The Sun. — London, England, 1833-07-24 00:00:00

bishoprics under those stetutes, and he found that when those unions in the time of Elizabeth did take place, it was in consequence of a vacancy ; and the Act to unite the two sees left it to the option cf the Bishop whether he would accept the increased charge; but here no option was left to the Archbishop of Cashel—he must accept whether he would or not. He appealed to a Rev. Prelate behind him, whether, if he were the Archbishop of Cashel, with his weight of 85 years upon his shoulders—whether lie would feel justified before God to undertake the per formance of such additional duties. He was sure his Rev. Brother beside him would not consent. lie begged to mention what happened to a Right Rev. Prelate—the Bishop of Norwich. That Right Rev. Prelate refused a brief situation in Ireland, because at his advanced age he ct nsidered that I e could not discharge the duties of the office offered to him. That was good of him, and became his well-known conscientious character ; but after refus ing, would it not be monstrous for him to he compelled, by Act of Parliament, to take upon him additional duties? He had already alluded to his Venerable Friend beside him. Now if the present Bill should become the law of the land, and the Archbishop of Team should die before his Venerable Brother, he would be made to become, by Parliament, Bishop of Team, the largest diocese in Ireland, and perhaps as large as any in England.—(Hear.) By the Bill, the Archbishop of Dublin would be obliged to undertake the duties of the diocese of Kildare, which was to he appended to his see. In the next place, the Bishop of Killala, whose feelings, as was notorious, were against the present measure, and who was prevented from coming to that house to raise his voice against it by phy sical infirmity—who was upwards of 90 years of age, and who had for many years discharged the duties of a large diocese, and stiil continued to do so, because he was so well acquainted with that particular diocese, would have, if the proposed measure passed—he saw that he would have Tuam, and not, as he fled erroneously stated, that it would be his Venerable and Rev. Friend near him. So that Tuam, a diocese extending in length 77 English miles, and in breadth 63, and consequently larger than the diocese he (the Bishop of Eseter) held in this kingdom, would go to a Right Rev. Prelate now upwards of 90 years of age. The bishoprics of Killaloe and Kilfenord were to be united with Ardfert. Now the dioiiese of Kil laloe was one hundred miles in length, and the present Bishop was 80 years of age ; and yet the diocese of Kil fenord was to he added to its duties. The fourth instance he should mention was that of the Bishop of Oasory. It was notorious that they, in that House, lost that Right Rev. Prelate's zeal and presence on account of his extreme illness; and yet the present Bill, if it should pass, would fasten upon him, if he should survive the Bishop of Edina, the additional duties of that diocese also. He contended that Parliament had no right, no authority, to make Bishops enter upon the discharge of duties which they would be unwilling to perform. A RIGHT REV. PRELATE slid that, as to the pro posed reduction of the number of Bishops, he certainly could not give that his support. Lord PLUNKET said, that those who acceded to the amendment or the Noble Duke agreed to the principle that the number of Bishop.s ought to be gradually dimi nished, and that was the principle of the Bill. It bad been argued that the change which the Bill went to effect would prove nothing less than an infringement of the Articles of Union, and a violation of the coronation oath. Upon these he had only to observe the amendment of the Noble Duke was also a violation of both, and that upon that ground there was nothing to choose between the amendment and the original clause, for the one was just as great a violation as the other. He, as well as his Noble Friend on the other side, was in the Irish Par liament before the Union, and with his Noble Friend— whom he should still continue to call so, notwithstanding some political differences—he anticipated results from that Union which certainly had never been realized. Both of them had anticipated that Ireland would have heavily suf fered by the change. Fortunately, they had both been disappointed ; and it would now become the duty of every man in the country to oppose to the uttermost any at• tempt to dissolve that Union ; and he was sorry to hear his Noble Friend say that there was a growing tendency in Ireland towards the dissolution of that Union. He much regretted to hear his Noble Friend mike such a statement, ft r lie was enabled to affirm from his own experience, that so far from there being any tendency of the sort, the feeling of the people was quite otherwise. The great body of the rational part of the community were desirous rather of cementing than of dissolving such a Union, regarding with decided hostility any such chimerical project as that of dissolving a connection alike beneficial to both countries. It appeared to have been argued that, by the articles of the Union, it was not competent to the Legislature to alter the share which Ireland was to possess in the representa tion of the country, or the number of seats enjoyed by Irish Prelates in that House. It surely could never have been the intention of the Legislatures of both countries in that day, to bind themselves and their successors irreversibly, had there even been any nation mad enough to contem plate anything so absurd. It was perfectly true, that there were in the Union, as in every such measure, cer tain fundamental principles agreed upon ; but be it re - membered, that the present Bill did not touch the dog • trines or the discipline of the Church, or the religion of the country, in any way whatsoever—it deals with the revenue a and the temporalities of the Church, but with nothing more ; and he would take leave to say that no thing would more advance the interests of that church than alterations having a tendency to improve the condi tion of the people. In the present state of the public mind it would be in the highest degree dangerous to hazard the rejection of the Bill. The Earl of HARROWBY observed, that the Noble Duke near him had not pronounced any opinion as to the number of Bishops which ought to form the -episcopal body in Ireland ; he merely suggested a better mole for rat rying the objects of the Bill into effect ; there was one very serious and important consideration with the subject, to which, in an episcopal degree, be wished to direct the attention of their Lordships. There was a large and most valuable portion of the clergy of the Established Church, who entertained strong and most conscientious scruples against submitting themselves in ecclesiastical matters to a Board composed of partly of laymen, the nominees of the Crown. Ile was sure that the House would not unneces sarily or wantonly do anything to insult the feelings of that excellent body—a holy which the Church in Ireland could ill spare at any time, and least of all, in times like the present. