The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-21 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 18581

AlL-
ir ON DON and NORTH-WESTERN R
ILA WAY.— RETURN TICKETS at First Class 215., and Closed
Carriages Ids. 6d., available for seven days ; and at First Class 375.,
and Closed Carriages 175., available for 29 days, are issued until
further notice, by all trains, according to class, batween London
(Euston Station) and Liverpool, Birkenhead, Chester, Warrington,
Wigan, Preston, Manchester, Stockport, Staleybridge, Greenfield,
Oldham, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Batley, and BI stal.
Care should be taken at the London-road Station, Manchester, to
ask for tickets by the London and North-Western route.
London, Euston Station, April 9, I S SS. By Order.

contingency of a loan of only 200,0001. being granted,
and bore date July 2, 1856. In ansa'er to the first part
d the que-tion toe bon. member had not quoted with
perfect accuracy the evidence of the witness to which the
question referred. The question limiting the loan to
200,0001. raised in the legislature was strictly ne-
gatived.

ARMY WARRANT, 1854.
Col. NORTH asked the Secretary for War whether
..he Royal Commission to take into consideration the
warrant of October, 1854, had yet been appointed, and,
if so, when they were likely to meet ?
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER sand the
Royal Commission referred to had been appointed, and
would meet f..r the first time to-m,rrow.
DUBLIN PORT DUTIES.
Mr. VANCE moved for a select committee on certain
duties on ships and other imports leviable within the
port of Dublin. The hon. member said these duties
were peculiar to the port of Dublin, and were originally
imposed by the Corporation of Dublin for the formation of
a harbour of refuge at Kingstown, from which the trade
of Dublin derived no benefit. The duties were a boon
to the foreign trade of every other port but Dublin, and
it would be impossible for the inhabitants of that city to
retain its foreign trade if they were continued.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. HENLEY said he could not consent to the
abolition of the duties without provision being made for
repaying the advance granted to the corporation of
Dublin for forming the harbour of refuge secured on
these tolls. Ho had no obj ction to the committee, but
it was a question of money resting with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.
Mr. GROG AN addressed the house in support of the
resolution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
could not consent to hold out the prospect of diminish-
ing the sum paid to the Consolidated Fund by the city of
Dublin on a c intract solemnly entere lint° for the advance
of money beneficial to Dublin. He had no objection to
the mode in which the tolls were levied. If there was
anything i'jurious in the present system to the com-
merce of Dublin it should be inquired into and remedied
if possible. He should not oppose the inquiry, but he
should a violation of the contract above vefei red to.
After some remarks from Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Mr.
R. Lowe, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Vance, in reply,
The motion as amended by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was then agreed to—r'z , to inquire into the
mode of collecting the duties, and if any equivalent
could be provided for the sum now paid to the Con
solidated Fond.
SEPTENNIAL REPEAL ACT.

Mr. COX said he believed that no one would appea.
,o the ceneideration of the house without effect. He,
therefore, appealed to thew on that occasion, as he
should have to trouble them for some little time. He
would not, however, go into the history of this question
further back than fur the last 500 years. It would be
enough fer him if he snowed that up to 1715, when the
act which he sought to repeal passed, there were short
Parliaments. The first act he found which had reference
to the duration of Parliaments was in the 4,11 Edward
111., in tha year 1330. By that it was etatel that it was
accorded that a Parliament should be holden once in
every year, arid oftener if eecessary. It appeared that
that act had been pretty well observed, but nevertheless
breaches of its provisions oecurred in the reign of the
earns king; and in order that there should be no mis
take, by the 36th El ward 111., c. 10, it was enacted
that a Parliament should be opened once in every year,
as was ordained by the previous statute. Parliaments
were accordingly held during the next ten years in exact
conformity with the siattre. It appeared that during the
57 years of the reign of Ede-. 111. there were 37 Perim-
-9
ylgpwo;:atriotrolisinsalemeteay:letl as
ac era 39
ts
ft
years,ipaatrol oee
nient-; the reign of Richard 11. there were 26 Parlia-
111.,
ments held iu 22 years; in that of Henry IV. there were
ld 22
:gareadthienr tialeye.rTeighennocfaHmeentrhyeVreli.gtnhoerf eHwenerreyhve
nntrthyaa Vtt
defiance,
tyh ethat
w time
dh
they
1y1„ i
een
lr
at many parliaments as he chose ; and from that time
till 15th Charles 1., parliaments were held very irregu-
latey ; with one exception, and that was during the time
of Queen Mary, who in the five years that she reigned
called together five parleinaents. From 'he 16th Charles
I. the legislation on this subject assurn-d a different
character ; for that act did not provide for the holding
of triennial parliaments, but it contained an enactment
by which if the king did not call a parliament together
within three years, the people were empowered to call
one together for themselves. Another act was passed
in the reign of that king, which declared that be shouldi
,
call a parliament within every third year. The 6th of.
