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

requiring pledger. What measure could be more likely
to increase the demand for pledges than the continuance
of septennial Parliaments? If constituents had little
confidence in their representatives, what measure could
he more likely to increase that confidence than to
shorten the duration of Parliaments? One word re-
specting the term to which it was advisable the du-
ration of a Parliament should be restricted. He would
say at once, three years. He was an advocate for tri-
ennial Parliaments, not because they were formerly
in conformity to the law, but because he thought,
that, upon the whole, they would be the most bene-
ficial for the public.—(Hear, hear.) Four years might,
perhaps, not he too long ; and, on the other hand, in
the present state of public opinion, he should entertain
no apprehensions if the terns were limited to two years;
nay, he should not dread a revolution even if it were limited
to one year. But on a view of all the circumstances of
the case, he thought the term of three years was the
best that could be adopted. He was indeed surprised
at the arguments that short Parliaments were inimical
to the true interests of the kingdom, when the great
stalking horse of those who opposed them was, that we
had them practically already.—(Cheers.) Supposing, for
argument sake, that a Parliament never sat for more than
three years, would the result be the same as if it sat by
law during that period ? It would be totally different.
They would, at least, lose the advantage which might
otherwise be counted, of superseding the necessity of
pledges.—(Hear, hear.) There would be another dif-
ference. Under the present system, the Crown always
appeared against the people. The time for a dissolution
was never chosen so as to favour the people, but so as to
be convenient and agreeable to the Crown.—(Hear.)
Whenever Ministers thought they bad got the people at a
disadvantage, then came a dissolution.—(Hear, hear.)
When, he would ask, was the Parliament ever dissolved
because it suited the convenience of the people ?--(Cheers.)
He should certainly give the motion his support, as being,
next to the parent, the most urgent of all reforms that
could be brought under the consideration of that House.
--(Cheers.)
Lord SANDON considered that the supporters of the
motion were bound to show some particular reason for
viewing, at the present time, with greater jealousy the
conduct of that House. Was it when a greater weight
had been given to the popular feeling, that such an in-
creased jealousy and distrust was to be indulged in?—
(Cheers.) According to his view, they would better
discharge their parts as wise men, in seeing the effect of
the great change they had already effected, than in pro-
posing fresh alterations. What was it that had brought
that House into so much discredit with the country ?
Simply, that they wasted their time—(Cheers)—exerted
their energies to no good end. —(Hear, hear.) Instead
of attending to practical legislation—(Hear, hear)—they
bad squandered hours on hours in debating about abstract
principles.—(Loud cheers.) He had told his constituents
on the busting!, that after adjusting the machine they
should note its operations, and not try new experiments
on its construction.—(Hear, hear.) He had promised
them not to embark in new experiments, but attend
honestly and sincerely to the consideration of great prac-
tical questions, and the promotion of great practical im-
provements and that promise he would not depart
from.---(Cheers.)
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that the first two or three
years of its existence, every Pat liament furnished instances
of the greatest and most degrading corruption ; and, by
way of demonstrating the baseness of its Members, he
would only ask the House to look at their conduct during
the period he referred to, and see how, in the latter part
of the session the very slaves of Ministets could turn them-
selves into givers of notices for constitutional reforms, and
for a time desert the Treasury benches. To put the
present question in a right point of view, he would ask if
anyl man would, without chick, and without control,
confide, even to the chosen friend of his bosom, the com-
fort, respectability, and substance of his fiddly for such
a period as seven years?—(Hear, hear.) If, then, they
would not do it in private life, why should they be re-
quired to do it in public, where so many interests were
wrapped up? He could not deny the awkwardness of the
time at which the motion was brought forward ; .but lie
had at least the choice of two evils, and he should select
the lesser by voting with the Right Hon. Member for
Lambeth, because be believed his proposition had the
sanction of all past experience. He cared not what they
called it, either in theory or in practice; but what he
should ever maintain was, that the people of this country
were entitled to the blessings and protection of the best
constitution which human wisdom could devise.—(Hear.)
Mr. STANLEY said, that he thought it indisputable
that Members should be guarded, not indeed against the
settled convictions and opinions of their constituents, but
against prejudices and excitement which might possibly
exist in their minds at the times of the short dissolutions
of Parliament. He, therefore, opposed this motion, and
in doing so he could nut bat observe upon the science and
skill which had been displayed by the Right Hun. Mover,
in having so exactly suited the terms of it to what he
might anticipate would hit the temper of his constituents.
—(Hear.) And he gave the Hon. Gentleman full credit
for higher views in moving it, than the mere desire
to gain popular applause.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Stanley)
did not know whether his Right Hun. Friend was one of

