The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-24 00:00:00

TRIENNIAL PARLIAMENTS.

Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition agreed to at
Guildhall, in the city of London, in favour of Triennia'
Parliaments.

Mr. GILLON presented a similar petition from the
western division of Stirlingshire, and praying also for the
vote by ballot. .
Sir H. PARNELL begged leave to ask his Right lion.
Friend, the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trade,
whether any report from the Commissioner appointed in
1831, to inquire into the commercial relations of England
and France would shortly be laid before the House ?
Mr. POULETT THOMSON said the gentleman
to whom the Hon. Baronet alluded, some time ago
made a report to Government of the proceedings
as far as they had gone, but since then a great
deal of documentary and other information had been
obtained, which it was advisable Government should
attend to before any report was laid before the House,
and it would be worth considering whether the
report and the subsequent information should not
—at a fitting opportunity—be presented to the
House. Meantime he hoped all discussion on the subject
would be deferred, particularly as the House must be
aware that great changes had recently taken place in
the trade of France. He believed those changes would
produce the most beneficial effects in this country,
and the result would be, that far greater measures would
be carried into effect than could have been antici-
pated some time ago. The House must be
aware that one considerable step bad been taken
by the publication of an ordinance within the
last fortnight or three weeks, by which the prohi-
bitions on the exportation of raw silk from France
had been taken off.—(Hear.) Every Member who had
attended to the evidence given before the Committee last
year, would see the great inconvenience to the English
trade from the difficulty of procuring raw silk, and it was
most gratifying now to know that a prohibition, which
had been so detrimental to our manufactures, was removed,
and the first step taken by France.—(Hear.)
Sir FRANCIS VINCENT suggested to the Hon.
Member for Oxford the propriety of his postponing his
motion relative to the Masters of the Bench of the Inner
Temple, respecting the application of Daniel Whittle
Harvey, Esq., to be called to the bar, to some open day,
when it would have a fairer chance of discussion..

_
Mr. H. HUGHES had no objection to withdrawing
the motion for the present, if the Hon. Baronet could
point cut a day upon which it would be likely to be
discussed.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY complained of the manner in
which he had from time to time been brought down to
that House to attend the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion had been put upon the orders of the day ori-
ginally without any intimation to him, and he believed it
was the only instance in which the name of a Member
was placed in a notice without the slightest intimation
having been made to him.—(Hear, bear.) He was not
accustomed to ask favours, especially political favours, but
he must entreat the House would afford the Hon. Member
for Oxford an opportunity of bringing the question be-
fore the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES had understood that the
Hon. Member for Colchester was all anxiety to have
the question before the House—(Hear, hear)—and
he (Mr. Hughes) had intimated his intention to the friends
of that Hon. Member.
The SPEAKER—The first open day would be Thurs-
day, the 14th of August.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES would be happy to avail
himself of that day.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged leave to add, that be was

