to 87. This was a Ministerial triumph similar to that
on the their own selfish ends. Hence, needless and expensive wars, heavy
Ballot, more disgraceful than any defeat after a fair contest. The debt, grinding takation,ljobs, pensions, and political prolliga( y; analysis of the composition of the House when the division was sometimes ending in a revolution, and the overthrow of the insti-
eluding the Tellers— serve. On this point we may again refer to the history of this i
433 The Defeat in Westminster 444 power of making Members became more valuable as the neeessi- Mr. Biddle's Operation on the Poli• ties of the state rendered applications for money to their remit-tees -of the Septennial Act—Voting by Beal Economy of England 444 more frequent and urgent ; and at each election after the Septen- Proxy-Amendment of the Reform
mat . Act passed, the Boroughmongers could say to King and
Irish Poor—Ministerial Policy— ries' ltall in Ireland 445 Ministers, " 1Ve can serve you or thwart you for seven years in- Postage of Letters—Conduct ofPanorama of Dublin 446 stead of three." The object of the Reform Act was to put an end Ayres—University Reform—Co. DHSS Martineau's Society in Ame- to that system, and to distribute the power of the Boroughmon- mien of Canada—Miscellaneous rica—Aither's Rise and Progress gers among the People. If it has answered that purpose, and the 438 T Aretimsa 447 supreme authority is in the People, the more fresh and direat the The Metropolis 439 FINS Atm— communication between the People and their Representatives— The Country 411 Exhibition of the Royal Academy that is, the more frequently elections occur—d fortiori, the higher Miscellaneous 442 The Army 452 will be the consideration, the greater the importance, of the East India Shipping 443 Pi lees Carr ent 4N1 But long Parliaments, it is said, conduce to the stability of our
institutions. Suppose this granted, does the Septennial Act secure
NEWS OF THE WEEK. proved by the recent experience to which we have alluded. When
a Parliament may be dissolved by the death of a King, and in an hour by the whim of a King, it is sheer silliness to pretend that the
THE most striking feature in the Parliamentary proceedings of act which fixes nominally its duration at seven years can be any the week, is the opposition of Ministers, in alliance with the guarantee that it will exist for a week. We deny, however, that
Tories in the House of Commons, to every attempt of their Liberal long Parliaments do conduce to the stability of the government supporters to introduce and carry popular measures. or institutions of a country. Members of Parliament who are
Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT'S motion, for a bill to repeal the sure of their seats for seven years, become regardless of duty, and, Septennial Act, was defeated on Monday, by a majority of 96 instead of considering the interests of the country, study to promote
to 87. This was a Ministerial triumph similar to that on the their own selfish ends. Hence, needless and expensive wars, heavy
Ballot, more disgraceful than any defeat after a fair contest. The debt, grinding takation,ljobs, pensions, and political prolliga( y; analysis of the composition of the House when the division was sometimes ending in a revolution, and the overthrow of the insti-
taken, puts the case in a strong light. There were present, in- tutions which, we are told, long Parliaments secure and pre- eluding the Tellers— serve. On this point we may again refer to the history of this Whigs and Reformers 118 country during the present century. But there is a theoretical
Tories 69 disadvantage in having Parliaments too short. We agree with
Mr. Hume, that Members need some time to learn their business,
187 and that a year is not, in the present complexities and exigen- All the Tories, of course, voted with Lord JOHN RUSSELL ; but cies of legislation, long enough for that purpose. And this of the Whigs and Reformers only 29, and of these eight were seems to be the general opinion : with few exceptions in point of official gentlemen, not at liberty to vote as they might wish. Ex- number, and of little weight in authority, Reforming politicians eluding the officials, we find that the Reformers divided in the have arrived at a common agreement that three years should be proportion of more than four to one-89 to 21—against the " Re- the term. But it ought to be three years certain, whatever may form " Government I happen at Court or in the Cabinet. The King and his Ministers We cannot say much in praise of the debate on this important would then decide what course to take. For three years at least question. There was only one speech which displayed consider- they would know what sort of a Pariament they would have to able ability or mastery of the subject ; and that was Lord deal with. Three years would enable Parliament and Ministers JOHN RUSSELL'S. Mr. D'EYNCOURT was feeble and prosy; but to mature important measures, and give the country something Lord JOHN, feeling, we suppose, that he had a bad position to de. like a fair trial of both. For three years the foreign and domestic fend, took pains to do his best ; and gave the House more matter policy of the country would be fixed. At present, (and for the with less verbiage than usual—we wish it were in our power to last six years or more the same uncertainty has prevailed,) no add that he showed a noble contempt of sophistical fallacies. His human being can tell what. the policy of the Government may be principal reasons or excuses for refusing to shorten the duration from month to month. And why ?