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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1858.1

LONDON and NORTH-WESTERN RAIL-
WAY.- RETURN TICKETS at First Class 215., and Closed
Carriages 12s. 6d., available for seven days ; and at First Class 375.,
and Closed Carriages 175., available for 28 days, are issued until
further notice, by all trains, according to class, between Loudon
(Euston Station) and Liverpool, Birkenhead, Chester, Warrington,
Wigan, Preston, Manchester, Stockport, Staleybridge, Greenfield,
Oldham, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal.
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, 1858. By Order.

ESTERN
'S for STORES.—The Directors are
he Supply of the undermentioned

LONDON and
RAIL wAY.—CONTRAC'
prepared to receive Tenders for
Stores, viz. :
No. of Contract-
3. Copper
4. Canvas
G. Carpets and Rugs
7. Axles
S. Coals
9. Crucibles
10. Curled Bair
12. Co'ours
12a. Drysaltery
13. Coach Trimmings
15. Bags, Ropes, &c.
16. Glass, Plate
16a. Glass, various
17f. Lamp Cottons
18. Leather.
18a. Leather
Specifications and Forms of Tender may be had on and after Mon-
day, April 19th, on application to the Secretary, Euston Station,
London.
Forms of Tender for each Contract are printed separately, and
parties applying should state the particular Contract or Contracts for
which they propose to tender.
Patterns may also be inspected on and after Monday, April 19th,
from Ten till Four o'clock, at the Company's Pattern Room, Euston
Station, and any further information require I may be obtained on
application to the heads of the several departments.
Tenders may be sent In before Ten o'clock on Monday, May 3d.
By order of the Directors.
CIIAS. E. STEWART, Secretary.
Easton Station, April 15th, 1858.

No of Contract-
-19. Lead, White and Red
19a. Lead, Ingot, Sheet and Pipe
20. Iron, Yorkshire
20a. Iron, Staffordshire
20b. Tyre Bars
21. Iron Castings
22. Ironwork
23. Wheels
26. 011 Cloth
27. Steel
28. Springs and Files
29. Tin, Block
31. Varnishes
34. Hats
35. Caps

" OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT" says
Twenty-one Million Pounds of Tea have bean released by
the Possession of Canton.—The EAST INDIA TEA. COMPANY
anticipate the arrival of this, and have reduced the price of their
61b. bag of Sound Tea to 2s. 2d. per lb. ; and Coffee in the Berry to
I ld, —Warehouses, 9, Great St. Helen's-churchyard, Bishopsgate.

EORGE HOBSON begs to invite the attention
I, T of Gentlemen to his new Stock of Trowserings for the pre-
sent season, price 21s. to 255.
G. 11. submits for inspection his new Overcoats, in all the new ap-
proved and various shades of colour fur sp, lug wear. Excellence
with Economy. A suit of clothes made in a few hours' notice.
GEORGE lIOI3gON, 57 Lombard-street.
ESTABLISHED 1796.

IMPERIAL PAR LIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF LORDS.7(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the wool-
sack at five o'clock.
PRESBYTERIAN CHAPLAINS.

In reply to the Marquis of LONDONDERRY,
Lord HARDINGE said, paid Presbyterian clergy-
men had been appointed at the Curragh and Aldershot.
As there were now 800 Presbyterian soldiers at Shore-
cliffe, it was the intention of the War Department to make
a similar appointment there.
THE INDIAN RESOLUTIONS.

Lord iNIONTEAGLE asked what was the course to
be pursued with respect to the resolutions that had been
laid on the table of the other House of Parliament ? He
wished to know whether it was the intention of the
Government to lay similar resolutions on their lordship,'
table, and if so, both Houses could simultaneously con-
sider the question?
The Eirl of ELLENBOIIOUGH said it was not the
intention of Government to invite their lordships to ex-
press any opinion on these resolutions, In due time the
resolutions would be sent up to their lordships from the
other house, and the noble lord would have an oppsr-
tunitv of expressing, his opinion upon them.
TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH

contingency of a loan of only 200,0001. being granted,
and bore date July 2, 1856, In answer to the first part
cf the question the hon. member had not quoted with
perfect accuracy the evidence of the witness to which the
question rtferred. The question limiting the loan to
200,000/. raised in the legislature was strictly ne-
gatived.

ARMY WARRANT, 1854.
Col. NORTH asked the Secretary for War whether
the 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 sad the
Royal Commission referred to bad been appointed, and
would meet f.,r the first time to-morrow.
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 bon. 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 boors

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. He had no obj ,otion to the committee, but
it was a question of money resting with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.