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Bill made the consolidation of certain bishoprics, as they became vacant, compulsory on the Ministers for the time being— it left them no option ; whereas the amendment of the Noble Duke would, if agreed to, permit the Ministers, if so minded, to recommend, instead of the incorporation provided for by the Bill, that the vacant bishopric be filled by some excellent and learned and pious friend of his, who for good and episcopal reasons ought to be in. ducted into the vacant see. He contended that the amendment of the Noble Duke gave them no security whatever that any one bishopric would be abolished. It would leave that question dependent on who might be Ministers. The Noble Lords who were now ready to convent to the consolidation of some sees, might not be ;always so di-posed; and if they said they should be always an minded, they claimed for themselves a greater insight into futurity than he was disposed to give them credit for; and assumed to themselves more sagacity than he attributed to them. The Noble Duke might be always disposed to act in the spirit he had described ; but if the law were left optional, could the Noble Duke answer for whoever might be Minister ? Could he answer for the Il lustrious Duke, should be have to advise the Crown ? or would it be consistent with the opinions held by the Noble Earl who spoke last, to advise the Crown to consolid rte the bishoprics ? He contended that those who would vote for giving the power to the Ministry must, out of consists ncy, if they would act plainly, vote for the clause as it stood, which would do that by Act of Parliament which they would leave to be done or not to be done by the Alinisters. It would be more wise, more straight-forward, more open, to vote against the abolition of any one bishopric, than to reject the clause which would abolish it by Act of Parlia ment, while they would leave it to be abolished by the power of the Crown. The Noble Lords might say that they would give power to the Crown to abolish the bishop ric', because they had no confidence in the present Mi nistry ; but be could not understand that argument when used by those who would give any power to abolish them at all, and yet would vote for a clause which would place that power in the hands of the Crown, instead of voting for the clause which would abolish those bishoprics by Act of Parliament. One great objection against the op tional cl use proposed by the Noble Duke was, that the country would have no security whatever, the people of Ireland would have no security, Cher) Curch of Irelan d would have no security--(Hea h— h that any reduc tion would be effected. It would be optional with the Ministry for the time—uncer/ain, slippery, delusive, illu sory, not to say collusive—(Allaugh)—and he would warn Lordships against it, an d invite themto give it, as he meant to give it, his most decided i opposition. Let their Lordships look at the situation n Which it nit (tsmithflifface the King. With respect, for example, to 7:jap,\--,...-iti:Cracimaiai • n oath.—(Hear.) He would not then go ...:: , - 1 ° iiik*u emits which had been stated on that sub ' af7., .14i;' a* 3 fre2l3 ore given his opinion, and that opinion (/ it 't' - 'fliad t. -, ,W'' , ., ~co ed by all be had heard ; but he might -„ i .4 .\ ' t`'-'fein4 l :l(3. i tioi opinion of the late Lord Liverpool, which AaVZ,s±c -; •,,e.--- . .. -!':;31, bad been referred to by a Right Rev. Prelate, was much stronger than that Right Rev. Prelate had quoted it. He had gone to the fountain head, and he must say that the language of that Noble Lord was much more strong and expressive than had been quoted. The Noble Lord had said, " As to the arguments on the coronation oath, they were all a pack of nonsense." He would not, he said, then enter into the arguments on the subject of the coronation oath ; but if he embraced the opinions, concerning the obligation of that oath, of the Noble Lords opposite—if he were the firmest of all the sticklers for that oath, he should not know how to vote for the clause of the Noble Duke in preference to the clause as the Bill now stands. Why, the coronation oath must, in that case, be conti nually violated—there must be a conflict on the subject of the oath on the suppression of every bishopric—the coro nation oath must be broken ten times—it would be violated whenever a bishopric became vacant. Why, if the Bill were a breach of the coronation oath, which he did not say, the amendment of the Noble Duke would not save the oath, but would compel a frequent violation of it. Again, if it were left optional, the decision would not he the result of calm and deliberate judgment; but of intrigues at Court—of intrigues in the Cabinet, and in Parliament and out of Parliament—it would not be the result of any principle, but it would be made a party and personal matter. "Only this thing would be certain, that there would be much uncertainty—much inconve nience—and much injury to public business. Finally, and principally, he objected to the amendment, because it would frustrate the great object of the Bill.—(Hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord then alluded to some general objections which had been made against the clause ; and first, it had been said, that it was creating a Bishop by Act of Parliament, which an Act of Parliament was unable to do.—(Hear, hear.) But certainly it was a most gross abuse of language to call the consolidation of sees, and the requiring one Bishop who was already there, who was consecrated, and already fulfilled the du ties in one see to fulfil the duties in another—it was a gross abuse of language to call that creating a Bishop by Act of Parliament ; but even if it were so, the thing would not be without a precedent. Laws bad passed making Bishops in the West Indies and Canada, and there was now a Bill before the other House of Parliament, to which their Lord ships had, in a conference, given their assent, which went to create two Bishops in India. He did not understand, therefore, how those who assented to that measure could object to this Bill, that it created Bishops by Act of P.ir liament. Some persons said also that several of the Eng lish sees were too large, and some were too small. Per haps they were. He did not say that some of the smaller bishoprics, particularly the Welch bishoprics, might not be consolidated, and some of the larger ones divided, but those who contended for that were strangely inconsistent in objecting to this Bill, for how could any one see be di vided, or any two be consolidated but by Act of Parlia ment? They both denied the authority of Parliament and demanded its interference.—(There was here a call of " Question," we believe by the Duke of Cumberland, and a call of " Order, order," from the Peers sitting on the Ministerial side. In reference to the call of " Question," the Lord Chancellor was understood to say, "Is that decent ?") The Duke of CUMBERLAND rose, and addressed a few words to the Noble and Learned Lord, acknowledging, we believe, that he had called Question, by stating that he thought the Noble and Leard Lord had departed from the question before the Committee. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in continu ition, said, be did not doubt the Illustrious Duke's impatience. It was very natural in the Illustrious Duke, and in a short time the Illustrious Duke would be gratified. One objection he was about to state to the Bill was, that it would throw very onerous duties on these Bishops who were to be called on to take charge of additional sees, and it was ccmpelling them to do these duties whether they liked it or not, and which they might be unable to perform. There was much said about the difficulties this would impose on the Bishops, hut, whatever they might be, he wished their Lordships to remember, that the whole of them would be as com pletely felt, and all these objections as exactly applied to the amendment of the Noble Duke, as to the clause as it stood. But all the evils complained of might come in the course of nature. An old Bishop might grow infirm, and, in relation to his infirmities, the duties of the one see might be as onerous as the duties of two sees to a young and healthy Bishop. But when he heard so much of the duties to be imposed on the Irish Bishops, he naturally looked to the number of benefices. He had beard some thing said of the Archbishop of Tuam having 11,437,000 —he supposed souls; but no, they were acres, and acres, many of which, being mountain and bog, never would hive any inhabitants; bat though this Prelate had so many acres, the pastures or benefices he had to look after -vere only forty-three.