in the House on the Friday on which the Hon. Member
gave the notice, until 12 o'clock at nig_ht, and yet he re-
ceived no communication from the Hon. Member until
after the notice had been given.
Mr. TENNYSON rose to move for leave to bring in a
Bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments. In doing
so, he said he was aware of the great difficulty he imposed
on himself. He could not but feel he had undertaken an
arduous task, in rising to attempt to persuade the House
to come to a conclusion that must have considerable effect
on the legislation, and political affairs of the country.
He owed some explanation to the House why he took the
liberty of originating such a motion. It would be
recollected that when the Noble Lord oppo-ite
brought forward the Reform Bill in 1831, he stated
it was not the intention of his Majesty's Govern.
ment to originate any motion on the subject. He alluded
to the questions of vote by ballot and of shortening
Parliaments, and stated, that having considered those
subjects, Government had come to that resolution,
therefore he (the Noble Lord) would leave it to some
other lion. Member to bring the question forward,
should it be thought expedient to do en. The Noble Lord
added, that should any Member think fit to bring it
forward, he should be ready to deliver his opinions upon
it, and he (Mr. T.) was certainly very anxious to hear
what those opinions were.—(Hear, hear.) It would be
found, by referring to what the Noble Lord said on that
occasion, that he did not shut the door against the repeal
of septennial Parliaments.—(Hear.) On the contrary, he
said that he thought it a subject well deserving attention, and
that the only difficulty was, what ought to be substituted
in place of them. It was most desirable that the House
should not regard this as a party question, but as a
question of strict constitutional importance—(Hear,
bear, bear)—and he (Mr. T.) entreated the House
and his Majesty's Government to come to the consideration
of the subject with that calmness which ought to regulate
the conduct of the House in the disposal of every important
question. He had made up his mind to discuss the subject
with that feeling which he recommended the adoption of to
others, and without courting p .polar feeling on the one
band, or hoping, on the other, to be spared reflections
from that prejudice which operated in favour of the Sep-
tennial Act from long duration, he would endeavour to lay
the grounds of his motion before the House in the best
possible manner he could, with a view to bring
the House to agree to his proposition.—(Hear, hear.)
The Septennial Act had produced the most extensive
corruption among the constituencies of the country; anti
much of the evilsof bad Government had resulted from it.
But now there was a general, if not a universal con-
viction throughout the country that the term of
seven years was too long for Parliament to continue.
There had been under the Septennial Act 22 Parliaments,
the average duration of which, during 117 years had

