . - For his own part, he really did not think any new legislative enactment necessary to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath Day. He would suggest to his niLle and learned friend to withdraw his present oill, and to prepare another, whiel4 he hsd rill dotilit, would meet with the greett'Cihilideration of the house. Tip...LAMI '6l - RADNOR concurred generally with what bAd Fallen from the noble earl ; he thought, however, that at the present time the Sabbath was, taking it altogether, extremely well observed. He agreed with the noble earl as to the suggestion thrown out to the noble and learned lord who had brought in the bill, and he hoped that that suggestion would be attended to. He felt that it was utterly impossible to argue the bill seriously. There was no single clause from the beginning to the end, except, perhaps, the last clause, which was not a mere matter of form. Lord WYNFORD begged to say a few words as to the withdrawing of this bill. If the noble earl objected to the principle of the bill, no bill of a similar character, no mat ter how it might be amended, could prove satisfactory to him. For his own part he wished that the bill might be allowed to have a second reading, and be amended after wards; but, if noble lords thought otherwise, he begged them to throw it out at present altogether. The Bishop of EXETER could not, though he acknow ledged the faults in the measure, give a negative to the second reading, since it was his opinion that some legisla tive enactment was necessary to provide for the better ob servance of the Lord's Day. Lord AUCKLAND had compared the original bill with the printed copy, and found that they did not differ. The clerical errors complained of were scarcely any, and no blame wai to be attributed to the officers of the. house. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to say a word or two in explanation. Of all the extraordinary misrepresen tations he had ever heard, either in that house or without its walls, was that made by a noble earl (the Earl of Wick low) who had lately addressed their lordships. It was a most extraordinary and uncalled-for misrepresenta tion ; yet he did not attribute it to wilfulness on the part of the noble earl, but to the fact that the noble earl did not understand either the scope, drift, or course of his argument. The noble earl had said that he had treated the bill before their lordships with levity. No one else but the noble earl could perceive that the scope of his argument savoured of levity. He ar gued the bill seriously, and his great objection to it was that it would render unpopular the importance of having the Sabbath religiously and decorously observed. It was the absurdity of the measure, and not any observations of his, that created laughter. After a few words from the Earl of WICKLOW, The house divided— Contents Contents Majority in favour of the second} 3 reading of the Bill Their lordships then adjourned to to-morrow (this day). HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 15. The SPEAKER took his seat againabout five o'clock. NEW WRITS. On the motion of Mr. C. WOOD, the following new writs were ordered— For Edinburgh, in the room of Francis Jeffery, Esq., who has accepted the appointment of a Judge of Session. For Leith, in the room of J. A. Murray, Esq., who has been appointed Lord Advocate of Scotland. For North Derby, in the room of Lord W. Cavendish, now Earl of Burlington. Mr. D. W. HARVEY. On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the following members were added to the committee of inquiry into the case of Mr. D. W. Harvey :—Mr. Nichol, Mr. E. Deni son, Lord Eastnor, and Mr. Alderman Thompson. They were appointed in the room of members who could not attend the investigation. TOLLS IN IRELAND. - - - Mr. LITTLETON, on presenting a petition from Youghal on the subject of tolls in Ireland, referred to a former inquiry by a committee, which had ended in the printing of evidence, but in the delivery of no opinion. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the report had not been completed, on account of the change in the administration. Mr. LITTLETON had good reason to know that the committee had come to no opinion. Mr. O'CONNELL had been a member of it, and knew that they had been in the fairest way to arrive at a decision. POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. TOOKE asked the noble lord when he proposed to resume the consideration of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill ? It was important that the course of proceeding should be known. Lord ALTHORP replied, that the committee stood for this evening; but he doubted if it would be arrived at, in consequence of the number of notices. If it were, he should proceed with it. If not, he should move the adjournment of that stage until Wednesday next. IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES. Mr. LITTLETON brought in a bill to amend the Irish Church Temporalities Act. It was read a first time, and the second reading appointed for this day week. DISSENTERS. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the dissenting congregation at Moorgate Chapel, for relief from disabilities. Mr. E. L. BULWER presented a petition with the same prayer from Lincoln. On the motion of Mr. ROSS, Copies of correspondence with the Directors of the East India Company, on the sub ject of the debts of the Nabob of Oude, were ordered to be presented. Mr. E. L. BULWER presented a petition from a parish in Sussex in favour of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition with the same prayer from three parishes of Nottingham. An HON. AIEMBEIL presented a petition from Kinross for the support of the established church. ARSON. Mr. LLOYD moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to wilful burning. He understood that the introduction of the measure would not be opposed t and he should therefore explain the outline very briefly. His ob ject was mainly to reduce the punishment now affixed to the crime of arson, as he considered it one of the remain ing blots of our sanguinary penal code. His second object was to give more effectual protection to property. He proposed to retain the capital punishment for setting fire to any inhabited house, or building attached or immedi ately contiguous to a house, but he wished to abolish it in cases where fire was set to buildings or property by the burning of which human life would not be endangered. He took this main distinction—that offences against pro perty ought not to be confounded with offences against life. (Cheers.) He intended to provide, therefore;; hat where life was not put in peril by wilful burning, the offence should be punished by transportation. The motion having been seconded, Lord AL THORP felt considerable doubts as to the policy of the course recommended, though he concurred in the principle that punishment shouldbe such as to insure conviction. He also thought it expedient, where it could be done safely, to diminish the number of ca pital punishments, and to confine them, as far as possible to crimes endangering life. At present a distinction was taken between setting fire to stacks of stubble or stacks of corn, and the guilty had in some instances escaped. He was afraid of meddling with the subject at present, unless it could be clearly shown that the lessening of the punish ment would lessen the frequency of the crime by increas ing the certainty of conviction. He was not, however, prepared to say that the bill should not be introduced. Mr. HILL was clearly of opinion that the effect of the change would be to augment the certainty of conviction. Lord HOWICK did not mean to resist the introduction of the bill. 31r. INGHA3I, we believe, expressed himself similarly. Mr. LLOYD added, that he meant to make the terms o f his amended law so comprehensive as to include all cases, and not to allow such distinctions as those to which the noble lord had alluded. He only solicited a fair con sideration of the subject. Leave was then given. REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT. Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from Derby, for the repeal of the Septennial Act. - Mr. E. L. BULNVER presented a petition with the same pryer from Coventry. Mr. BRISCOE presented a similar petition from Peckham. Mr. HAWES presented a petition of file same kind from Lambeth. Mr. TENNYSON then brought forward his motion upon this subject. He considered that he was now rather resuming an interrupted discussion of last session than opening a new debate. The noble lord, on the former oc casion, had moved the previous question, with a view that members might avoid giving an opinion upon the merits, which it was inconvenient to discuss at that late period of the session. He had hoped, that in the interval govern ment might have determined to introduce it as a Cabinet _ • question ; and. he was quite confident that several members of the administration were favourable to shortening the thiration of parliaiiieht. ire did not A all know What bourse the noble lord intended now to pursue, but he regretted the repeal of the Septennial Act was not submitted to parliament at the settlement of the great measure of reform. Ministers would thus have gained greater credit for the measure, and have added another wreath to the immortal