--(Hear.) And to these forty three it was proposed to add, when the time came, thirty one more, making in all, when united with Clogher, only 74 benefices, while one diocese in England contained 1,100 or 1,200 benefices. He bad never heard anybody say that the Bishop of that diocese was overburdened with work.—(Some Prelate said it had been complained of.) He for one thought the diocese might be too large, ex tending from the Thames to the Humber ; but take the small diocese of Norwich, which had at least three or fur hundred benefices.—(The Bishop of London said it had 1,100.) He was told there were 1,100 ; and would any man say that the bi.hopric of Norwich ought to be divided? He had never heard that said, and never heard that the beloved, the adored, the venerated Bishop of Norwich had complained that he had too much duty to perftrm, or that any person had complained of his duties not having been done. He did not feel, therefore, the force of that argument which was grounded on the addi tional duties to be imposed on some Irish Bishops. As respected the provision to be made in case the Bishop of the see to which another was to be united, being aged and infirm, that was an objection which might apply to bi shoprics at present without any additions. He would conclude by re-asserting, that if they agreed to this amend ment, they would go as near as they could to destroy the efficacy of the Bill.—(Hear, bear.) The amendment would utterly nullify the whole principle of this great measure—a measure so cordially agreed to by the other House, and which came before them so warmly recom mended in the Speech from the Throne. Every vote in favour of the amendment involved the peace, the prospe rity, and the safety of the Church. Earl HARROWBY, after some observations on the speech of the Noble and Learned Lord, which he thought nothing to the purpose, proceeded to vindicate himself from the charge of inconsistency brought against him by that Noble and Learned Lord. He repelled the charge that his conduct was in any way wanting in fair dealing. His only intention in supporting the amendment was to render the clause as clear, intelligible, and as free from objectionable qualities as possible. He denied that his object was, by any side-wind, to defeat the measure : such an idea was as remote from his thoughts as any thing could possibly be. The LORD CHANCELLOR made a few observations in explanation, to the effect that the Noble Earl had mis understood the tenor of his observations with reference to himself. The Bishop_ of LONDON (as we understood him) thought it would be as well for Parliament to legislate prospectively with reference to the sees as they should become vacant. The Right Rev. Bishop (as we under stood) concluded by an observation to the effect that, di vested of the temporalities, the additional mitre and crosier would hinny be an object. Earl GREY could not but express his surprise at the judgment passed by a Noble Earl on the Noble and Learned Lord's speech, which to him (Earl Grey) ap peared one of the clearest, closest, and most convincing that he had ever heard. He was sorry to lengthen out the debate, but he could not help making an observation on the amendment under discussion, which he considered so decisive of the efficacy of the Bill, that if agreed to, the Bill would be good for nothing. No proposition which had been suggested appeared to hi m so efficacious or so certain as the original. With regard to the amendment of the Noble Duke, it appeared to him that it would leave the future efficacy of the Bill in a state o f real uncertainty. The very terms of it left it entirely optional with the reigning King to do as he should think fit in the matter. The Noble Lord suggested, and very plausibly, that, wah a King like his present Majesty, who had, as it were given his sanction to the Bill, and with a Ministry whose own Bill it was, there could be very little doubt as to its effi cacious olliration. This might be all very true, but he would suggest to the Noble Earl that the next King, the next Ministry, whenever a change occurred, might think very differently about this Bill, from the present King and his Minivers.—(Hear.) If so, where would be the efficacy of the measure ? He would repeat that the amendment would operate to the destruction of the whole Bill. If another Ministry believed this Bill to be contrary to the principles of the Constitution, it would be their duty to dis suade their Sovereign from lending any sanction to it. What had been mentioned by a Noble Prelate as to the crosierch ance of w s L n s y a ßi d sh icfi s Pculrteyruwsihngichanhwaddniet%ioenralocmcuitrrrd t mitre and him (Earl Grey). If, however, it should really occur that any Prelate objected to the addition to his spiritual charges, such a difficulty might be remedied by ap pointing some person to act with such Prelate in the ca pacity of coadjutor, with the prospect of succeeding to the bishopric when vacant. The Bishop of EXETER would remind the N hie Earl, that to he the coadjutor of a Bishop, it would be necessary to be made a Bishop, in order to be competent to perform the functions of one. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that, in bringing forward his amendment, his sole desire bad been to render the clause as unobjectionable to all parties as possible. The amendment was open to improvement ; and if the Right Rev. Prelate had any amendment to make upon it, he (the Duke of Wellington) would readily consent to its admission. The Bishop of LONDON bad no amendment to pro. pose. His wish was to render the measure as effective as possible, and at the same time satisfy the Irish clergy, whose opinions, he certainly thought, ought to be con. sulted.—(Hear, hear.) The House then divided on the Duke of Wellington's amendment— Contents Non-contents Majority in favour of Ministers - -14 The clause was then agreed to. The 33d, 34th, 35th, and 36th clauses were then agreed to. On the 37th clause being read, a conversation took pl ice regarding what was to be done with the palaces of the sup pressed Bishops, when the Bishop of LONDON suggested, that if the election of a residence were to be upon the Bishops themselves, it might be well to put some check on their choice. Perhaps the election ought to be placed in the bands of the Lord Primate. The clause, as amended, was agreed to. The 38th, 39th, and 40th clauses were agreed to with out amendment. The 41st and 42d clauses, after a short conversation, were postponed. The 43d to the 48th clauses, inclusive, were agreed to, after which the House resumed, and the Chairman obtained leave to s't again to morrow. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 23. The SPEAKER resumed his seat at five o'clock. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A message from the Lords announced that their Lordships bad agreed to several private Bills, among which was the Bill relating to Thelluson's property. An HON. MEMBER (name unknown) begged leave to a'k a question of the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General re specting the revision of the criminal law. It had been promised that a Commission would be appointed to which the whole of the criminal law would be referred in order to its revision. He begged to ask whether any commission had issued, and if so, whether any progress had been made by it. . . . The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said a commission had passed the great seal to appoint Commissioners to revise the criminal law and to frame some one statute in which to consolidate all the old statutes; with regard to those founded on the common law, they would consider whether it might be consolidated, and if so, then the whole would be comprised in one criminal code.