been about five years each—and fifteen Parliaments of
which the average duration was not less than six years.
Before the reign of Henry VIII. there was no doubt but
that the practice was to have annual Parliaments ; indeed,
there were instances of two Parliaments occurring in
one year.—(Hear,.) After that reign, until the Triennial
Bill was passed in 1694, Parliament were for the
most part extremely short, with only five, excepting one
in the reign of Henry VIII., another of Elizabeth,
another of James 11., and the others in the reigns
of Charles I. and 11. Now, the most prejudicial conse-
quences resulted to the general interests of the people from
their continuance. But, taking the whole Parliaments
together, from Henry VIII. till the present time, there
were seventy-five which on an average lasted only two
years and nine months. Now it was not on such
slight grounds that he meant to build his present
argument ; the liberties of the people, he believed,
did not stand upon the usage, practice, or prescription of
former times ; nor did he contend that, because short
Parliaments bad been found formerly efficient, therefore
in the present circumstances they should be considered
expedient. No ! he did not build his arguments on
such grounds. He only meant to say that the people of
this country had an imprescriptible right to good govern-
ment, and that as shorter Parliaments would conduce to
that desirable end, the people had a right to claim at the
hands of Parliament some alteration of the present system.
During a period of six years (which be took as the fair
duration of a Parliament under the Septennial Act) the
whole circumstances of the country would be found to
undergo an extensive alteration, so that any understand-
ing which might have existed at the commencement of
that term between a representative and his constituents
would become perfectly useless. A shorter term, there-
fore, ought to be fixed, in order that the representative
might be sooner sent back to ascertain the wishes of his
constituents, and to answer to them for his conduct. His
great quarrel with the Septennial Act was, that being
passed for a particular purpose, it was extended to all
future Parliaments. It was the opinion of the late Mr.
Fox, and of the present Lord Chancellor (in which opi-
nion he completely concurred), that the circumstances of
time had rendered the Septennial Act necessary. There
had just been a rebellion, and the parties to that rebellion
were watching to see how, by money or otherwise, they
could so operate upon an approaching election, as to for-
ward their object. That was the reason stated by the Duke
of Devonshire, in the House of Lords, when he introduced
the Bill. The preamble of the Bill distinctly referred to
the circumstances which had rendered it necessary.—
[The Hon. Gentleman here read a passage from the
preamble in question.] He admitted the difficulty of
fixing upon the term of duration which would be most
advisable. It appeared to him, however, to be a prin-
ciple that Parliament should be short enough to permit
the representatives to recollect the wants, wishes, and ne-
cessities of their constituents, and the professions which
they bad themselves made ; and also to recollect that they
must soon render up an account of their conduct. At the
same time be admitted that it was an equally important
principle that the term should be long enough to enable the
Members of the House to pursue a steady and consistent
course. But still not so long as to extend the period beyond
which it would be morally and physically impossible for
the constituents of that House to foresee what might be
the state of public affairs before its termination. There
was on the Records of Parliament a most extraordinary
Protest, that of thirty Noble Peers, in 1716, against the
Septennial Act, which powerfully depicted all the evils
which that Act tende f to inflict on the country. (The
Hon. Gentleman here read the Protest in question ; which
predicted the increase of corruption that the Act produced.)
After the experience of three Septennial Parliaments, in
1731 a motion was made in that House for the Repeal of
the Act ; and one of the most interesting debates followed
that ever took place within the walls of Parliament. The
result was, that the motion was negative] by a majority
of only 63.—(The Honourable Member here read an ex-
tract hom the speech of the seconder, describing the mis-
chiefs which had resulted from the Septennial Act.) Sub-
sequently there were numerous motions for annual Par-
liaments, down to the motion on that subject of an Hon.
Baronet in 1818. At length the corruption both of the
House and of the people became so extreme, that some
attempt at remedy could no longer be delayed ; and hap-
pily under the auspices of the Noble Lord opposite, that
great object was accomplished to the public satisfaction
and joy. But the work was only half done. In the de-
claration of the friends of the people in 1792, signed by
Mr. Grey (and he had not the slightest intention to state
this invidiously) and other distinguished individuals of
that period, it was declared that that association had been
formed for the purpose of promoting tl.e two following
