The Sun. — London, England, 1842-05-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 3. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woo:- sack shortly before Five o'Clock. The Glasgow and Paisley Railway Bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Friday. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. A Message from the Commons brought up the Gos pora Pier Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. SOAP DUTIES. The Soap Duties Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Friday. 'The Earl of BANDON presented several petitions from parishes in Bandon, and other parts_ of Ireland, against the present sys tem of National Education. The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented petitions from Melford, and other places, against any further grant to the College of Maynooth. The Timber Ships Bill went through Committee, was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Friday. The Marquis of DO WNSHLRE presented a petition from the Minister and Churchwardens of a parish in the Diocese of Kildare, and two from the Protestant inhabi tants of Castle Tuiloch, and another place in the county of Cavan, in favour of Church Extension. Lord FINGAL presented a petition from the medical men of Carlow, against the medical jurisdiction of the Poor-law Bill also a petition from the inhabitants of Southwark, against the tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges. NATIONAL EDUCATION. Lord LORTON presented a petition from Castle Connor, in the county of Sligo, against the present sys tem of National Education. BANKRUPTCY, LUNACY, AND LOCAL COURTS. Lord CAMPBELL asked the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, what was the present state of the Bill for amending the law relative to bankrupts. The Bill had been introduced, but had remained stationary ; he also asked the state of the Lunacy Bill, and the Bill relating to Local Courts. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, with respect to the first question which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred, the Lunacy Bill, it had been read a first and second time, and stood for the Committee ; it was his intention to-morrow, to give notice for the Commit tee on Thursday. As to the Bankruptcy Bill, it had been read a first time, and he would propose the second reading some day in the ensuing week. With respect to the third, the Local Courts Bill, he had found such conflicting interests, and such difficulty-in recon ciling them, that he had not been able to lay it on the table; but he trusted, after the explanation he had given, to meet such a concurrence of opinion, that he should be able to introduce it soon after the recess. Lord ABINGER trusted the Bill would never be laid on the table of the House ; but if it was, he should give it his determined opposition. The LORD CHANCELOR said his Noble and Learned Friend had put so many questions to him, that he did not recollect the whole of them at the time he had given an aswer to the Noble Lord. He believed he had given no answer to one of the questions with respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, and he therefore begged leave to inform him that the Bill had been prepared and was ready to be introduced. Lord BROUGHAM was exceedingly glad to find that the intention of his Noble Friend was such as he had stated ; but with respect to the policy of the Bankruptcy Bill taking precedence of the Local Courts Bill, he (Lord 13rougham) entertained great doubt. If his Noble Friend would look more narrowly into the subject, he -would find that such a step would create great incon venience, he should therefore wish to see it postponed. The LORD CHANCELLOR begged leave to state that the Bill was already laid on the table of the House, and no inconvenience could result from - the second reading of the Bill, because, at any future stage, the progress of the Bill might be stopped, if necessary, until the other Bill had been read a second time. He begged leave to state, that it occcurred to him that it was not necessary to postpone the Bill, and to proceed with the other Bill, for this reason, it was nothing more than extending the principle of the Bill introduced by his Noble and Learned _Friend, with respect to the Court of Bankruptcy in Londo.n, which had been found to operate so beneficially, that raveral mer chants of London had presented a petition to extend the operation of the Bill to the whole country. In conse quence of this it was now proposed to extel ad the town commission to the country. The Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) would see much to approve in the Bill, inasmuch as it was founded on his olv_n Bill. Lord BROUGHAM entirely concurred, not only in the principle, but the details of the Bill. COPYRIGHT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he should move the second reading of the Copyright Bill on Monday next (as we