The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-16 00:00:00

ARSON.

Mr. LLOYD moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend
the law relating to wilful burning. He understood that the
introduction of the measure would not be opposedt and he
should therefore explain the outline very briefly. His ob-
ject was mainly to reduce the punishment now affixed to
the crime of arson, as he considered it one of the remain-
ing blots of our sanguinary penal code. His second object
was to give more effectual protection to property. He
proposed to retain the capital punishment for setting fire
to any inhabited house, or building attached or immedi-
ately contiguous to a house, but he wished to abolish it in
cases where fire was set to buildings or property by the
burning of which human life would not be endangered.
He took this main distinction—that offences against pro-
perty ought not to be confounded with offences against life.
(Cheers.) He intended to provide, therefore;; hat where
life was not put in peril by wilful burning, the offence
should be punished by transportation.
The motion having been seconded,
Lord AL THORP felt considerable doubts as to the
policy of the course recommended, though he concurred
in the principle that punishment shouldbe such as to insure
conviction. He also thought it expedient, where it
could be done safely, to diminish the number of ca-
pital punishments, and to confine them, as far as possible to
crimes endangering life. At present a distinction was
taken between setting fire to stacks of stubble or stacks of
corn, and the guilty had in some instances escaped. He
was afraid of meddling with the subject at present, unless
it could be clearly shown that the lessening of the punish-
ment would lessen the frequency of the crime by increas-
ing the certainty of conviction. He was not, however,
prepared to say that the bill should not be introduced.
Mr. HILL was clearly of opinion that the effect of the
change would be to augment the certainty of conviction.
Lord HOWICK did not mean to resist the introduction
of the bill.

31r. INGHA3I, we believe, expressed himself similarly.
Mr. LLOYD added, that he meant to make the terms
of his amended law so comprehensive as to include all
cases, and not to allow such distinctions as those to which
the noble lord had alluded. He only solicited a fair con-
sideration of the subject.
Leave was then given.

REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.
Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from Derby, for the
repeal of the Septennial Act.
-Mr. E. L. BULNVER presented a petition with the
same pryer from Coventry.
Mr. BRISCOE presented a similar petition from
Peckham.

Mr. HAWES presented a petition of file same kind
from Lambeth.

Mr. TENNYSON then brought forward his motion
upon this subject. He considered that he was now rather
resuming an interrupted discussion of last session than
opening a new debate. The noble lord, on the former oc-
casion, had moved the previous question, with a view that
members might avoid giving an opinion upon the merits,
which it was inconvenient to discuss at that late period of
the session. He had hoped, that in the interval govern-
ment might have determined to introduce it as a Cabinet

_ •
question ; and. he was quite confident that several members
of the administration were favourable to shortening the
thiration of parliaiiieht. ire did not A all know What bourse
the noble lord intended now to pursue, but he regretted the
repeal of the Septennial Act was not submitted to parliament
at the settlement of the great measure of reform. Ministers
would thus have gained greater credit for the measure, and
have added another wreath to the immortal crown of his
present Majesty. It would have come with the more
grace, recollecting that the Septennial Act *as paiSed to
Sec re Mere effect
ually the throne to the House of Bruns-
Wicks The people cheerfully surrendered for a time their
right of more frequent election Of Weil' repreSetitatives for
tins purpose ) anti now that there could be no danger ti§ tti
the stlOCessioti,. the tresent • gerVatii hf the crown might
prtipi4 11§.46 kdiiSed lii4 Majesty fA a1,t,0 this la*.
Without entering into the matter at length, he tvolild t4=
mind the house that, at the revolution, the period of three
years was considered the fit duration of a parliament.
Mr. STANLEY remarked that the period of three
years was tint taxed Ithq revoluti, but afterwards.
TEANYSO admitted that the stet did
net tiss iinti1,1,694, several years after the revolution; but
ow ill of Rights had asserted, in rather equivocal terms,
that frequent parliarhefitS ivete rkeceisary. !t was is rex*
qu„s tit), lihefliet it was meant by those wbrdt to Ai:4k
that frequent elections were necessary ; but five or six years
afterwards, the great men who lived at the time of the re-
volution, concocted the Triennial Act, thus clearly ex-
Of tiro extreme o"piniOns--between 4416 eolitended;
tphlareineinygearthsewatzmi;
fat, hiteei4mßilplkocifui,ißsellietts4eettThthee term of
on the one hand, that the crown had the right to protract
the existence of a parliament for an indefinite penod—it
ma r igguhetd beth
ef o
rr
igehvte ru—f atnhde tpheouspe
lew
ht
a onnn utahl pe os. rt hl
ar mheannt ds
From the time of Henry , VIII. to ,the period
,of thy
revolutions thee WeVe foityltWo parliaments, aitcl but
of this number there were twenty-six that existed for
a less term than a year. From the time of Charles I. to
the revolution there were 12 parliaments, and the average
duration of these twelve was three years: Calculating the
duration,- excluding the Long Parliaments the average
term would be fbund to be not more than nine months:
It was surely wrong, then, to suppose that there had been
long Parliaments prior to the passing of the Triennial Bill:
Three years appeared to him to be a reasonable tidied Mr
the transaction of public business; and he thought he
could show that this time was quite consistent with the ge-
neral principles of our constitution. The old practice un-
questionably was to assemble Parliament with a view to the
despatch of business that would probably arise. The lan-
guage of the ancient writs would, he thought, establish
this fact. It would appear from them that Parliament
was always summoned with reference to certain matters
foreseen, at the period at which Parliament was called to-
gether, as likely to require its attention, and to dispose of
those matters. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.
Secretary Stanley) smiled, but he hoped the right hon.
gentleman would hear him before he attempted to
turn the arguments he might use into ridicule. In
proof of the existence of the principle for which he
had been contending, he might also refer to many
speeches from the throne. The King, in one of those
speeches, used this expression—he said he summoned his
Parliament that he might thereby " have the opportunity
of receiving more certain information of the disposition
and wishes of the people." It was clear, from language of
this description, that the objects of assembling Parliament
were to discover the wants of the country, and to legis-
late as to matters that were to a considerable extent
foreseen. Some persons entertained an apprehension
that the adoption of Triennial Parliaments might lead to
mischievous results ; but, in his opinion, in order to dissipate
such fears, it was not necessary to do more than refer to
what had been the effects of them. Under the Triennial
Act, there were nine parliaments. Now he would appeal
to the whole of the legislation of the whole of that period,
and confidently ask in what respect that afforded the slight-
est ground of alarm ? Be it recollected too, that this was
a time of great difficulty, and one in the course of which
parliament strengthened and confirmed the liberties ob-
tained by the revolution. The present bill was similar to
that which he had recommended to the house on a former
occasion. They were then exceedingly occupied with other
business, and it did not appear to him that the measure had
obtained the consideration which its importance demanded.
He thought it right to give the question fair play. He
would not disguise that if the bill went into committee, it
was his intention to express his own opinion on the sub-
ject,-by moving that the term of the future duration of
parliaments should be three years ; but as the resent bill
left the matter to that extent open, the noble lord opposite
or any other gentleman would be at liberty at that stage of
the bill, to propose any other term. He believed that his
hon. and gallant friend (Sir E. Codrington) who would
second the present motion, was an advocate for five years'
parliaments. In the committee, then, they would come to
a decision as to whether the term should be three, four, or
five years. He believed the people of England would be
grateful for any modification of the existing law ; but he
must say, that if live years were proposed, he should feel it
his duty to vote against such a motion. They might de-
termine in favour of five years, but that would not determine
the question. ("Hear, hear, hear !" from Mr. Secre-
tary Stanley.) He thanked the right honourable
gentleman for that cheer ; he perfectly under-
stood its meaning. The right hon. gentlemen might make
what use of the declaration he thought proper. He ad-
visedly repeated the words, " That it would not settle the
question.' (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He knew it
was objected to short Parliaments that they would dimi-
nish the personal responsibility of the representatives. His
object was to fix a time that, in his opinion, would com-
bine efficiency for the public service with responsibility.
Some gentlemen told him that it was unnecessary to
shorten the duration of Parliaments, since the house had
been made more popular ; the amendment of the repre-
sentation, they would perhaps contend, had rendered the
shortening of the duration of Parliament needless. Now,
he begged. the house to remember that the leaders of re-
form, among whom was Mr. Grey, uniformly said that
these two changes—the amendment of the representation,
and the shortening of the duration of Parliaments—ought
to be accomplished, to place the liberties of the country
on a sure foundation. Mr. Grey, in 1793, on the pre-
sentation of the petition of the members of the Society of
the Friends of the People, said he thought that the short-
ening of the duration of Parliaments ought to be the second
question. He said, " With respect to shortening the dura-
tion ofParliament, it did not appear to him that it wouldbe
advantageous, without a total alteration of the present sys-
tem." In 1797, when moving for a reform of Parliament,
Mr. Grey said, " There was still another topic upon which
he had not touched—namely, the duration of Parliament. If
the reform of the representation was adopted, but not other-
wise, it occurred to him, that the duration of Parliament
should be limited to three years." Here was the language
used by the reformers of that time ; and were they, when,
in 1834, they proposed to shorten the Parliaments, to have
this answer, Vs think the question of reform is satis-
fied, because we have improved the representation of the peo-
ple ?" Such a course involved this inconsistency. Before
the Reform Bill was passed, the sense of the people was
only partially expressed. Now that the Reform Bill had
effected a great improvement in that respect—now that a
real representation throughout the country of the sense of
the people might be effectually obtained, it was rather ex-
traordinary to contend against the shortening of the dura-
tion of Parliaments, on the ground that the means of as-
certaining the opinions and felings of the country existed.
There was some difference in the arguments of which the
proposal for shorter Parliaments was opposed ; one class
said that the alteration would render the Parliament too
popular ; another class, that it would throw elections too
much into the hands of the aristocracy. He hoped to
combine the two influences, and he thought it was this
tendency that constituted the chief recommendation of his
motion. If Parliaments were shortened, seats would be-
come less the objects of contention by pecuniary means,
and would more generally lead to local representation.
The consequence would be, a considerable improvement in
the social intercourse of the kingdom. Paley said he
thought " nothing tended so much to improve the social
union of all classes as the frequency of elections. The
changes of men consequent on frequent elections were pro-
ductive
iia as
dv it
uc a
iusr.o,m During
thatt iumnb.eyns
gt
hthehappened,
na-
tion." One of the advantages of elections occurring
ndvo
ifuoct
tceetnsdi veeorenf
deny
la
nos
thatoue
lmod greatit occasionally
tt lthat
the best man was excluded, an earlier opportunity would
be afforded for his return. The noble lord opposite would
exclu-
sion of the best man the country was deprived of the
agita-
tionser-
vices
of the Reform Bill a dissolution occurred, and at the
consequent elections the only question asked of can-
didates was, " Will you vote for this bill, or will you
not ?" If the candidate would not, that was generally suf-
ficient to insure his rejection. He admitted the circum-
stances of that time were very peculiar ; but was not that
an argument in favour of snore frequent Parliaments ?
The government of the day generally took care to dissolve
the parliament when some particular measure was before
the country, which was converted into a test. There was
another point he would press on the consideration of the
house. Having improved the principle of representation,
and got a reformed parliament, they might depend on it
that they would experience greater changes at the end of
seven years than they ever had before. Thehon. gentleman
then concluded with his motion.
aadutswvaefuhnenin: to the councils of the