constitutional objects :—First to restore the freedom of
election, and a more equal representation of she people;
secondly, to secure to the people a more frequent exercise
'of the light of electing their representatives. A petition
to that effect was presented from the same body in 1792,
to the House of Commons. Let the suffrage be most
extensive, and the exercise of it most pure, yet such was
the frailty of human nature, th it, when a man
found himself seated in that House for seven years,
his sense of responsibility became considerably
weakened, and he was left accessible to all the
various attacks of corruption. It was in consequence
of its being apparent that long Parliaments were bad Par-
liaments, and that short Parliaments were good Parlia-
ments, that the Triennial Bill was passed in 1693. From
the passing of the Septennial Act, the public debt bad
been increased from 50 to 800 millions, In the adminis-
tration of Sir Robert Walpole, which speedily followed,
was laid the foundation of that debasement and corruption
which had ever since disgraced the House. He would
not pursue the inquiry through the subsequent periods,
being unwilling to offend any party or any individual ;
hut it was well known that both the great political
parties in the State had availed themselves of the corrup-
tion which he had described, and had governed by what
was called Parliamentary influence. The Septennial Act
held out temptations to corruption which few men could
withstand. Even the interests of the Monarch suffered
by it. The prerogatives of the Crown would be safer
with short Parliaments than with long ones, for long
Parliaments were calculated to produce disunion be-
tween the Sovereign and his people. This was espe-
cially pointed not in the Triennial Act, drawn up by
Lord Somers and other great men.—[The Right Hon.
Gentleman here read the preamble to the Triennial
Act.] He now came to consider what would be the most
advisable duration of Parliaments. Some thought five,
others four years. His Hon. Friend (the Member for
Middlesex) who would second his !notion, thought that
three years would be the best term. For himself, he
could only say, that he should be happy to receive any
suggestions on that point. If he were left to his own
judgment, he should certainly concur with what ap-
peared to be the general sense of the people; and he
adverted particularly to the petition which had that day
been presented by a worthy Alderman, in favour of
triennial Parliaments. But he kept his judgment open
to conviction on that subject. The Bill for which be
should move was simply to shorten the duration of Par-
liaments. It would consist of two parts; the one re-
pealing the Septennial Act—the other assigning the term
to which the existence of Parliaments should hencefor-
ward be restricted ; the blank for which term, however,
wuuld be left to be filled up in the Committee on the Bill.
If they wished to admit the people to a fair and full par-
ticipation in the Government, they would at once accede
to his proposition. If they desired to give a full effect to
the great principles of the Reform Bill, they would support
him on that occasion. Satisfied was he, that if in this and
some other points the Government would only, consi-
derately and wisely, yield to the people, there was no coun-
try under the face of the sun where greater sacrifices for
the national honour and the national weal, not only
as regarded property, but as regarded life itself, would be
more cheerfully made. Most heartily did he agree in the
observation made on a previous occasion by the Noble
Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was in
England a sound and strong feeling of attachment to the
law and the Constitution. No man during the last twelve-
month could boast more intercourse, and, consequently,
more experience amongst his countrytnen than he could—
an intercourse metropolitan as well as rural—agricultural
as well as commercial; and he feat satisfied that there was
amongst them not merely a strong but an irrevocable at-
tachment to a monarchical form of Government—(Heir,
hear, hear)—and a disposition to pay to the ancient
aristocracy of the country every deference and respect, so
long as they showed themselves anxious to uphold the just
(Cheers.)l
rwwih:l
ct s
one;
in ea thend f
peopleo trh Thereei t a
welkve
were,nne
ddlroteeeswfrt
ttal
toe net
cheers)
tooohegritoeeet
hrswdiastenoe)nnaprvxtrbe.ehii
:ln(se,dse.
them.—(Hear,
tespoeomsaofa
disappointment
ftnohphgi
otheoenliai
achieve,tienrti
.98,)epcinnal esenottoa:pdwtrl
til
oeoti.anh
this
btiobihtee uaeeaAdinenriehfrecsailoopvPrunoHreagicufznulahridatt:dhbifeeluo:rrirnsi,:(i üboviahnanenitndrdsssiierarill viiintlhigdeeehteoodlt wisdom
d.sheeePoTanrhdl at
eei
gnmht and
ntaitnHol
motion,
saidmiGtn Gentle-
man
tisthl
le of
t
y
the Nob e Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, in propos-
ing the Relorm Bill, had stated that the object of the
Ministry was to give to the people a due check and con-
trol over the conduct of their representatives. But he
stated that they did not consider it necessary at that time
to connect with it two other measures—the vote by
ballot, and triennial Parliaments; and he (Mr. Hume)
thought they had acted wisely in not encumbering the