crown of his present Majesty. It would have come with the more grace, recollecting that the Septennial Act *as paiSed to Sec re Mere effec t ually the throne to the House of Bruns- Wicks The people cheerfully surrendered for a time their right of more frequent election Of Weil' repreSetitatives for tins purpose ) anti now that there could be no danger ti§ tti the stlOCessioti,. the tresent • gerVatii hf the crown might prtipi4 11§.46 kdiiSed lii4 Majesty fA a1,t,0 this la*. Without entering into the matter at length, he tvolild t4= mind the house that, at the revolution, the period of three years was considered the fit duration of a parliament. Mr. STANLEY remarked that the period of three years was tint taxed Ithq revoluti, but afterwards. TEANYSO admitted that the stet did net tiss iinti1,1,694, several years after the revolution; but o w ill of Rights had asserted, in rather equivocal terms, that frequent parliarhefitS ivete rkeceisary. !t was is rex* qu„s tit), lihefliet it was meant by those wbrdt to Ai:4k that frequent elections were necessary ; but five or six years afterwards, the great men who lived at the time of the re volution, concocted the Triennial Act, thus clearly ex- Of tiro extreme o"piniOns--between 4416 eolitended; t p h la re in e in y g ear th s e wa tzm i ; fa t , h it e ei4m ßil p l k o ci f ui,i ß se lli e t t s 4eett Th th e e term of on the one hand, that the crown had the right to protract the existence of a parliament for an indefinite penod—it m a r i g g u h e t d be th e f o r r ig e h v t e r u — f a t n h d e t p h e o u s p e le w h t a o n n n utahl p e o s. r t h l a r m h e a n n t d s From the time of Henry , VIII. to ,the period ,of thy revolutions thee WeVe foityltWo parliaments, aitcl but of this number there were twenty-six that existed for a less term than a year. From the time of Charles I. to the revolution there were 12 parliaments, and the average duration of these twelve was three years: Calculating the duration,- excluding the Long Parliament s the average term would be fbund to be not more than nine months: It was surely wrong, then, to suppose that there had been long Parliaments prior to the passing of the Triennial Bill: Three years appeared to him to be a reasonable tidied Mr the transaction of public business; and he thought he could show that this time was quite consistent with the ge neral principles of our constitution. The old practice un questionably was to assemble Parliament with a view to the despatch of business that would probably arise. The lan guage of the ancient writs would, he thought, establish this fact. It would appear from them that Parliament was always summoned with reference to certain matters foreseen, at the period at which Parliament was called to gether, as likely to require its attention, and to dispose of those matters. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Secretary Stanley) smiled, but he hoped the right hon. gentleman would hear him before he attempted to turn the arguments he might use into ridicule. In proof of the existence of the principle for which he had been contending, he might also refer to many speeches from the throne. The King, in one of those speeches, used this expression—he said he summoned his Parliament that he might thereby " have the opportunity of receiving more certain information of the disposition and wishes of the people." It was clear, from language of this description, that the objects of assembling Parliament were to discover the wants of the country, and to legis late as to matters that were to a considerable extent foreseen. Some persons entertained an apprehension that the adoption of Triennial Parliaments might lead to mischievous results ; but, in his opinion, in order to dissipate such fears, it was not necessary to do more than refer to what had been the effects of them. Under the Triennial Act, there were nine parliaments. Now he would appeal to the whole of the legislation of the whole of that period, and confidently ask in what respect that afforded the slight est ground of alarm ? Be it recollected too, that this was a time of great difficulty, and one in the course of which parliament strengthened and confirmed the liberties ob tained by the revolution. The present bill was similar to that which he had recommended to the house on a former occasion. They were then exceedingly occupied with other business, and it did not appear to him that the measure had obtained the consideration which its importance demanded. He thought it right to give the question fair play. He would not disguise that if the bill went into committee, it was his intention to express his own opinion on the