Sir E. CODRINGTON rose to second the motion,
not with a view to reduce the time of parliaments to three
years, but to five. He believed that there were good
grounds for the Septennial Bill at the time it was passed,
but there was no necessity for its continuance, any more
than there had been for a continuance of the suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act, which had been suspended in ex-
traordinary times. Feeling, then, that the Septennial Act
ought to be got rid of on some terms or other, he came
forward to propose the terms that he thought would be
most useful.
Col. DAVIES would give his opposition to the motion of
the hon. gentleman, because he thought it premature, inex-
pedient, detrimental to the despatch of the business of the
country and subversive of the independence of parliament.lie
was at a loss to understand why it should have been in had
duced at this time. Within the last two years they
and
effected changes amounting almost to a revolution, an;
thaer
exceeding the hopes of the most sanguine reformers
,o d
day. Mqten the hon. member for Lambeth endeas owe

to prevail tin the house to provide representatives for the
town of Birmingham, he never could have dreamt
theirnow
before
the
h ou. ,e ,
that the reform was so near which fel shortly after-
i'rattl, vias carried into effect. Having been returned for
the nrSt fefiliinid parliament, Scarcely had they taken
(Mr. Wilks) gave notice of a motion ttl the efteet of this
butthe ini'cboinseqinueenihcbeeOf for
of the business he withdrew it. The hon. member for
Lambeth, hqwever, immediately after brought it forward.
Boston
He (Wolfe' liaiies) cOnsidefed it unnecessary. This
house was supposed to speak the feelingS of the tetrPle, an„d
die p.tegsttre
everything here said was wafted Willi flit speed of lig"'
hung to the remotest corners of the kingtitiffit Iklany WWI
there tetufned to this house had given but one Ple,dgt,
that one being to sittiliOrt the government which ne;
' t'tecieil sii much benefit: What was the consequei:Ce 1
Why triii=z-ihiii, the Present goterniifeht *Sight be colt
dered to have a greater i,timber of personal friends an
adherents in Parliament than al k&einment ever Po'
sessed before, or probably ever would agtsin. Notwithi
stan,ding all this, that the present Parliament Was not
easily thidiaged by the government had been sufficieelj
•roved; Thete had been Occasions on which even thf e
frotheis of niembeis.tif the Cabinet had voted against the
Gilvernhipit; The, lion. ideinbef I* Lambeth had °',i
that the THeilnial Act, go tar froth hating ditninis
hmlithaP g
extended the time of the dutalidti Of Parlinments. „f
was the fact ? In former times there was tid lithitationZ
the time of duration, but that which depended Ott iir;
will of the Crown. Under the Septennial Act Part:
ittente had existed for eight, ten, twelve, fifteen, and et-
iei;ehteen f eati: The aierage duration under the Tril
nial Act he made to be dilly tine par, seven month!, an .
t:7ent..,:-two days. Was it not Heat, then, that, undeStii
Triennial Act, they would have Parliaments ids
the
only a year and a -half? Such, indeed, must hei.....,
the average, we hadthad Triennia;
kitilt bf fitting three years as the maximum of u'i;ie
tion, and fixitig lid iiiinfiiittitt: , Lthtrely those favdura be -
to the principle of Triennial PrhilartientB ought to.
taking
content, it being ;iie.7utable that to tiliS litureent, tb,
last' parliaments,.- unr
thirty-five years. Omit from this account .6.,,...-
between the dissisititidn and the meeting of the next ' "--
'lament, and they would get-in average not exceediq
three years and thirty-six days. The hon. gentleman exceeds
he 'wished to increase the control of the constituencv over
the member I bitt could it be. supposed that anY canilid.r
who Offered himself at the last election, calculated a
should retain his seat flit seven yeatil As,far as he r:ye."
concerned, he should have been very glad i'-‘ Ihe
promise for three years. (Hear, hear, hear. ) ke
hon. member' had alluded to the changes which mightt!ut
place in the house at the eapifation of seven years, . P
this was perhaps the strongest argnmeht that could,. be
used against the proposition of the hon. member. 'IrL
ennial Parliaments would be constantly sending into T.
house new ntembete
ottSa
gofut
aecelho
onrnutecontested
wouldhte
doef
country. be,emieectnht i the
elections.
sm.mbAoadnTr
moderate
embarrassments for .
ignorant of the business. Then
,1.1: t
time of the house would be eurmemed and wasted in u*.
.t es.
aah stteemrt
heofinofs
rttstwhuoenc
uoeelnsvdsibelbsyqeut:ehsh.noeetu
would
derna
se
1;1;
frequency
lotting in election petitions and electiolt comniAre,„:4,
nial Parliaments ; and in their results they would be cal-
culated neither to confer honour on themselves nor advar
thousands lately squandered when the duration of Parlia-
ment
promised to be short fully proved, and if further con-
'firmation were wanted, there needed but a reference to the
workings of Triennial Parliaments in past times. The
" downright" Shippen, whose incorruptibility was so un-,
questionable, was opposed to Triennial Parliaments, an
asked whether half the money granted to the King would
have been voted but for the frequent changes consequent
upon them. The reasons for repealing the Triennial Act
are fully given in the preamble to the bill brought in t]o
that purpose in the first year of the' reign of George tn.!
First. The words were, ~ And whereas it has been fon°,
by experience,that the said (three-year) clause hath prove;
grievous and burdensome by occasioning much greater
more continued expenses in order to election of meinbert,
to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting heats
and animosities among the subjects of this realm than
known before the said clause was enacted," Stc...„ 5,..
were the evils avowedly consequent on Triennial l'ar'oio,
ments. But thii was not the whole of the evil. The C ,
candidates. Not thousands, but millions,
sequences to the country, occasioned by the frequentcoY„°:.
elections, were even worse than the consequences l'
wasted in
kept
various modes of expenditure. The country we . r
' h excitemen ,
for weeks and months in a state of feverish _ and
business suspended, and men's minds roused toanglythere
fierce contention. If (as there was every likelihood
ed once
would be under a Triennial Act) an election occurred
and
_i_.