essential measure with others of less immediate impor- 1
tance, for as it heel turned out, they had found difficulty
enough in what they had undertaken. Having, how-
ever, now thoroughly succeeded, they had an excellent op-
portunity of completing a measure which, in its perfect
state, could not fail to be most grateful and most accept.
able to the people. He considered the House should look
at the question in one light only—as a means to goof
government.—(Hear, hear.) They all knew, from ex-
perience, how prone human nature was to err, and that
a trust extending over a period of seven yews was
seldom duly respected.---(Hear, hear.) He was sorry
the Right Honourable Gentleman bad left the period for
the future duration of Parliament an open question, and
had no hesitation in expressing his own preference
for a term of three years. Looking to the opinions of the
people, which he contended, as representatives, they were
all bound to do, he felt that the change to triennial Par-
liaments would be completely in accordance with their
wishes. He had ever been of opinion that change was
never desirable unless real advantages could be plainly

foreseen from it, and those advantages were, in the present
case, most clear and apparent. If they looked to the
period when the Septennial Act was passed, they would
find that the people were strongly adverse to it, and that
feeling had not in the slightest degree diminished, but
rather increased, from that day to the present. The ne-
cessary consequence of the people oftener coming in
contact with their representatives would be, that the
public work would be better performed, and the national
interests more thoughtfully attended to. But the
present system left the people, in fact, entirely at
the mercy of Ministers, and the institutions which were
originally good, having been thus vitiated by it, were
an evil rather than a blessing to the community. Thus
it was we had fallen into difficulties—difficulties which
we never even should have dreamed of, if the representa•
tives had been more immediately under the control of the
people. They were warranted by the present state of
public feeling in now calling for the further portion of
reform. The Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, bad promised that the Government would not rule
by patronage, but according to the wishes of the people.
The Noble Lord's principle was, that the House of Com-
mons should really represent the people, but he (Mr.
Hume) denied that they did so now, or that they were
likely to do so if they were not more frequently called to
account, and a speedier reckoning determined on. They
ought to be more responsible than they were—they ought
to be more frequently ch dlenged—their conduct ought to
be more strictly investigated, and therefore it was that he
seconded the motion of his right Hon. Friend the Member
for Lambeth.
Lord ALTHORP said, it was certainly true that his
Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) in introducing the
subject of a reform in Parliament, had entirely separated
it from the question of duration ; and, therefore, be was
not about to argue as if any gentleman, by what took
place at the period he referred to, was pledged or precluded
from discussing, freely and fully, the motion then before
the House. Nor did he intend, though it was his duty to
state his own views, to call for the opinion of the House
directly upon the subject, but rather to beg their attention
simply to this question—Was it desirable to enter on the
consideration of such a subject—one which he might term
a second edition of the Reform Bill, on the 23d of July ?
—(Cheers.) This he really thought would be sufficient
reason for every gentlemen, whatever his opinions, reserv-
ing himself at the present time. For no one, whatever
his opinions or wishes might be, could be sanguine enough
to hope to have such a measure as this carried without
experiencing a great and determined opposition—such a
one, indeed, as would preclude the chance, under the best
auspices, of its being passed in the present session. There-
fore, be thought it would be a great inconvenience to all
parties to enter upon such a discussion at that period of
time. He had said, and he thought it his duty to state it,
for he had no wish to conceal his opinions, that be sup•
potted a proposition for shortening the duration of Par-
liaments, and that support he should now give if the
Parliament was at this time in the same state in which
it was when he made the declaration. He thought at
the same time that the influence of the people in that
House was below what it ought to be. That too was
the ground on which he had supported Parliamentary
Reform. He thought than, and he thought still, that the
proper constitution of that House required that it should
truly represent the feelings of its constituents; and
when the circumstances of the House were such that a

large proportion of the Members represented only them
selves, it was proper that, by the shortened duration o
Parliament, the constituency should exercise a greater
influence over them than they then did. But at the
present moment, from all he knew of the feelings of the
Members of that House, and all he knew from his own
feeling., from having represented large bodies of consti-