—(Hear, hear, hear.) At all events the experiment would be made, and he hoped it would be satisfactory to the public. _ _ _ TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition agreed to at Guildhall, in the city of London, in favour of Triennia' Parliaments. Mr. GILLON presented a similar petition from the western division of Stirlingshire, and praying also for the vote by ballot. . Sir H. PARNELL begged leave to ask his Right lion. Friend, the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trade, whether any report from the Commissioner appointed in 1831, to inquire into the commercial relations of England and France would shortly be laid before the House ? Mr. POULETT THOMSON said the gentleman to whom the Hon. Baronet alluded, some time ago made a report to Government of the proceedings as far as they had gone, but since then a great deal of documentary and other information had been obtained, which it was advisable Government should attend to before any report was laid before the House, and it would be worth considering whether the report and the subsequent information should not —at a fitting opportunity—be presented to the House. Meantime he hoped all discussion on the subject would be deferred, particularly as the House must be aware that great changes had recently taken place in the trade of France. He believed those changes would produce the most beneficial effects in this country, and the result would be, that far greater measures would be carried into effect than could have been antici pated some time ago. The House must be aware that one considerable step bad been taken by the publication of an ordinance within the last fortnight or three weeks, by which the prohi bitions on the exportation of raw silk from France had been taken off.—(Hear.) Every Member who had attended to the evidence given before the Committee last year, would see the great inconvenience to the English trade from the difficulty of procuring raw silk, and it was most gratifying now to know that a prohibition, which had been so detrimental to our manufactures, was removed, and the first step taken by France.—(Hear.) Sir FRANCIS VINCENT suggested to the Hon. Member for Oxford the propriety of his postponing his motion relative to the Masters of the Bench of the Inner Temple, respecting the application of Daniel Whittle Harvey, Esq., to be called to the bar, to some open day, when it would have a fairer chance of discussion.. _ Mr. H. HUGHES had no objection to withdrawing the motion for the present, if the Hon. Baronet could point cut a day upon which it would be likely to be discussed. Mr. D. W. HARVEY complained of the manner in which he had from time to time been brought down to that House to attend the motion.—(Hear, hear.) The motion had been put upon the orders of the day ori ginally without any intimation to him, and he believed it was the only instance in which the name of a Member was placed in a notice without the slightest intimation having been made to him.—(Hear, bear.) He was not accustomed to ask favours, especially political favours, but he must entreat the House would afford the Hon. Member for Oxford an opportunity of bringing the question be fore the House.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUGHES HUGHES had understood that the Hon. Member for Colchester was all anxiety to have the question before the House—(Hear, hear)—and he (Mr. Hughes) had intimated his intention to the friends of that Hon. Member. The SPEAKER—The first open day would be Thurs day, the 14th of August. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES would be happy to avail himself of that day. Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged leave to add, that be was in the House on the Friday on which the Hon. Member gave the notice, until 12 o'clock at nig_ht, and yet he re ceived no communication from the Hon. Member until after the notice had been given. Mr. TENNYSON rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments. In doing so, he said he was aware of the great difficulty he imposed on himself. He could not but feel he had undertaken an arduous task, in rising to attempt to persuade the House to come to a conclusion that must have considerable effect on the legislation, and political affairs of the country. He owed some explanation to the House why he took the liberty of originating such a motion. It would be recollected that when the Noble Lord oppo-ite brought forward the Reform Bill in 1831, he stated it was not the intention of his Majesty's Govern. ment to originate any motion on the subject. He alluded to the questions of vote by ballot and of shortening Parliaments, and stated, that having considered those subjects, Government had come to that resolution, therefore he (the Noble Lord) would leave it to some other lion. Member to bring the question forward, should it be thought expedient to do en. The Noble Lord added, that should any Member think fit to bring it forward, he should be ready to deliver his opinions upon it, and he (Mr. T.) was certainly very anxious to hear what those opinions were.—(Hear, hear.) It would be found, by referring to what the Noble Lord said on that occasion, that he did not shut the door against the repeal of septennial Parliaments.—(Hear.) On the contrary, he said that he thought it a subject well deserving attention, and that the only difficulty was, what ought to be substituted in place of them. It was most desirable that the House should not regard this as a party question, but as a question of strict constitutional importance—(Hear, bear, bear) —and he (Mr. T.) entreated the House and his Majesty's Government to come to the consideration of the subject with that calmness which ought to regulate the conduct of the House in the disposal of every important question. He had made up his mind to discuss the subject with that feeling which he recommended the adoption of to others, and without courting p .polar feeling on the one band, or hoping, on the other, to be spared reflections from that prejudice which operated in favour of the Sep tennial Act from long duration, he would endeavour to lay the grounds of his motion before the House in the best possible manne r he could, with a v i ew to b r i n g the House to agree to his proposition.—(Hear, hear.) The Septennial Act had produced the most extensive corruption among the constituencies of the country; anti much of the evilsof bad Government had resulted from it. But now there was a general, if not a universal con viction throughout the country that the term of seven years was too long for Parliament to continue. There had been under the Septennial Act 22 Parliaments, the average duration of which, during 117 years had been about five years each—and fifteen Parliaments of which the average duration was not less than six years. Before the reign of Henry VIII. there was no doubt but that the practice was to have annual Parliaments ; indeed, there were instances of two Parliaments occurring in one year.