Mr. GROdAN addressed the house in support of the
resolution.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
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 contract solemnly entered into for the advance
of money beneficial to Dublin. Ile had no objection to
the mode in which the tolls were levied. It there was
anything injurious 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 rcfei 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—v: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 Fund.
SEPTENNIAL REPEAL ACT.
Mr. COX said he believed that no one would appeal
to the cunsideration of the house without effect. He,

should have to trouble them for some little time. He
therefore, appealed to then on that occasion, as he
would not, however, go into the history of this question
further back than for the last 500 years. It would be
enough f ir him if he showed 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 4-1 Edward
111., in the year 1330. By that it was statel that it was
accorded that a Parliament should be holden once in
every year, and oftener if necessary. It appeared that
that act had been pretty well observed, but nevertheless
breacheH of its provisions occurred iu the reign of the
same king; and in order that there should be no mis
take, by the 36th Edward 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 statue. It appeared that during. the
57 years of the reign of Edw. 111. there were 37
:nPerim-
came
at the ed reignefi
ment-; , the reign of Richard 11. there were 26 Parlia-
ments held in 22 yearn; in that of Henry IV. there were
10 in 14 yea.rs; in that of Henry V. there were held 11 in 9
years ; arid in the reign of Henry VI. there were held 22
aannede , of f
ra Henryoand
d ot
that
al VIII.,
yt I
t held
i,
w
Parliaments :a 39 years, so that by that time they were
gettingh o set
allrat acid
ts of
lax. Then
parliament
at
istimla6nthy
Charlesparliaments
I„
parliaments
im ehaecnhto" ; s
were held very irregc-
ler:), ; with one excletion, and that was during the time
of Queen Mary, who in the five ysare that she reigned
called together five pail aments. From • he 16th Charles
I. the legislation on thin subject assum rd a different
character ; for that act did not provide for the holding
of triennial parliaments, but it contained an enactment
by wine". '-i • 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 he should
call a parliament a ithin 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 enacted 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 lohger than three yeare. After the pass-
ing of the act of William aid Mary it was rigidly ad-
hered to:_ a Pea-liament wer enlled which lasted three
years and then dissolved. Passin over sue ..e._ ...,
Queen Anne, he came to that of Geo. 1., when, unfor-
tunately for the country, there was a change of Govern-
ment—the Tories were turned out, and the King took
into his councils the Whigs of that day. Coangee• of
Government were not effected in those days quietly and
w ithout excitement, as was the case now, but they were
attended with rioting, violence, and bloodshed, and it
was in the midst of such circumstances that the law was
passed which he sought to repeal. In Jan., 1715, some
remarkable words were put into the mouth of the king,
who had just come to the throne ; for, in a proclamation
issued calling. Parliament togs her, the people were
directed to elect such persons as had regard to the Pro-
testant succession. The frightful and enormous expen-
diture which occurred at that election was made the rea-
son for passing the act which he now sought to repeal.
1
When the new Parliament met on March 14, 1715, the
Whigs, who were in a majority, took care that all should
be done to prevent their opponents getting int 3 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 ; 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 iu the year 1716 that the King came down to
Parliament to give his assent te a bill for suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act. That was the position of things
when the Septennial Act passed. At that time the whigs
set about to see how they could best retain the power they
had obtained, and what did they do ! 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 Houser of Lords, which was then a sealed place, of
the proceedings in which no one knew anything, and it
was there passed and brought down to the Commons on
the 19th April, 1716. One wreuld have supposed that a
bill of such a character would have received considerable
discussion, and a long time would have elapsed before it
was paested through its several stages ; but having been
brought in on the 19th of April, and read a first time on
the same night, on the following 26th it was passed and
sent back to the House of Lords without any amendment.
Teat r.howed what the state of the country was, and what
fear and trepidation the Parliament was in. Members
jumped at the idea of securing their seats for anotherfeur
years, and they were glad to pass a bill for that purpose
in one week. The hon. gentleman hero quoted from
Hume's History, which had been written forty years af-
terward:, to the effect that the ministers were in such a
bad state that they dreads.' to meet a new Parliament,and
toek the bold and unconstitutional step of passing the
Septennial Act, which took the place of the Triennial Act
of William. Although the bill was only in the House of
Commons one week the people got an inkling of it, and
seat up petitions against it. One of those petitions came
Erwin A bingdon, and it set forth that the most valu-
able Privilege which they erjoyed was their being
represented in Parliament, and that though they had
a member who was faithful to his duty, yet if he forgot
that duty by the extensioa of the duration cif Partite-
went to mere than three years, they would be unable
to make such change in their representation as they
thought desirable for a considerable lapse of time,
and therefore they objected to any alteration of the
duration of Parliament beyond three yearn. 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 meat of their liberties. A mo-
tion was made to reject this petition, and on a division
157 voted for its rej,ction 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 arid Mary, passed for providing for the frequent
calling together r f Parliament; that act was reoited in
the preamble, which went ou 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, arid by reason cf the heat and animosity it
created, which were greater than they had been before it
passed, and that if the said provisions were continued
nd
then,
when a restle-s faction were endeavour-
womo • •
1 int: tohrenew rebellion a I te invasion, the m-
u be meet ditadvantageoue to the country.
sults would
That was the substance of the preamble of the bill. lf,
however, the existence of heats and animosities were a
good cause then for its passing, it was not a good cause
for its continuance now, any mere than the fear of rebel-
lion or of invasioo. We had n 3 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 ref these realms was as
secure as it could possibly be, and though be (Mr. Cox)
was acquainted
with sonic men who thought the monar-
chical form of government was net the right one, and
were advocates of Republicanism, yet even these men,
while they were in England, felt so great a reverence
for our monarchy that they postponed their feelings
of Republicanism in its favour. There was no reason
new why that act should not be repealed, or that we
should not go back to his constituents so 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 C.)n-
stitueuts, be would be elected as long as he chose to seek
their suffrages. Re would maintain that shorter Par-
liaments lea to less expsnse, and to less temptatens to
do a roag at elections. Re did not say this merely as a
1 matter of opinion. He had long been a member of a
body whose members were elected annually, and who
went back every year to their constituents and gave au
account of what they
bad done ; and he found that when
a man did his duty he Was sure to be re-elected. Under

