REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

HC Deb 08 May 1837 vol 38 cc680-8

Mr. Tennyson D' Eyncourt

rose to bring forward his motion for a repeal of the Septennial Act. He would have brought the question forward at an earlier period, but he was unwilling to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers and was in hopes that they would have brought the matter before the House. It was with great pain he learned that he should not have their support, more especially as he believed them to be actuated by a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the country. Having now, however, arrived at the third Session of the second reformed Parliament, without anything having been done on this important subject, it became a matter of indispensable necessity and public duty that he, in the absence of a more competent person, should submit to the House a proposition for the substitution of triennial for septennial Parliaments. Having on former occasions stated the whole bearings of the question at considerable length, and having entered into all the historical details connected with it, he would not detain the House by a repetition of what he had on those occasions stated. In former times, previous to the reign of Henry 8th, the people, it was well known, enjoyed annual or sessional Parliaments, and it was in his reign that the first usurpation of the rights of the people in that respect had taken place. That usurpation, the object of which was to render the Legislature less responsible to the people, had been productive of serious evil and injury. It was not his intention, however, to propose the return to annual Parliaments; he did not, in this respect, go so far as the hon. Baronet the candidate for Westminster went in 1817. He considered, that triennial Parliaments would perfectly satisfy the wishes of the people in this respect. In the Bill of Rights the shorter duration of Parliaments was a point insisted on. In the 6th of William 3rd the Triennial Act was passed, on the ground, as the preamble of the Act with great force and unanswerable truth expressed it, that "frequent and new Parliaments tend very much to the union and good agreement of the king and the people." This Triennial Act existed only twenty-two years, and he had never heard any charge made from any quarter as to the conduct of any one of the Parliaments assembled under it. He believed that a course of regislation more legal and more pure had never been known in the annals of the country. The Triennial Act was repealed in 1716; but so great were the evils which the people found themselves to endure from the septennial system, that in 1734 a motion was made in the House of Commons that a return should be made to triennial Parliaments. The motion was lost by a majority of forty-nine, and all the motions which were subsequently made for the same purpose were in like manner rejected. Then came the great question of a comprehensive reform of the representative system, and this fully occupied the public attention until the Reform Bill past. The advocates of Parliamentary Reform had always divided that question into two heads—the amendment in the representation of the people, and increased responsibility in the Members elected. The first of these objects was to a great extent secured by the Reform Act, the second could only be effected by shortening the duration of Parliaments. It was this latter object which, as the Ministers of the Crown had declined to bring it forward, he now sought to secure, as he had already done on two occasions. It was used as a sort of argument against him that, as it was, Parliaments rarely lasted, now-a-days, above a couple of years. It was true that the duration of the last two or three Parliaments had been short enough, but this had been owing to the simple circumstance that a dissolution of Parliament, however short had been its existence, suited the views of the ministry of the day; but he believed, that had, for instance, the right hon. Baronet opposite, when he last took office, got together a House suitable to his political objects, neither would the right hon. Baronet have retired from office, nor would the Parliament have been dissolved until it reached its seventh year. Had this been the case, with the political views entertained, however honestly, by the right hon. Baronet, the liberties and best interests of the country, and all the benefits expected from the Reform Bill, would, ere the dissolution of that Parliament, have been almost irrevocably destroyed. It was not a power which could safely be intrusted to any ministry. No Parliament ought to be elected for so long a period that the constituencies would not be able to judge of the nature of the measures likely to be brought under its consideration. Standing on that principle he felt that he was upon ground which was perfectly secure. The House of Commons was in a different situation now, as regarded the Septennial Act, from that which it occupied before the passing of the Reform Bill. Prior to the passing of that measure, more than one half of the Members were what he would call the fixed furniture of the House of Commons. They were returned by the rotten boroughs, and constituted a majority which, by its influence and power, secured a steady course of events. What was the case at present? From day to day new questions were arising of the very highest importance. He hoped that his Majesty's Ministers had not made up their minds to persist in opposing the repeal of the Septennial Act. He could tell them that the people of England would never rest till they had obtained the recognition of this principle, and the restoration of their right—a right which was as sacred as that of the trial by jury. The question was only one of time; then let not the House, let not the noble Lord, delay the concession till, like the Roman Catholic Act, and the Reform Act itself, it was wrested from them. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Septennial Act.

Mr. Williams

seconded the motion. He contended that the Septennial Act was carried much in opposition to the national will, and every succeeding generation had considered it as a violation of the constitution of the country. It was an infraction of the Declaration of Rights. It could not be denied, that the Reform Bill had failed to give satisfaction to the country; the Parliaments elected under it had not been sufficiently in conformity with public opinion to give those reforms which the people expected. The dissolution of the last Parliament did not take place because it was not in unison with public opinion; that dissolution was the result of court intrigue, and had for its object the restoration of a party whom public opinion had expelled from power—a party who were identified with all the old practices of corruption. The hon. Gentleman went into several historical details, through which it was impossible to follow him, and concluded with an earnest appeal to the House to support the motion.

