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

there have been I know not how many motions on the
subject. Lieutenant Trowbridge made an annual motion
on it for sixteen or seventeen years consecutively ; and
there are a great number of other men well known in
Parliament who have brought forward this subject from
time to time. It was brought on on the presentation of
the famous petition of the Friends of the People by the
late Lord Grey, then Mr. Grey ; and it has formeda
part of every great scheme of reform, with the single
exception of that which now exists.—(Hear, hear.) Now
this question is not open to the objections that are
made to some other branches of reform. It is no
innovation. On the first debate which took place on the
subject in 1793, it was said by Colonel Laword, " this Bill
takes care of our constitution; it does not innovate it !"
It was not an un-English or revolutionary measure, as
the ballot has been said to be, because it involved no
new principle. Now after this Bill has been passed
through all the branches of the Legislature, and has
endured as the law of the land, and that during the most
glorious part of our history, for twenty-two years, it is
no innovation, it is not un-English, because it was
brought forward and passed by some of the best English-
men that have ever lived.—(Hear, hear.) It is no revolu-
tionary measure because it involves no new principle. The
principle that there shall be a limit to the duration of
Parliaments, independently of the will of the Crown, is
now in full operation. Now, it is only a question of de-
gree; it is, in point of fact, a question whether you will
have a real or a sham representation; for I contend that
the Parliament which is not so fie quently elected as
that the Members of it should undergo continual—though
not a tyrannical—control from tie sir constituents, is
not, and cannot be, a real representation of the people.
It was said long ago in the old books, that it is better
that the King should rely on his people, than his Minis.
ters—not excepting the present Ministry—and that
is a sentiment which I cordially adopt. It is as
good in the. reign of Victoria as it was in the
reign of William and Mary.—(Hear, hear.) Let Gen-
tlemen only reflect on what is passing, and on what has
been passing in the last year and a half, on the conti-
nent, and let them ask themselves whether it is not of
the utmost importance that the Legislature should be a
full, fair, and real representation of the people. One
trembles when one thinks what evils and dangers await
the country, where those_who call themselves, or are
called, the representatives of the people, are not
really so. Look at what happened in France.
Louis Philippe had large majorities in his Cham-
bers of Deputies and of Peers, and yet those
; Chambers did not represent the people (Hear,
hear) and in a moment he was hurled from
his throne, and the country was thrown into anarchy and
confusion and left without a Government, because the
Legislature, instead of being a fair representation of the
people, was nothing but a delusion, a mockery, and a
snare.—(Cheers.) Now one argument against short
Parliaments is, that short Parliaments will occasion a
greater degree of expense, and one of the reasons for the
Septennial Act, as alleged in the preamble, was, that
larger sums were spent and greater heats and annimo-
sides occasioned by elections than had ever been known
before. Why, will any one contend that the heats, the
animosities, and the extravagant expenditure which oc-
curred during the twenty-two years of triennial Parlia-
ments, can be compared for one moment to either the
violence or the extravagance which has existed since,
under the Septennial Act? Did gentlemen ever then go
to that extravagant pitch of expenditure that we have
seen since? Was there then anything like the
violence and bloodshed which we have known even
in our times under the septennial Act? Do any gentle-
-1 men remember what has occurred with respect to different
elections, the enormous sums of money that have been
squandered in many cases to the ruin of great families,
who have for 50 years afterwards felt the consequences?
In 1768 there was a famous contest for the borough of
Northampton—not in one of the large constituencies of
the country, but for a moderate sized town. On that
election the influence of three Noble Lords was brought
to bear—the Earl of Northampton, the Earl of Halifax, and
Earl Spencer. Two of them spent 150,000 L each, and the
third 100,000Z—(Laughter.) There was 400,000 L spent
on a contested election for one borough, and that was
under the Septennial Act which was passed in order to
diminish the expenses at elections. There were two
reasons then for passing the Septennial Act; one was to
prevent the danger arising from the machinations of the
Pretender, and the other to diminish the expenses at
elections. The one has completely and entirely passed
away, and for the other the Septennial Act has proved
wholly inefficacious. I say, then, it is time to do away
with it. As to the expense being greater in shorter
Parliaments, I think it is doubtful whether that
would be the case ; but, perhaps, if you take
a term of 50 or 100 years, there would be more frequent
elections of the whole House, and larger sums of money
would be spent; but then it is not that large sums shall
be spent frequently, as that larger sums shall be spent
less often. Happily, the extravagance of elections has
now very much dimnished, but that cannot ha referred
to the Septennial Act. The improvement in this respect
is rather to be referred to the Reform Bill, which
shortened the duration of elections from fifteen days to
two, and then to one in boroughs ; and this is a
reason why we should remedy a contrary
state of things with respect to elections.