—(Hear,.) After that reign, until the Triennial Bill was passed in 1694, Parliament were for the most part extremely short, with only five, excepting one in the reign of Henry VIII., another of Elizabeth, another of James 11., and the others in the reigns of Charles I. and 11. Now, the most prejudicial conse quences resulted to the general interests of the people from their continuance. But, taking the whole Parliaments together, from Henry VIII. till the present time, there were seventy-five which on an average lasted only two years and nine months. Now it was not on such slight grounds that he meant to build his present argument ; the liberties of the people, he believed, did not stand upon the usage, practice, or prescription of former times ; nor did he contend that, because short Parliaments bad been found formerly efficient, therefore in the present circumstances they should be considered expedient. No ! he did not build his arguments on such grounds. He only meant to say that the people of this country had an imprescriptible right to good govern ment, and that as shorter Parliaments would conduce to that desirable end, the people had a right to claim at the hands of Parliament some alteration of the present system. During a period of six years (which be took as the fair duration of a Parliament under the Septennial Act) the whole circumstances of the country would be found to undergo an extensive alteration, so that any understand ing which might have existed at the commencement of that term between a representative and his constituents would become perfectly useless. A shorter term, there fore, ought to be fixed, in order that the representative might be sooner sent back to ascertain the wishes of his constituents, and to answer to them for his conduct. His great quarrel with the Septennial Act was, that being passed for a particular purpose, it was extended to all future Parliaments. It was the opinion of the late Mr. Fox, and of the present Lord Chancellor (in which opi nion he completely concurred), that the circumstances of time had rendered the Septennial Act necessary. There had just been a rebellion, and the parties to that rebellion were watching to see how, by money or otherwise, they could so operate upon an approaching election, as to for ward their object. That was the reason stated by the Duke of Devonshire, in the House of Lords, when he introduced the Bill. The preamble of the Bill distinctly referred to the circumstances which had rendered it necessary.— [The Hon. Gentleman here read a passage from the preamble in question.] He admitted the difficulty of fixing upon the term of duration which would be most advisable. It appeared to him, however, to be a prin ciple that Parliament should be short enough to permit the representatives to recollect the wants, wishes, and ne cessities of their constituents, and the professions which they bad themselves made ; and also to recollect that they must soon render up an account of their conduct. At the same time be admitted that it was an equally important principle that the term should be long enough to enable the Members of the House to pursue a steady and consistent course. But still not so long as to extend the period beyond which it would be morally and physically impossible for the constituents of that House to foresee what might be the state of public affairs before its termination. There was on the Records of Parliament a most extraordinary Protest, that of thirty Noble Peers, in 1716, against the Septennial Act, which powerfully depicted all the evils which that Act tende f to inflict on the country. (The Hon. Gentleman here read the Protest in question ; which predicted the increase of corruption that the Act produced.) After the experience of three Septennial Parliaments, in 1731 a motion was made in that House for the Repeal of the Act ; and one of the most interesting debates followed that ever took place within the walls of Parliament. The result was, that the motion was negative] by a majority of only 63.—(The Honourable Member here read an ex tract hom the speech of the seconder, describing the mis chiefs which had resulted from the Septennial Act.) Sub sequently there were numerous motions for annual Par liaments, down to the motion on that subject of an Hon. Baronet in 1818. At length the corruption both of the House and of the people became so extreme, that some attempt at remedy could no longer be delayed ; and hap pily under the auspices of the Noble Lord opposite, that great object was accomplished to the public satisfaction and joy. But the work was only half done. In the de claration of the friends of the people in 1792, signed by Mr. Grey (and he had not the slightest intention to state this invidiously) and other distinguished individuals of that period, it was declared that that association had been formed for the purpose of promoting tl.e two following constitutional objects :—First to restore the freedom of election, and a more equal representation of she people; secondly, to secure to the people a more frequent exercise 'of the light of electing their representatives. A petition to that effect was presented from the same body in 1792, to the House of Commons. Let the suffrage be most extensive, and the exercise of it most pure, yet such was the frailty of human nature, th it, when a man found himself seated in that House for seven years, his sense of responsibility became considerably weakened, and he was left accessible to all the various attacks of corruption. It was in consequence of its being apparent that long Parliaments were bad Par liaments, and that short Parliaments were good Parlia ments, that the Triennial Bill was passed in 1693. From the passing of the Septennial Act, the public debt bad been increased from 50 to 800 millions, In the adminis tration of Sir Robert Walpole, which speedily followed, was laid the foundation of that debasement and corruption which had ever since disgraced the House. He would not pursue the inquiry through the subsequent periods, being unwilling to offend any party or any individual ; hut it was well known that both the great political parties in the State had availed themselves of the corrup tion which he had described, and had governed by what was called Parliamentary influence. The Septennial Act held out temptations to corruption which few men could withstand. Even the interests of the Monarch suffered by it. The prerogatives of the Crown would be safer with short Parliaments than with long ones, for long Parliaments were calculated to produce disunion be tween the Sovereign and his people. This was espe cially pointed not in the Triennial Act, drawn up by Lord Somers and other great men.—[The Right Hon. Gentleman here read the preamble to the Triennial Act.] He now came to consider what would be the most advisable duration of Parliaments. Some thought five, others four years. His Hon. Friend (the Member for Middlesex) who would second his !notion, thought that three years would be the best term. For himself, he could only say, that he should be happy to receive any suggestions on that point. If he were left to his own judgment, he should certainly concur with what ap peared to be the general sense of the people; and he adverted particularly to the petition which had that day been presented by a worthy Alderman, in favour of triennial Parliaments. But he kept his judgment open to conviction on that subject. The Bill for which be should move was simply to shorten the duration of Par liaments. It would consist of two parts; the one re pealing the Septennial Act—the other assigning the term to which the existence of Parliaments should hencefor ward be restricted ; the blank for which term, however, wuuld be left to be filled up in the Committee on the Bill. If they wished to admit the people to a fair and full par ticipation in the Government, they would at once accede to his proposition. If they desired to give a full effect to the great principles of the Reform Bill, they would support him on that occasion. Satisfied was he, that if in this and some other points the Government would