sub ject,-by moving that the term of the future duration of parliaments should be three years ; but as the resent bill left the matter to that extent open, the noble lord opposite or any other gentleman would be at liberty at that stage of the bill, to propose any other term. He believed that his hon. and gallant friend (Sir E. Codrington) who would second the present motion, was an advocate for five years' parliaments. In the committee, then, they would come to a decision as to whether the term should be three, four, or five years. He believed the people of England would be grateful for any modification of the existing law ; but he must say, that if live years were proposed, he should feel it his duty to vote against such a motion. They might de termine in favour of five years, but that would not determine the question. ("Hear, hear, hear !" from Mr. Secre tary Stanley.) He thanked the right honourable gentleman for that cheer ; he perfectly under stood its meaning. The right hon. gentlemen might make what use of the declaration he thought proper. He ad visedly repeated the words, " That it would not settle the question.' (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He knew it was objected to short Parliaments that they would dimi nish the personal responsibility of the representatives. His object was to fix a time that, in his opinion, would com bine efficiency for the public service with responsibility. Some gentlemen told him that it was unnecessary to shorten the duration of Parliaments, since the house had been made more popular ; the amendment of the repre sentation, they would perhaps contend, had rendered the shortening of the duration of Parliament needless. Now, he begged. the house to remember that the leaders of re form, among whom was Mr. Grey, uniformly said that these two changes—the amendment of the representation, and the shortening of the duration of Parliaments—ought to be accomplished, to place the liberties of the country on a sure foundation. Mr. Grey, in 1793, on the pre sentation of the petition of the members of the Society of the Friends of the People, said he thought that the short ening of the duration of Parliaments ought to be the second question. He said, " With respect to shortening the dura tion ofParliament, it did not appear to him that it wouldbe advantageous, without a total alteration of the present sys tem." In 1797, when moving for a reform of Parliament, Mr. Grey said, " There was still another topic upon which he had not touched—namely, the duration of Parliament. If the reform of the representation was adopted, but not other wise, it occurred to him, that the duration of Parliament should be limited to three years." Here was the language used by the reformers of that time ; and were they, when, in 1834, they proposed to shorten the Parliaments, to have this answer, Vs think the question of reform is satis fied, because we have improved the representation of the peo ple ?" Such a course involved this inconsistency. Before the Reform Bill was passed, the sense of the people was only partially expressed. Now that the Reform Bill had effected a great improvement in that respect—now that a real representation throughout the country of the sense of the people might be effectually obtained, it was rather ex traordinary to contend against the shortening of the dura tion of Parliaments, on the ground that the means of as certaining the opinions and felings of the country existed. There was some difference in the arguments of which the proposal for shorter Parliaments was opposed ; one class said that the alteration would render the Parliament too popular ; another class, that it would throw elections too much into the hands of the aristocracy. He hoped to combine the two influences, and he thought it was this tendency that constituted the chief recommendation of his motion. If Parliaments were shortened, seats would be come less the objects of contention by pecuniary means, and would more generally lead to local representation. The consequence would be, a considerable improvement in the social intercourse of the kingdom. Paley said he thought " nothing tended so much to improve the social union of all classes as the frequency of elections. The changes of men consequent on frequent elections were pro ductive ii a as dv it uc a iusr.o,m During thatt i u m nb. e yn s gt hthe happened, na tion." One of the advantages of elections occurring n d vo if u oct t c ee t nsd i veeorenf deny l a nos thatoue lm o d greatit occasional ly tt l that the best man was excluded, an earlier opportunity would be afforded for his return. The noble lord opposite would exclu sion of the best