But it is not on the ground of economy that I support
this motion, and that I am anxious that it should be
passed, but on account of the impossibility as, I believe,
of without it obtaining a full, fair, and efficient repre-
sentation of the people. That is to be the desideratum
of all true reform. Without repeating the arguments
which were to be found in the debates of our ancestors
on this question, such as the well-known illustration of
the manna from heaven, let me ask Hon. Gentlemen if
they do not think men in general are more likely to do
their duty honestly and faithfully by their constituents if
they are elected for three years, or for more than three,
lat a time ? Have Lion. Gentlemen never seen such
things in their experience as a Meinber appearing on
the hustings and making all sorts of promises of what he
would do and of the votes he should give, and after-
wards find him act in a very different way, forgetting
perhaps those promises, perhaps remaining away on im-
portant divisions, perhaps actually voting against those
measures which he had promised to support, perhaps
preferring to the business of tbis House the amusements
of the chase or the battue, or travelling on the Conti-
nent, or going to the Derby—(A laugh)—or any other
amusement; and then, when he knew the time
when Parliament must be dissolved was approach-
ing, returning to this House and then perhaps, by
some flashy motion or speech, endeavour, and perhaps
succeed in winning back the good graces of his consti-
tuents, whose business he has during a length of time
abandoned ? Do not Hon. Gentlemen think they would
be much less likely to see such a spectacle during short
Parliaments than long ones? Have you not seen men
whose duty sits so lightly upon them, and whose con-
science is so easy as to adapt themselves to the wishes of
their constituents, when it suits their interest to do so ?
And would not such men also be disposed to vote against
the wishes of their constituents, and according to the
views of Ministers, when it may suit their views? I
know very well that the corruption which formerly ex-
isted has entirely passed away with regard to the
Members of this House. I know that formerly
Members used to receive bribes, and actually
money used to be paid to them for their votes. There
is no such thing now. [Mr. B. Osborne—There is a
Committee now inquiring into the practice of bribery.]
My Honourable Friend says there is a Committee sit-
ting to inquire into it; but I hope and trust that no such
thing does occur, and all I can say is, that I shall not
believe it until it be proved by any Member of this
House. Still Members may be influenced, for all that,
is various ways. We cannot say there is no danger at
all that the patronage exercised by the Government
shall exert any influence upon them.—(Hear, hear.)
That patronage, be it observed, has of late years very
much increased.—(Hear, hear.) We all know there
are Gallant Officers, in this House who may expect
appointments, or Hon Members may expect appoint-
ments for gallant gentlemen, their relatives ; there
are such things as appointing persons to ships ; gallant
officers sometimes are anxious—and are there not other
ships besides those at the disposal of the First Lord?
Are there not lordships, commonly called peerages ; are
there not baronetships, judgeships, inspectorships, con-
sulships, and clerkships innumerable? All these things
may certainly be supposed, and may at one time or other
have an influence which perhaps they would not have, if
Members were aware that they must very soon appear
before their constituents. But then, by shortening the
duration of Parliament, you in some degree interfere
with the prerogatives of the Crown. In former days it
has been objected that, by shortening Parliament, you
increased the prerogatives of the Crown. Now, it ap-
pears to me that the theory of the prerogative of dis-
solving is not that the Crown should have the means of
intimidating the Members of this House, and of saying
if yon don't vote the same way as my Ministers, if you
don't carry that measure brought forward by my Uovern-
ment, you shall be sent back to your constituents, and
put to the risk, annoyance, trouble, and expense of a
general election ; but it means that when the Crown has
a doubt whether the House does really represent the
wishes of the people or not, then that the Crown may
have the opportunity of dissolving, of ascer-
taining tho fact.—(Hear, hear.) If you shorten
the duration of Parliament the Crown will still
have that opportunity should it be required, and some-
times it is required in a very short space of time. Wil-
liam IV. dissolved a Parliament after it had endured
only nine months, supposing that it did not faithfully
represent the wishes of the people ; and certainly it
turned out that the supposition was well founded, because
the Parliament, which was afterwards elected, passed
that great measure of reform by a large majority which
the former Parliament had refused to pass.—(Hear.)