understood). UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition: from the Provisional Council of the National Compk;te Suffrage Union, dated the 15th of April, praying for Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, Vote by Bal Jot, and No Property Qualification. The body from which the pre sent petition emanated was composed of between ninety and one hundred delegates from different parts of England, Wales, and Scotland. Tbiey , met at Birmingham, where they held several delibemtive assem blies for the space of several days, and they same to cer tain resolutions. They afterwards convened a p üblic meet ing, which was attended by many thousands of ti weir fellow: citizens ; that meeting consisted of persons of :all descrip tions, among whom the greatest unanimity pre- veiled. The middle classes showed the greatest anxiety that their fellow citizens should be brought within the -pale of the Constitution. As the petition spoke not only the senti ments of the individual that had signed it cui behalf of the meeting, but also those of 3,300,000, awl as its ob ject was Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaan ents, Vote by Ballot, and No Property Qualification, he tt usted their Lordships would not think he was askin g too mach when he requested that the petition should, be read at length. The petition was then read at length at tl le table. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY pres , nited a ,peti fon from the Magistrates of Durham, sit ti ng at the Petty Sessions at Stockton-upon-Tees, gainst the Stockton and Hartlepool Railway Bill. Lord CLIFFORD of Chudleigh, presented ve petitions from the Roman Catholics frequenting di 111 ,rent Cha pels, praying that they might be put upo a the same footing, and enjoy the same civil rights as o ther persons of different religious persuasions. MADRAS PRESIDENCY. The NospE LORD gave notice that he shout Al, on Friday n _xt, bring under the notice of the House t ke subject of the Madras Presidency. Lord DACRE presented a petition from a parish in Hertford against the provision in the tariff affecting the importation of live stock. Lord WHARNCLIFFE laid on the table. -certain pa pers by the command of her Majesty. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petitio n. from Ayr, for the immediate abolition of the Corn an.t Provision laws. The NOBLE EARL also presented a petiti from the congregation of some place in the parish oi ! Sheffield, against the bread-tax, and another against tl to alteration of duty on the importation of foreign cattle a at i meat. QUEEN'S PRISON BILL. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up. the Report on this Bill, which was ordered to be receive 3. In consequence of Thursday next being As Nil tsion Day their Lordships adjourned till Friday. cially a protective clause, and on the last dis cus,ion he had endeavoured to prove how in jurious the omission of it from the Bill would be ; he had pointed out the many cases in which the princi ple of compensation had been recognised, and that it was even recognised in the present Bill itself. It was only fair, when this House, by the Act, would compel the lessees to dispose of their property, that the holders should receive a just and marketable value for it. Having used all these arguments on the last discussion of the Bill, he did not think it necessary to go into them again. The Hon. Member concluded by moving that the clause should be added to the Bill. The clause was then brought up and read a first time. On the question being put that it be read a second time, Sir R. INGLIS objected to the clause as totally un called for. Mr. LIDDELL said that he considered the clause gave no new power whatever, but only a fair claim to the real and marketable value of the property. The clause did not intend to take away any right from the Church, and he should therefore vote for the clause. Mr. G. KNIGHT opposed the clause, and said it was evident, from the anxiety of the Church leaseholders in pressing the clause, that they expected some advantage from it. Mr. HARCOURT VERNON supported the clause. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 3. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly ;3e I'm .e Four o'Clock. PENRYN AND FALAIOUTII ELECT.W.N. Mr. C. WOOD brought up the Report from the Select Committee appointed to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue election for the B 1 wough of Penryn and Falmouth. The Committee repc .rted that Capt. James Hallway Plumridge was duly eleel .ed. STANHOPE AND TYNE HALLWAY BILL. On the motion of Mr. LIDDELL, the Lords ' amend ments in the Stanhope and Tyne Railway Bill I/ ;ere read and agreed to. ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES. For the Clause Against the Clause 3l Majority The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said, that as the clause had been carried, he should propose the ad journment of the debate, in order to give him further time to consider the connection of the clause with other parts of the Bill. Mr. LAMBTON protested against any further ad journment of a subject which had been already more than once under discussion, merely because the Noble Lord was defeated on a division. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, Lord G. Somerset having withdrawn his motion. After a few words from Mr. RICE and Lord GRAN VILLE SOMERSET, the discussion closed. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. ELECTION COMMITTEES—THETFORD. The following Members were then called to the table, and sworn as a Committee to try the merits of a petition against the return for the borough of Thetford :—The Right Hon. J. Planta, Sir G. T. Staunton, Hon. G. Rice Trevor, Mr. R. Howard, R. R. Clayton, Sir D. J. Norrys ; Mr. J. S. Pakenham, Chairman. NOTTINGHAM ELECTION. The following ilemliers were sworn to try the merits of the petition against the return for the borough of Nottingham :—Lord R. Grosvenor, Sir T. Acland, Mr. T. Milner Gibson, Hon. H. Fitzroy, Mr. Fred. Dundas, Hon. J. S. Wortley ; Chairman, Mr. G. Hayter. NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYNE ELECTION. The following Members were sworn to try the merits of the petition complaining of an undue return for the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyne :—Hon. H. Liddell, Mr. R. Bernal, Viscount Courtenay, Mr. T. E. Cole brook, Mr. W. H. Bodkin, Mr. G. Trail ; Chairman, Sir J. Y. Buller. ORMSBY INCLOSTJRE BILL—LORDS' AMEND- Mr. LAWSON presented a petition from cot taro tate torneys of Yorkshire, praying for an aboliti o n of h duty on attorneys' certificates. Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition to the ,at ae effect from the solicitors of Durham. GREENOCK HARBOUR BILL.. Mr. WALLACE brought up the Repo rt the Greenock the Committee werarour m Bil,.—The aendments woposs , d by e agreed to, and the Bill rvas o rd ered to be engrossed. THE TARIFF, Mr. PRAED presented a petition from the owitei's and prvapos occupi ed alterations i ers of land n the in Bta u ckingham s hir e , ala i ast the ritt Mr. LEADER presented .petitions from severs triers in Westminster, praying for a free l .6 t rade P - visions.l dis- Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from sixteen Pe rsons residing in London, w h o gave employm ent ; . 600 persons, in the manufacture of cutlins, for soi l Agp for musical instruments, stating that the petitione had .heard with regret that it was proposed to reduce t l edut , y payable on the importaton of foreign musical ; strings . , and praying the House not to consent to an y such 'ton as it would throw the petitioners a /3 d those proposition, dependent on them out of emplgment. LUNATIC ASYLUMS, The llos. MEmnEtt else present e d a petitio a from John Perce v al, of Kensington, w h o h a d b; en eonfi tied in ner in n. lunatic asyl um i n 1833, com pl a i n i ng o the man y which lunatic as yl ums were con d ucte d , of the inetfic ienc and of the Metropolitan Co:um issioners of L unacy, praying for a Committee of Inquiry. STEAM-PRINTING PRESSES. The HON. M EMBER also presented a petition from 4. , t _ printers, c om pl a i n i ng of the use of steam-power in prig I, ing instead 01 manual labour; stating it as their opinic ..,,. that little was gained by the public by printin f parliamentary papers by steam -power instead c manual labour, and cattily, the attention of t. House to the condtrt of 'the Wesleyan Sociel t . ,..' which, in consequence of the representation of the pe ll tioners, had discontinued printing by 3 -L'ata, and had e 11- ployed manual labour in its place ; and praying the Irot ' se to take the subject into its serious consideration, with a view of affording them relief. SOUTH WARE IMPROVEMENT RILL. Mr. LA.MI 3 TOS having moved the third read this Bill, rose to p ropose the additional clause ing of, of wi l -,•h he had g i ve n not i ce, for allowing compensation to i, t 3 le holde rs o f Ch urc h l eases, whose property might be SO. Id under the operation of the Act. The Hon. Meznix ,r stated that the clause had been carefully examined au, I corrected by the Solicitor-General, and had been ttp. roved by th e H on . an d L earned Member fur Worcester. He alluded to the length of the the constant pract i ce of renewals of he lea ses, No t hings and 1 as giving th e lessees a vested interest. It was espt- I THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 4, 1842. at the head of this Society ; but the Government, find ing that the existence of such an association was highly inconvenient, took means to suppress it. In 1793, two delegates were sent to Scotland from the Society, and were arrested by the officers of Government. These individuals, who were merely doing what in England was done by the principals of the Society, were tried and transported for fourteen years.