in every two years, to what a state of distraction_f:-.
moralization would not the country be reduced?
.Tene_r,
sitions of society would be totally changed, and the d
now filled in that house by country gentlemen w 'ilf„ be
occupied by pettifogging attorneys. For these reason.' u
wereuldbe
ben..
would oppose the motion of the lion. member for Lan, ;AA
Lord DALMENY hoped, in any discussion which in
,_
ensue upon the proposition before the house, that nry
members would not rake up the speeches which his •,,ti
jesty's present Ministers hail uttered within the last tvie,' '
years—
An HON. MEMBER (we believe the member for SO:
cestcr) said, "Oh 1 let us have no parliamentary roll'
rection-men." ell
Lord DALMENY continued—Speeches which had be
ep
spoken under circumstances quite different from thol it,
which the country was at present placed with rege,„ i,
this measure by the Reform Bill. (Hear.) The first .!,r_.,,
ennial Parliament was a consequence of the despe!!,,P;
which had been attempted at that period ; mighte f_d_7o
as an instrument used against tyranny, it
alteredhavDe;;,„
praiseworthy and valuable, its nature was now,ite,r),
the altered circumstances of the times.
( ileBr,
sides.
hear.) - The country was not now placed in such at po.
_bat
and why, then, should such a measure, adapted only' to' 44
had great.; 4.:,
, position be called for ? The duties of the house
"eyelid,' ;a
increased since that period, and required ameore
ninpli- 2'
increased attention. Its business. became
eeor
it.
perfocrmatto ~,
sated, and demanded snore experien f
ore
frequent election! ".
'
than the new persons sent'n
by m
frequent elections were ie
fre
could bring to it. The evils ofq
they would produce
themselves very great, and the effect
be most injurious',
upon the members of that house wouldhouse should not be,
The opinions of those who sat in that
members come into;
the result of dictation, nor should Such mod gl a
deliberative assembly as mere delegates.
od it
not representatives of their constituents.Theriotslid
in twat
them in the relation of the slave to master, sod %h, col
of the free agent to his employer. (Cheers.) e
°f
...,,,,see
stituency had no right to stand in the attitude
eirr col'.
towards their representatives, and scare
.2.,
01tLit'at hoes!
scientious scruples. ( Hear.) The maieriqi from thud
might differ from the people, and differ wise y:.,,_., to:,
and the people, when their passions had subsi 10:isktoit,
acknowledge the wisdom. On one greatbe°een the Cal
granting of Catholic emancipation, this had
tia.o4 papal
(Hear, hear.) That house set itself
upaiifithat fide
prejudice and bigotry in the final adjustment
ed to observe that
s
tant measure. (Cheers.) He was surpri (A bogb4
t cheer.
the Irish members had not joined intha
no short cut v)
The house should recollect that there was _of a 040'
The could arrive at the kph whieueo '
dexterity re'
man's duties. Did they imagine that t
the
successful 0
quired by a contested election would fit
dicraft ti'
dilate for office ? To practise a mere haxiand was i
required an apprenticeship of seven years;
_aid be a.;
be supposed that a knowledge of state business cos if to
quired in almost' as many hours ? (Hear, hear. ) to
triennial system were adopted, there would be moue
the changes it would occasion. On every the iTt
ground, or supposed ground of offence, and wh,,,' tile til
minds of the electors were warm upon the subjlaitte"
representatives would be dismissed, ere time was 1-- ii.r
for the return of kindlier and more dispassionate ee„„Del
(Hear.) The right honourable gentleman (the tion,
for Lambeth) who brought forward this proposition,r.ere
that Parliaments had never been so good
as when they :iieo
triennial. Now, he should like to know what geed_tanat
Triennial Parliaments had effected? What hadntl?
neYiegir
for the people ? Was not their whole time spe t '
The reforiliej._
lating against their own corruption ?
business it had!"
House of Commons, and the important
easure. Membel
perform, were reasons against t_heroinni
f the vehemence it
would come too warm and excited
as they ought upon Of;
a contested election to deliberatelaws and the reform of tne
weighty matters as the 0
Peonsequenee of the me/OW,,
il
church. Indeed, the
finaldestroy the balance of the cod
would be to ultimately'
prevent the development of ale";
tution. It would also
etore they proceeded with Who!
in that house..
not be prudent to let the Reforrn vb,„
measure, would 17t,
For himself, he would cenclucY_,,,,_/,
have a fair trial.
n • attemt to make an organic e.l,,i"Cr
protesting against a y
s culations of probaou ,k
in the constitution 011 mere pe
___ bv ,
in concluding, was loudly cheered '
The noble lord, • al
house. • „ analog" ,
lora s . wer
Mr. EWART would reject the noble. ulnas . ,
• from history, which, when circums ,_. Tn.
reasoning was no more than an old alinauac!,,,,t, beb
totally different,
dtrarliain _
watt)
noble lord desired them to try a reformed (fir. op.. E
thief
the reformed parliament had been tried. ~, syfera,oo
would support the measure, because "%toms 0
o._
between the representatives and their ceir_nparliataare,,Tert
be more increased by that than by Septenidittlio his e 'I,
(Hear.) This was the doctrine of Mr. .:
P intained Weraw-to
political life, and it was a doctrine also mial
astonish 13
noble Paymaster of the Forces. Ile N!, the bola._ es
hear the name of old Shipper! introduced by in,ht qui,,,;.be
who 111 f' 1 t
gallant gentleman (Colonel Davies),
h ame l 3lontagdeat tb'f
well have introduced t e n
I long iarliament' es °
reason why Shippen fayourec _ 1
the owe
_O,Ol
that members were then under ' ,e 0 s°,
period was, .e te • tv•
the Treasury, and the lengthened period gave This, oi,
chance of exercising an independent spirit.
the 11,° ta.
on of Sergeant Onslow, as it gave f eee° a
was the opini of r was
nees of the borough-owner somewhat more t, .0 0.,
Reform, instead of being an argument against' of Pal
argument in favour of the shortened duratoion
.__,(o4 •
liament ; because, by that reform, the nominati _ 7%./Ss_
were done away with. (Hear.) This, thereffeere If;
measure which demanded the support of all slhen..stl
formers. Now, too, was the very period refor'
measure should be passed into a law—now, by a jd
house, and when there was no political agitation.ecol;),,,.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM said, it had been ohieworceri
hon. and gallant gentleman (The member for
Aa