But the Sovereign, under the triennial system,
would have the opportunity of appealing to the
people whenever it was thought necessary, while at the
same time the people would have the opportunity of sig-
pitying their wishes every three years. It may be also
observed that as a Parliament elected for a short time is
much more likely to represent the wishes of the people
than a Parliament for a long time, it is much less likely
that the Crown will resort to this exercise of its preroga-
tive. I might also observe that short Parliaments appear
to be of consequence with regard to the'House of Lords.
I am not one of those who look upon that institution
with any degree of hostility ; I am for the
Constitution of England—Queen, Lords, and Commons;
and I would preserve to the two first branches of the
Legislature all their just rights, while I would make
this House prove the real representatives of the people.
The House of Lords are supposed to have what are
called more Conservative tendencies than this House ;
they are less disposed to change-, and have often incur-
red considerable odium for resisting measures which
this House has desired; and it is said that the House of
Lords has been frequently a clog on the wheels of the
State, when advancing in the path of improvement. I con •
fese for myself that I believe that that clog, or drag, is not
without its advantages, and often proves salutary. I
am, therefore, not disposed to 'object to the interference
of the House of Lords. ou measures about which I feel
most warmly, for I have observed that that House, when-
ever the House of Commons has declared its opinion, or

contended for any length of time in a decided manner, so
as to show what are the wishes -of the people, the House
of Lords, as experience shos4, has never continued its
opposition to the wishes of the people. But this
House does not really represent the people. Now as to
the term which Parliament ought to endure, I am not
wrong in supposing that my Hon. Friend wants tore- enact
triennial Parliaments; but the motion is not for that ;
the terms of the motion are for leave to bring in a Bill
to repeal the Septennial Act, and to shorten the duets-
don of Parliament. I apprehend, therefore, that all
Gentlemen who think that seven years is too long a
term, may, and ought to vote, with my Right Hon.
Friend. If there be any Member who think that five years
is a better term than seven, he will vote with my Right
Hon. Friend; but I apprehend that the people in general
—at least, I speak for myself—will think that the old
system, which was the law of the land so long—which
was adopted by our ancestors immediately after the
revolution, is the term which it is best to adopt. Some
Hon. Gentlemen may be for a still shorter term, for
annual Parliaments. I don't know whether there are a
great many such in this House, but I would say to
those Honourable Gentlemen vote for this motion,
if you are for annual Parliaments, for it is a step
towards that which you want, and after that, if 3 ou can
bring forward a good argument in 3 our favour, that a
Parliament elected for three years would be quite as
likely to pass your measure as auy one in the present
system. But I don't suppose that there are many
Gentlemen who will prefer annual to triennial Parlia-
ments, although the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government is one, because last year, when my Hon.
Friend the Member for Montrose brought forward
his motion for a reform in Parliament, the Noble
Lord declared it as his • opinion that annual
would be better than triennial Parliaments. I don't
think though that was " open," that it was "advised
speaking"—(A laugh)—oil,the part of the Noble Lord;
and I think if it came to st'evote on the two I should
have his support of the proposition for a longer term.
But I think that three year` is the limit which would
always secure the continuer-control of the people over
their representatives, at the (pine time that it is long
enough to allow him to recover from the fever
and excitement consequent on a general elec-
tion. I, therefore, should be for triennial Parliaments.
