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

as though they neglected their duty.—;Hear.) The Right
Hon. Secretary then proceeded to remark upon the observations
of the Hon. Member for Tipperary. The Hon. Member bad quoted
the preamble to the Septennial Act, but had omitted to include
that part which said that the cause of the passing of the Act
was the excitements caused by the frequent elections under
the old system. He strongly urged that the House should wait
the result of the operation of the Reform Bill, to see whether
the people had or had not sufficient control over their Repre-
sentatives, before they consented to the proposed measure. The
real question was one of principle, and not one of as to how
many years the duration was to be limited, for, as the Hon.
Member for Oldham had said, whether that number were fixed
at three, or at four, or at five, the arguments as to the principle
would be the same, and the same arguments which would pro-
cure the first limitation would apply to each succeeding, short-
ening with the addition of arguments of degree. In conclu-
sion, he felt himself bound to support this amendment. He did
not mean to say that he thought seven the best number to
which to limit the duration ; and although he would have
voted altogether against the motion, yet he thought his Noble
Friend had exercised a sound judgment in moving the previous
question. He repeated, that he did not think that the number
seven was the best, and it would, therefore, be in the same
proportion that he opposed this motioa that he would support
the amendment.

Mr. O'CONNELL supported the motion.
Major BEAUCLERK said that the present Parliament had
greatly disappointed the wishes of the people. They had passed
a severe coercive measure against the people of Ireland, but
they had omitted to retrench expenses, or to remove the pres-
sure of taxation. It was necessary, therefore, to have trien-
nial Parliaments, in order to have an effectual check by the
people on their representatives. In as far as that might be the
result of the present motion, it had his cordial support. He
had never heard any debate where all the argument and all
the eloquence were so completely on one side of the question.
In fact, there had been nothing which could call for a reply
been said against the motion. It proved that a bad cause could
not command a convincing advocate. This was peculiarly
shown in the speech of the Right Hon. the Secretary for the
Colonies, who had made decidedly the worst speech that he had
heard for a long time. Indeed the Right Hon. Gentleman
must be convinced himself that his speech was a dead failure.
He (Major Beauclerk) really pitied the Right Hon. Gentleman,
for throughout the whole of his speech he scarcely got one
cheer, except from an Hon. Member who sat near him. He
hoped that this would be a warning to the Right Hon. Gentle-.
man, and bring him back to a right course.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) The motion was one which greatly interested the
people, and he was sure they would at length have their rights.
Mr. GISBORNE said that he came down to that House with
the intention of opposing the motion of the Right Hon. Gen.
tleman, but he owned that he had been almost talked out of
that intention by the speeches that had been delivered in sup-
port of it, and also by the sentiments of some of those who
opposed it. If, however, he should oppose the motion, it was
not from any concurrence in those high-flown monarchical
principles which had been urged against it, but from his con-
viction that its rejection (as we understood) would be for the
good of the people and the convenience of the House.—(Hear.)
Sir R. FERGUSON stated that, in voting in favour of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's motion, he should do so from a prin-
ciple of consistency, and not from a belief that it could in this
session be attended with any practical result. He looked upon
it as brought forward for the sake of a popularity which he had
no doubt would be ephemeral.

Mr. TENNYSON, in reply, disclaimed any desire to gain
popularity by this motion. The objection, however, came
badly from those who made it, for it was an admission that the
question was a popular one with the nation. It was objected
that his motion was vague, in not stating the term
to which he intended the duration of Parliament should
be limited. He had made it so for the purpose of avoid-
ing the objections of some who might agree as to the
principle that the duration of Parliaments ought to
be shortened, but who might feel themselves justified in op-
posing his motion on account of the term he might have
fixed. He had fairly stated his own opinion, that a recur-
rence to triennial Parliaments would be best for the country,
but he was anxious to hear the sentiments of the representa-
tives of the people before he fixed any particular period. In
this he differed widely from the course pursued by the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), who had not waited to hear
the sentiments of the people or their representatives, but had
beforehand pledged himself—(and yet the Right Hon. Gentle-
man ridiculed the notion of pledges)—and not himself, but all
his colleagues.—(Cries of " Where ?") He had before him a
published report of one of the Right Hon. Gentleman's
speeches to his constituents in Cheshire, and if there was any
thing in that report which did not fairly represent what he
said, the Right Hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity of
skisavowing it, and of setting himself right for the speech had
gone forth to the world.—(Cries of " Read, read.") Tile
Right Honourable Gontleman here read the passage, which
was to the effect, that if any Member should bring for-
ward any mot ion for diminishing the duration of
Parliament, or of extending the franchise beyond the
terms of the Reform Bill, or for vote by ballot, they (the
Ministers) stood pledged, as individuals and as members of Go-
vernment, to give a decided opposition—(Cheers)—and the
Right Hon. Gentleman talked of Members being pledged
What was this but a solemn pledge—and a pledge, too, not to
attend to what might be the opinions of the people on this sub.
ject ? What did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean by object-
ing to pledges? He (Mr. Tennyson) had never given any
pledge, and he was not the less confidently trusted by his con-
stituents, and was not the less opposed to some of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's principles, for he believed that the more lie
differed from those principles the better he should stand with
the public. The Right Hon. Gentleman then said, that as
many Members had come in who had not heard the commence-
ment of the discussion, he wished for their information to state
the terms of his motion. It was simply for leave to bring in a
Bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments, leaving it to future

discussion to decide the term to which they should be shorter.iti.
All that his motion would pledge Hon. Members to, would be
an assent to the principle that it was expedient that the dura-
tion of Parliaments should be shortened. In conclusion, the

Right Hon. Gentleman disclaimed any personal feeling agains
the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies.
The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided, whet
there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

164
213
Majority
On our return to the gallery we found
The SPEAKER calling over the list of those whose mo-
tions stood for that day, several of whom did not appear.
The China Trade Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Friday next.

The Stage Carriage Act Amendment Bill went through
Committee.—Report ordered to be received to-morrow.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at half-past one.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE.

OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, JULY 19.

Royal Regiment of Artillery—Second Captain H. Pester to
be Adjutant, vice Saunders, who resigns the Adjutancy only.
Dec. 28, 1832.
Second Lieut. C. Cheetham to be First Lieutenant, vice
Mallock, resigned, July 16.