tuents fur many year., he was convinced such Members
did feel mast sensibly the influence of their constituents.
He appealed to any gentleman in that situation, to say if
it was not so—(Hear, bear)—on this very evening, and
upon this very question? ThE Right Hon. Gentleman
had taken a most extraordinary mode of getting at the
average duration of Parliaments. He had taken all the
long Parliaments, and leaving out all the short ones—
(Hear, hear)—because there was something peculiar in
the reasons for their dissolution; he found the average was
between five and six years. If he had taken all the Par-
liaments together, he would have found the average to be
between three and four years. He was ready to admit
that the Parliament did not represent the feelings of the
people as it ought. He knew the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex said it did not do so now.—(Hear.) He believed
gentlemen on that side were much given to think the opi-
nions they entertained were exclusively the opinions of the
people.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think they were quite
right in that belief—( Hear, hear)—and on such a subject
it would suffice to ascertain whether the people were on
the whole satisfied with the conduct of ParFament. Now
he believed the conduct of Parliament had been satisfactory
to the people, notwithstanding it had not in every instance
come up to the unlimited expectations of the first reformed
House of Commons. Indeed, the expectations thus formed
were in many cases such as circumstances rendered it im-
possible to gratify.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think
the shortening of the duration of Parliament, as recom-
mended by the Han. Member for Middlesex, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman, would, if adopted, be advan-
tageous to the people. It was perfectly true that great
reliance ought to be placed on the honest feelings of the
people, when they had time to consider any subject, yet
there were periods at which they were carried away by
particular feelings, and in which, if they were mistaken in
them, the duration of Parliament, if much shortened,would
give them a frequent and inconvenient opportunity of in-
dulging, perhaps to their subsequent regret. He did not
think that the effect of the alteration from seven to five
years, would produce any great effect any way, and
that such a change would, in fact, be a change for
change sake. On these grounds he should object to the
motion. He did not think that the proposed change
would have the effect anticipated, of diminishing the ex-
pense of the elections, or lessening the spirit of the con-
test. The election of 1818, though according to every
human probability the life of George the Third could not
last through the whole seven years, was as expensive and as
hotly contested as any other. The same was the case
with the election of 1831, although it was known that the
Parliament would not last more than a few months ; but
he should not insist on that instance, because there were
very :particular circumstances attending that election.
The period of three years would be too short—it would
derange the fixed and steady march of public affairs. For
that reason he was not an advocate of the proposition of
the Right Hon. Gentleman. He should not, however,
call upon the House to come to a decision to-night, but
only to reserve it to a future time. They might postpone
it to another session of Parliament, when they would have
more time and better opportunity to consider it. If the
measure were brought forward in the ensuing session,
and then agreed to, it would have the same effect as if
agreed to
.now. If the motion was pressed at the present
moment, it would lead to no satisfactory result, and for
these various reasons he should now move the previous
question.
Mr. COBBETT did not agree with the Noble Lord
as to the propriety of delay. If it was necessary that the
thing should be done, the sooner it was done the better ;
and he thought there were good reasons why it should be
done now. The country was not too much satisfied either
with that House or with his Majesty's Ministers. If this
motion were carried, it might go far to restore the confi
iu 1793, after pro-
deuce of the people in that House, and, if possible, re-
concile the people to his Majesty's Ministers.. The Noble
would not do, without
Lord said that his opinions bad once been in favour of
shortening the duration of Parliament, but that the Re-
form Bill had altered the case. Why should that alter the
Lrheoafrdodrnn.iGoswi
shortening the duration of Parliaments, and quoted the
caseprs
ei
yn?gs
am:din) rtethhaet petitionreformsev en those
ooasfne
G
preamble of the Triennial Bill in favour of the argument.
Again, in 1796, Lord Grey made a motion for Parlia-
mentary Reform, and proposed such a reform as had now
been granted ; but he did not neglect at the same time to
insist on the shorter duration of Parliaments. When the
present Reform Act was brought in, the question was Lett
open. Why should it not now be determined ? Did they
recollect that, but a few weeks ago, the Noble Lord the
Member for Devonshire told them that he was restrained
from introducing measures that he considered essential to
the welfare of the people and to their happiness, from a fear