How triennial Parliaments would be supported, I do not
know; of course not by those who are against all re-
form, and who take to the measure of reform which we
have because they cannot help it.—(A laugh) Neither
by those, who having voted for the Reform Bill, think
we have got quite enough of it, and now sail under the
flag of finality. Nor do I know how the Government
will meet this measure. It must be considered doubtful,
for the Ncble Lord at the head of the Government has
vacillated se much during his political life on this ques-
tion, that he may be said fairly to have " boxed
the compass upon it."—(Laughter.) First of all
my Noble Friend declared himself in favour of triennial
Parliaments; he would vote for any measure that would
limit the duration of Parliaments for three years; and then,
when the Reform Bill was brought on, though triennial
Parliaments certainly formed no part of that measure, but
the mode in which the Noble Lord referred to that subject,
in bringing on that measure, was such as that any man
might consider him as holding out an intimation that if
any independent Member of Parliament proposed such
a measure, the Noble Lord would not be averse
to it, although he did not think it proper
to make it part of his great scheme. In 1833 came the
motion of my Right Hon. Friend. The Noble Lord op-
posed it in the most violent terms, declaring that "it
was incompatible with the maintenance of the
Constitution and the stability of the monar-
chy." Afterwards, in 1834, he contented himself
with giving a silent vote against it; and in 1837 be
thought the country did not require the change; and
last year, on the motion of my Hon. Friend the Member
for Montrose, he said sooner than triennial Parliaments
he would have annual Parliaments.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I was against both.
Lord DUDLEY STUAIa—I knew the Noble Lord
had said he was against- , but the impression left
on the public mind has n that be preferred annualA
to triennial Parliements it made a great impression
1415
on the country. Now, I uld appeal to all those who
are in favour of progres ' reform, to those who wish
i
to see this country goy ds- not by a faction, but by
jlt
public opinion—who wish to carry out the spirit of the
Reform Bill—who wish to destroy all abuses in the
Church, in the army, in the representation of the peo-
ple, and in every other department. I would appeal
to men of all descriptions to vote for the
repeal of the Septennial Act, for that repeal
which has been demanded by the people for
upwards of 100 years—which has always been understood
to Corm part of every great scheme of reform—which
has been advocated by a Chatham, a Pitt, a Fox, is
Romilly, and a Macintosh—which is not revolutionary
which is no innovation—which interferes with no
other measure of reform, but, on the contrary, promotes
and completes all the others, and which, more than any
other single measure that can be named, by placing this
House in constant harmony with the people, tends to the
security of the Crown and the well-being of all orders
of the natior.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I consider this as, in effect, a
motion for shortening the duration of Parliament to
three years. The Right Honourable Genntleman who
made the motion admitted that such was his object ;
though he said, if Government wished to propose the
term of five years, he would accede to such a propo-
sition, but that he did not mean to remove from the
grounds he had taken, and which he considered the
ancient constitutional grounds, for supporting triennial
Parliaments. There is, certainly, no reason why this
question should not be very calmly discussed. My
Right Hon. Friend says, very truly, there is not much
agitation in the public mind on the subject; and though
my Noble Friend who seconded the motion says that
persons in omnibuses, steam-boats, and other modes of
public conveyance—(A laugh)—find fault with the ex-
isting state of affairs, I doubt if they will be found
to say they wish the duration of Parliament short-
ened. As regards the general expression of discontent
to which my Voble Friend refers, I confess I do not—
and I have betn long us. a this country, attach much
importance tte usual_ '
~, •ssions that there is much
to be found faith i„.•• 1 •h to be amended. Ire-lp
member an E ishm ' ""‘ , •miderable talent, who had
passed much of his life
,1,,' ,Z!, used to observe that if a
man on coming to thii . . were to shut his eyes and
open his ears, be woakl- ye it to be one of the most
miserable nations in ' nice, but that if he were to
take the other course, telPfte his eyes and shut his ears,
he would think it one Of We happiest in the world.—(A
laugh.) Such is the disposition of this country, and I
for one believe it to be one from which a great deal of
improvement flows, and which has caused great anmend-
ments to take place. My Hon. Friend says that, owing
to the want of general excitement with respect to this
particular subject, be has not made the motion
for the last twelve years, and implied a sort of threat
that it his motion were rejected he would not again bring