only, consi derately and wisely, yield to the people, there was no coun try under the face of the sun where greater sacrifices for the national honour and the national weal, not only as regarded property, but as regarded life itself, would be more cheerfully made. Most heartily did he agree in the observation made on a previous occasion by the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was in England a sound and strong feeling of attachment to the law and the Constitution. No man during the last twelve month could boast more intercourse, and, consequently, more experience amongst his countrytnen than he could— an intercourse metropolitan as well as rural—agricultural as well as commercial; and he feat satisfied that there was amongst them not merely a strong but an irrevocable at tachment to a monarchical form of Government—(Heir, hear, hear)—and a disposition to pay to the ancient aristocracy of the country every deference and respect, so long as they showed themselves anxious to uphold the just (Cheers.)l r ww i h: l ct s one; in ea t hend f peopleo trh T he reei t a welkve were,nne ddlr o teees w frt tta l toe net cheers) tooohe g ritoee e t hrsw d iastenoe)nna p rvxt r be.ehi i :ln(se,dse. them. — ( H ear , tespoeomsaofa disappointment f tnohphgi otheoenliai achieve,tienrti .98,)e p cinnal e sen o ttoa: p dwtrl ti l oeoti.anh this b ti ob i h t e e u a e e aAd i n e n r ie h frec s a i lo opv Pr u noH re a g i cu fz nul a h r i da t t: d h bi f e e lu o : rr i r n si , : (i ü b ovia h n a neni t n d r d s s sii e ra r i l l v ii i n tlh i gd e e e h te o od l t wisdom d .s h e e e P oT a n r hd l a t e e i gnmht and ntaitnHol motion, saidmiGtn Gentle man t i s th l le of t y the Nob e Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, in propos ing the Relorm Bill, had stated that the object of the Ministry was to give to the people a due check and con trol over the conduct of their representatives. But he stated that they did not consider it necessary at that time to connect with it two other measures—the vote by ballot, and triennial Parliaments; and he (Mr. Hume) thought they had acted wisely in not encumbering the essential measure with others of less immediate impor- 1 tance, for as it heel turned out, they had found difficulty enough in what they had undertaken. Having, how ever, now thoroughly succeeded, they had an excellent op portunity of completing a measure which, in its perfect state, could not fail to be most grateful and most accept. able to the people. He considered the House should look at the question in one light only—as a means to goof government.—(Hear, hear.) They all knew, from ex perience, how prone human nature was to err, and that a trust extending over a period of seven yews was seldom duly respected.---(Hear, hear.) He was sorry the Right Honourable Gentleman bad left the period for the future duration of Parliament an open question, and had no hesitation in expressing his own preference for a term of three years. Looking to the opinions of the people, which he contended, as representatives, they were all bound to do, he felt that the change to triennial Par liaments would be completely in accordance with their wishes. He had ever been of opinion that change was never desirable unless real advantages could be plainly foreseen from it, and those advantages were, in the present case, most clear and apparent. If they looked to the period when the Septennial Act was passed, they would find that the people were strongly adverse to it, and that feeling had not in the slightest degree diminished, but rather increased, from that day to the present. The ne cessary consequence of the people oftener coming in contact with their representatives would be, that the public work would be better performed, and the national interests more thoughtfully attended to. But the present system left the people, in fact, entirely at the mercy of Ministers, and the institutions which were originally good, having been thus vitiated by it, were an evil rather than a blessing to the community. Thus it was we had fallen into difficulties—difficulties which we never even should have dreamed of, if the representa• tives had been more immediately under the control of the people. They were warranted by the present state of public feeling in now calling for the further portion of reform. The Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exche quer, bad promised that the Government would not rule by patronage, but according to the wishes of the people. The Noble Lord's principle was, that the House of Com mons should really represent the people, but he (Mr. Hume) denied that they did so now, or that they were likely to do so if they were not more frequently called to account, and a speedier reckoning determined on. They ought to be more responsible than they were—they ought to be more frequently ch dlenged—their conduct ought to be more strictly investigated, and therefore it was that he seconded the motion of his right Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. Lord ALTHORP said, it was certainly true that his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) in introducing the subject of a reform in Parliament, had entirely separated it from the question of duration ; and, therefore, be was not about to argue as if any gentleman, by what took place at the period he referred to, was pledged or precluded from discussing, freely and fully, the motion then before the House. Nor did he intend, though it was his duty to state his own views, to call for the opinion of the House directly upon the subject, but rather to beg their attention simply to this question—Was it desirable to enter on the consideration of such a subject—one which he might term a second edition of the Reform Bill, on the 23d of July ? —(Cheers.) This he really thought would be sufficient reason for every gentlemen, whatever his opinions, reserv ing himself at the present time. For no one, whatever his opinions or wishes might be, could be sanguine enough to hope to have such a measure as this carried without experiencing a great and determined opposition—such a one, indeed, as would preclude the chance, under the best auspices, of its being passed in the present session. There fore, be thought it would be a great inconvenience to all parties to enter upon such a discussion at that period of time. He had said, and he thought it his duty to state it, for he had no wish to conceal his opinions, that be sup• potted a proposition for shortening the duration of Par liaments, and that support he should now give if the Parliament was at this time in the same state in which it was when he made the declaration. He thought at the same time that the influence of the people in that House was below what it ought to be. That too was the ground on which he had supported Parliamentary Reform. He thought than, and he thought still, that the proper constitution of that House required that it should truly represent the feelings of its constituents; and when the circumstances of the House were such that a large proportion of the Members represented only them selves, it was proper that, by the shortened duration o Parliament, the constituency should exercise a greater influence over them than they then did. But at the present moment, from all he knew of the feelings of the Members of that House, and all he knew from his own feeling., from having represented large bodies of consti tuents fur many year., he was convinced such Members did feel mast sensibly the influence of their constituents. He appealed to any gentleman in that situation, to say if it was not so—(Hear, bear)—on this very evening, and upon this very question? ThE Right Hon. Gentleman had taken a most extraordinary mode of getting at the average duration of Parliaments. He had taken all the long Parliaments, and leaving out all the short ones— (Hear, hear)—because there was something peculiar in the reasons for their dissolution; he found the average was between five and six years. If he had taken all the Par liaments together, he would have found the average to be between three and four years. He was ready to admit that the Parliament did not represent the feelings of the people as it ought. He knew the Hon. Member for Mid dlesex said it did not do so now.