of a collision with the Lords ? He (Mr. Cubbel
had never said any thing so bad of the 11
as that.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But they need
dread any collision in this matter, for here the
E,5
pie and the Lords were on one side, and that P,
on the other. Let that House but carry up to the L'
such a Bill as that now proposed, and he would venturit
say there would be no collision—( 'fear, and a lace%
there would be a bidding between the two Houses 0
which would be forwardest.—(Laughter.) There
two pointy on which he disagreed with the Right .
Gentleman. The first was, that the Right Hun. WI
man would be content with Triennial Parliaments. ,

should not be contented with anything less than retie t
to the old English custom of having a Parliament in e i
year. The Right lion. Gentleman the Secretary fort 1
Colonies seemed to think that an argument against flO 1
ing the change to Parliaments of three years.--4 I
Stanley nodded assent.) He could not help it ; he thelo I
it better to say what he meant...—(Hear, hear.) flf..„,i I
sure they should not get this change now ; but he v I
that " bread thrown upon the waters would return 0
many days''
—(Hear, hear)—and he thought that, °AI 1
people wished to have it, the sooner they made a deeco I
for it the better. He agr ed with the Noble Lord t 1
seven years were just as good as five; if they went be bi 1
three years they went much too far, and he thought t ' I
were going too far if they went beyond one year. jd 1
differed from the Right Hon. Gentleman as to the Or. I
of the Septennial Bill. The Right Hoa. Gentleman 1
that it was brought in with a view to take care of the li
tits of the people—that they were afraid of another re
lion—that they were afraid of giving Popery a handle,
put an end to the glorious revolution then lately effee
It was no such thing ; it was done with a view to ,c)
the plunder they had got—the plunder of the Cho
they were afraid that plunder would be taken away
them, for it was too near the time when they got it
them to feel safe in possession of the plunder. He fob'
not characterize the acts that had been done in that Ht'
he was afraid to do so while he was within its walls
under its roof. The most infamous thing—the
apostacy itself—changing three times between Cs
and Protestant, was not equal to the turpitude ofoi
Bill. The law was positive that the Members should j
sit there for three years, and yet they had dared to Fit
themselves authority to sit for four years longer.
tit
prt sent Parliament might, with the same justice, s
that they would sit for seven years, or for the natural
of any Member among them. The Parliaments had
usurpers from that day to this, and they, as inheri
natural
of that usurpation, were usurpers themselves. He
not give much for the lawyer who could not proletio
clear as day-light, that the laws they passed under
,t
usurped power, were not as void as those of Croortio
and the long Parliament.—(Laughter.) To say
..0
they should get this motion, was what he did not gel o,
but he should vote in favour of it. He would rather 11i
the motion carried farther, but even though it wool
farther, it should have his support.
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON should suppo.All.,o
motion. He was well satisfied to get rid of the erd
years upon any reason whatever. When they came in vi •
eider the other part of the motion—namely the tilt
~/.
which they intended to fix the duration of Parliamee"o
he should prefer five years ; first, he thought this ,i
sense of the country was in favour of that motion ;lii
next, because the motion was more likely than any s'or
to be carried. As to the proposition of annual park
ments, he was convinced that the majority of the ro
were against such a change ; and that throughoutv
country the Hon. Member opposite would find himself
~,'
minority on that point. He trusted that the hilt ',#
of this motion would be carried, and when it Wes' f
when the Bill was introduced upon it, and they easli
consider the time at which the duration of Perlis),
should be fixed, he should produce his clause for five Ye:i
Sir S. WHALLEY should vote for the motion as si
tial to render the Reform Bill complete. That thell
tennial Act should be repealed he thought nobody Epp.
entertain any doubt; and the next question tberefo;iii
them to determine was, what was the period to It,
Parliament should in future be allowed to extend. di
could not agree with the Hon. and Gallant Membett,i,
had just taken his seat, as to the sense of the country i,
in favour of the term of five years ; but upon the .13.1
of Annual Parliaments, be thought there was some toli:
prehension arising necessarily from the doubtful
.41tit:
thrown upon this matter by the old records. He al"
know that it was certainly established that there
..6i,
Annual Parliaments in the present sense of that esr4
sion, but he believed that, according to the ancient r
tice, Parliaments were elected for each particular ocesjof
and as it not unfrequently happened, a Parliament egtoii
one year, when it was dissolved, and on the next 04014
another Parliament was summoned, sat, and was distil
in the same manner. That frequent Parliament'
necessary, no one who had read the history of his c 0
'f
and had become acquainted with their profligacy its.
times, could doubt. He need not speak of their prePli
in past times, for it was but recently that they bald