II

to
den" e proposed measttra, chit woug incie-
o; of parliament: He should like to Item What the
114 gallant gentleman reeanl. by ependence: If
k. meant that the parliament 'snottld lie independent of the
was a eanatitutional doctrine ; if df the peers, it
lia4r,°etritte still more constitutional ; bid if he Meant it
sktb
sue independent of the people, it *as a doctrine most
titutional. (Cheers.) The objection, that new
124,,}:ers would be ignorant of the forms of the house
tol4, easily be obviated by the publieation life short.
toe, Which, indeed, would be Of the greitest advan-
tretl,,members of the existing parliament ; and so far
dettinunkingt as bad been urged, that the frequency of
Laiki-us Would lead to great expenditure, riot, and de-
thatfrn, he thought it would have a tendency to correct
a• • "'n---an evil which might be mat attributed IA the
y,Ttneraent attendant on the present reipieney and no:
such scenes. In short, he ti* no more difficulty
iho to arise from elections for members of parliament at
iir:t intervals, than now arose fr.lin the Cie.ptign of blink
+4"W* or other public ilinetionariegi He aid not see
Lo,t;'€tessity for member* initiVsing on themselves a heavy
14,8'n of canvassing. He did not usually like to speak of
did elf, but ho could safely say, that representing as he
tt),wn containing 100,000 inhabitants, he had ne'yer
Pace red a single voter, nor had his election cost him sm-
ash; expense. (Hear.) He could certainly bear testi-
~rdWith great pleasure, to the talent which the noble
ts,„°PPosite had exhibited, but he must say that his ar:
eaCts had not convinced him. The noble lord had
tad i.:,°ltred to draw a distinction betafeeti, public opinion
but "Pular clamour. It was easy to apply either term,
when was not always so easy to distinguish the difference.
Pro 4 the people cried out for the Retorin Bill the Tories
who ""loced it to be an unthinking elknouri whereas those
tbetoekwanted the support 01' the
_people—that support by
." 5f which they were carried into power, hailed it as
t%iiexpression of an enlightened and intelligent public
7t!. Then it was worshipped as the nix pull, vox
then; but now, when the saute was turned against , it
~ezolinemas no longer taaognised as public opinion, but
u•-rd - is mere popular clamour. This appeared to be
t Y true distinction. (Hear, hear.) The objection
legates
uld tend to make members of Parliament mere
Iwas, he thought, equally unavailing.
s° °•Rnel DAVIES explained.
term UNDFORD said, that if members newly en-
whog that house were unfit for legislation, many of those
he h4adbeen some time. ih it were unfit for argument, for
p;gh not hberd one single convincing argument that
rd against the motion of the right hon. gentleman the
at` 'Der for Lambeth. The object of the constituencies
select men well acquainte.d with political subjects
Lin proof of his position hem ight observe, that no par-
eat entertained measures of greater consequence than
lia,,Se Which came under consideration of
ithe reform par-
ent during the first session of their nexperience.
..2'..) Amongst others he might refer to the Irish
reion Bill, and to the Slavery Abolition Bill, which
th-re introduced whilst the members were quite new to
tfl
it' duties.
STANLEY—I did not move my resolutions till
tCterday twelvemonth, and after they were moved the fur-
e, consideration of them was for some time postponed.
ti.„,.Sir D. SANDFORD—That was immaterial. They
hone di cussed and passed during the first session. The
that gallant gentleman, who had spoken, had proved
s t-".ne duration of the Septennial Act, made it virtually
hone one. But though this might be the average,'
eoZ of those parliaments sat out all their time, and he
least say, with great confidence, that those which sat longest
t, gatisfied the wants of the people. (Hear.) But, said
the eit.°o' and gallant gentleman, if you pass a triennial bi11,
hot !stilt will be biennial parliaments. This was certainly
aa„,'esired. Who asked for biennial parliaments? They
hp--ed triennial parliaments, practically, and therefore
h- wished the legal duration to be made quadrennial, for
saw no reason why they should not recognise in
v,tll,l.eiple:_what had been admitted to work well in prac-
kin,. (near.) It had been said that they were not pur-
q/,'a worse course in exciting the people by spontaneous
'of what they did not require. But he, who had
than more recently into contact with his constituents
that 'trrhaps any other member, could assure the house
Were ere was' no question respecting which. the people
oti more anxious, or to the sentiments of their members
of th 'en they attached greater importance., (Hear.) One
that e topics of the noble lord's (Dalmeny s) speech was,
the Some allowance should be made for the enactment of
11,,,j'eptennial Bill, inasmuch as the change followed a
thper;
revolution, when tyranny had just been banished
th tue country, and a great change had taken place in
C°ndition of the people.
fl'o '4l DALMENY—I said, We had just emerged
Sirregal tyranny."
1). SANDFORD—WeII, and have we not also
er•ged from recent tyranny?
erd DALMENY—I said " Regal."
th "‘r D. SANDFORM-Well, what matter ? Whether
eie tyranny from which we had emerged were regal or
e igarhical, made no difference; a great change had re-
sae„,4tlY taken place in the condition of the people, and the
liar: reason applied for a change in the duration of par-
to ti,ent'• (Hear hear.) But the noble lord had seemed
arld thwthe voice' of the people should be disregarded,
to fr when they so ht what he did not think it convenient
**grant, the noblueglord reversed the maxim—treated the
the P°Puli as vox diaboli. Why the very instance which
)1,4 nobles lord quoted bore against his argument. He
hf I,eferred to the great, enlightened political measure
aPatholic Emancipation. If the right honourable
nber for Tamworth were then in his seat, he would
al M him as to the state of popular feeling at that
that' The right honourable baronet broughte forward
e,h, Measure with a magnanimity and
that
1,3":(1 never be sufficiently praised, for at harto:noment
carried
the only man in the country who could have
I%;°,‘i The noble lord thought the tendency of this measure
-"gi be to convert members of parliament too much
4'4 tLa species of delegates. Members wished as strongly
slit", noble lord that those who entered that house would
to it as independent men—men who would be at liberty
do:lercise their own judgment, and who were not bound
lit,"e4 and shackled by pledges to pursue any particular
house Conduct which he might find after entering that
hluts-i, be inconsistent with the interests of the people.
httl..ouegt h-ut:l,alroagreein. inprinciple with the noble lord, he
d'" the effeoPtpofsitioglitito hipi, that the bill would
n members of parliament more in-
petrndent thanutlimeya were before. What was it Made the
their
so jealous. they
doubtful, so anxious to bind down
the so jealous,
but the length of the time for which
.
of bn' Were to be intrusted with an uncontrolled exercise
tooldwer (Hear)—and what would be the feelings of
towards men who should return to their constituents, and
hilt them we might have retained our power seven years,
return it into your hands at the end of three ?
h° ear.) He should support the proposition of the right
11,-,.."• Member for Lambeth to the extent to which it went,
p0..--7,rstanding that it did not bind him to any,speeific pro-
be—ft as to the duration, as he thought four years would
terPeferable. He urged the house and he urged minis-
ttitilca,srittteoriassent to this motion, for the sake of their own
He assured his Majesty's government that
agalenst'as a strong feeling prevailing in the country
on theirprat**, in consequence of a supposed adhesion
failed i to Tory principles, and he feared that
. if they_
0f.r,"1 acting up • office to their professions, when
9° tit
o"Lee, if theydeltne 'tied on using their influence to
link this motion, they would destroy the last remaining
affection that bound them to the people of this
t
Ai_ • ( Loud cheers. )
pa,,i." JAMES should vote for shortening the duration of
.meats. The house had heard many propositions ;
Proposed five years, some four, and the right hon.
er three. He believed no one had proposed six years.
1 0W he should prefer six years to seven (Laughter),
utit he should rr five to six, four to five, and three to
ftotir. (Hear, hear.) He was not at present inclined to go
reyond that ; . but had a plan which he intended to propose
committee, if the bill went so far, that one-third of the
'"lnbers of this house, to be selected b ballot, should go
in rotation annually. (A laugh.) t would avoid the
',4Ve and turmoil of a number of contested elections, and,
1,;,;"' opinion, was better than any plan which had yet
-4
ProPOSed ( Hear, hear.)
ALTHORP(Lord said that his noble friend behind him
t 4,4 Dalmeny) had
re expres7dona hope that hon. gentle-
without those frequent fer_''nuld discuss this
whitpees to what had pasgsueeds.lia.tely, so much in fashion,
ary resurrection
almost entitled them to the appellation of parliament-
rat men. Now he did not. mean for one mo-
t° deny that he had, at different times, voted for the
taeal of the Septennial Act. (Hear.) He did not re-
Zber that he had spoken on the subject, but he had
rtainly so voted. He had voted thus during the con 1-
D,tottice of an unreformed parliament, and he would state
istinctly the grounds on which he did so. He never then
eOtertained the least hope of carrying the great measure of
It'arliamentary reform ; and knowing that so large a por-
tit., of the then members of that house were sent there on
tt'ise nomination of individuals, he thought it desirable that
~e Power of the people over those whom they did actually
i.ect should be increased to the greatest possible extent.
(hear.)`l"ll He did not agree with the hon. gentleman who
v,just now, that the effect of this measure, if carried,
co °old he to diminish' the dependence of members on their
ir,°:tituents ; on the contrary, he thought it. would greatly
it weaaase it. (Hear, hear.) . H.e_was no
prof.gdto
targue-
---144Contrary to all the principles he
independent
, o do so
their-: 'umbers of Parliament should be independent of
but constituents. (Hear.) They oughtto be dependent,
pendent ttlie same time he thought they should not
mutation
ede-f
°Pknion n every . sudden and unconsidered
.d o
*ion out on opinions fairly formed after due consi era-
- . arid deliberation. (Hear.) It appeared to him that,
no
lutrltoer the
hfr . present duration of Parliament, therewas
that
heernaad—r in that house who did not, on every occasionh_
ressed them, feel that he was responsible to con-
kisma
anr.'ts, and that his vote on every question was te
) Influenced by their wishes. (Hear.) It appeared to
argue this was- a question of degree. He should not
inch 't as an historical question. He was generally more
I),a-;ned to argue questions in relation to their practical
thah-r•igs and utility at the time they were brought forward,
Np,a; MPlieitly to follow historical examples. (Hear.) It
hest rot sufficient to prove that at any former period of our
righ-triyY
oSrepte wrnnial Parliaments were established either
ongly ; the question was, would it now be