William and Mary, c. 2, was the real triennial act. It
was an act which provided for the frequent meeting and
calling together of parliaments, and it enacteil that a
parliament should be called together once in three years;
and then for the first time we find that no parliament
was to last longer than three years. After the pass-
ing of the act of William aad Mary it was rigidly ad-
hered to ; a Parliament was called, which lasted three
years and then dissolved. Passing over the reign of
Queen Anne, he came to that of Geo. 1., when, unfer•
tunately for the country, there was a change of Govern-
ment—the Tories were tuned out, and the Bing took
into his councile the Whigs of that day. Clianges of
Government were not effected in those days quietly and
without excitement, as was the case now, but they were
attended with rioting, violence, and bloodshed, and it
was in the midst of su circumstances that the law was
passed which he sought to repeal. In Jan., 1715, some
remarkable words were put into the mouth of tho king,
who had just come to the throne ; for, in a proclamation
issued calling Parliament together, the people were
directed to elect such persons as had regard to the Pro-
testant succession. Toe frightful and enormous expen-
diture which occurred at that election was made the rea-
Nwhbeigns, the
whnoe
rea-
son for passing the act which he now sought to repeal.
V
were
ina
Parliament
majoritymet
,otno
took care
tlh4a,t
should all th e
be done to prevent their opponents getting into power
again. During the year 1715 there was a rebellion in
Scotland, an insurrection in the north, and outbreaks
in all parts of the country e and there was not a large
town in the country but the diabolical outrage of putting
men to death for their political opinions was committed ;
and it was in the year 1716 that the King came down to
Parliament to give his assent t r a bill for suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act. That was the position of things
when the Septennial Act passed. At that time the whigs
sot about to see how they could best retain the power they
bad obtained, and what did they do t They did not bring
a bill into the House of Commons which was to extend
the duration of parliaments, but it was introduced into
the House of Lords, which was then a sealed place, of
the proceedings in which no ono knew anything, and it
was there passed and brought down to the Commons on
the 19th April, 1716. One would have supposed that a
bill of such a character would have received considerable
discussion, and a long time would have elapsed before it
was passed through its several stages ; buc having been
brought in on the itth of April, and read a first time on
the same night, im the following 26th it was passed and
sent back to tho Rouse of Lords without any amendment.
That shown f what the state of the country was, and what
fear amid trepidation the Parliament was in. Members
jumped at the idea of .ecuriug their seats for another four
years, and they were glad to pass a bill for that purpose
in one week. The hon. gentleman here quoted from
Hume's History, which had been written forty years af-
terwarda to the effect that the mini: tern were in such a
dreae: •1 to meet ano Parliamont,and
ioaedk te
5u tli
and unconstitutional step of passing the
hettabeatld they
Septennial Act, which took the place of the Triennial Act
of William. Although the bill was only in the House of
Commons cue week the people got an inkling of it, and
seat up petitions against it. One of those petitions came
from A hinedon, and it set forth that the most valu-
able privilege which they enjoyed was their being
represented in Parliament, anti that though they had
a member who was faithful to his duty, yet if he forgot
the extension of the duration of Parlia-
tinht duty by
ealittomore than three years, they would be unable
to make such change in their representation as they
thought desirable fur a considerable lapse of time,
and therefero they objected to any alteration of the
duration of Parliament beyond three years. Another pe-
tition was from Horsham, and it stated that the peti-
tioners looked on the bill as an overturning of the con-
stitution and an infringe latent of their liberties. A mo-
tion was made to re ject this petition, and on a division
157 voted for its rejection and 90 in its favour. The
House of Commons would no. receive that petition. The
Septennial Act was entitled an Act for enlarging the
Continuance of Parliament as arranged by the Act of
William and Mary, passed for providing for the frequent
calling together cf Parliament; that act was recited in
the preamble, which went on to say that it had been
proved that the said act was burdensome by reason of
the expenses it caused in the election of members of
Parliament, and by reason of the heat arid animosity it
created, which were greater than they had been before it
passed, and that if the said provisions were continued
then, when a restless faction were endeavour.
ing te;renew rebellion and promote invasion, the re-
sults would be most disadvantageous to the country.
That was the substance of the preamble of the bill. If,
however, the existence of heats and animosities were a
good cease
thee for its passing, it was not a good cause
for its continuance now, any more than the fear of rebel-
lion or of invasion. We bad ua fear of rebellion or of
invasion, however it might have been during the admi-
nistration of the noble lord the member for Tiverton.