a Parliament—this very Parliament—lavishly
Iti
away mi lions of the public mosey. They had o° Itl
away as lavishly as a ruined debtor who was in dekeill
to his ability to pay. The Hon. Member here qto,t t,
opinions of several writers who had declared the Sotit
nial Act a breach of trust, and then went into an his" Fit
detail of the various changes introduced by stato,oll
the duration and mode of convening ParliamentsI f
kingdom. He afterwards observed, that when the/
ennial Bill was introduced, it had been passed pars/
with the Bills for granting the supplies for that rsi
circumstance which warranted him in saying that I I
a compact between the people and the Court par i,l
means of which they settled their long existing dill% f
as to the duration of Parliament. But even Olt;
itself admitted the necessity and expediency of she,r-
liaments, the people having found that for their els
not only should Parliaments sit often, but neW
meats shou'd frequently be convened. The P,
stated that " the frequent meeting of new Patti/
(it was that to which he wished to call their at,
tended much to promote harmony between the I‘,:nolr
the people." The Hon. Member then quoted Sfectii,
ments of Sir W. Wyndham, who argued in ss'er
short Parliaments, in order that the sentiments 1,1
people might prevail, fools be turned out, and_A 11,
hanged. He (Sir S. Whalley) frrther contende4o4
the present dynasty being seated firmly on the thriA
more favourable opportunity could not be afforded di
change proposed in the motion. He agreed that anolloll
tions would be so frequent as to teach the constituene.3l
country to regard them with apathy, but thought ty,o
Parliaments the precise medium that ought to be suop
The Hon. Member referred to the late discussions
assessed taxes, contending strongly that the great tool
of the constituency in the metropolitan districts, j
Southwark, were in favour of the immediate rerc
them, yet half the representatives bad voted one Oil
half another; and, according to the mode of Ili
once resorted to on the Catholic claims, this wool
that the inhabitants of London and its vicinitY4f
opinion at all upon the subject. No doubt the rio
large were greatly disappointed in the results of /o
reform of the House of Commons; it bad fritterrs i
the confidence of the people, and showed that ; f
respected party feelings than national intere9:o
nothing could so much tend to restore confidellotj
adoption of the resolution, which would ahoy/ote
Members were ready to give an account of the to ,
mitted to their charge. f
ill/
Mr. JAMES KENNEDY could not concur
observation of the Noble Lord (Altborp), that I'M
nothing particularly pressing in the existing state, °,,, i
to call upon the House to agree to this resolittlosi
thought it of the highest importance, because o Fq
single question every other depended, and 120 di
omen could be worse than the rejection of the Pr°,s V.
He knew that the House and Government h 1
considerably in the estimation of the people, en,, ~/retitit
recently appealed a second time to his coneuooni ,
was returned solely on the ground that he bed 1 0 ti,
voted in the minority. The people began to tlotetly
present were no better than the former Mil° silt('
that the Tories might as well have reni
power ; if so, the Reform Bill was nothing bat 4,
teej
and delusion—robbery of those who had correerifirry
into a property, and delusion of those who fel
bring the trust back to its original purpuee.'";celV
As to the expense of elections, the last had se.eit Oft'
even the whole country as much as former 01;1,014
cost, sotnetinaes, at a single pace.l Con 04 04 b
little had been done in the present session, in tw'beti)ri
of taxation and diminution of expenditure"' 001
had been done for the poor, and how Inuebot lilt)
been spent upon one or two measures that did
o%ia 4
to the credit of the Government, he was most sl,,rllpir
the resolution for shortening the duration of not
should be carried. This might be called the t feh
ment under the Reform Bill—but not the firs,oo,/ ,1
Parliament; and it might remain to the next to ue thip
which the present refused to discharge. Cul 0:0101/
Whigs of the present day could not do—they, f ll' 0
like their predecessors, prolong the existence
1,/
Itoment ; and the time must arrive when a A
/
would be made to the people, who would take
ital
for the future from the past.—(Cheers.) t t0,.41
Lord J. RUSSELL—He would not atteol,in P:,t
but
ts
reHencitenn.
At Gentleman
I;I:laidi
oi iphtteradt.i_ownli of
iwsehpaarot.ke)ev
whatever
rowtii
Whatever,
oto
eP -I rtvr.t

Lent in

etary for
gainst
years.
; he thgci
r.)
,ut he V
remit C
that, if

de a del
le Lord
Went ix

hougbt
e year. ,
to the oil'
ntlernao.d
of the lid
nother reP
a handle,
Ltrly effeel
view to 10
the Cbar4
i away!
got ,tt,‘

- He st
that Ha
to Walls
g—the
•een Cst
oitude 01

I should
tared to
onger.

ustice, g:
nature.
.nts had b

as inherl2
He Wy4
int pro',4
d under"..
of Cro
altY
ro say
d not bele:4
i rather
h it weol
of the j
suppolo,4
came to r,
r the
arlismeovo
;ht that
.d
motion ;
'an any °At
mud, Vs')
of the Ply
roughootiv
d
he first f;
I it via* 1
hey coo!,
f Parlia
for five yg..11

ion as re
Mat the
nobody
therefore
iod to I°
extend•
Member°
country
n the flu";

5 some
oubtful '
He did
t there
I that egi
ancient P.
ular eel°
ament 801
next oee'i
was dio
liamenk7
of his egOvi
iigarY
heir pro'i.
they had
viably 14