The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-23 00:00:00

"...c.c. '4"
i(11 ~" 1") itll4
/S/ •

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 23, 1836.

The absence of Lord JOIIN RUSSELL prevented
Mr. WAKLEY from bringing forward his motion for
the Repeal of the Septennial Act last night. Had it
been the intention of Ministers to oppose the motion,
we question whether a Member of the Cabinet would
have pleaded such a plea in justification of postpone-
ment. Be this as it may, Ministers have not yet
committed themselves ; and, before doing so, we regard
it as our duty to remind them, that any opposition to
the principle of the abridgement of the duration of
Parliaments, will be deemed, on their part, an act of
political apostacy. The leaders of the Cabinet have
obtained a lasting celebrity for the decisiveness of their
opinions upon this subject ; and the season for carrying
these opinions into hill effect is most propitious. We
know that the Whigs have been taunted with having
passed the Septennial Act, which but for them never
would have had an existence. We do not blame them for
passing it—we blame them for not repealing it, when the
circumstances which rendered the passing of it necessary
to the peaceable accession of the House of Bruns-
wick to the Throne of these realms had passed away.
Those who are acquainted with the history of the last
years of ANNE'S reign, must know that the QUEEN
did all in her power to effect the accession of her bro-
ther upon her own demise ; and that the Septennial
Act was passed for the express purpose of keeping the
Tories, then the devoted adherents of the PRETENDER,
out of Parliament. It suited the temper of those times
to extol the popular enthusiasm in favour of the House
of Brunswick, and to represent the House of Stuart
as detested by all but a few discontented intriguing
Peers. But such was not the truth ; and in reality,
but for the timely passing of the Septennial Act, it is
very possible that GEORGE I. would have died Elec-
tor of Hanover, instead of adding to his hereditary
honours the regality of Great Britain and Ireland.
The passing of the Septennial Act was certainly
a violent stretch of Parliamentary power, and could
only be justified by absolute necessity. But before
the accession of the House of STUART it was not
the long duration of Parliaments, but the absence of
Parliaments, that was apprehended as dangerous by
the people. So early as the reign of EDWARD 111,
an Act was passed (4 Ed. 111., c. 14), by
which it is ordained and appointed " that Par-
liaments shall be holden every year, or oftener,
if need be"—the absence of a Parliament and not the
duration of its sitting being then the only evil appre-
hended. The first Bill for Triennial Parliaments was
passed in 1641. By that Act—one of the most judi-
cious of the Long Parliament—it was provided and
ordained that every Parliament was to be ipso facto
dissolved at the expiration of three years from the
commencement of its Session, unless actually sitting
at the time, and then on its first adjournment or pro-
rogation. The Keeper of the Great Seal was to take
an oath to issue writs for a new Parliament within
three years from the dissolution of the last, under pain
of disability to hold his office, and such other punish-
ment as the Commons might adjudge him to. In the
event of his non-compliance, the Peers were to as-
semble and issue writs to the Sheriffs ; and should
their Lordships neglect to do so, after a certain number
of days, it was lawful for the Electors to meet of their
own accord, and choose Representatives, who were to
possess the same powers and privileges, to all intents
and purposes, as if chosen in compliance with the
Chancellor's writ. It will be easily perceived, . that
the expedients here laid down to ensure the meeting of
Parliament, are levelled against the arbitrary exaction
of ship-money, and other imposts levied without con-
sent of the Commons ; and that the abuses which
they proposed to remedy can never again distract the
peace, and peril the security, of this country. It is not
a little singular that the Parliament which passed this
Act continued to sit without intermission for thirteen
years, and in the end was dissolved by violence !
It is not surprising that the Restoration swept away
every trace of the salutary measures passed during the
first two years of the Long Parliament. In the ex