No ; the succession to the throne of these realms was as
secure as it could possibly be, and though he (Mr. Cox)
was acquainted with some men who thought the monar-
chical forte of government was not the right one, and
were advocates of Republicanism, yet even these tnen,
while they were in England, felt so great a reverence
for our luonarchy that they postponed their feelings
of Republicanism in its favour. There was no reason
now why that act should not be repealed, or that we
should not go back to his constituents ea often as once
in three years. But he believed that if a member was
true to his pledges and attentive to his duty to his con-
stituents, be would be elected as long as he chose to seek
their sufleages.
He would maintain that shorter Par-
liaments led to less expense, and to less temptation to
do wrong at elections. Ile did not say this merely as a
matter of opinion• lie had long been a member of a
body whose members were elected annually, and who
went back every year to their constituents and gave an
account of what they had done he found that when
a man did his duty he was sure to be re-elected. i 3 der

the influence of the Septennial Act, constituents forgot
all about their member's, just as members forgot all
about their constituencies. He had heard it said that
an objection to the repeal of the Septennial Act was
that practically there were triennial Parliaments now,
and that Parliaments 'since the passing of that act
bad been, in fact, on the average, triennial. He denied,
however, that the average had been fairly struck. He
had taken the trouble to ascertain the average leagth
of the Parliaments since the reign of George 1.,
and he found that the average time which each
Parliament sat was five years, while many of them
sat for seven years. Before sitting down ho wished to
make an appeal to the noble lord the member for the
City of London and the noble lord the member for Tiver-
ton, both of whom appeared to be bidding for the leader-
ship of the Liberal pee ty. He wished to give them the
opportunity of making an advantageous bid for that
leadership. Let them bid in the first place for the repeal
cf the Septennial Act, and he should be glad to see them
both make the same bid, and at the same time, in order,
as the auctioneers would say, that the act might be re-
pealed in two places. In conclusion, he begged to move
for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act 1 Geo. 1., c.
33, commonly called the Septennial Act, and to limit the
duration of Parliament to three years. (Hear.)
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.
The question having been put,
•Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. member had carried
the house back in historical recollection to a period which
had rather surprised him, and he had made an appeal to
the Government on constitutional doctrines connected
with old periods of history to support the measure. Now
he wished to remind the hon. member that his recollec-
tions of history were not remarkably accurate. The first
statute to which the hon. member bad referred was a
statute cot applicable in the least degree to thefrequency
f elections, but referred to the frequency of the session
of Parliament. The act of Edward 111. provided that
Parliaments were to sit once annually, and did not re-
late to the choice of members. The hon. member had
quoted history for the purpose of showing that in the
reigns cf Henry IV., Henry V., and Henry VI. Parlia-
ments were frequently held, but if the hon. member
would turn to the history of those reigns ho would find
that Parliaments were not frequently chosen. In the
reign of Henry VIII., which lasted some 33 years, the
hon. member would find that one Parliament eat for six
years, during which time the greater monasteries were
destroyed, In the reign of Mary, the summonses to
which the hon. member had referred, were not for new
Parliaments, but new sittings of Parliament. In the
reign of Edward VI. one Parliament sat for five years.
au the reign of Elizabeth, the Parliament of 1552 was
:not dissolved till 1585, and during that period it sat
twenty five times. He miglit go through the reigns of
James I. and Charles I. for the purpose of showing that
from the fir-t, statute quoted by the hon. member down
to the act passed in the long Parliament, in the reign of
Charles 1., there was not an instance of law or usage
establishing the proposition that Parliaments were to
be annually elected. The first time any limitation was
put to the duration of Parliatuente was in the long
Parliament of Charles 1., which decided that Par-
liaments were not to last longer than three years,
but broke through its own law, and declared itself
indissoluble except with its own consent. (A. laugh.)
The second time that any duration was put to Par-
liaments was by the Triennial Act of 1691, which passed
both houses, but did not, in the first instance, receive
the assent of the crown. That alteration in the consti-
tetion imposed upon the crown the necessity of calling
a parliament once in three or seven years, according
to
the alteraaens made during the reigns of William 111.
and George I. That was the historical account of the
constitution of the couetry with reference to parliament,
d wnen the hon. member pointed to the Septennial
Act as a vio'ation of the constitution, because it enabled
the parliament then elected to sit for seven years in•
stead of three, he seemed to have fergotten that if that
parliament had simply repealed the Triential Act, there
was nothing whatever either in the common law, the
constitutional law, or the statute law of the country, to
have prevented it from lasting during the whole reign
of the King. So far as related to the constitutional
view of the question, the appeal of the hon. member
with respect to annual parliaments was not justifiable.
(Hear.) The question submitted to the house by the
hon. member was this—whether the extension of par-
liament from three to seven years in the reign of George
1., and the limit of parliament to seven years which
would other win have been unlimited by the constitu-
tion, was the best period that could be fixed upon for
the duration of parliament. No doubt disputes might
arise as to whether seven years was the exact period
which ought to be fixed upon. He thought all would
agree that annual parliaments would be too short, and
that a parliament for the life of the Sovereign would be
too long. (dear.) In the former case there would be
such a frequency of election that there would be no-
thing staid or certain about legislat on. In tree latter
ease,' here would be such an impunity to members that
they would never he kept in awe by the necessity of go-
ing to their constituents for a renewal of their trust.