—because, in spite of this sta. of Parliaments were these—that the Septeneial Act, by prevent- bility-giving Septennial Act, the King may dissolve the Parlia- ing the frequent recurrence of elections; answered the original ment to-morrow, and it is uncertain what the complexion of the purpose of its framers, in allaying party heats and animosities; next House of Commons may be. And as to the conduct of Mein- that it transferred the controlling power in the state from the bers, the uncertainty of the time for which they are elected has Lords to the Commons ; that it gave stability to our institutions, on many the same effect that uncertainty of punishment has on (and on this be principally relied); and that the people desired rogues—it makes them reckless, and acts as a temptation to abuse no such change as the bill would effect, of trust. It is especially necessary that something should be To the first allegation the conclusive reply is brief. ,The Sep- done to make the responsibility of Members more stringent ; since tennial Act, whatever may have been its operation formerly, many now think themselves freed from that sort of obligation to does not now prevent frequent and sudden dissolutions of Parlia- give up their seats, on a change of political opinion or action, mut; and it is quite a joke to talk of its allaying the animosities which was admitted under the rotten borough system. In those of Party. Cast up the number of Parliaments, and think of the days of corruption, if a Member was elected for a borough by the fierce party struggles we have had in this country during the last influence of the patron, he was bound in honour to resign his seat, ten years. Why, it is a common argument against the repeal of if, from any circumstance, he voted against the patron's friends. the Septennial Act, that the law is inoperative, as, in point of fact, But in our Reforming times there seems to be no such honourable the duration of Parliaments is not now on the average so much as feeling towards a large constituency. Pledge-breakers are rife— three years. such as ANDREW JOHNSTON and Sir GEORGE MURRAY; and With regard to the transfer of power from the Lords to Corn- systematic misrepresentation of their constituents is still more Stoners, it would be difficult to make out that this was the effect common.. We would put a curb upon all such slippery persons, of the Septennial Act. It did so happen that Sir ROBERT WAL- by making it certain that at the end of three years they would be POLE, Mr. Peer, Lord NORTH, MT. Fox, and the son of CHATHAM, brought up for judgment. alllived subsequently to the passing of that statute, and all had for Lord Joust Resume says that the people do not demand the a time the controlling power in the state. But how did they repeal of the Septennial Act. As Mr. WAKLEY observed, he obtain it? By their superiority of talent and influence in an may change his opinion on that point before a twelvemonth has "Nimbly which possessed the function of taxing the people, at a expired. The man must be blind who perceives not that the re- time when constantly increasing taxes were required. Had it not Presentative system is more unsettled, and in some respects almost been necessary to apply continually to the Commons for supply, more odious, than it was before the Reform Act was passed— they would have remained a mere appendage to the Baronial thanks to those who have had the working of it. Chamber, though the duration of each Parliament had been ex- The defence of the Septennial Act was the Ministerial exploit tended to seventy instead of seven years. And now, were the life of of Monday : on Tuesday, Mr. THOMAS Dtrecostee moved a re- a Parliament restricted to six months, so long as a vast revenue is solution against the scandalous, indecent, and unjustifiable proxy- needed by the Government, and can only be got through the voting of the Peers. His opponents in the debate were Lord Commons, that body must be of high consideration in the state. STANLEY and Sir Roemer Peer.; but in the division %%bit+ t'ol- The Boroughmongers, as old Sir FRANCIS BURDETT used to call lowed were found the Ministerial squad and a Store of their them n his youth, were the gainers by the Septennial Act. Their hangers-on, For the motion, Si voted ; against it, 12 4
minority were of course all Reformers ; but the majority was composed of Whigs not in office Official Whigs Tories 129 So that, of the Reformers in the House, 81 voted against, and 18 with the "Reform" Ministers.