Mr. Fitzstephen

French opposed the motion. He thought that a return to triennial Parliaments would lead to an increase of political animosities.

Sir S. Wkalley

was in favour of the shortening of the duration of Parliaments, They ought, in his opinion, to remember that they had not now to appeal to any nominees, but to the people. He considered it a very great evil to have the prerogative of the Crown constantly suspended over them in that House. It was his opinion that the more frequently the constituents had the opportunity of reviewing the conduct of their representatives, the more likely was it that the conduct of the representatives would be satisfactory and conducive to the public interests.

Mr. Vernon

thought that it was exceedingly indecent in hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to have, in their address to his Majesty, passed a vote of censure upon the hon. Baronet below him, for having dissolved a Parliament which sat for two years, when they at the same time came forward to make a demand for triennial Parliaments.

Mr. Hume

was one of those who was always willing to vote for responsibility on the part of Members of Parliament. The responsibility which they owed to their constituents could not be so well accomplished by the seven years duration of Parliament as by the three years. If they were acting rightly, why not appeal, from time to time, to their constituents? It would be found by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, if they asked the opinions of their constituents on the subject, that seven years were considered too long for the duration of Parliament. The question was, had they enough of responsibility with a seven years' tenancy of a seat? In his opinion they had not. Considering the manner in which business was done in that House, he thought that Members ought to be long enough in the House to know their duties. Considering this, it was his opinion that annual Parliaments would tend to an evil, and that they would not be able to go on with them. He should like to know from hon. Members if they would trust to individuals the management of their private affairs for seven years without calling them to account. If they would not, why should they do so with regard to matters of public concern? With reference to what had been said by the hon. Member opposite as to the dissolution of Parliament by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), he begged to say that the right hon. Baronet was censured for that dissolution, because it took place without due notice being given to the constituents. He was opposed to a ministry having the power to dissolve Parliament when they pleased. Upon this subject he wished to have the opinion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department.

Lord John Russell

considered, that they ought not to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Marylabone, and defer the division on the present motion until hon. Members had taken refreshments. He had upon a former occasion given his opinion so much at length upon this subject, that he did not feel it to be at all necessary to enter into details upon the question. Still, as he had been called upon by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he wished to state what was his opinions upon this question. The hon. Member who had seconded the motion, quoted a sentence used by him, he believed, on introducing the Reform Act. He thought that the hon. Member should not only have quoted that sentence, but another that immediately followed it. An hon. Member had quoted him correctly, as giving a speculative opinion in favour of the duration of Parliament for five years, in the place of seven years. That opinion he certainly entertained, but at the same time he was not to be tempted to support his hon. Friend's motion, and to join with those who might wish for Parliaments of three or four years, or for any other period. The way for the House of Commons to deal with such a question as this, was not by leaving the number of years that Parliament ought to sit in blank. Opinions were greatly divided against this question. Some were for three years, and others for having annual Parliaments. In circumstances like these, he did not think that the evil that was complained of was one that was immediately felt, nor was a Bill, from the circumstances existing, required for shortening the duration of Parliaments. With respect to the period of three years, the hon. Member for Middlesex appeared to be in favour of such a proposition, while he declared that one year would be too short. With great truth and justice the hon. Member had remarked, that the amount of public business would make it very inconvenient to have elections every year. Then that hon. Member said, that there was a clear distinction between the business of a Legislative body, and the affairs of a private individual. Although the hon. Member said this, still he put the matter on the analogy of their not suffering persons to act as representatives for seven years, because no man would allow another to manage his affairs for the same period without calling him to account. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, supported it upon the ground, that the people of this country had a right to Parliaments of a particular duration. He thought that the argument in respect of the analogy of very ancient times, was as little applicable as the analogy of private individuals. The time of Edward 3rd, when the knights and burgesses came up and continued for a short time at great inconvenience, Was not at all like the present time, when so many complicated affairs were brought before the House of Commons. A great deal of blame had been always thrown upon those who had passed the Septennial Act. He was sorry and surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman who seconded this motion say, that he thought that the period of the accession of the House of Hanover, was the worst period in the history of this country. He considered this the time when they had the establishment of a popular and free Government, and when the pretensions of the House of Stuart were finally set aside. With respect to the Septennial Act, they took care to state in the preamble of the Act the grounds of it, and they did not leave to posterity to say, that it was an Act of mere temporary necessity. The preamble of the Act stated, that its object was, to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. Among the other consequences of the House of Commons not being a body continually changing and fluctuating, there was one consequence which he thought attributable to it. It was in the very nature of things, that if there were two bodies, such as the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the one of which always continued, and the other only for a very short time, the House in which the Members always continued, had more weight and authority than that in which they were continually fluctuating. So much weight had this on the mind of Milton, that in some of his speculations, he gave it as his opinion that the Members elected by the people should be for life. From the time of the Revolution up to the time that the Septennial Act was passed, the whole leading authority in this country was centered in the House of Peers. Look, for instance, at the Duke of Shrewsbury, the Duke of Marlborough, Lords Sunder-land, Somers, and Godolphin. There were two others who held great power, namely, the Earl of Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke. Both of them, as soon as they came into power, sought to be placed in the House of Lords, and the cause of the great quarrel between the Earl of Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke was, that Lord Bolingbroke did not receive so high a title as he thought he had a right to expect. But what was the case since the passing of the Septennial Act? They found that Sir Robert Walpole, and the first and second Pitt, and Fox, and the other men who exercise great influence, were generally Members of the House of Commons. The fact was, that that House had acquired great weight and power in consequence of the Septennial Act. With respect to an alteration to triennial or annual Parliaments, it was very possible that the consequences might ties very different to what he anticipated. He thought that such a change would give great instability to the Government, and they might be more likely than at present to have a House of Commons, elected in times of popular ferment, which would not preserve the constitution as it at present existed. He did not think that at present there was any great desire in the public mind for this measure. He did not think, he must confess, that general opinion was pressing for this change, or for changes of this kind. His opinion, and he thought the opinion out of doors, was, that they should attend to practical questions. They had effected a very great change in the constitution of that House by the passing of the Reform Bill. In proposing the Reform Act, he certainly said, that this question, and another question, namely, that of the Ballot, might at a future period come to be considered. But at the same time his opinion was, that with respect to this question in particular, there was no great desire in the public mind that they should adopt the proposed change. He considered, that a change to triennial Parliaments would be very injurious, arid therefore he was not prepared to adopt it. He thought that they would do far better by attending to those questions of practical importance, in which the immediate interests of the country were concerned.