advantageous to resort to Triennial Parliaments or not ?
He was of opinion on the whole, judging from-the feeling
' and conduct of Parliament, that at, the tiregent momentthe influence of the conitittien4 in that house Was as great
as Wa'S degni-able ftir eirrYing cri the gdernitletit of thb
country. (Hear, hear, from the opposition, and counter
cheers.) He knew very well that gentlemen who were in
the habit of voting in a minority in that house never thought
that to be the case. It w,as a ,nattiral inference. (A laugh.)
Gehtleitten *lto found the decision of the holise directly
against their opinions, were no doubt apt to,think that the
house decided against the opinion of the people at large. It
was possible that on some indiiidnalquestionS the Douse might
decide agaOst the OpitilObS Of the people ; the ijttecttotl
was. the
all the circtirpstances of those ques- ,
tibils into consideration, the decision of the house was not
such as should ;avoura-bie opinion of the
public, and such its was likely, ultimately to obtain it? He
was aware that Stich 4 mode of grgitinefit bright pcisslblybe •
; but he did not believe that the people of tug=
land generally wished the members of that house to act as
their delegates, bnt that they placed considerable reliance
on the opinions of those whom they had selected as most
worthy of ,their confidence, and desired them to act ho-
neatly on their o*n judgment., (Hear:) It certainly was
the wish of the people of England to select those persons
with whose opinions the agreed, but if they coincided
vyith the gtinefal principles Of the candidate, he believed
they Were perfectly ready to trust to his discretion in
matters of detail. It did not then appear to him that
there was anything peettlier, to the present time which j
made it deiiritble to diSetiss the question. The hthi. mem•
her fur Paisley statedi In answer to an observation of his
noble friend's (Lord Dalmeny), viz.—" that the Septen-
nial Bill was passed immediately after our emancipation ,
from regal despotism"—that we had now but just been
emancipated from oligarchical despotism, He certainly
Might fairly be supposed to estimate the benefits of the
Reform Bill as highly as any one, but he would not go so
' far as to say_ that we had emerged from a state of des-
potism. Though we had emerged from a state of oligar-
chical influence, greatly mischievous to the country, yet he
could not describe it as a despotism, nor compare it to what
occurred during the time of Charles 11. and James 11.
(Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir D. Sand-
ford)
had proposed to come back to what had by practical '
experience been shown to be the actual and usual dura-
tion of Parliaments, and to make the legal duration corre-
spond with the actual average. The house must be surely
aware of the fallacy of that argument, for if the legal dura-
tion of Parliaments were three years, the actual duration
must necessarily be much less.
Sir D. SANDFORD—I propose that the legal duration
should be four years.
Lord ALTHORP—Granting even that it were made
four, it did not by any means follow, that because the ave-
rage duration of septennial Parliaments was three years,
therefore the average duration of quadrennial Parliaments
would be the same. He would not disguise from the
house that the effect of the Septennial Bill had been to
increase the influence of the Crown. ( Hear.) One rea-
son why the duration of Parliaments had been shorter
than the law permitted had been, that the governments
had taken advantage, as had been truly stated, of the pe-
riod when it was most convenient to dissolve with the
greatest prospect of advantage to themselves. The real
question before the house was, whether, in the present
state of the country, the popular voice had not sufficient
influence in that house, or whether the influence of the
Crown there was too great. His opinion, from every-
thing that he had seen was, that neither of these contin-
gencies was likely to occur. The gallant colonel stated,
in rather exaggerated terms, that the frequency of elec-
tions would lead to great interruptions in the business of
the house. To a certain extent that would undoubtedly be
the case. At the end of the last session of Parliament,
although it had not been denied that there had been great
interruption in the proceedings of the house, yet much bu-
siness had been done ; and if in the present session the va-
rious propositions brought forward should be carried into
effect, it would be impossible to complain that little
or no business had been done. He allowed, that in
the last session there had been a greater interruption of
public business than there ought to have been ; but it was
consonant to his experience that such was generally the
case in the first session of every parliament. Gentlemen
came into the house unacquainted with the forms of par-
liament, and in their haste diligently to perform their
new functions, gave notice of a greater multitude of
motions, which were, perhaps, not necessary for the public
service. There had been less delay from that cause in the
present session of parliament. His argument was this,
that although, when the powers of the Crown were as
great as they were before the passing of the Reform Bill,
and the people did not in fact elect their representatives, it
might be desirable to give additional power to the people ;
yet now that the people did elect their representatives, the
power which the people formed was quite sufficient under
the Septennial Bill. Thyse hon. members who thought
that the opinion of the people on every question considered
in that house ought to be immediately resorted to, ought,
if they supported any change at all, to support annual par-
liaments! for the question of whether the parliament, in- '
stead of continuing seven years, should continue only five,
or four, or three years, was merely a question of degree ;
and, in his opinion, those who thought with him that the
members of that house ought to act according to their de- -
liberate judgment, and not front any sudden or immediate
impulse out of doors, had heard nothing to prove that seven
years was too long a period for the duration of parliament.
On these grounds, he should object to the proposition of
the hon. member for Lambeth.