--(Hear, hear.) The Government, then finding itself successful in Scot land, instituted prosecutions of a similar nature against some members of the Society in England, and, accord ingly, eleven persons were seized, four of whom were tried by a London jury, which, not being quite so pliant as the Scotch jury, an acquittal was obtained ; the re mainder of the prosecutions dropped, and a new stimulus was thereby imparted to the cause of Reform.—(Hear.) In 1798, the Society had become so formidable, that a corrupt House of Commons, in which there was no real representation, suspended the habeas corpus ; upon which Lord Grey declared, in his place inParliament, that, though he did not go the entire length with those indi viduals, he would, rather than that there should be no reform of the House, vote for universal suffrage. And no person could say, looking at the conduct of this House with respect to the industrious classes, that they had not a right to it.—( Hear, hear.) For the space, of nineteen years after the suspension of the Habeas Cor p us Act, the people remained supine, but the same feeli gs I remained in existence, and at the end of that time, he cry for Parliamentary Reform became as loud as ever. In 1817, the Habeas Corpus Act was again suspended, and he need not remind the House of what then took plate. He need not remind them of the Manchester massaci - e, or that the whole country was in a state of rebellion. Then came the year 1829, when the Right Hon. Baronet conceded Catholic emancipation to the loud de mands of the Irish people, though at the expense of the 40s. freeholders. That was the next step to anything like reform, because it entirely altered the Constitution of the country. He need not call to the recollection of the House, that in 1830 the state of the country was such, that the Tories were obliged to abandon the helm of government. Such was the feeling occasioned by the declaration of the Duke of Wellington, that he would oppose all reform, that the Sovereign was not able to partake of the hospitality of the citizens of London, in consequence of the unpopularity of his Ministers. He need not remind the House of the disgraceful proceedings which took place in Kent. The Whigs then came into office, and their first step was to introduce the Reform Bill. He believed that the intentions of those individuals who framed the Reform Bill, CM introduced it, were per fectly honest and sincere ; he believed that they did in tend to improve the reptesentative system greatly. The people believed that great improvements would arise from it, but they had been grossly disappointed ; he would not say they had been deceived, but they had been disappointed to the utmost extent. They believed the measure would do great good, and every Member must recollect the excitement and enthusiasm that oc curred in favour of the Reform Bill ; they must recol lect the black flags at Glasgow-, and the fires at Bristol, and all that was done to make that House what it ought to be, the People's House. I n t h a t Bill th e peop l e were greatly disappointed. At the first election, in 1834, the people found great difficulties thrown in the way of ex ercising their franchise. Every difficulty was thrown in the way of their registering their votes, and the sys tem had been kept up to the present hour. What was the consequence ? Why, that there was one general dissatisfaction against the Reform Bill. Everybody believed that House to be more corrupt, more dishonest, and more favourable to class legislation than before the Reform Bill passed. And when they heard of their pro ceedings and looked at the Reports of their Committees, when they knew all that had taken place at the last elections, they were right in coming to the conclusion, that corruption, intimidation, and bribery took place to an enormous extent. They were now in the year 1842, and he (Mr. D.) did not believe that the House or the Government were fully aware of the state of the country, or the public mind at the present moment. It was, there fore his duty, and a painful one it was, to inform the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, what was the state of the public mind with regard to Reform and the distresses of the people, as he did not b e li eve the House was in full possession of the distresses that existed, and the strong feeling that was against the political bondage which the industrious classes believed themselves to be under. The House was not perhaps aware that the petition he had the honour to present yesterday had been in the course of signature for the last four or five months. Associations had been formed h throughout the country called National Associations, in favour of giving those rights to the working classes of the country which they maintained the old Constitution gave them, and which they (the House) had no right to deprive them of. There were at the present moment about 600 of these Associations. There