Mr. Wakley

said, that from the speech of the noble Lord, it was quite clear that the duration of Parliaments would continue the same, as long as the people allowed them to remain so. It was quite clear, that in order to have the desired change, they must have the pressure from without. The Septennial Act was passed for a particular object, which was not required now, but there would always be abundance of excuses found for its continuance. The noble Lord seemed to be of opinion that the people did not desire that the Act should be repealed. He thought that the noble Lord would entertain a very different opinion before this day twelve months. He thought that the noble Lord ought not to forget what was passing at this moment in the immediate neighbourhood of this House. The aristocracy of the district in which that House was situated, was at that moment canvassing and using every possible effort to return to that House a man [Sir F. Burdett, who had vacated his seat for Westminster, and was a candidate to be re-elected on the Tory interest], who had pledged himself to annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot. That was the very course they were following. He had never seen the Lords working so industriously for the return of a Radical Reformer to that House. His object in rising, was to show that they had the power in their own hands to have either triennial or septennial Parliaments. When he was elected, nearly three years ago, he made a promise, that at the end of three years he would resign, as being friendly to triennial Parliaments, he wished to give the electors a proof of his sincerity. He should resign. He should not go before his constituents and say, that if his conduct had not satisfied them during the time he was in the House, he would resign. He would adopt no course of that kind. He would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, and walk out. He would tell the Conservatives of Finsbury, that this was his determination, and he only hoped that they would have a fair battle. It depended upon the people themselves, whether they should have triennial Parliaments or not. He hoped they would take advantage of the discussion that night.

Mr. Roebuck

said, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) opposed this change because he thought it would interfere with the stability of Government. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) did not wish for any change that would affect the stability of Government and, therefore, he desired a Bill of this description. He desired that Parliament should exist for three years, neither more nor less, that it should be dissolved on, say, for instance, the last day of December, and that they should not be dissolved either by the King or by the Ministers beyond a given time. If the House of Commons were thus elected every three years, and continued for that period, they would not be subject to instability that arose either from the demise of the Crown or the going out or coming in of ministers. He considered that this plan would give stability to the Legislature. Such a system existed in the United States and produced the best effects. He should vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth as a step to what he wished, but he did not expect that such a proposition would find favour in this Parliament. But the time, he hoped would come when the duration of the Parliament would depend on the law and not upon the King or his Ministers.