Mr. O'CONNELL, in answer to the last argument of
the noble lord, would beg to ask whether the members of
that house came there to do their own business, or to do
the business of the people ? Whether they came there to
do what they themselves wished to do, or to do what the
people wished them to do ? In his opinion, it was to treat
the people with contempt to talk of the necessity, on the
part of that house, of guarding against the follies and
weaknesses of the people. What interest could the great
mass of the nation have in desiring anything that was not
calculated to promote the public good ? Particular con-
stituencies might have prejudiced and partial views ; but
the great aggregate of the constituencies of the country
could have no object but the public good. Was that exactly
the case in that house? Was it not possible that in that
house private interests might occasionally militate against
the public good ? Did no personal advantage ever result
from voting with the treasury bench ? Had government
no colonies for young lords—no ships for captains—no
regiments for colonels—no official situations for lawyers or
attorneys ? (Hear, hear.) Why, the present government
had more extensive patronage than any of their predeces-
sors. Was there not the patronage resulting from the col-
lection of nearly fifty millions of revenue ? Was it not said
the other evening, that no fewer than one hundred and five
public officers had been sent out to Canada? Surely those
gentlemen had not been chosen by chance, except perhaps
it was the lucky chance of being in a majority with his
Majesty's ministers. Government had the patronage of
England, of Scotland, of Ireland, and of the East and
West Indies. Under those circumstances, was there in
the duration of parliament for seven years a sufficient
security for the honesty and independence of the members
of whom it was composed? Yet who could deny that the
people had a right to possess a control over that house ;
for it was the house of the people ? The members of that
house were trustees for the people ; and the objection to
their remaining too long in their office was, that, like other
trustees, they might be apt to fall into the error of think-
ing that the property placed in their hands was their own.
(A laugh.) Would any hon. member think of appointing
a steward or a land agent irrevocably for seven years ?
Would he appoint such a person for any longer period than
that which would enable him to judge of his integrity and
capacity ? Seven years was too long a period for the du-
ration of parliament. Even three years was too long, but
he preferred that period to one year, because it had a pre-
cedent in those good times to which it was desirable to
return. There was one more consideration which ren-
dered him adverse to the duration of parliament for seven
years. In seven years seven generations passed away;
and in seven years seven generations arrived at that period
of life which entitled them to exercise the elective fran-
chise. By extending the duration of parliament to seven
years, therefore, they excluded for much too long a period
a number of young and healthy persons, of generous and
ardent minds, from the exercise of rights to which they
were justly entitled. But the greatest of all the objections
which he entertained against Septennial Parliaments was
that which he had already stated, namely, that the mem-
bers of that house were the trustees of the people ; and
every bod, knew that "short accounts made long friends."
Mr. 0 REILLY entirely
dissented from the doctrine of
the hon. and learned
member for Dublin. He contended
that the members of that house were the free and inde-
pendent representatives of the people, and that they ought
not to be treated as attorneys or
present system,
annual par-
liaments were substituted for thethe mem
bers of that house would consist either of persons' of im-
mense property, who would buy the votes of their consti-
tuents, or persons of no property, who would pander to the
prejudices and passions of the people.
Mr. ROCHE supported the motion.
Mr. SHEIL contended that the admission made by the
noble lord, that he voted for abridging the duration of P. ar-
liaments before the passing of the Reform Bill, was in fa-
vour of the motion of the hon. member for Lambeth. For
what change had the Reform Bill made which should induce
the noble lord, and those who formerly supported the
abridgment of parliaments, to change their minds and op•
-
pose it? The noble lord said, that it was because the in-
fluence of the crown and the aristocracy had been dimi-
nished, and because the influence of the people had been
increased. Was that true? Had the influence of the
aristocracy been substantially diminished? During the de-
bates on the Reform Bill they had been told by the oppo-
nents of the measure that its tendency would be to augment
the influence of the aristocracy ; and recent events had
gone far to prove that such was actually the case. And had the
influence of the crown been diminished? Why the acts passed
by the present parliament absolutely spawned with placemen.
He did not charge his Majesty's present Ministers with em-
ploying the influence created in an unfair manner ; but the
influence had been created nevertheless. Instead of going
into any abstractions, the best way was to ask the ques-
tion, whether the present parliament ought to last seven
years ? What had it done? It had renewed the Bank
Charter ; it had passed the West India Bill, and the East