—(Hear.) He believed gentlemen on that side were much given to think the opi nions they entertained were exclusively the opinions of the people.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think they were quite right in that belief—( Hear, hear)—and on such a subject it would suffice to ascertain whether the people were on the whole satisfied with the conduct of ParFament. Now he believed the conduct of Parliament had been satisfactory to the people, notwithstanding it had not in every instance come up to the unlimited expectations of the first reformed House of Commons. Indeed, the expectations thus formed were in many cases such as circumstances rendered it im possible to gratify.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think the shortening of the duration of Parliament, as recom mended by the Han. Member for Middlesex, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, would, if adopted, be advan tageous to the people. It was perfectly true that great reliance ought to be placed on the honest feelings of the people, when they had time to consider any subject, yet there were periods at which they were carried away by particular feelings, and in which, if they were mistake n i n them, the duration of Parliament, if much shortened,w ou ld give them a frequent and inconvenient opportunity of in dulging, perhaps to their subsequent regret. H e did not think that the effect of the alteration from seven to five years, would produce any great effect any way, and that such a change would, in fact, be a change for change sake. On these grounds he should object to the motion. He did not think that the proposed change would have the effect anticipated, of diminishing the ex pense of the elections, or lessening the spirit of the con test. The election of 1818, though according to every human probability the life of George the Third could not last through the whole seven years, was as expensive and as hotly contested as any other. The same was the case with the election of 1831, although it was known that the Parliament would not last more than a few months ; but he should not insist on that instance, because there were very :particular circumstances attending that election. The period of three years would be too short—it would derange the fixed and steady march of public affairs. For that reason he was not an advocate of the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He should not, however, call upon the House to come to a decision to-night, but only to reserve it to a future time. They might postpone it to another session of Parliament, when they would have more time and better opportunity to consider it. If the measure were brought forward in the ensuing session, and then agreed to, it would have the same effect as if agreed to . now. If the motion was pressed at th e present moment, it would lead to no satisfactory result, and for these various reasons he should now move t h e prev i ous question. Mr. COBBETT did not agree with the Noble Lord as to the propriety of delay. If it was necessary that the thing should be done, the sooner it was done the better ; and he thought there were good reasons why it should be done now. The country was not too much satisfied either with that House or with his Majesty's Ministers. If this motion were carried, it might go far to restore the confi iu 1793, after pro deuce of the people in that House, and, if possible, re concile the people to his Majesty's Ministers.. The Noble would not do, without Lord said that his opinions bad once been in favour of shortening the duration of Parliament, but that the Re form Bill had altered the case. Why should that alter the L rhe o af r do d rnn.i G osw i shortening the duration of Parliaments, and quoted the case p r s e i y n ? g s a m: d i n ) rtethhaet petitionreforms ev en those o o a s f n e G preamble of the Triennial Bill in favour of the argument. Again, in 1796, Lord Grey made a motion for Parlia mentary Reform, and proposed such a reform as had now been granted ; but he did not neglect at the same time to insist on the shorter duration of Parliaments. When the present Reform Act was brought in, the question was Lett open. Why should it not now be determined ? Did they recollect that, but a few weeks ago, the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire told them that he was restrained from introducing measures that he considered essential to the welfare of the people and to their happiness, from a fear of a collision with the Lords ? He (Mr. Cu bbel had never said any thing so bad of the 1 1 as that.—(Hear, and a laugh.) B u t th e y need dread any co lli s i on in thi s m a tt er , f or h ere the E,5 pie and the Lords were on on e sid e , an d th a t P, on the other. Let that House b u t carry up to the L' such a Bill as that now proposed, and he would venturit say there would be no collision—( 'fear, and a lace% there would b e a biddi ng b e t ween th e two H ouse s 0 which would be forwardest.—(Laughter.) There two pointy o n w hi c h h e di sagree d w i t h t h e Ri g ht . Gentleman. The first was, that the Right Hun. W I man would be content with Triennial Parliaments. , should not be contented with anything less than retie t to the old English custom of having a Parliament in e i year. The Right lion. Gentleman the Secretary for t 1 Colonies seemed to think that an argument against f l O 1 ing the change to Parliaments of three years.--4 I Stanley nodded assent.) He could not help it ; he thelo I it better to say what he meant. .. —(Hear, hear.) flf . .„,i I sure they should not get this change now ; but he v I that " bread thrown upon the waters would return 0 many days '' —(Hear, hear)—and he thought that, ° A I 1 people wished to have it, the sooner they made a deeco I for it the better. He agr ed with the Noble Lord t 1 seven years were just as good as five; if they went be b i 1 three years they went mu c h t oo f ar , an d h e t h oug ht t ' I were going too far if they went beyond one year. j d 1 differed from the Right Hon. Gentleman as to the Or. I of the Septennial Bill. The Right Hoa. Gentleman 1 that it was brought in with a view to take care of the li tits of the people—that they were afraid of another re lion—that they were afraid of giving Popery a handle , put an end to the glorious revolution then lately effee It was no such thing ; it was done with a view to , c) the plunder they had got—th e pl un d er o f t h e Cho they were afraid that plunder would be taken away them, for it was too near the time when they got it them to feel safe in possession of the plunder. He fob' not characterize the acts that had been done in that Ht' he was afraid to do so while he was within its walls under its roof. The most infamous thing—the apostacy itself—changing three times between Cs and Protestant, was not equal to the turpitude of o i Bill. The law was positive th a t th e M em b ers should j sit there for three years, and yet they had dared to F it themselves authority to sit for four years longer. t it prt sent Parliament might, with th e same just i ce , s that they would sit for seven years, or for the n a tural of any Member among them. The Parli aments had usurpers from that day to this, and th e y, as i n heri natural of that usurpation, were usurpers themselv es . H e not give much for the lawyer who could not prole t i o clear as day-light, that the laws they passed under ,t usurped power, were not as void a s t h ose o f Croortio and the long Parliament.