man the country was deprived of the agita tionser- vices of the Reform Bill a dissolution occurred, and at the consequent elections the only question asked of can didates was, " Will you vote for this bill, or will you not ?" If the candidate would not, that was generally suf ficient to insure his rejection. He admitted the circum stances of that time were very peculiar ; but was not that an argument in favour of snore frequent Parliaments ? The government of the day generally took care to dissolve the parliament when some particular measure was before the country, which was converted into a test. There was another point he would press on the consideration of the house. Having improved the principle of representation, and got a reformed parliament, they might depend on it that they would experience greater changes at the end of seven years than they ever had before. Thehon. gentleman then concluded with his motion. aadutswv a efu hnenin: to the councils of the Sir E. CODRINGTON rose to second the motion, not with a view to reduce the time of parliaments to three years, but to five. He believed that there were good grounds for the Septennial Bill at the time it was passed, but there was no necessity for its continuance, any more than there had been for a continuance of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which had been suspended in ex traordinary times. Feeling, then, that the Septennial Act ought to be got rid of on some terms or other, he came forward to propose the terms that he thought would be most useful. Col. DAVIES would give his opposition to the motion of the hon. gentleman, because he thought it premature, inex pedient, detrimental to the despatch of the business of the country and subversive of the independence of parliament.lie was at a loss to understand why it should have been in had duced at this time. Within the last two years they and effected changes amounting almost to a revolution, an; th a e r exceeding the hopes of the most sanguine reformers , o d day. Mqten the hon. member for Lambeth endeas owe to prevail tin the house to provide representatives for the town of Birmingham, he never could have dreamt their now before the h ou. ,e , that the reform was so near which fel shortly after- i'rattl, vias carried into effect. Having been returned for the nrSt fefiliinid parliament, Scarcely had they taken (Mr. Wilks) gave notice of a motion ttl the efteet of this but the ini'cboinseqinueenihcbeeOf for of the business he withdrew it. The hon. member for Lambeth, hqwever, immediately after brought it forward. Boston He (Wolfe' liaiies) cOnsidefed it unnecessary. This house was supposed to speak the feelingS of the tetrPle , an„ d die p . tegsttre everything here said was wafted Willi flit speed of li g"' hung to the remotest corners of the kingtitiffit Iklany WW I there tetufned to this house had given but one Ple,dgt, that one being to sittiliOrt the government whic h ne; ' t'tecieil sii much benefit: What was the consequei:Ce 1 Why triii=z-ihiii, the Present goterniifeht *Sight be colt dered to have a greater i,timber of personal friends an adherents in Parliament than al k&einment ever Po' sessed before, or probably ever would agtsin. Notwithi stan,ding all this, that the present Parliament Was not easily thidiaged by the government had been sufficieelj • roved; Thete had been Occasions on which even thf e frotheis of niembeis.tif the Cabinet had voted against the Gilvernhipit; The, lion. ideinbef I* Lambeth had °',i that the THeilnial Act, go tar froth hating ditninis hml itha P g extended the time of the dutalidti Of Parlinments. „f was the fact ? In former times there was tid lithitationZ the time of duration, but that which depended Ott i ir; will of the Crown. Under the Septennial Act Part: ittente had existed for eight, ten, twelve, fifteen, and et iei;ehteen f eati: The aierage duration under the Tril nial Act he made to be dilly tine par, seven month!, a n . t:7ent .. , :-two days. Was it not Heat, then, that, undeStii Triennial Act, they would have Parliaments ids the only a year and a -half? Such, indeed, must he i.. ..., the average, we had t had Triennia; kitilt bf fitting three years as the maximum of u'i;i e tion, and fixitig lid iiiinfiiittitt: , Lthtrely those favdu ra be - to the principle of Triennial PrhilartientB ought to. taking content, it being ;iie.7utable that to tiliS litureent, tb, last' parliament s , .- unr thirty-five years. Omit from this account .6.,,...