the influence of the Septennial Act, constituents forgot
all about their members, 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
had 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 length
of the Parliaments since the reign of George 1.,
and he found that the average time which eacu
Parliament sat was five years, while many of them
sat for seven years. Before sitting down he 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 patty. 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
of 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., o.
duration
Mr.commonlyti oHnA.fD P c
Fa
irlEald i
al
L ne
De
ntsthe etc
to three
dph
etr ede netnh;
eae l
amrAso. ct
it
0,
(Heartl3l.nd
)limit the

The question having been put,
Mr. WALPOLE said the hon. member bad 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 hoc. member that his recollec-
tions of history were not remarkably accurate. The first
statute to which the hoc. member bad referred was a
statute not applicable in the least degree to the frequency
cf elections, but referred to the frequency of the session
of Pat liament. The act of Edward 111. provided that
Parliaments were to sit onoe 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 of 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 he would find
that Parliaments were not frequently chosen. In the
reign of Henry VIII., which lasted some 38 years, the
hon. member would find that one Parliament sat for six
years, during which time the greater monasteries were
destroyed, In the reign of Mary, the summonses to
which the hou. 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.
In the reign of Eliz tbeth, the Parliament of 1552 was
not dissolved till 1585, and during that period it sat
twenty five times. He might go through the reigns of
James I. and Charles I. for the purpose of showing that
from the first statute quoted by the boo. 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
eetablishing the proposition that Parliaments were to
be annually elected. The first time any linaita'ion was
put to the duration of Parliaments 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 as rtnt of the crown. That alteration in the consti-
tution imposed upon the crown the necessity of calling
a parliament once in three or seven years, according to
the alterations made during the reigns of William 111.
and George I. That was the historical account of the
constitution of the cout.try with reference to parliament,
at d wren 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 forgotten that if that
parliament had simply repealed the Triennial Act, there
was nothing whatever either in the common law, the
corstitutional 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 net justifi able.
(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 y: are which
would otherwise have been unlimited by the constitu-
tion, was the be.it period that could be fixed upon for
the duration of parliament. No doubt disputes might
arise as to whether seven 3-eara 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 bo
too lona. (dear.) In the former reeve there would be
sun a frequency of erection teat mere would us no-
thing staid or certain about legislation. In the 1 ater
case there would be such an impunity to members that
they would never be 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 H. 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
to ask the house whether they desired to see the same
incouveniencee 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
legislation, and would render the house not the repre-
sentative of the deliberate judgment and conviction of
the sensible and thinking part of the community, but
the mere riflex of their more hasty conclusions, preju-
dice', and passions. (Hear, hear.) These were the
reasons which induced him to oppose a return to trien-
nial parliaments. The experiment had not answered,
and ho thought it most unwise to try it again. But
had the experiment of the Septennial Act failed ? (Hear,
hear, and Yee.) He heard one hon. gentleman say
"yea," and would beg to recall his attention to what
had cceurred in Parliament before the Septennial Act
passed, and what bad taken place since. Who were
the great governors of the country be ere the passing of
that act? Did they sit 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 Sunderlaude,
the Halifaxes, the Godolphins, 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
I)wer house since the passing of the Septennial Act 1
The greatest number of the statesmen, and certainly
some of the moat important men who had 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 1 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 ? By Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. 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
affection—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 car lets in the House of
Commons, ho 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 be might add, without being supposed guilty 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 Act—since the authority of the
house had in no respect been lowered—since it had been
kept in harmony with the other house, which he doubted
would have been the case under the Triennial Act—since
stability, and authority, and dignity had been added
.to
the executive government, and the house had hehlduistes
own free and independent course—he hoped the
f r a measure
measure whic'e had failed as a substitute ,
cceeded.
which experience proved had admirably su
(Cheers.) d cries for a division,
would pause long and composedly before reverting honer
Mr. HA DFIELD,
corrupt minister that ever efxi _
tt
The hon. member
—and of that great aposta,e, Pr .
t'slhaleoud—auSdiartißonoboefrtthWearpooslet
was understood to oejaecmtidtBot