India Bill ; and it was considering the Poor Law Bill, and the
Local Courts Bill. But had it no account to settle with the
people.? How many members of that house owed their
seats to ,the dissenting interest? ,If the claims of the dis-
setiterS had been neglected, thOlt not those members to
j be sent back to receive the uugiaill tlf tliost by Opin
they had been constituted ? If they repudiated the ciaimi
of the dissenters, and then remained in parliament for five
years longer, would not the raisions of the
people be in-
erea.4eds wotdd ncit their resentment be embitt, r during
that IT* period? hot the Pielifilgl,o,, the, eountry
be in a much.more eiasPerited,Statesin WA than in i
What t asked was tq go pack to the principles declared
the nrettinble of the bill nitrdcluced by, the great Lord
Somers. He was utterly it to understand t ex-
traordinary metamorphosis which his Majesty's
ters had undergone on the subject of reform. Their
efforts to obtain a reformed parliament had been
ITy and determined ; but now that they had ob •
tinned
tinn it; grid tVat they were urged to Ifo on, they shrunk
from the proposition of the hen; rneirib'ef for Lambeth.
His Majesty's Ministers ought to know that the public
opinion was very decided on this question. His Majesty's
Ministers ought also to know that there was a great change
in public opinion with respect to themselves, and that the
confidence which the people had formerly reposed in them
*is materially diminished, Was that denied ? Look at
Dudley, and at the other distinct indications of that dimi-
nution. Did they suppose that the way to remedy the
evil, and to diminish the distrust which the people began
to entertain with respect to them, was to oppose such a
proposition as that under consideration?
Mr. Secretary STANLEY observed, that the hon. and
learned member for Tipperary, had told them that the
public feeling had undergone a great and substantial change
on the subject of the duration of Parliaments. He (Mr.
Stanley) had, however, yet to learn, either from outward
indications or from the nature of the attendance in the
house that evening, that such was the case; When the
lion. member for Lambeth brought forward a similar pro-
position last year, there were what might be called a con-
siderable number of petitions on the table, praying that
the duration of Parliament might be shortened; but,
in the present year, when the hon. and learned mem••
ber for Tipperary
.asserted that a great change had taken
place in the opinions of the people, and that Parlia-
ment and Government had lost the confidence of the
people, there was, neither for quinquennial, nor for
quadrennial, nor for triennial, nor for biennial, nor for
annual, nor for (what the hon. and learned member for
Dublin would recommend) sixmonths' Parliaments, a single
petition, or scarcely more than a single petition, before the
house. Before the hon. member for Lambeth could ex-
pect his proposition to be supported, he must show that
there was a great practical evil to be remedied—that ordi-
nary remedies had been tried and failed, and that some-
thing new must, therefore, be resorted to. The hon.
gentleman thought of returning to the spirit of the consti-
tution by going back to triennial parliaments. Now,
never was any argument so futile, or so contradicted by
facts, as that triennial parliaments were the constitution of
the country. How long did that constitution last ? Ac-
cording, even to the hon. member for Lambeth, twenty-
two years ; and was that which lasted only 22 years to be
considered the constitution of the country ? He (Mr.
Stanley) was not contending that the parliament of 1716
was either right or wrong in extending the duration of
parliament to seven years. It was a period of great ur-
gency ; and the same right that warranted previous par-
liaments in saying that the duration of parliament should
be three years, warranted the parliament of 1716 in saying
that the duration of parliament should be seven years.
The fact was, that it was no more the constitution that the
duration of parliament should be three years, than it was
that the duration of parliament should be seven years.
Hon. gentlemen talked of the advantages of triennial par-
liaments, and dwelt upon the expediency of not adjourning
the operation of the complaints and remonstrances of the
people upon their representatives for a longer period. But
the hon. member for Lambeth had taken great pains to
show, that during the hundred and twenty years of the
exis:ence of septennial parliaments, the average duration
of parliaments had actually not exceeded three years.
(Hear, hear.) By the constitution, as understood in
former times, the duration of a parliament might be as long
as the life of a King. In the reign of Charles 11., a
parliament had actually continued for sixteen or seventeen
years. Yet, because since the passing of the Septennial
Act the average duration of parliaments had been only
three years, the hon. member for Lambeth, contending
that that was the constitution, made the motion that was
now before the house. The hon. and learned member for
Dublin had asked whether any man would give his agent
a power of attorney for seven years? Certainly not. No
man in his senses would give his agent a power of attorney
for a single year. But the members of that house received
no powers of attorney. They did not sit there as the dele-
gates of the people. The day had not yet come when
they were to be termed legislative attorneys. The hon.
and learned gentleman had asked if the members of that
house were wiser than their constituents? He (Mr.
Stanley) did not know. Some of them, he feared, were
not so. (A laugh.) But the true reading of the consti-
tution was, that such persons ought to be sent to that
house as the people thought could be most safely trusted
with their interests—interests which would be equally be-
-trayed by yielding to corruption, as by courting the fleeting
popularity that might attend flattering prejudices and pas-
sions of the people. (Hear hear,) Having selected a
man possessed of character, possessed of knowledge, pos-
sessed of experience, a wise constituency would say to him,
" Go to the House of Commons, and watch the great inte-
rests of the state ; go, not as our delegate, nor restricted
to the consideration of our immediate interests or our
immediate opinions ; but go as one of the general body of
national representatives, to deliberate with independence,
and to advocate those measures which may appear
to you to be essential to the welfare of the country at
large." (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member
for Tipperary said if the dissenters were treated
with neglect—he would not say with disdain—
when hon. members returned to their constituents they
would in vain try to be sent again to that house, and he
had drawn from this what he supposed was meant as an
argument in favour of the question then before the house.
Now he would accept the challenge—he would enter the
arena with the hon. and learned gentleman, and he would
say that he (Mr. Sheil) had singled out an instance
which, more than any other, put at issue the system on
which the hon. and learned gentleman acted, and which
lie (Mr. Stanley) was disposed to reject. No one, he de-
clared, held in higher respect than he did the great, ta-
lented, and influential body comprised under the name of
Dissenters—he had the honour of having the support of a
great number of them at the last election ; but this did not
hinder him from saying that if hon. members came there
for anything, they did not come to canvass one particular
subject ; and that in any subject which they did canvass
they must always act with regard to particular feelings or
prejudices, but for the safety of the state, and the general
government of the empire. They were bound to consider
whether the demands of the Dissenters were just and con-
sistent with reason, and whether they could be concededeven
on the ground of expediency. He would say that if parlia-
ment were liable to be dissolved, and hon. members to be
sent back to their constituents in the first heat of disap-
pointment—even though they had voted from the purest
motives, and so as ultimately to be of benefit to all—still
keeping the case of the Dissenters in view, great evil
might result to the best interests of the country. What
were the circumstances connected with the Triennial and
the Septennial Acts? In 1734, just one hundred years from
the period at which they were speaking, Sir W. Wyndnam
—perhaps speaking from the very place which was now
more ably filled by the honourable member for Lambeth
(A laugh), declared, as had been declared that evening,
that public confidence was sinking—that the power of the
crown was increasing—that placemen were multiplied—
and that the House of Commons was so inundated with
naval and military men, that it might be called the
officers' parliament—and that, therefore, it was absolutely
necessary to repeal the Septennial Act. But he would
ask, was there any comparison whatever between the pre-
sent period and the one referred to, when it was, in fact,
acknowledged that votes were as much the objects of sale
and barter as any commodity brought to the market ; and
when the object was, by diminishing the duration of par-
liaments, to make a bribe not worth a man's acceptance?
(Hear.) But was there anything of this kind in the
present day? Certainly not. But it appeared they were
none of them prepared to say how long parliaments were to
last, though many agreed they should not last so long.
One was for quinquennial ; another, triennial; and another
(Mr. O'Connell) for annual, or, he dared to say, for six
months' parliaments. The hon. and learned gentleman
(Sir D. K. Sandford), who had just taken his seat, said
there was nothing like a first year, and this certainly was
natural enough with him, under all the circumstances (A
laugh), that the glow of generous feeling was not then off
—that the fresh feeling of the hustings still prevailed, and
his opinion 'was in favour of quadrennial parliaments ; and
then another was all for triennial parliaments, where the
first year would be all fresh and fervent, and in the last
would be revived the patriotic enthusiasm inseparably con-
nected with the hustings. Why, it was on that very ground
—it was for that very reason, that he objected to the proposi-
tion before the house—satisfied that with such an influence
constantly working on his feelings, however conscientiously
disposed, he could not perform his duties usefully to his
country. (Hear.) To this immediate influence it was that
he mainly objected. Indeed so strong were his objections
to the different periods proposed, that he really thought, if
lengthstc
eat
tnhn
tage
thth
aattth ere
they
n-
orne
ewn,i
would
dd be, he
have
acting
h asnnunouulaidderpappreerlrpfiearemttueoaintgsc.oomthpsueeiesfiinuoglnl
empireeajuchdiienedsiovfidtuhaelirquceosntisotnituthenetys_wotuhladt have t ow co ou
ld
be the organs of
public reason_thatparty
they
me
ye en,
oaitiadd n obte t ha
me
er
neparbel
es etnotapot i vpeusl a
ro f
will before the good or evil results of any measure could
be fairly ascertained—that it would be impossible to carry
on the business of the country without constant risk of
collision between that house and other branches of the
constitution—that the monarchy itself would be endangered
—he could not bring himself to consent to any alteration
of the Septennial Act.
Mr. M. D. HILL (amidst loud cries of " Question,".
and continued confusion) believed the prognostics of the
right hon. gentleman would prove to be wholly unfounded,
and that the repeal of the existing law would tend rather

