The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-11 00:00:00

fourtbWttition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve.

BRIGHTON PAVILION. BILL.
On the motion of Mr. HAYTER the following Mem-
bers were appointed a Select Committee on the Royal
Pavilion (Brighton) Bill:—Captain Pechell, Lord Alfred
Hervey, Lord Harry Vane, Mr. Frewen, Mr. Deedes,
Mr. Childers, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Halter, Mr. Fuller,
Mr. Ilesdlam, and five Members to be added by the
Committee of Selection.—The Committee to have leave
to sit upon Tuesday next.
PETITIONS.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Sal-
ford in favour of the Smoke Prohibition Bill.
Mr. GROGAN presented a petition from Dublin in
favour of a sanitary Bill for Ireland.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from
the master bakers of Marylebone against the Sale of
Bread Bill.
DURATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

D'EYNCOURT moved the second reading of
this Bill.
Mr. S. ADAIR would put it to the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman whether he would persevere with this Bill at so
late a period of the session, and under the very peculiar
circumstances attending the introduction of the mea-
sure. Last year he had opposed the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Montrose for a reform of
Parliament, on the ground that, considering the state
of the country, he did not think it would be ad-
viseable to effect any change in the constitution.
He confessed, however, from what had transpired since,
he thought the time had now arrived when further re-
forms were necessary. Considering that the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government had conceded that there
should be a further extension of the suffrage, he could
not see what objection could be urged against the prin-
ciple of the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman for
shortening the duration of Parliaments. Although he
saw no prospect of the measure being carried this
session, he felt bound to give it his support.
The principle of the Bill was not a new one, and in his
opinion the Right Hon. Gentleman had wisely left it to
%het House to fix the period to which the duration of
Parliament should be limited, and he trusted that in the
next session some measure would be proposed by them
to give effect to the long wished for and anxious
expectations of the people for further reforms.
Should he not be able to proceed with the measure this
session to a successful issue, he trusted those of the
Government Members who were favourable to gradual
reforms in the legislative institutions of the country,
would give this subject their serious consideration, and
convince the unenfraechised masses out of doors that
they were not unmindful of their claims to be represented
in the Commons House of Parliament.—(Hear, bear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said when his Hon. Friend
behind him introduced this Bill, his Noble Friend at the
head of the Government went at length into the views he
personally held and the Government entertained upon
this question, and as no answer was made to that
speech he thought there was an end to the matter,
so far as the present session was concerned.—(Hear.)
It now, however, seemed to be otherwise. With regard,
therefore, to the question itself, he did not believe that
any particular discontent existed in the country as to the
duration of Parliament, nor could he bring himself to
think that the House would be acting prudently if it
sanctioned the second reading of this Bill. Under the
existing system of legislation many measures of great
public importance ran through three or four sessions, and
it was therefore highly desirable that all such measures
should be revived and disposed of by the same
Members who had first considered them. Limit,
however, the duration of Parliament to three
years, and such a mode of proceeding would be
absolutelyimpossible; at present public opinion and
public feeling acted as a wholesome check upon the
votes of Hon. Members; and as, from 1826 to 1841,
there were no less than six Parliaments, the average
duration of which did not exceed two years and a half,
he thought there was no necessity for the Bill, and he
should, therefore, move that it be read a second time
that day six months.
Mr. M. GIBSON said the Right Hon. Baronet seemed
to think that in consequence of the Noble Lord's speech
upon this question not having been answered, the sub-
ject ought to be considered as disposed of, and it was,
therefore, unnecssary for him to dwell at any length
upon it ; but the real answer to the Noble
Lord's speech was the division that followed it. Well,
then, notwithstanding the appeal that was made to the
gentlemen present when this Bill was first moved for
not to support it, there was a decided majority in favour
of its introduction, and having so decided it would be
treating the House with disrespect if they were not to dis-
cuss its provisions with fairness.(Hear, hear.) And
he must be allowed to observe that these divisions were
not quite accidental.—(Hear, hear) The majority ob-
tained last year in favour of the Ballot was by no means
accidental nor was the majority in favour of the motion
for introducing this Bill to shorten the duration of Par-
liaments. Some Honourable Members were reluctant
to vote against popular rights, and although
be would not go the length of saying they would,
if requested by the Government, come down: and re-
cord their votes against these measures, he was quite
convinced that their absence was not always quite acci-
dental. Being left to themselves, they preferred rather
to go away than remain to vote against a measure for
extending popular rights, and these majorities ought :not
to be treated as accidents which did not convey the feel-