were at this moment nearly 100,000 adults of the industrious portion of the commu nity who all set apart weekly a penny of their wages for the purpose of carrying on this agitation in favour of the franchise. Between 50,000 and 60,000 of these men had taken what they called cards; in these cards they pledged themselves that, as long as they received ls. of wages, they would set apart Id a week, until their voices were heard within these walls by their representatives. Now if they believed that these signatures were fictitious, and that the feeling which he had described was not spreading through the country, they grossly deceived themselves. Never were the people of this country so determined, by every constitutional means in their power, to obtain the franchise as they were at the pre sent moment. He did not believe they (the House) would be able long to prevent them having a voice within those walls. The distress under which they were Labouring certainly augmented .the cry at the present moment. It was natural, when they saw themselves neglected—when they saw no hopes of obtaining justice —when they saw them (the House) offering them nothing more than mere words, as in the Queen's speech when they saw that great distress was existing in the manufacturing districts, which was borne with exemplary fortitude, this was all they said. What then could they expect but that they would do something for themselves. He would state to the House the progress which the question had made with regard to the manufacturing districts. When those individuals who were sitting in convention for the purpose of seeing the petition presented to that House, and which they had done, applied to him respecting it, he asked them to furnish him with some of the particulars of the state of the country. What they told him appeared to be almost incredible. He had received 500 communications on the subject. Out of these communications he had selected a few, which he hoped the House would do him the favour of listening to. One communication was from Sheffield, and which came with the Sheffield portion of the petition. From this statement it appeared that the cost of the relief to the casual poor, for the week ending the 26th of March, was 201/. ; for the week ending the 22d of April, 298/. So that for the last month, although the inclemency of the season had passed, there was an increase in the relief to the casual poor of 971. in Sheffield alone. Sheffield was tranquil at present ; that it would remain so for any length of time with starvation and misery increasing daily was very doubtful, In Wolverhampton it was stated that the colliers, nailers, mechanics, and labourers were in a state of poverty and destitution disgraceful to a civilised country. There was a general impression amongst the working men that their cause of complaint could never be effectually removed unless they possessed the power of choosing their own representatives. The whole of this district was in an alarming state of a gitation ; Chartism was rapidly progressing ; in towns and villages where, a short time ago, Chartism was unknown, there were now Chartist Associations ; and unless some means were adopted of relieving the distresses of the sons of industry the conse quence must be fearful. In Burnley numbers could not earn sufficient for subsistence. The writer stated that he never knew that district to be in such an agitated state. The handloom weavers were compelled to turn out on Saturday last, and beg from door to door ; the police attempted to take them into custody, but the poor fellows resisted, and they were obliged to make a virtue of necessity. A young man had been brought before the Magistrates who had been driven by desperation to break two panes of glass in a shop window, in order to get sent to prison. His mother was a widow with six children, for whose support 4s. a week was allowed by the Guar dians. On applying for relief or work he had been told to go and steal, and as he preferred breaking windows to stealing he was sentenced to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for one month, and he thanked the Magistrate for the boon of sending him to prison. There was great distress existing in Leicestershire, par ticularly in Loughborough. Nothing could be worse than the condition of the working classes at Clitheroe, and a strong feeling in favcur of the Charter was spreading there to a great extent. The metropolitan counties were in the same state of distress, and he was afraid the tariff of the Right lion. Baronet would only make that distress much worse. He would now direct the attention of the House to the state of Scotland. In the Vale of Netherley there were scores of families who had never tasted animal food for thirty--eight weeks ; their food was oatmeal, with boiling water sweetened with treacle. Notices of ejectment were being constantly served, and landlords refused to let their houses unless