. ,
to strengthen than to weaken the foundation of the consti.
tution. As to the assertion that if the law were changed
members would be constantly Voting under a sort of com-
pulsory influence, and would be alw'ays in diead of their
constituents, he must express his opinion tlat those who
Tade it could have but a very sorry opinion of the candour
of fair dealing, of their fellow-countrymen. How many
members Of thii*iir
their
voted against the ex-
pressed wishes of their constnentst anti after explaining
their conduct, though perhaps it might nol be fully ap-
proved of, had yet received the fullest credit for the ill-
' #'egtitY of their motives, and been cheerfully returned
again pi that !louse, Hear- )
Mr. E: L. BtiLWER (Midst great uproar) was un-
girst,o9l to. declare; that throlightkit the whole of the ram-
titieeeti of We right,hot. Secretary for the Colonies,
he hadnot heard tiii.4; s'ertielice Click contained anything
approaching to an argument.
Lord EBRINGTON would oppose the nicitidiu
carrying the great measure of reform, many fears had been
expressed that it would be only a stepping-stone to other
Mettsttres, which it was said would be pregnant with the
greatest 146.14,trat think so. He gave the measure
his fullest support, and lie rejoiced when it had been suc-
cessfully carried. He had since met mss coliOtittient.,, and
he had candidly told them he could not support the present
bill, and they had nevertheless returned him. He felt it
his duty, therefore, to oppose it.
Sir WILLIAM CHAYTOR supported the motion.
He would vote for five or three years' continuance of
parliaments:
Lord JOHN RVSSELL said there was no question of
the duration of parliament before the house. The time
ought to be determined before the proposition was intro-
duced. Was it for five years or less? He hoped the hon.
gentleman would state distinctly the precise period to
which he would limit the sittings of the house. Was it a
triennial parliament he sought? Did he require that the
Crown should dissolve the parliament after it had sat for
such a definite period? The present parliament had sat for
two years ; it had settled some most important questions,
and others of equal moment were then under considera-
tion. It had obtained much experience, and would the
hon. gentleman then call upon the executive to put an end.
to its further deliberations, and at a period when the expe-
rience he spoke of might be most usefully and beneficially
exercised ? He considered the question, if carried, would
be a most pernicious one, and he called upon the hon. gen-
tleman to state it fairly, and required him the more par-
ticularly to do so, that they might at once determine
whether they were to have a parliament for one or six
years.

Colonel EVANS rose, amidst loud cries of " Ques-
tion." He would not detain the house many minutes.
He could not avoid expressing his surprise at the attempt
made to commit the house to the statements of the right
hon. gentleman who had introduced the motion. He
(Colonel Evans) would vote according to the forms of the
house, and not according to the speech of the right hon.
gentleman. The attempt, he would assert, was only made
because nothing better could be urged. Indeed the efforts
made to mystify the subject were extraordinary. It was
unworthy the candour and dignity which should distin-
guish the conduct of those whci were opposed to the mo-
lion. The question was really to limit the duration of
Parliaments, and not confined to any particular years.
Ought seven years to be the proper duration for the great
and important trust of legislation ? That was the actual
question, and to that question alone he hoped honourable
gentlemen would confine their attention. Allusion had
been made to the proceedings of the last two years. True,
Parliament had done much within those years ; first, they
had passed the Coercion Bill (Hear), secondly, they had
voted twenty or thirty millions of the public money to the
masters of slaves, and they were then entertaining a pro-
position to deprive the country of all local or parochial go-
vernment—to place an annual expenditure of seven mil-
lions in the hands of his Majesty's government. He would
ask, after such a course of proceedings, how many of those
who supported ministers could hope to successfully meet
their constituents when the day of future election came ?
Mr. TENNYSON replied. The motion he had made
was the same as had been introduced some twelve years
before. He merely_ asked leave to bring in a bill to
shorten the duration of parliament, leaving hon. gentle-
men at liberty to fix the time when the functions of the
house would expire. The question was whether seven
years were too long, not whether three years were too
short. Those gentlemen who voted with him would re-
cord by their votes that septennial parliaments were, in
their opinions, injurious to the public interests, and those
who voted against him would declare they were not. If
the bill went into committee, he (Mr. Tennyson) would
propose a clause to limit the duration for three years ; but
that was the question for the committee, and the noble
lord, with great experience and admirable tactics, would
not commit him further. The hon. gentleman then pro-
ceeded to calculate the average existence of the last
twenty-two parliaments, which, he contended, extended to
six years. After some further remarks, he said he re-
gretted the apathy of the people on the subject. (Hear,
hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen might cheer him. He
well understood the meaning of such cheers ; but he would
contend it was a bad sign of the times when the people
looked with indifference on what was going forward in
parliament.

Mr. STANLEY (Cheshire) would only detain the
house while he moved an amendment, that the duration of
parliament be limited to five years. He did so that hon.
gentlemen might know what they were voting for.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, the amend-
ment was withdrawn, and the house divided, when there
appeared—
For the original motion lB5
Against it
Majority against the motion... —5O
Mr. EWART postponed his motion with reference to
the Royal Academy till next session.
Mr. JERVIS obtained leave to bring in a bill to regu-
late the admission of freemen in municipal corporations.
Mr. E. COOPER obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend an Act passed in the 59th Geo. 111., so far as it
relates to the hearing of appeals at Quarter Sessions in
Ireland.
Mr. HALCOMB moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the present state of the harbours on the coast of
Kent and Sussex ; and particularly upon the best means of
preventing the accumulation of beach at their entrance,
and to suggest such improvements as may be deemed ne-
cessary or desirable for affording greater safety to the ship-
ping of the country. If it were not for the formation of
the shingle bars at the entrance of these harbours, instead
of there being only one harbour, Ramsgate, being open for
the shipping to fly to, there would be eight. The expense
of the inquiry would be very trifling.
The motion being put,
Sir J. GRAHAM altogether objected to this very ex-
traordinary motion, and he would frankly state that his rea-
son for doing so was his belief that the only object was to
induce a great outlay of public money, by sending down
surveyors to examine the different harbours on the coast,
which survey was quite unnecessary.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG agreed with the right hon. baro-
net that this was a most extraordinary motion, and therefore
he should strongly oppose it.
Sir T. TROUBRIDGE supported the motion.

A MEMBER said, it was too much to expect the house
to give up its time to such an inquiry.
Mr. STRICKLAND hoped the house would not grant
the inquiry. He was connected with harbours in the north
which were equally entitled to the consideration of this
house.
Mr. HUTT objected to the waste of the time of the
house that this motion would occasion.
After a few words from Mr. MURRAY,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, if the motion had been
more specific, he would have supported it, but, under the
circumstances, he recommended its withdrawal.

,••
Mr. HALCOMB, in his reply, did not want the public
money for these harbours.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 0
Against it
Majority against the motion —B6