and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe's
success was but transient.

Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt brought forward his promised motion for the
shortening of the legal duration of parliaments, on the 8th of May. The
terms of his motion were confined to a repeal of the septennial act,
without specifying any particular period to be substituted for the
present one. The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, on the ground that
seven years was too long a tenancy of a political trust. He thought
three years a better term, and one with which, he believed, reformers
in general would be content. Lord John Russell opposed the motion. In
private affairs a man would no more be disposed to trust his interests
to another, without taking account, for three 3^ears than for seven. The
septennial act at the time of its passing had been considered essential
for the security of the Hanoverian succession; but the preamble of that
measure showed that it was not intended merely for a temporary purpose,
it stated the object to be to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent
elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. It was
observable, he said, that from the Revolution to the passing of the
septennial act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading
authority in the country were peers; since the passing of that act
almost every person who has possessed a leading influence has sat in the
house of commons. Mr. Roebuck desired a bill of this description, not
because it would lesson, but because he thought it would increase the
stability of the government, particularly if coupled with the provision
that parliament should not sit for more or less than three years. The
motion was rejected by a majority of ninety-one against eighty-seven.

On the 4th of April Mr. Ewart renewed the motion which he had made in
the previous session, for leave to bring in a bill, providing that in
cases of intestacy, or in the absence of any settlement to the contrary,
landed property be equally divided among the children or nearest
relatives of the deceased. He quoted Adam Smith, Gibbon, Bentham, &c, in
favour of an equal partition of property, and insisted that the system
of primogeniture tended only to foster all the harsh and selfish
passions of the human heart. The attorney-general opposed the motion.
Mr. Ewart's arguments, he said, if they went for anything, would bring
us to the system of equal distribution prevailing in France, which he
coul