persons would give security for the payment of the rents. At Dumbarton the people were in a sta t e of dreadful desti tution ; the carpenters were all out of work , and the weavers, by working f rom twelve to fifteen hours a-day, were only able to ea rn ss. a wee k. The great body of the people looked to U n i versa l S u ff ra ge as their only hope, believing that until the House of Commons should represent the whole people they . would never obtain any rem e dy for their grievances. The letter containing those statements was s i g ned by W. Thomason, a M em b er of the Convention, and the writer stated that alth oug h he did not know whether he should be balloted f or to speak at the Bar of the House, in the event of the present motion being carried, yet he would be happy to attend at the Bar to answer any . questions that might be put to him ; and he felt satisfied that by his answers he could show the miser able condition of the peopl e , He would now direct the attention of the House to the state of Edinburgh. No thing could be worse than the distress existing there, and nothing stronger than the desire to see a change in the. constitution of that House. In a paper recently pub lished, the British State sman ' a journal devoted to the cause of the people, a lette r had appeared, containing a statement to the effect that in the neighbourhood of Burnley a cow had died of disease, and was buried, and the poor were so pressed by famine, that they actually disinterred the animal for the purpose :of making use of it as food. A statement had also been published in Man chester, signed by Mr. Howell, the Dean of Manchester, calling on the inhabitants to contribute towards soup tickets for the destitute poor. This was read from the pulpits of Manchester, for the purpose of exciting the charitable feelings of individuals. The Hon. Gentle man then read the statements contained in this docu ment, which, detailed cases of the most extreme suffer ing,' and proved the great anxiety to procure the tickets that entitled individuals to the relief of the supply of soup. In that petition which he had presented, there was a strong otatement of the distressed condition of the MENTS. Mr. WODEHOUSE moved the consideration of the Lords' amendments in the Ormsby Inclosure Bill. Mr. WAKLEY was understood to oppose the princi ple of the amendments, and proceeded to say that the Bill as it stood was perfectly satisfactory. But the 55th clause, which had been introduced into the Bill, was ex punged in the other House of Parliament, and another was substituted in its place, enacting that all encroach ments and enclosures which should be made from and after the passing of this Act, should be deemed parcel of the land to be inclosed, and should be divided and enclosed accord ingly, provided that it should be lawful to and for the several persons in possession of these encroachments and enclosures, to take down and remove all such fences as shall be thereon, and convert them to their own use. Would the House then agree to the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman ? and if it were to be sanctioned, they would be supported in every trick and b before the Committees. The very promoters of the Bill might have got rid of the clause upon the pretence that they would agree to it, whereas when it came be fore the other House they would get it removed. In this instance the poor were treated as they were in other instances. He was sorry that the promoters of the Bill in this case were two clergymen of the Church of England. The clergymen of the Church would never gain re spect while they acted in that manner ; and if these poor people were to be deprived of their dwellings, where were they to go to, except, he supposed, to the Union Workhouse ? The House was aware that the Bill was supported in consequence of the introduction of the 55th clause but that was withdrawn, and another of a totally different character was introduced into the Bill. He should, therefore move, that the House do not agree to the amendment of the Lords, and he hoped the House would send back the Bill, declaring that no such amendment could be supported in that House. Mr. WODEHOUSE said that there was no ob jection made to the clause alluded to by the Honourable Member, but it was quite clear that if it were embodied in the Bill it would 'be made a precedent in other cases, and he believed the admission of it was dangerous. The Lords' amendment havingbeen read, Mr. GODSON said that the rejected clause was simi lar to the one which he had endeavoured to induce the House to insert in the King's Cl re Inclosure, and the principle on which he supported the clause was this : He thought that if a Lord of a Manor or his agent saw apoorman take a piece of waste land, and took no notice of it, or accepted of a nominal rent from the poor man, after be had expendedlo/. or 201. in building a cottage on it, the Lord of the Manor