The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-09 00:00:00

with those who thought annual Parliaments desirable. Ile
thought that the duration of Parliament ought to he
fixed at three years ; that it ou_Ott not to exceed nor fall
short of that period ; and that it should not be in the
power of a Ministry to dissolve it when they 1;e1e(1.
called Lyon the Noble Lord to give his consent to the pre-
sent motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said teat, having oa a fortwr o-;:-
casion stated his opinions on this subject at eousid-rald.•
length, he did not feel it necessary to do more that' hrieil.
to state the views he eatertained with respect to the pre-
sent motion. It had been stated that, in bringing fin-ward
the Reform Bill, he (Lord J. Russell) had said, with re-
spect to the shortening of the duration of Parliaments, that
it was a subject that might be considered at a fame
time ; but another sentence which he had used on the
same occasion had not been quoted, for, at the time,
he had expressed a hope that the House would come to
no decision with respect to the duration of Parliatw.mts
which would have the effect of taking away tile stability
of our Legislature. Another expression of his had also
been quoted, to the effect that he considered seven years
unnecessarily long, and that he thought the duration
of five years a speculative question preferable to a duration
of seven years. With that opinion it might he expected
that he would agree to the present motion, and that he
would go into Committee on the Bill with those who enter
tained opinions in favour of three years or any other term,
leaving it for discussion in Committee on the Bill whether
the blank should be filled up with three or with five years.
Ile did not think thA that would be a discreet course for
the House to pursue. If any alteration was to be made,
it should be made with respect to some di,tinct and spe-
cified period. But would five years be likely to satisfy
those who asked for this change ? It appeared to him that
whatever opinion was felt in favour of such a change, it was
more in favour of a change to three than to five years.
The Hon. Member for Middlesex had said, would any pri-
vate individual entrust his affairs to another without the
power to call him to account for seven years : but if that
argument was good for any thing, it was equally strong
with respect to three yearf. The Hon. seconder of the
motion had said that the people had a right to have Par-
liaments of any particular duration. He (Lord John
Russell) thought that the analogy drawn from the Par-
liaments of ancient times was as little applicable to the
Parliaments of the present time as the argument of
the Honourable Member for Middlesex with respect to the
management of the private affairs of an individual. The
time of Edward the Third, when the knights and burges-
ses came up, was as unlike to the complicated and various
business of the present time as could possibly be. Much of
the argument in favour of the repeal of the Septennial Act
was grounded on the violation charged against the authors
of it. He was rather surprised to hear the period of the
passing of the Septennial Act called the worst period of
our history. He considered the period of the accession of
the House of Hanover to have been a period when a free
Government gave additional security, and when the pre-
tensions of the House of Stuart were finally set aside. The
authors of the Septennial Act had fully stated in the pre-
amble the grounds on which that measure wes passed. It
was not an Act of temporary necessity ; but, whether or
not, that could have no influence on opinion at the present
time. But if the Parliament that preceded the Septen-
nial Parliament had a right to say that Parliament should
last three years, had not the succeeding Parliament a right
to say that it should continue for seven years ? When it
\ was stated that the Triennial Parliaments had been found
productive of greats " heats and animosities," and had led
to "great expense," were they prepared to recur to that
system? One of the consequences of a greater duration
was to attach greater influence and authority to the Com-
mons' House of Parliament.--( Hear, hear.) If there
were two bodies—one always continuity, to exist, and
another existing only a short time, the body which always
continued in existence would possess more weight. Pre-
vious to the Septennial Act those who took the lead were
Members of the House of Peers. The effect of the
Septennial Act was to give increased importance to the
House of Commons. After the Septennial Act most of
those who took a leading part in the affairs of the country
were for the greater part in the House of Commons. He
did not believe that there was a general wish in the public
mind in favour of this change. They had already effected
a great change in the Constitution when they passed the
Reform Act. In proposing the Reform Bill he had said
with respect to the question of shortening the duration of
Parliaments, and the question of the ballot, that they were
questions which might be considered at a future time.
But with respect to the present question he certainly had
stated that his opinions were not in favour of any change
to triennial Parliaments. He thought it would be much
better that they should devote their attention to practical
questions—that they should apply themselves to questions
which more immediately affected the interests of the coun-
try and the condition of the people, and in so doing they
would employ themselves more usefully for the public than
in attempting to effect a change in the duration of Perna-

ments.
