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

tke House of Commons in 1734, and supported by Mr.
Pulteney and others, which motion was rejected in a
gouge of more than 400 Members, by a majority of
only sixty-three. The Septennial Act continued
to produce so much mischief, and excited so strong
a feeling in the public mind against it, that at length
a. cry was raised for a general reform of Parliament, and
the question of shortening the duration of Parliaments
became emerged in that of a general reform in the re-
presentation of the people. The reform which was con-
ainded for consisted of two branches, the one being the
amendment of the representation of the people, and the '
other being an increase of the responsibility of Members
by more frequent Parliaments. The declaration of the
"Friends of the People," with Lord Grey at their head,
recognised this as the legitimate division. Well, in
March, 1831, his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell), on
introducing the Reform Bill, knowing that the whole
nation expected both branches of reform to be embraced
by that Bill, thought it needful to explain that the
question of the shorter duration of Parliaments had
been considered by his Majesty's Ministers, but
that upon the whole they thought it would
tse better to leave it to be brought before the
House by any Member who might choose to take it up,
than to bring it in at the end of a Bill regulating matters
totally distinct. (The Right Hon. Member here read
the passage in the Noble Lord's speech relating to this
subject.) The friends of short Parliaments, though na-
turally disappointed at the omission of that branch of
reform from the Bill, felt much consoled by the prospect
of having it discussed by itself at a future time. He
(Mr. T. D'Eyncourt) accordingly brought the question
forward in 1833, again in 1834, and again in 1837. The
Noble Lord opposed the motion on all those occasions;
but he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had never had the benefit of
the Noble Lord's opinion whether he really thought
seven years a fit term for the duration of Parliament or
not. All the opinion the Noble Lord had given was that
he would not vote for his motion, because it did not state
the term to which Parliaments should be shortened. His
(Mr. D'Eyncourt's) answer had always been that he was
willing to leave that point to the decision of the House
itself, but that if forced to name a term, he should of
necessity adopt that which bad been sanctioned by the
constitution previously. Would the Noble Lord tell
him whether he agreed in that epinion?—(Hear.) In
13.33 his motion was rejected by a majority of only 49.
In point of fact, it was lost by the weight of the Admi-
nistration—because, but for the votes of the Ministry and
its adherents, his motion would have been carried. He
begged the House to notice, also, that his motion was
not met by a direct negative, but merely by the previous
question. In 1834 his motion was rejected by a majority
of 50, and in 1837 by a majority of only nine.—(Hear,
hear.) The question had remained in that position till
the present moment. The House might rely upon it, how-
ever, that the absence of petitions and the want of public
meetings out of doors to urge the question upon the at-
tention of Parliament afforded no evidence whatever of
the want of interest in this question on the part of the
public. The question was one upon which interest was
always felt, and which would continue to be urged upon
the House at all times of public excitement, until at
length they might be forced to consider it under circum-
stances which might be painful to deal with. They
would therefore do more wisely to consider it now, be•
fore any such painful necessity arose.—(Cries of " Hear,
bear.") He asked how it was possible to ascertain public
opinion clearly and satisfactorily unless by means of
frequent elections? New questions of importance must
always arise within the course of three or four years,
upon which there could not possibly have been any pre-
vious understanding between representatives and their
constituencies, and when this happened, as it frequently
did, the consequencetwas that many constituencies under
the present system were unrepresented, if not absolutely
misrepresented, with regard to such questions. If the
House wished to secure a universal feeling of agreement
between the Crown and the people, there was no means
so sure of effecting this as frequent Parliaments. By
these means they would at once increase the confidence
of the people in their representatives, and diminish the
corruption and influence which were at present almost
unavoidably and imperceptibly exercised by Go-
vernment over Members. There was no other country
in Europe which had so long Parliaments as we had.
Why should we be behind other countries? If the Noble
Lord should say he was in favour of five years as a good
and wholesome term, so far as he (Mr. D'Eyncourt)
was individually concerned he should be perfectly ready
to concur; but, until he heard some proposition of that
kind from a high authority, he would not compromise
the constitutional demand for triennial Parliaments. The
Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to,
bring in a Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART—I rise, Sir, to second the
motion that has been made by my Right Hon. Friend. I
consider this subject, Sir, one of the most important that
can be discussed by this House, and I am well satisfied
that it is ene which the people out of doors feel a desire
shall be discussed and carried. This is a subject which
has claimed the attention of the House on former occa-
sions, and one on which the House has heard many able
arguments. But, perhaps, it has never been discussed
precisely under the same circumstances, and therefore
there is room to hope that, although it has not been
carried formerly, it may now find favour with the
House; and I am sure that the House by passing it into
a law would find favour with the country at large.—
(Hear, hear.) Upon former occasions when. this ques-
tion was brought forward—and it has been brought for-
ward again and a;ain ever since the Septennial Act
passed, previous to the time when the Reform Bill
was enacted—it was said and felt that by
shortening the duration of Parliament and
repeating the frequency of the appeal to the people,
constituted es Parliament then was, was to do nothing
but to make a reference to an oligarchy ; and, since the
great Parliamentary Reform Bill has been carried,
whenever it was proposed to enact short Parliaments,
we were always met by the appeal that a great change
has just been made, give it time to work, give it a fir
trial, and do not produce any additional alteration.
That argument cannot be used now. I admit that it
was an argument immediately after the passing of the
Reform Bill. I felt it b 0 much, that when my Right
lion. Friend first brought forward this question, I did
not vote with him; I remained absent, and gave no vote,
because I thought I would wait to see what would be
the effect of that great measure of reform on the coun-
try. But now sixteen or seventeen years have passed
away since that great measure—that great and peaceful
revolution in the country—was carried. I ask, Hon.
Members, do you think that the people are satisfied with
the system under which we now live? Do you think
that system is so perfect that there is no objection to it,
and that it is looked upon by the people at large with
entire satisfaction? I do not know what may be thought
of it in the saloons and ball-rooms of this great metro-
polis, or in another place not far off, or, perhaps, on that
race-course to which some honourable Gentlemen are
so anxious to hasten to-morrow, to the disregard of the
public business of the country; but I ask you to converse
with the people on railway s, in omnibuses, and steam-
house; to gi) among the middle and trading classes of the
community and the people at large, and see, whether
the people are satisfied with the constitution of Parlia-