it forward for a similar period. I confess I think be
takes a very prudent and wise course, and trusting, as I
do, that he will not be in the majority to-night, I hope
he will allow 12 years to pass before he brings it, calmly
and ably as he has done, under the coesideration of the
House.—(Laughter.) The Right Honourable Gentle-
man and my Noble Friend went into the history of the
duration of Parliaments, and spoke of the ancient Par-
liaments not existing usually above one year. But the
reason of this is tolerably obvious, and does not well sup-
port the motion now before the House. In those more
ancient days persons did not consider a seat in this House
an object of ambition, as it is now—they did not desire
Co be taken from their business and occupations, and ,
were very glad when another session was to be held

and when the burdens of representing cities and borough;
were to be imposed on others. He said it was the
object at the time of the Revolution to have new
Parliaments, but he should bear in mind that though new
Parliaments were held to be desirable, that which was
desired above all things was, that there thould be inter-
mission between each Parliament, and accordingly in the
Act to which he refers—the Triennial Act—there is one
of the principal clauses to provide that if Parliament
should be dissolved another should be called within three
years at the latest. I think that was the grievance
against which our ancestors thought it necessary to
provide—a grievance with which we are not at all likely
to be afflicted at the present time, owing to a variety of

circumstances. However, it is quite trite that it was

enacted in 1694 new Parliaments should be nominated

every three years. That was the great object of the
popular party at the time, and one to which King
William was brought to consen t with very great difficulty,
but after an experience of 21 years we find the very
party instrumental in carrying that measure make com-
plaints of its operation ; and in this respect my Bight
Honourable Friend bas scarcely given full
weight to the complaints in the preamble of the
Septennial Act. The framers of the Act not only tsate
that expenses at elections had become greater, but that
more " violent and lasting heats and animosities between
the subjects of this realm had been occasioned than were
ever before known, by the triennial clause." Now this,
I think, might be very well the case with triennial Par-
liaments then, and might be the case if you establish
them once more. You find not only that there were
gwroeualtde r
be m o expensesre continuous,
net
ilnecutoi elections,
bbecuatusteh,atbetihneg expenses
frequent
elections, persons interested in them would have to keep
up the registries at a continual expenditure. Such, then,
is the result of experience as to triennial Parliaments,
and these were the grounds for the change, so far as the
present long duration of Parliament is concerned. There
was a part of the Bill which made this permanent change.
There was another part which provided that the
then existing Parliament should continue. The
:reason for the latter was temporary, that excite-
ment was created in the country by the
Jacobite party, which was endeavouting to restore the
house of Stuart. For the temporary evil this was the

temporary remedy; while the permanent alteration was
introduce d for two permanent reasons, which are found
expressed in the preamble. You have the question be-
fore you tested by the experience of that of which our
ancestors tried the effect, the very measure which they
rejected, but you now recommend. They found it to be
noxious and injurious, and came to the conclusion that
the law should be altered. There are, I think, other
considerations on this subject which ought to have very
great weight. My Right Hon. Friend who makes the
motion asks me it I am now prepared to state that seven
years is the best term for the duration of Parliaments.
After the experience we have now had for a good many
years since the passing of the Reform Bill I can state
that my decided opinion is that we ought not to
alter the duration of Parliaments. It you had
triennial Parliaments, even if your proposition were
literally carried into effect, which would not likely be
the case, I think you would find, and those
who have had recent experience will say whether or
not I am right in observing that you would find during
the first session of such a House of Commons a great
deal of time wasted from the want of experience among
a number of Members, ftoui the prolongation of debates

unnecessarily by Members anxious to take part in the
deliberations of Parliament, but who had hitherto not
had seats. In the third session there would, on the
other hand, be an indisposition to decide anything which
might have an effect on the approaching elections. The
time would be lost in the first year by the want of ex-
perience, and in the last year by looking too earnestly
to the new elections. I would ask whether within the
last few years reasons have appeared which should lead
us to suppose that it is of more importance than in the