The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 96: Majority 9.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Lushington, Charles
Attwood, T.	Maher, John
Bainbridge, E. T.	Marshall Wm.
Bannerman, Alex.	Marsland, Henry
Barnard, Edward G.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Bewes, T.	Morrison, J.
Bodkin, J.	Mullins, F. W.
Bowring, Dr.	Musgrave, Sir E. Bt.
Bridgeman, H.	Nagle, Sir R.
Brockleburst, J.	O'Brien, W. S.
Brodie, W. B.	O'Connell, D.
Brotherton, J.	Palmer, General C.
Buller, C.	Parrott J.
Bulwer, Edw. L.	Pendarves, E. W.
Butler, hon. P.	Power, James
Chalmers, P.	Power, John
Chapman, M. L.	Robinson, G. R.
Clay, W.	Roebuck, John A.
Collier, John	Rundle, John
Collins, W.	Ruthven, E.
Conyngham, Lord A.	Scholefield, J.
Crawford, W. S.	Sheil, Richard L.
Denistoun, A.	Stuart, Lord D
Duncombe, T.	Stuart, V.
Elphinstone, H.	Strickland, Sir G.
Ewart, W.	Strutt, E.
Fielden, J.	Talbot, J. H.
Fort, J.	Talfourd, Sergeant
Gaskell, D.	Tancred, H. W.
Grole, G.	Thompson, Colonel
Hall, B.	Thornley, T.
Harvey, D. W.	Tulk, C. A.
Hastie, A.	Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B.	Villiers, C. P.
Hawkins, J. H.	Wakley, T.
Hector, C. J.	Warburton, H.
Hindley, C.	Wason, R.
Hodges T. L.	Wigney, Isaac N.
Hughes, Hughes	Wilks, John
Hume J.	Winnington, H. J.
Hurst, R. H.	Wood, Alderman
Hutt, W.	Young, G. F.
Jervis, John	TELLERS.
King, Edward B.	D'Eyncourt, C. T.
Lushington, Dr.	Williams, W.

List of the NOES.
Alston, Rowland	Bailey, J.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Benett, J.

Borthwick, Peter	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.	Mackenzie, T.
Chaplin, Col.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Chapman Aaron	M'Leod, R.
Chetwynd, Captain	Martin, J.
Clerk, Sir G.	Martin, T.
Colborne, N. W. R.	Maunsell, T. P.
Coote, Sir C. C.	Morgan, Chas. M. R.
Crawley, S.	Morpeth, Viscount
Cripps, Joseph	Packe, C. W.
Dalmeny, Lord	Palmer, Robert
Darlington, Earl of	Palmerston, Viscount
Dillwyn, L. W.	Parker, M.
Donkin, Sir R.	Parry, Sir L. P.
Dowdeswell, Wm.	Pease, J.
East, J. B.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Eastnor, Viscount	Perceval, Col.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Plumptre, J. P.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Poulter, John Sayer
Forster, Charles S.	Pursey, P.
Fox, Charles	Richards, John
Freshfield, J.	Richards, R.
Gaskell, James Milnes	Rickford, W.
Goulburn, H.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Graham, Sir J.	Ross, Charles
Grattan, J.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Halse, James	Russell, Lord John
Harcourt, G. G.	Scarlett, R.
Harcourt, G. S.	Shaw, F.
Harland, W. Charles	Stanley, Lord
Heathcote, Gilb.	Stewart, John
Hogg, J. W.	Tennent, J. E.
Hope, Henry T.	Trench, Sir F.
Hoskins, K.	Trevor hon. A.
Hotham, Viscount	Twiss, Horace
Howick, Viscount	Vere, Sir C. B.
Hoy, James Barlow	Vernon, Granville H.
Ingham, R.	Vivian, John Ennis
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Vyvyan, Sir R.
Jephson, C. D. O.	Welby, G. E.
Johnstone, J. J. H.	Wemyss, Capt.
Jones, Wilson	Weyland, Major
Knatchbull, Sir E.	Wolfe, Sergeant
Lee, John Lee	Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Lefroy, Thomas
Lennox, Lord G.	TELLERS.
Long, Walter	Seymour, Lord
Lucas, Edward	French, F.

Paired Off.
FOR	AGAINST.
Henry Grattan	J. E. Denison
William Tooke	Sir C. Burrell
Sir Wm Trelawney	Viscount Cole
R. Walker	W. Fielden
The O'Conor Don	O. Gore
A. H. Lynch	T. Green
C. Fitzsimon	Young (Cavan)
Sir S. Whalley (till 9)	Lord C. Hamilton
C. S. Lefevre	Hon. H. Cole
H. L. Bulwer	Mr. C. Russell
J. W. Deans Dundas	Colonel Thomas
Admiral Codrington	Lord A. Lennox
Mr. Bish	Sir O. Mosley
Edward Baines	Hon. C. Forester
Wallace (till 9)	Earl of Lincoln

FOR.	AGAINST.
J. P. B. Chichester	Sir W. R. Clayton
Lord James Stuart	Sir Charles Lemon
Sir Ronald Fergusson	Sir Henry Hardinge
J. Pattinson	V. Smith.