ment as it now exists. I think, then, the argument
which has been ren.wed, that we have made a great
change and that we ought to give it time to work, can-
not now be used, because there has been time, and
the system has been tried.—(Hear.) There has
been a great deal of controversy whenever this questiun
has been brought forward as to whether frequent Par-
liaments were conwitutional or not. Until the reign of
Henry VIIL no Parliament was prorogued, and previous
to that there were instances where there occurred one
general election every year. For a long time the danger
was, not that dissolutions should not be frequent
enough, but that there should not be a sufficient fre-
quency in the assembly of Parliament. Until the reign
of Henry VIII. no Pardament was prorogued, but Par-
liaments were always dissolved after one session; but
the Long Parliament of Charles and of the Common.
wealth led men to sae the necessity and importance of
frequent elections, and the Bill of Rights at the Revolu-
tion claimed that Parliaments should be frequently
holden as a part of the constitution. Immediately after
*he Revolution in 1689—the first year after—a Bill was
rought into the House of Lords for limiting the duration
Parliaments, but it was lost. In 1693, in the
second Parliament of William 111., a Bill passed the
Lords, and went to the Commons. Great opposition
was made to it, and endeavour was made to swamp it
on the ground that the Lords were interfering with that
which was particularly understood as affecting this
House; but the current ran too strong, and even those
who felt this keenly, even those who were indignant at
this interference of the Lords, still felt the thing was
ao important that they were disposed and determined to

give it their support. In 1693 Mr. Harley said, on this
subject, " the Bill is a plausible panegyric on this Par-
liament for its funeral oration;" and Mr. Goodwin

Wharton said, in the same year,

"I believe they (the

Lords) thought not ill of this House; for only a good
House will consent to such a Bill." Again, Mr. Neale
said, in February, 1693, "It is objected that it came
from the Lords.' A good thing sometimes may come.
We are told this is not a proper time,' but I think, that
in so good a reign such a good law is to be ob-
tained." Again, Colonel Titus said, in December, 1693,
" It is no objection that this Bill comes from the Lords.
I fear not a good thing from them. We have had none
a long while. The Lords prescribe us times when to
meet, and when to be dissolved. St. raul desired to be
dissolved, but if any of his friends had set him a day
he would not have taken it well of them. As for the
disobligation to the people, good Parliaments they
desire, and I never saw long Parliaments good ones. A
picture new drawn may be like the person it represents,
bat in time the colours will fade, and it so alters from I
itself that no one can tell what it represents. If we
would have a picture like, it must be new drawn."
The importance attaching to this subject was evinced
by the pertinacity with which both Houses demanded
it. and yet William 111. resorted to that prerogative
which has so very seldom been exercised in our consti-
tution, and refused to give it the Royal assent. Yet it
was again and again brought in ; he could no longer
oppose it, and it passed in 1694, five or six years after
the Revolution carried out the Bill of Rights ; indeed it
was iu terms a declaratory Act. It has ever since been I
ardently desired by the people ; aed it was repealed
22 years after it had been the law of the land, in order
to meet a temporary crisis and danger, which has long
and fur ever passed away. It is not for me, against the
op nions of so many statesmen and able orators, to say
that the proceeding of pas:;ing the Septennial Act was
unjustifiable. I know it has been told by many that
there were circumstances at that time which justified this
most extraordinary measure ; but it will be conceded
that if it is to be justified at all, it is to be justified only
and solely by the necessity of the case. , Now, although
the people acceded to it then, they have, from but a'shor t
time after the Septennial Act passed, never ceased to
demand its repeal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") In 1734
the first motion was made on the subject, only
eishteen. years After its enactment. Since their