ing of the House on matters of reform.—(Hear.) With
regard to the immediate question itself, he did think
that a shorter period of time for the duration of Parlia-
ments would act as a wholesome check upon the pro-
ceedings of Members of the House, and he thought
that shortening their duration was more necessary
now than it could have been at any former
time, for the House was now called upon to deal with
60,000,0001. taxation annually levied upon the people,
while the Government exercised a great amount of pa-
tronage in the management of Crown-lands and the dis-
posal of Church livings, which gave them easy means to
tamper with the votes of Members, and it therefore be-
came more necessary now that there should be a more
repeated appeal to the constituencies, it order to esta-
blish a more wholesome control over Members of Parlia-
ment..—(Hear, hear.) Let them consider for one mo-
ment what was the inducement now for Members to go
into boroughs ; and after previous nursing there to
expend large sums of money in bribing the electors?
Why simply that after his return he could set the elec-
tors at defiance for six years, and indulge in some of the
pickings that dropped out of the Treasury. Now, if he
found that every two years he had to go before the elec-
tors, it would not be worth his while to spend money in
nursing the borough and bribing the voters, but under
the existing law the money he spent in that way
was looked upon as a very good investment.
If they were sincere in their desire to introduce fresh
provisions into the law for the prevention of bribery and
corruption at elections, they must not retain that com-
parative fixity of tenure which Members had in their
seats in that House. If the duration of Parliament
was shortened, the conduct of Members would be
somewhat different when they presented themselves on
the hustings, and the unbecoming system of givino,
pledges would be done away with.—(Hear, hear.) He
looked upon this subject as one of very great importance,
and nothing that could be done with respect to the fran-
chise or the ballot would he of any real advantage so
long as the duration of Parliament was prolonged, and
so long as there existed in the hands of the Executive a
large amount of funds, as well as patronage
..and places,
for the purpose of either directly or indirectly influencing
the conduct of Members. If they repealed Septennial
Parliaments, they would at once go back to the Tri-
ennial Act, which stood ready made for them on the
Statute-book—(Hear, hear)—there would be no going
into Committee and discussing clauses, and therefore
he thought the proposition of his Hon. Friend was the
most fit one that could be adopted at this period of the
session.—(Hear, hear.) The question was not a com-
plicated one, but simply whether they should restore the
ancient law of the country, which was departed from,
not permanently, but simply because the reigning
family at the time was so unpopular that it was neces-
sary to prolong Parliament in order to secure their
•tenure upon the throne. That reason, however, did not
now exist, and he saw nothing to prevent them at
once returning to Triennial Parliaments. He hoped
that his Honourable Friend would persevere with the
measure, for he was sure that he would carry with him
the opinion of the people out of doors. He trusted that
the Honourable Gentlemen opposite would not treat it
as a rock ahead—that they would give no pledges to
adhere to the existing forms of Parliament; for depend
upon it, the question would come before them ere
long. He never felt more sure of anything in his
life than that that would be the case.—(Hear, hear.)
He would advise them not to raise the cry of " No sur-
render," which, with respect to the free-trade question,
had brought their party into its present conflicting state.
If ;he old Tory party should again resume power, as he
had no doubt would be the case, he would undertake to say
that this reform question would present itself in a very
formidable aspect. He would caution them not to come
into power pledged to oppose all changes in the consti-
tution of Parliament, for if they did, some great quarrel
or split would happen in their party, which would lead,
perhaps, to the same scenes that were witnessed at the
time of the free-trade debates. In a progressive country
like England, it was impossible
that such a question
could be cotsilered irrevocably settled.—(Hear, hear.).
Mr. BERNAL said he was
uprightsuraed that his Right
Hon. Friend, with his ability,a intention, and ex-
perience, should have adoptd suchline of argument.
Be had stated as one reason for supporting
the
were not
Triennial Act, that Members of Parliament
angels of purity, and that " they pulled at the
benches" tortheir own individual aggrandiaement' Treasurylle
(Mr. Bernal) would now tell him openly and man-
fully that this was all humbug and delusion.
•--(Loud cheers.) He agreed that the system
et giving pledges on the hustings was disgraceful,
but-he thought the constituents had an obligation on
their side, and that they ought to look to the duties of a
'Member of Parliament in a more serious light than they
:did. But when be said he repudiated pledges, he begged
• to say that he repudiated also the doctrine of " speaking
to constituents."—(Hear, hear.) He had no objection
'te shorten the term of Parliament, but let it be accom-
panied by vote by ballot, and by other reform measures,
which would purify what was called the Augean Stable.
Mr. HUME said that no one could for a moment
imagine that the present stew of the constituency was
one which would satisfy the country. He for one en-
tertained extreme views on this subject, and was perhaps
prepared to go further than most Hon. Members, be-
cause, probably, he bad devoted more time and reflec-
tion to this subject than others had done. Lie wile con'