TOPICS OF THE DAY,

DEBATE ON MR. TENNYSON'S MOTION—REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

'rug opposition of Miters to the repeal of the Septennial Act, has excited no surprise. Had the debate on Mr. TENNYSON'S

motion, indeed, occurred soon after the meeting of the Reformed

Parliament, or, as Mr. JAMES KENNEDY more properly termed it, the first Parliament under the Reform Act, we might, perhaps,

have been somewhat startled at hearing the old arguments of the Corruptionists adopted, and repeated with such energy by the professed friends of the people. But the experience of the last few months has hardened us to disappointment. We "know bow like Whig Ministers to Tory," and are therefore any thing but surprised at the result of the debate on Tuesday last.

Lord ALTHORP began, as usual, by maintaining that the mo- tion was brought forward too late in the session. He begged the attention of the House simply to this question. .

" Was it desirable to enter on the consideration, of such a subject—one which he might term a second edition of the Reform Bill–man the 23d of July?"

This interrogation passed for an argument in the House of Commons ! The noble Chancellor of the Exchequer was an- swered by a volley of cheers, as if he had settled the business by a knock-down blow ! We are willing to admit that it would be advisable to defer the consideration of any new or puzzling ques- tion, on which our information is imperfect, and the arguments on either side novel and undigested, till such time as our Repre- sentatives should be better prepared to legislate upon it. But the repeal of the Septennial Act ! why the merest political Tyro in

the land has been familiar with all that is to be said in its favour or against it, since the day when he read Sir ROBERT WALPOLE'S and Sir JOHN Sr. AUBYN s speeches at school. It cannot be that

any one will be better prepared to enter on a consideration of the subject next session than he is at present. But thus it is, that Mi- nisters strive to stave off disagreable discussions, by taking advan- tage of their own wrong : it is too true, that, owing to their own incapacity or want of preparation, the House is overwhelmed with unfinished business; and if we once admit that a question requires much consideration in order to arrive at a true discern- ment of its merits, then it does, indeed, follow, that it must be post- poned to a more convenient season. For the reasons above given, however, we utterly deny that the repeal of the Septennial Act is one of those questions.

Lord ALTHORP would have done wisely to have sat down, after having delivereiliruself of the argumentative interrogatory which we have quoted above. But, unluckily, the consciousness that be was about to vote (for the twentieth time this session) in direct

• opposition to his former votes and declared opinions on this sub- ject, seemed to him to require some explanation by way of defend- ing his political consistency. He accordingly set to work after this fashion.

"Formerly he voted for shortening the duration of Parliament, and he would do so still if the House of Commons had remained in the same state in Which it was when he supported the measure. At that period he thought the influence of the People too small in that House, and on that ground lie had supported both that and Parliamentary Reform. He was also ready to say, that the pro- per constitution of that House was one by which the feeliugs of the People should be respected; but that waq not the case formerly, when alaige number of the members represented only themselves."

"The case, however, was now different." The simple meaning of all this we take to be, that when the People could gain little by a new election—when, in consequence of the corrupt state of the representative system, the result of an election afforded no index of the actual state of public opinion—then Lord ALTHORP was quite willing that they should be frequently indulged with them. Now, however, that the great body of the nation can really act with effect upon the House of Commons, whenever an opportunity is afforded them of so doing at a general election, it seems that there is no occasion, and in fact it would be highly dangerous to allow them that opportunity as often as once in three years. In- deed, Lord ALTHORP had better have kept to his truly official reason, for rejecting Mr. TENNYSON'S motion—namely, that it was brought forward on the 23d of July. Lord JOHN RUSSELL also distinguished himself in this debate by a display of aristocratic dread of popular power. He prated about the "error, delusion, and misapprehension" of the People, and of the inconvenience of dissolving Parliament in times of popular excitement. He even went the ridiculous length of affirming, that " the alteration of our present system to Triennial Parliaments . would be the complete destruction of the mixed Constitution of this country.' This did not ac- cord very well with the assertion of that clear-headed rea- soner, Lord ALTHORP, in the same debate,—that, in point of fact, Parliament had not sat, on the average, for a longer period than three years and a half. sinee, the passing of the Septennial Act. It did not answer Lord JoHri RUSSELL s purpose, in his pretended apprehension of popular excitement, to remember, that when a speedy and certain-termination will be put by law to any Unjust course of proceeding, and to the power of evil-doers, it is in the nature of men to await the :coming of that relief with tolerable patience, and an aversion to all attempts atobtain- ing it by means beyond the Constitution. The frequent, say trien- nial, recurrence of elections would, therefore, be very probably the means of soothing instead of ;irritating. a nation which,.yLas, or fancied itself, aggrieved by its rulers. , Mr. SHEIL gave the proposer of the Reform Bill 601110 hard raps upon his sudden conversion to some of the worst doctrines of Toryism.

"The noble Lord intimated, that it was improper that dissolutions should take place during periods of public excitement. Now did not he recollect that the last dissolution was in a period of unexampled public excitement? ( Cheers. ) He begged also to askhim whether the People had not then acted well ? Was it not at that period that the people made " the whisper of a faction" unavailing? (Cheers.) There was another point to which he wished to bring back the noble Lord's recollection. The measure of Reform brought forward by him was the same in principle as that brought forward by Lord Grey, in 1793. On the same night on which Lord Grey—then Mr. Grey—brought forward his plan of reform, he presented a petition from the " Friends of the People," praying, amongst other things, that the duration of Parliament should be abridged, and Lord Grey then said, that he should not then discuss the question as to the duration of Parliament, because, until Parliament was reformed there was no use in abridying its duration."

This Was a bitter pill for the Whig occupants of the Treasury Bench—the subalterns of this very Lord GREy— to swallow.

Mr. STANLEY took a different ground. He maintained that the present House of Commons, was an excellent House of Commons.

"He would vindicate the present Parliament from the unjust suspicion that its members were afraid to meet their constituents. He would declare that, in all his experience, he had not known any Parliament that had shown so honest and determined a zeal towards the interests of the People, and the consideration of every subject brought under its notice. ( Cheers.) He entirely denied, there- fore, that there was any necessity for any change in the duration of Parliament."

"In all his experience "—why Mr. STANLEY, we believe, is about thirty-three years of age : let him talk about his readiness in debate, his physical energy, his fearlessness—not to say pre- sumption—as a politician; but it is really rather too bad to hear this young gentleman, only a few years from college, prating about " all his experience of Parliaments." Granting, however, that the present House of Commons truly represents the nation, and that it is all that Mr. STANLEY asserts it to be, we do not see the justice of the inference which he draws from the fact, supposing it to be one, that " therefore, there was no necessity for any change in the duration of Parliaments." If the people have chosen so dis- creetly on the first opportunity afforded them of choosing freely, we should imagine that that was an argument in favour of allowing them to choose again, and frequently. It is only when the House of Commons neglects its duty and runs counter to the national inclinations, that it need fear a dissolution ; and, then, spite of the arguments of Mr. STANLEY and his colleagues, it is the doctrine of the Constitution and of common sense, that the People should

have an opportunity of selecting other and more fit persons to re-

present them. This is the irrefragable argument against the Sep- tennial Act, which enables the Minister, by means of a subservient

House of Commons, to pursue .a line of policy opposed to tlia

public good, or at any rate to the,amblic,wish, for a long period This has frequently been the case in former times, and may be

the case again. Instead of declamation about popular delusions and excitement, let our Whig Ministers answer this argument fairly and conclusively.