those who anticipated a spetdy dissolution, hut his motion
was at least one which was likely to facililate his own
affairs with his constituents.—(A laugh.) But to come

to the question now under discussion, he thought, looking
at the great experiments already made upon the constitu-
tion by the recent introduction of reform, forced upon the
Legislature by the position of public affairs, that if the
measure now proposed was one which would have the
effect of adding another to those great experiments with
a view to the same results, he should then have sup-
ported this motion. He had, however, stated on the hust-
ings to his constituents, that the measure of reform then on
foot was one extended in its objects, because it was then
looked upon as a final measure, and not with a view to the
after introduction of the ballot and triennial Parliaments ; and
he then stated what was, as he believed, his unalterable opi-
nion. Much had been said by the advocates of the proposed
measure as to its being one which was universally desired by the
people, but he did not see that they were called upon to infer
that the question was one on which the public mind was alive.
On the mere low ground of gaining the applause of the people
he did not see in what way this change was desirable or desired.
Look at the number of petitions presented on this subject, and
compare them with those presented on any of the great ques-
tions, and the relative importance to the public of the present
subject would immediately be seen. On the subject of slavery
the number of signatures to petitions (the Right Hon. Gentle-
man did not know the number of the petitions) was 1,400,000,
while the number of petitions in favour of triennial Parlia-
ments was, up to the 16th of July, only 19. On the ground
of popularity, therefore, what was there to show that this ques-
tion was one which was looked upon as important ? There
were, however, other grounds on which the measure might be
urged or disputed, apart from that of its popularity with the
nation, for this last was one which could not with propriety
be entertained, as it allowed the power of the Legislature to
be monopolized by one branch of the State. The real question
before them was, whether at the present time it was necessary
for the interests of the State that the proceedings of the Mem-
bers of this branch of the Legislature should be placed
under the more immediate control of the people—
whether at this time the people were so weak and the Crown so
overbearing and powerful that it became expedient to throw
an additions: weight into the scale to restore the balance to
the C:-.ustitution ?—(Hear.) He (Mr. S.) thought that that
Constitution had been so much and so materially affected by
the measure of the last session that it would be better for them
to wait and see its workings before they allowed so material an
additional alteration—before they threw this other weight into
the scale in addition to the present inequality. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then proceeded to observe upon the arguments
which had been adduced as to the specific duration of the Par.
I unents, as well as to individual observations on the general
question. The Hon. Member for Tipperary had actually urged
it as an argument ill favour of short Parliaments, that the one
which effected the destruction of the monarchy two centuries
back was, in fact, a long Parliament,—that it was a long
Parliament and not a short one which then opposed the Crown.
He was surprised that any Hon. Member, conversant with the
history of his country, could have fallen into the error of ad-
vancing such an argument—such a positive quibble in words—
as the one which the Hon. Member had there adduced. With
respect to the observations made by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Ten.
nyson, as we understood) they appeared to him (Mr. S.) to apply
as well to annual as to triennial Parliaments. He also had said
t hat the Representatives, as trustees, ought to come up and
give an account of their stewardship to their constituents as
frequently as the measure now proposed would oblige them to
do, but he (Mr. Stanley) maintained that it was an essential
part of the constitution that those trustees should be trusted to
act according to their judgment and to the dictates of their
conscience. His Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushington)
had said that it was not improbable that the reformed Parlia-
ment might follow the example of their predecessors, and leave
the House with empty benches, neglecting the public duty until
just that time when they feared to do so any longer ; but he
(Mr..ei.e Stanley)aetuall rather thought that his Hon. and Learned
Friend could not complain either of the want of attendance of
this Parliament or of the quantity of business on their hands
—(A laugh)—when it appeared that for the present day there
before them y;
were 26 notices of the motions for discussion, and that there
disposed of
Learned by the House.—(Hear, hear.) Nor did he think
56 Bills on different subjects to be settled, and
that there had been any Parliament who had paid more atten-
tion to the arguments brought forward upon the questions
Erienadt lecaosutlihteccloimdpnlaoitn.s—up(pAoselautghilt.)hislnHfoanc.t,aihnie
(Mr. Stanley) would rather be inclined to say that the public
business had, on the whole, been impeded by the too great quart.
tity brought before the House, and he did not think that this
part of the argument for the measure supported the supposi-
tion that Members ought to be sent sooner to their constituents,