(Hear.) The real question then was, whether a law
which had existed for nearly 150 years was not a wise
provision for the duration of parliaments in this coun-
try. For several reasons he considered it the most wise
duration that had ever been suggested. The first rea-
son for upholding it was this—that unless the duration
was one of some extent, great inconvenience would
arise from the want of experience of members, from the
want of some confidence in the probability of their re-
turn, and also because the daily business was better
transacted when the return was made for a longer period
than it would be if made for only three years. This was
a question of experience, and the noble lord the member
for the city of London, in his history, from the peace
of Utrecht, quoted the authority of Sir R. Steele in
support of that proposition. He believed the descrip-
tion there given of what formerly took place under
triennial parliaments to be a just one, and wished
ti ask the house whether they desired to see the same
inconveniences and evils occurring again. During
the first year the members would have to learn their
business—daring the second they would be engaged in
endeavouring to legislate—and during the third they
would be seeking to gain popularity, in order to be in a
position to meet their constituents at the end of the
period. (Hear) Such a state of things would be any-
thing but advantageous to cautious and well considered
legi-latish, and would render the house not the repre-
seotative of the deliberate judgment and conviction of
the sensible and thinking part of the community, but
the mere reflex of their more hasty conclusions, preju-
dices, and passions. (Hear, hear.) These were the
reasons which induced him to oppose a return ho trien-
nial parliaments. The experiment had not answered,
and lie thought it most unwise to try it again. But
had the experiment of the Septennial Act failed (Hear,
bear, anal Yes.) He heard one hon. gentleman say
" yea," and would beg to recall his attention to what
had occurred in Parliament before the Septennial Act
passed, and what bad taken place since. Who were
the great governors of the country before the passing of
that act ? Did they s't principally in the House of
Commons! If hon. members would look over the
names of the great ministers of the country in former
periods they would find the influence of the House of
Commons nothing contrasted with that of the House of
Lords. Let them look at the Burleighs, the Bucking-
hams, the Shaftesburys, the Salisburys, the Sunderlands,
the Halifaxes, the Godolphin's, and at the time when
the change took place Henry St. John and Robert
Harley recommended their own transfer to the upper
house, because they would be able to carry on the go-
vernment of the country more efficiently there than in
the lower house. But what had been the state of the
1 raver house since the passing of the Septennial Act
The greatest number of the statesmen, and certainly
some of the most important men who hal presided over
the affairs of the country, had been members of the
House of Commons, and not members of the other
house. He might name the author of that bill, one of
the best ministers that ever lived—a man whose love of
peace was only equalled by his love of constitutional
freedom. (Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.) And what were
the next names? Pelham, Grenville, and Lord North ;
and, greater than almost any minister that ever loved
and elevated the honour and dignity of this country,
came the first Mr. Pitt. Passing over the short reigns
of Rockingham and Shelburne, how was the next period
of history filled up t By Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fex. And
when those two mighty chiefs were carried to their
graves, where they now sleep side by side, they were
followed by a man to whose memory he might be
allowed to pay a tribute of little less than filial
effeetion—Mr. Percival ; and with the exception of
the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey, Lord Melbourne,
and the present prime minister, most of whom had
risen to eminence through their coefftets in the House of
Commons, he would ask the house whether the greatest
names to which historians and posterity would hereafter
refer would not be the names of the Commoner Canning
—(hear, hear)—the Commoner Peel—(hear, hear)—and
perhaps he might add, without being supposed gullq of
flattery, the Commoner Lord John Russell, and the
Commoner Lord Palmerston. (Hear, hear.) Not only
had the character and position of the House of Commons
been raised during the existence of the Septennial Act,
but legislation had been improved. He did not attri-
bute this to the Septennial Act, but he did attribute a
great deal of the dignity, power, ability, and authority
which the house had exercised to the measure which the
hon. member now asked the house to repeal. He trusted
that since the legislation of the country had improved
under the Septennial Aot—since the authority of the
house had in no respect been lowered—since it bad been
kept in harmony with the other house, which he doubted
would have been the case under the Triennial Act—since
snebility, and authority, and dignity had been added to
the executive government, and the house had held its
own free and independent course—he hoped the house
would pause long and composedly before reverting tuorea
measure which had failed as a substitute fore
weeded
which experience proved had admirably i
(Cheers.)
washt understood
ArsDtoFodiEtLoDol,:enactidtost
ir Robert Walpole
corrupt minister that ever existed—
The bon. member
—and of that great apostate, Pi
tihoeuda taus criae ofno ro
ta the division,t