times of our ancestors that Parliaments should be trien-
nial? If you compare the number of measure before
them with the extent of that immense em-
pire whose affairs we deliberate upon, speak-
ing one day of affairs in India, another day
of affairs in Canada, another day of affairs at home,
and discussing whether our commercial policy is
sound in all respects, a great part of our time consider-
ing affairs in Ireland, and debating various questions of
administration and legislation, you will see that you can
hardly attach too much importance to the consideration
that this ought to be a House of practical business, reaelv
to undertake the business before them es men used to
transaction of business, and able to decide on the great
and important questions on which the welfare ot the
country depends without fear of their constituents. But
I admit, and freely, that these advantages would be dearly
bought if you found that the opinions of constituents and
of the public at large did not sufficiently influence the opi-
nions of Members of this House. Considering the experi-
ence I have had of this House since the Reform Bill, my
opinion is that there is that general attention to the opi-
nions and wishes of constituents and of the public which
leads me to believe that the opinions of constituents
and of the public have as much influence as they
ought to have on the opinions and votes of Members of
this House, and that it you carried it much further you
would find Members, instead of voting for measures
which they thought for the public geed, deferring in too
many instances to some temporary and transitory passion
prevailing among the body of the electors. Many in-
stances I have seen in which Members have voted against
what appeared to be the opinion of their constituents,
and yet when, a year or so afterwards, they had to test
the opinions of these constituents, many of those who
have come to the conclusion
wrong
and properly discharged their
t
ey
entrusted them with the same
ttfhhunaotcu duties,tgit ehil hdiebnmha tdah mostve
we
o againt
fullestwhirl confidence that they would dis-
charge these functions for the public benefit. The
Bill with respect to the College of Maynooth, pro-
posed about three years ago, is an instance
to be referred to in illustration. Greater clamour
has seldom been raised against a measure than
against that Bill. Innumerable letters were received
by Members of this House (myself among the
rest), threatening that, it they persisted, they would
never again obtain support from those who wrote the
letters. But the Bill went on. The Members of this
House did their duty. I believe they did right in voting
for that Bill; and they voted for it notwithstanding the
public clamour. They might anticipate that, in due
time being given for reflection, public opinion would in
the end come to the conclusion that the measure Ras a
right and wire measure, and that the Members of this
House had done their duty in supporting it. But 1
will not say such would be the case if you so shorten
the duration of Parliament, that in the knowledge that
every three years there is to be an election, those
persons who are disposed to spread about exaggerated
reports with respect to the effect of measures before
Parliament shall be encouraged to excite a public
feeling
res.
against those who have supported par-
ticularl doubt whether Members
would be able to discharge their duties as they
have been accustomed to discharge them. With respect
to another part of the question, my Right Hon. Friend
argues that there are greater means of corruption in
long Parliaments than in short Parliaments. He did not
give any reason for that opinion. I do not myself be-
lieve, considering the force of public opinion at this time,
that the influence of the Crown under any Administra-
tion of late years has prevailed to an extent dangerous to
the independence of Parliament. But it the question
were, with whom it was likely to prevail most, it might
be found that those who, being placed for a short time
in this House, might obtain the patronage of the Crown,
would be more likely to be influenced than those Mem-
bers who had been elected for a longer period, and who
had experience of repeated refusals and disappointments
I certainly have come to the conclusion that there is no
reason for disturbing the present Act with respect
to the duration of Parliament. Whether it
would be wise or not, supposing the ques-
tion now open, to settle upon six years—for that
is the actual time—as the period which shall be the
think it hardly necessary to give an opinion. Whether
precise duration of Parliament, is a matter oyneawrshicdhoesl
I certainly
nyootu
appear h a v e
a actuallyma tte
rfi voef y
ge arresa
to ri
m actuallyporta n sei.x
thought at one time that five years was the better period.
I don't remember, though my Right Hon. Friend says
so, that I was in favour of three years. I certainly was
of
think opinionther thate is
any five
which should merely diminish by one year the duration
suyffieacrisen wouldt
so
of Parliaments. I believe that, practically, a duration of
rea b
reason for
better.