Surely this was enough for one week? No; the proceedings of
Monday and Tuesday were followed up on Wednesday by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who again joined the Tories against the Liberal majority in the House. The motion for the second reading of Mr. DIINCOMBE'S bill to abolish the Rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act came on. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it, on principle. He had promised the supporters of the Reform Bill an addition of 500,000 to the body of voters; but the operation of the Rate- paying clauses has cut that number down to little more than half, thereby defeating a main object of the bill : yet, because the bill has passed, Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S principles will not allow him to correct his own mistake—to remedy the injustice, which we have wished in charity to believe he did not intend to commit. A goodly principle this is for a statesman! If Lord JOHN had acted upon it in 1831, his exit from office would have been as quick as his entrance was unexpected. Lord JOHN tried to make out that it was a " principle" of the Reform Act that a man should be punished for the non-payment of taxes by the loss of his vote ; which is much the same as saying, that to curtail, not to aug- ment the numbers of the electoral body, was a "principle" of the Reform Act. But the arguments in defence of the Rate- paying clauses will not bear handling, and are disgraceful to the men who submit to use them. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, however, was secure of his majority, for there was a tolerably strong mus- ter of Tories. The bill was thrown out, by a vote of 166 to 73. Again let us examine the materials of which this majority was composed.
Whigs not in office 22 Official Whigs Tories 132 166 Thus, of the Reformers in the House, there was a majority of more than 3 to 1-73 to 22 against Ministers. And this division took place on the eve of the Westminster election ; these very Rate-paying clauses having reduced that, cosstituency to a size manageable by the Tories, whose strong-hold is in the aristocratic section of the metropolis. It is conceivable that the persevering opposition of Ministers to the effhrts of the Reformers to work out the intention of the Act of 1832, cooled the courage of many a Liberal voter on Thursday, and proved a most serious injury to the candidate who had the benefit (?) of Ministerial support.
At a later hour on the same Wednesday, Lord Jotter RUSSELL declared his intention to bring in a bill to abolish the stamp-duty on the admission of freemen, and, after the present year, to make the payment of taxes due on the 1st of October, instead of time 5th April, n necessary qualification for registration ; and on the strength of his promise to introduce such a measure, the Liberals assisted him in postponing to the 21st of June the Committee on Mr. WILLIAMS'S bill for the unstamptel admission of freemen. Lord JOHN'S proposition is characteristic of the timid, tricky policy, which prefers doing things by halves. The Minister sees that the Rate-paying clauses are injurious, so he relaxes them : be knows that they must have the effect of greatly diminishing the constituency at the next registration, yet even his relaxation is to be postponed for a year. Why he should not bring his bill into operation assoon as it can be passed, is not easy to imagine.
Some progress has been made in the Irish Poor Bill ; but at every step the difficulties of tile subject perplex and thicken about Ministers and Members. It was only by postponing the consider- ation of the important question whether the bill should contain a provision for settlement or not, that the twentieth clause was reached on Thursday night. Tried on the small scale Ministere recommend, the experiment is indeed dangerous.
The Lords have been labouring in their vocation this week. A second attempt by Lord RADNOR to commence the purification of the Universities, was defeated on Monday. The Duke of' WEL- LINGTON and Marquis CAMDEN, however, promise that th6 Visiters and Heads of Colleges shall do all that is necessary ; by which must be understood, ull that they deem necessary—that is, exceedingly little—in the way of reform. By this declaration time Tory Louis, Spiritual and Temporal, no doubt believe that they have secured fresh immunity for abuses for some time to come. Men whose consciences will allow them to tamper with oaths after the fashion of Dr. COPLESTONE, will not be very scrupulous in the observance of a political promise. Time Canuda Coercion Resolutions passed the Lords, almost una- nimously, un Tuesday. Very kw of the Peers thought it worth their while to listen to Lord GLENELO'S rifacimento of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S and Sir GEORGE GREY'S speeches. The Duke of ‘V EL- LINGTON spoke some genuine oki-lashiened Toryism in defence of an irresponsible Legislature; and asked a puzzling question, to which he got no answer—" When your Resolutions are passed, what is to follow ? what will you do next ?" Lord BROUGHAM delivered an impressive protest against time Whig attack on the eights of the colonists; and gave an emphatic "not content" to Mach resolution as it passed. It may, however, turn out after all,
18 13 98
that these infamous resolutions are mere brutum fulrnen—that the King of the Colonies has not the pluck to " bite," as Lord STANLEY says. Here we are at Whitsuntide, and the measure for carrying his threats into effect has not been introduced. We suspect our readers will be of opinion that a more unsatis- factory Parliamentary week has seldom been passed. But we have a bonne bouche in store for them—a little sweet after the sour. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on the enforcement of Mr. SHEIL, assured the House, that notwithstanding it was almost certaia that the Peers would make the Irish Municipal Bill worse than nothing, Ministers were resolved to persevere in the dignified and profitable system of sending up fresh measures for their Lord. ships to mangle or reject ; and that as long as they kept their small majority in the Commons, they would stick to their bureaus in Downing Street. What more can the nation require? Lord JOHN also said something about maintaining the dignity of the. House; which of course means nothing at all.