—(Laughter.) To say ..0 they should get this motion, was w h a t h e did not gel o, but he should vote in favour of it. H e wou ld rat h er 11 i the motion carried farther, but even though it wool farther, it should have his support. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON s h ould suppo.All.,o motion. He was well satisfied to get rid of the er d years upon any reason wh a t ever . Wh en t h ey came in v i • eider the other part of th e motion —namely the til t ~/. which they intended to fi x th e d urat i on of Parliamee " o he should prefer five years ; first, he thought this ,i sense of the country was in favour of that motion ; l i i next, because the motion was more likely than any s 'or to be carried. A s t o th e propos i t i on of annual p a rk ments, he was con v i nce d t h at t h e ma j or i ty of the ro were against such a c h ange ; an d t h at throughoutv country the H o n. M em b er oppos i te wou ld fi nd himself ~,' minority on th a t p o i n t. H e truste d t h at t h e hilt ',# of this motion would be carried, and when it Wes' f when the Bill was introduced upon it, and they easli consider the time at which the duration of Perlis), should be fixed, he should produce his clause for five Y e :i Sir S. WHALLEY should vote for the motion as si tial to render the Reform Bill complete. Th a t thell tennial Act should be r e p ea l e d h e t h ought nobo d y E p p. entertain any doubt; and the next question tberefo; i i i them to determine was, what was the period to It, Parliament should in future be allowed to e xtend. di could not agree with the Hon. and Gallant Membet t ,i, had just taken his seat, as to the sense of the country i, in favour of the term of fi ve y ears ; b ut upon the .13.1 of Annual Parliaments, be thought there w as so me to l i : prehension arising necessa r ily f rom th e d ou b t ful . 41 t it : thrown upon this matter by the old r ecor d s . He al" know that it was certainly established that there ..6i, Annual Parliaments in the present s ense o f th a t esr4 sion, but he believed that, according to the ancient r tice, Parliaments were elected for each particular oces j of and as it not unfrequently happened, a Parliament eg t o i i one year, when it was dissolved, and on the ne xt 0 4 01 4 another Parliament was summ one d, sat , an d was dis til in the same manner. That f requent P arl i amen t' necessary, no one who had rea d th e hi story o f his c 0 'f and had become acquainted with their profligacy it s. times, could doubt. He need no t spea k o f their preP l i in past times, for it was but recently that they bald a Parliament—this very Parli ament —l av i s hly It i away mi lions of the public mos e y. Th ey h a d o° It l away as lavishly as a ruined debtor who was in dek e ill to his ability to pay. The Hon. M em b er h ere qto, t t, opinions of several writers who had d e cl are d the S ot it nial Act a breach of trust, and then w en t i n t o a n his " Fit detail of the various changes introdu ce d by stato, o ll the duration and mode of conv e ni ng Parli a ments I f kingdom. He afterwards observed, that when the/ ennial Bill was introduced, it had b e e n passed par s / with the Bills for granting the suppli es for that r s i circumstance which warranted hi m i n say i ng that I I a compact between the people and th e C ourt par i,l means of which they settled their long existing dill% f as to the duration of Parliament. But even O lt ; itself admitted the necessity an d expe di ency of she,r liaments, the people h av i ng f ound that for their els not only should Parliaments sit often, but neW meats shou'd frequently be convened. The P, stated that " the fr equent meet i ng of new Patti/ (it was that to whi c h h e w i s h e d to call the i r a t , tended much to pr omo t e h armony b etween the I‘,:nolr the people." The Ho n . M em b er t h en quoted Sfectii, ments of Sir W. Wy n dh am , w h o argue d in ss'er short Parliaments, in order that the sen timents 1, 1 people might prevail, f oo l s b e t urne d out, an d _A 1 1 , hanged. He (Sir S. Wh a ll e y) f rrt h er contende4o4 the present dynasty being sea t e d fi rm l y on the th r i A more favourable oppo r t un ity cou ld not b e a ff or ded di change proposed in the motion. He agreed that ano ll o ll tions would be so frequent as to teach the constituen e . 3l country to regard them with apathy, b u t thought ty, o Parliaments the precise medium that ou g ht to be su op The Hon. Member referred to the late discussions assessed taxes, contending strongly that the great to o l of the constituency in the metropolitan districts, j Southwark, were in favour of the immediate rer c them, yet half the representatives bad vot e d one Oi l half another; and, according to the mode of Il i once resorted to on the C a th o li c c l a i ms, this woo l that the inhabitants of London and its vicinitY4f opinion at all upon the su bj ect . N o d oubt the rio large were greatly disappointed in the results of / o reform of the House of Commons; it bad fritterrs i the confidence of the people, and showed that ; f respected party feelings than n a tional intere 9 :o nothing could so much tend to restore confidellot j adoption of the resolution, which would ahoy/ o te Members were ready to give an acc oun t o f th e to , mitted to their charge. f ill / Mr. JAMES KENNEDY cou ld not conc ur observation of the Noble L or d (A ltborp), that I'M nothing particularly pres s i ng i n t h e existing state, °,,, i to call upon the H ouse t o agree to this resolittlosi thought it of th e hi g h est i mportance , because o Fq single questi on every ot h er d epended, and 1 20 di omen could be worse th an th e re j ect i on o f the Pr ° ,s V. He knew that th e H ouse an d G overnmen t h 1 considerably in the estimati on o f th e peop l e , en ,, ~/r etiti t recently appealed a second time to hi s coneu o on i , was returned solely on the ground that he bed 1 0 t i , voted in the minority. The people began to tl ot etly present were no better than the f orme r Mil° s ilt ( ' that the Tories might as w e ll h ave re ni power ; if so, the Reform Bill was not hi n g ba t 4, te ej and delusion—robbery of those who had corree r if irry into a property, and delusion of those who fe l bring the trust back to its original purpuee.'";celV As to the expense of elections, the last had se .e it Oft' even the whole country as much as former 0 1; 1 ,014 cost, sotnetinaes, at a single pace.l Con 04 0 4 b little had been done in the present session, in tw' b eti ) r i of taxation and diminution of expenditure"' 00 1 had been done for the poor, and how Inu eb o t l i lt ) been spent upon one or tw o m easures th a t did o% ia 4 to the credit of the Government, h e was most s l ,,rllp i r the resolution for shortening th e d urat i o n of no t should be carried. This might be called the t feh ment under the Reform Bill—but not the fir s , o o,/ ,1 Parliament; and it might remain to the next to u e t hip which the present refused to discharge. C ul 0:0 10 1 / Whigs of the present day could not do —they , f l l' 0 like their predecessors, prolong the existence 1,/ Itoment ; and the time must arrive when a A / would be made to the people, who would ta k e it a l for the future from the past.—(Cheers.) t t0,.41 Lord J. RUSSELL—He would not atteol,in P:,t but ts re H enc i te n n . At Gentleman I;I:laidi oi iphtteradt.i_o w n li o f iwsehpaarot.ke)ev whatever rowtii Whatever, o to e P - I rtvr.t