Mr. WAKLEY said that from the speech of the Noble
Lord it was quite clear that the duration of Parliaments
would continue the same as long as the people allowed them
to remain so. It was quite clear that in order to have the
desired change they must have the pressure from without.
The Septennial Act was passed for a particular object,
which was not required now ; but there would always be
abundance of excuses found for its continuance. The
Noble Lord seemed to be of opinion that the people did
not desire that the Act should be repealed. He thought
that the Noble Lord would entertain a very different opi-
nion before this day twelve months. He thought that the
Noble Lord ought not to forget what was passing at this
moment in the immediate neighbourhood of this House.
The aristocracy of the district in which that House was
situated was at that moment canvassing and using every
possible effort to return to that House a man who had
pledged himself to annual Parliaments, universal suffrage,
and vote by ballot.—( Loud cheers.) That was the very
course they were following. He had never seen the Lords
working so industriously for the return of a Radical Re-
former to that House.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) The
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said that he would yield his
consent to any measure that would restrict the duration of
Parliament to three years.—(" No, no !" from Lord J.
Russell.) He begged the Noble Lord's pardon, he mizun-
derstood him. His object in rising was to show that they
had the power in their own hands to have either triennial
or septennial Parliaments. When he was elected, nearly
three years ago, he made a promise that at the end of
three years he would resign, as, being friendly to triennial
Parliaments ; he wished to give them a proof of his sin-
cerity.—(A laugh.) He should resign. Ho should not go
before his constituents and say that if his conduct had not
satisfied them during the time he was in the House he
would resign. He would adopt no course of that kind.
He .would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, and walk out.
—(A laugh.) He would tell the Conservatives of Fins-
bury that this was his determination, and he only hoped
that they would have a fair battle. It depended upon the
people themselves whether they should have triennial Par-
liaments or not. He hoped they would take advantage of
the discussion that night.
Mr. ROEBUCK—The Noble Lord opposed this mo-
tion because it would affect the stability of Parliament.
Now he would wish to see a Bill brought in to secure the
stability of Parliament by enacting that Parliament should
exist for three years—no more nor no less. He thought
that Parliament should be dissolved at a stated period, and
that when elected again it should not be in the power of the
King or any one else to dissolve it until it had completed
a term of three years. They would then have no instabi-
lity. The Parliament would depend' for its existence on
no act of individual will, but upon the law. That was the
sort of Legislature which existed in the United States of
America. He would vote for the motion as one step to-
wards that stability which lie felt to be desirable, and he
hoped the time would come when the existence of Parlia-
ment would be dependent on the law alone, and not on the
Crown nor on the will of any Ministry.
The House then divided, and the numbers were_
Against the motion
96
For the motion
87
Majority against the motion 9
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for
The House to resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that before the Speaker left
the Chair he wished to suggest an opinion on the subject of
this Bill. lie must say that the state of destitution that ex-
isted in Ireland was exceedingly underrated in this Bill.
He never knew an instance of such a complete falsification
of evidence as that which arose in Mr. Nicholl's report. He
had declared that in the present state of destitution in Ire
land anything like adequate relief would amount to a confis-
cation of property, whilst the present provision was not
only not desirable, but would lead to increasing irritation.
Having to select between them, he had made up his mind
for confiscation, and not for increasing irritation, and there-
fore he must state that he would not oppose this Bill. lie
felt it his duty to express his opinion that the relief must be
more extensive, or they had better have no relief at all.
Mr. SHELL saw there was to be another rate imposed
upon the people of Ireland before the tithe question was
settled. They had now for three years resisted the pav-
mou of tithes.—(Hear, hear.)—Oat the Ist of November
there would be four years to pay. Was it intended by the
Legislature to impose a new tax upon the people of Ireland
before the adjustment of the tithe question ? He felt
public opinion was pronounced, and irrevocably pronounced,
upon the subject of an Irish Poor-law.—( Hear.) But
whit() lap felt quite convinced that a Poor-rate must be
Imposed, he was most anxious that the tithe question
should be settled before the rate was imposed upon lie-
land,—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.) It must be manifest to
everybody who knew anything of the Constitution of
this country, that where the wals of the peoPlet already by