- between the dissisititidn and the meeting of the next ' "-- 'lament, and they would get-in average not exceediq three years and thirty-six days. The hon. gentleman exceed s he 'wished to increase the control of the constituencv over the member I bitt could it be. supposed that anY canilid. r who Offered himself at the last election, calculated a should retain his seat flit seven yeatil As,far a s he r :ye ." concerned, he should have been very g lad i'-‘ Ihe promise for three years. (Hear, hear, hear. ) ke hon. member' had alluded to the changes which mightt!ut place in the house at the eapifation of seven years, . P this was perhaps the strongest argnmeht that could,. be used against the proposition of the hon. member. 'IrL ennial Parliaments would be constantly sending into T. house new ntembete ott S a gof u t a e cel h o onrnutecontested would hte doef country. be ,emieec t n h t i the elections. sm.mbAoadnTr moderate embarrassments for . ignorant of the business. Then , 1 . 1: t time of the house would be eurmemed and wasted in u* . .t es. aah s ttee m rt h e ofi n ofs r t t s twhuoen c uoeelnsvdsibelbsyqeut:ehsh.noeetu would der n a se 1;1; frequency lotting in election petitions and electiolt comniAre,„: 4 , nial Parliaments ; and in their results they would be cal culated neither to confer honour on themselves nor advar thousands lately squandered when the duration of Parlia ment promised to be short fully proved , and if further con 'firmation were wanted, there nee ded but a reference to the workings of Triennial Parliaments in past times. The " downright" Shippen, whose incorruptibility was so un-, questionable, was opposed to Triennial Parliaments, an asked whether half the money granted to the King would have been voted but for the frequent changes consequent upon them. The reasons for repealing the Triennial Act are fully given in the preamble to the bill broug ht in t]o that purpose in the first year of the' reign of George tn .! First. The words were, ~ And whereas it has been fon°, by experience,that the said (three-year) clause hath prove; grievous and burdensome by occasioning much greater more continued expenses in order to election of meinb er t , to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting hea ts and animosities among the subjects of this realm than known before the said clause was enacted," Stc...„ 5,.. were the evils avowedly consequent on Triennial l'ar' o i o , ments. But thii was not the whole of the evil. The C , candidates. Not thousands, but millions, sequences to the country, occasioned by the frequentcoY„°:. elections, were even worse than the consequences l' wasted in kept various modes of expenditure. The country we . r ' h excitemen , for weeks and months in a state of feverish _ an d business suspended, and men's minds roused toangly there fierce contention. If (as there was every likelihood ed once would be under a Triennial Act) an election occurred and _i_. in every two years, to what a state of distraction_f:-. moralization would not the country be reduced? .Tene_r, sitions of society would be totally changed, and the d now filled in that house by country gentlemen w 'ilf„ be occupied by pettifogging attorneys. For these reason.' u wereuldbe ben.. would oppose the motion of the lion. member for Lan , ;A A Lord DALMENY hoped, in any discussion which in ,_ ensue upon the proposition before the house, that nr y members would not rake up the speeches which his •,, t i jesty's present Ministers hail uttered within the last tvie , ' ' years— An HON. MEMBER (we believe the member for SO: cestcr) said, "Oh 1 let us have no parliamentary rol l ' rection-men." ell Lord DALMENY continued—Speeches which ha d be ep spoken under circumstances quite different from thol i t , which the country was at present placed with rege,„ i , this measure by the Reform Bill. (Hear.) The first . !,r_ . ,, ennial Parliament was a consequence of the despe!!,,P; which had been attempted at that period ; mighte f_d_7o as an instrument used against tyranny, it alteredhavDe;;,„ praiseworthy and valuable, its nature was now,ite,r), the altered circumstances of the times. ( ileBr, sides. hear.) - The country was not now placed in such at po . _ bat and why, then, should such a measure, adapted only' to' 44 had great.; 4.:, , position be called for ? The duties of the house "eyelid,' ; a increased since that period, and r equired ameore nin pli- 2' increased attention. Its busines s . be came eeor it. perfocrmatto ~, sated, and demanded snore experien f ore frequent election! ". ' than the new persons sent' n by m frequent elections were ie fre could bring to it. The evi ls ofq they would produ ce themselves very great, and the e ffect be most injurious', upon the members of that house wo uldhouse should not be, The opinions of those who sat in that members come into; the result of dictation, nor should Such mod gl a deliberative assembly as mere delegates. od it not representatives of their constituents.Therio tslid in twat them in the relation of the slave to master, sod %h, col of the free agent to his employer. (Cheers.) e °f ...,,,,see stituency had no right to stand in the attitu de e i r r c ol' . towards their representatives, and scare . 