making But
a I
change
six years, which is not constantly the duration, but the
duration to which Parliaments may extend, is a duration
which is not excessive. It is not a constant duration;
for from 1826 to 1841 six Parliaments were held,
having an average duration ot from two-and•a-half
to three years. If you much diminish the duration of
Parliaments—if you diminish it to three years—
you do curtail the prerogative of the Crown,
which in certain cases, on the numbers on each aide
being equally balanced, or when the majority has op-
posed the ordinary supplies or the ordinary measures of
Government, enables the Crown to take the decision of
the peaple. Of course you curtail that prerogative to a
considerable extent when you restrict the duration of
Parliament to a much shorter period than the law now
permits. My Right Hon. Friend remarks that we have
a different duration ot Parliament from other countries,
and that, looking into other Constitutions in Europe, we
cannot find any one which provides for a duration of
seven years it the case of a Representative Assem-
bly, and that five and four years are the more frequent
limits prescribed for the duration of popular assem-
blies. With great deference to my Right Honours, le
Friend, I am not disposed to quarrel with those new Con-
stitutions of other countries. We have seen monarchy
in France overthrown. We have seen the advisers of
the Crown in that country exposed to violent popular
disapprobation, and the Throne itself perish beneath the
ruins of that general convulsion. But we have seen,
likewise, that the form of government which has suc-
ceeded has; not established itself in popular opinion, and
that those who, with the most brilliant talents and the
most unquestioned integrity, have declared themselves
favourers of the form of government thus established,
have fallen themselves within these few days under the
displeasure of the same popular opinion which over-
turned the monarchy. When in other countries we see
all Government disturbed and broken—constitutions
voted which are never put in force—constitutions which
have long existed overthrown, and cast in the dust—
men seeking for some form of government to which they
can attach themselves—for some leader who is worthy to
guide them—l find no fault with those who, exposed to
such storms, are seeking for better forms of political
government ; the imperfect forms under which
they have long lived may have rendered ne-
cessary such struggles -_may have awakened
doubts, may have made such lamentable contests inevit-
able; but I rejoice that we ourselves have long ago
passed through such contests ; and I for one am not
prepared to imitate any part of those constitutions which
I see so little trusted, which are still so uncertain, which
are still so little likely to endure. Far from me be the
sentiment that it is agreeable to stand on the shore and
see others labouring in the depths, to behold the storm
without having any part in the danger ; but, on the
other side, when I see that storm rising, when I see
other barques labouring under the effects of the winds and
waves, I am not prepared to launch my 'vessel into the
same ocean to be exposed to the same perils. My Right
Honourable Friend must, therefore, excuse me if I
am disposed at this time, whatever I might be at an-
other, rather to cling to the security and to the
advantages we have, than be caught by the prospect he
holds out to me, when he tells me that other nations
have no laws similar to those which he wishes us to
change. I conclude, as I concluded on a former occa-
sion, by opposing my Right Hon. Friend's motif n. I
don't think the duration of Parliament, as at present
fixed, too long. I think that public opinion has a very
great and a sufficient influence on Members of this
House, and that if you made elections so exceedingly
frequent as my Right Hon. Friend proposes, you would
lose much on the ground of public security, much on
the ground of habits of' business, much on the ground
of stability of councils and due deliberation on mea-
sures; and you would not gain, in respect of public li-
berty, anything to countervail the disadvantages I have
stated.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD did not think it would be worth
while to alter the law merely for the purpose of shorten-
ing the duration of Parliaments to five years; but,
understanding that the object of the Right Honourable
Member for Lambeth was to reduce the duration of Par-
liaments to three years,
he should vote for the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The announcement of the numbers was followed by
loud cheers.

TBE WORKING CLASSES.
Mr: SLANEY then moved the appointment of a
standing Committee, or unpaid Commission, to consider
and report from time to time on practical measures
(unconnected with political changes) likely to improve
the condition of the working classes, to encourage their
industry, and increase their contentment. He had not
to apprehend opposition or contradiction from the
House at that moment. What he had rather to dread
was, that Hon. Members would quietly and silently steal
forth from that liouse, and leave him with so small an
audience that he should be counted out. If such
were to be his fate, he trusted a good cause would
procure for him a hearing en some future occasion.
But, if he were permitted to proceed, he should ob-
serve that the improvement in the condition of the
working classes had not kept pace with the improve-
ments in the condition of the more opulent classes.
With respect to the peasantry, the Parliamen-
tary committees of 1317 and or 1819 reported that
abuses prevailed in many of the southern counties. And
the same result was shown from the proceedings of the
Committee of 1824 on labourers' wages, over which the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government presided.
He then referred to the reports of a Parliamentary Com-
mittee of 1830 and a Commission of 1833, tor additional
evidence of the unsatisfactory and neglected condition of
the agricultural labourers, which he said led them to
commit acts of outrage in the southern counties. Then
was passed the stringent law of 1835, which had slowly
effected some improvement in the agricultural districts.
The evils which that law was intended to remove had
been admitted to exist for 20 years before the remedy
wits applied. That could not have happened if there had