2 . , 0 1 t L it ' at ho es! scientious scruples. ( Hear.) The maieriq i from thud might differ from the people, and differ wise y: ., ,_ . , to : , and the people, when their passions had subsi 1 0 :i s k toit, acknowledge the wisdom. On one g reat be ° e e n the C a l granting of Catholic emancipation, this had tia.o4 pap al (Hear, hear.) That house set itself upaiifithat fide prejudice and bigotry in the final adjustm e n t ed to observe that s tant measure. (Cheers.) He was s urpri (A bogb 4 t c heer. the Irish members had not joined intha no short cut v) The house should recollect that there w as _ of a 04 0' T h e could arrive at the kph w h ieue o ' dexterity re' man's duties. Did they imagine that t the successful 0 quired by a contested election would fi t dicraft t i' dilate for office ? To practise a mere haxi and wa s i required an apprenticeship of seven years; _ ai d be a.; be supposed that a knowledge of state business co s if to quired in almost' as many hours ? (Hear, hear. ) to triennial system were adopted, there would be mou e the changes it would occasion. On every the i T t ground, or supposed ground of offence, and wh , ,,' t i l e t il minds of the electors were warm upon the subjlaitte" representatives would be dismissed, ere time was 1-- i i.r for the return of kindlier and more dispassionate ee„„Del (Hear.) The right honourable gentleman (the tion, for Lambeth) who brought forward this proposition,r.ere that Parliaments had never been so good as when they :i ieo triennial. Now, he should like to know what geed_ t a n at Triennial Parliaments had effected? What had n tl? n eY ieg ir for the people ? Was not their whole time spe t ' The reforiliej._ lating against their own corruption ? business it had!" House of Commons, and the important easure. Membel perform, were reasons against t_he ro i n ni f the vehemence it would come too warm and excited as they ought upon Of; a contested election to delibera te l a ws and the reform of tn e weighty matters as the 0 Peonsequenee of the me/OW,, il church. Indeed, the finaldestroy the balance of the cod would be to ultimately' prevent the development of al e "; tution. It would als o etore they proceeded with Who! in that house.. not be prudent to let the Reforrn vb,„ measure, would 17t, For himself, he would cenclucY_,,,,_/, have a fair trial. n • attemt to make an organic e.l,,i"Cr protesting against a y s culations of p robao u ,k in the constitution 011 me re pe ___ bv , in concluding, was loudly c heered ' The noble lord, • al house. • „ ana log" , lora s . wer Mr. EWART would reject the noble . uln as . , • from history, which, when circums ,_. Tn . reasoning was no more than an old alinauac!,,,,t, beb totally different, dtrarliain _ watt) noble lord desired them to try a reformed (fir. o p.. E thief the reformed parliament had been tried. ~, syfer a , o o would support the measure, because "% to ms 0 o. _ between the representatives and their ceir_ n p ar liata ar e,, T e r t be more increased by that than by Septenidittlio his e 'I, (Hear.) This was the doctrine of Mr. .: P intained Weraw-to political life, and it was a doctrine also mial as tonis h 1 3 noble Paymaster of the Forces. Ile N! , the bola._ e s hear the name of old Shipper! int roduced by in , ht q ui , ,,;. be who 1 11 f' 1 t gallant gentleman (Colonel D avies ), h ame l 3lontagdeat tb'f well have introduced t e n I long iarliame nt' es ° reason why Shippen fayourec _ 1 the o we _ O , O l that members were then under ' , e 0 s°, period was, . e te • tv• the Treasury, and the lengthened period gav e T his, o i, chance of exercising an independent spirit. the 11 , ° t a. on of Sergeant Onslow, as it gav e f e ee° a was the opini of r w as nees of the borough-owner somewhat more t, . 0 0 ., Re f or m, instead of being an argument agains t' of Pal argument in favour of the shortened duratoion .__, (o 4 • liament ; because, by that reform, the nominati _ 7 % ./Ss_ were done away with. (Hear.) This, thereffeere If; measure which demanded the su pport of all s lhe n .. stl formers. Now, too, was the very p e riod r efor' measure should be passed into a law—now, by a j d house, and when there was no political agitation.ecol;),,,. Mr. BUCKINGHAM said, it had been ohieworceri hon. and gallant gentleman (The mem ber for Aa II