had no right to pull down that cottage afterwards, and it was but Justice to the poor man that he shoul d have the opportu nity of purchasing the land if he thought proper. There was no imputation on any of the parties concerned in the promotion of this Bill. The clause had been brought in by agreement between all the parties concerned. The Honourable Gentleman had talked about their setting a precedent. How could they be setting any precedent when there had been an agreement between the parties ? It surely was not a precedent for the House of Commons to set, to enforce an agreement fairly entered into between the parties. Why could not that agreement be carried into effect ? He understood it was because a very amiable Nobleman, in another place, would not agree to it. The question was, if all the parties to a Bill had entered into an agree ment, whether any Nobleman ought to have the power of setting that agreement aside ? If the bargain were a fair one, he thought that no gentleman ought to have the power of setting it aside. Mr. HUMS said that the Bill had been sent up to the Lords ; that it had been amended in Com mittee there ; and that the amendments had been ap proved of by those who promoted the Bill. For 19 or 20 years these poor cottagers had been for gotten ; ana it would be very hard if they were now to be deprived of their property. Mr. ESCOTT said the question was, whether the contract with the poor people was to be kept or not. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi sion took place, Mr. WAKLEY'S motion having been agreed to. Mr. WAKLEY then moved that a Committee be ap pointed to draw up the reasons why the House did not agree to the Lords' amendment, and to state those rea -1 sons in a conference to their Lordships. After a few words from Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Wakley and Lord Sandon, the motion was put and agreed to. The Ellesmere and Chester Canal Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be engrossed. Mr. WODEHOUSE moved the further consideration of the Report of the Darlington and Newcastle Junction Railway Bill, • Mr. FIELDEN, who spoke in a very indistinct tone, was understood to object to the powers granted by the Bill. Mr. MILES supported the Bill. Mr. FIELDEN gave notice that on the third reading he should introduce a clause by way of amendment in the Bill, : —The Report was then received. . . Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition from John Thurston, a prisoaer in Newgate, stating that he was now very penitent, and praying that he might be released from prison; also a petition from 250 inhabitants of Ipswich to the same effect. ATHLONE ELECTION PETITION. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re ceived a petition from George Dowd, ono of the peti tioners against the return for the borough of Athlone, stating that it was not his intention to proceed with the petition. Mr. F. FRENCH said he had been informed that the petitioner had been tampered with, and that there were others who would carry on the petition.—(Cheers.) On the motion of Lord G. SOMERSET, the petition was ordered to be printed with the Votes. NOTICES OF MOTION. Lord HOWICK gave notice that on going into Com mittee on the tariff, he should move no difference should be made in the duty on articles imported from foreign countries, from those from the colonies ; and where such difference now exists, in those cases he should also move that such difference should not be increased. He should also move at the same time that a duty of 7d. should be imposed on foreign coffee instead of Bd. th f a t t h ai e l ln Mr. FRENCH g ave no ti ce t h at on t h e thi r d re ading o dividends eom e Bill payable(as weiunnyuernsetoboed)exheemsphtoufrlodlrLe payment of the tax. Mr. HUME gave notice that in Committee on the Railways Regulation Bill, he should move the insertion of a clause to preve n t Sunday travelling. Ur. THORNELY m ove d f or leav e of ab sence to Mr. Ewart for" a month, on account of serious illness.— Agreed to. Mr. PAKINGTON gave notice that to-morrow he should move that John Thurston be discharged from her Majesty's gaol of Newgate. rola Sir G. GREY moved that the names of Mr. Green, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Estcourt, and Mr. Sturt b e a dd e d to , th e Select Committee on Election Committee Witnesses. i n - reply to a question from an Hon. M em b er, es. Sir J. GRAHAM said the Lord Chancellor had, in the .other House of Parliament, introduced a Bill for the amendm ent of the Bankruptcy Law. Mr. H,TJME said, in consequence of the news from America, by the last two mails, he begged to ask th e • ht Mon. Baronet at the head of the Government whether Captain Elliot was now Consul-General in Texas---where he was--(Laughter)--whether he was now receiving pay from the Government—whether it was the intention of the Government to send him to Texas, an d when ? Sir R. PEEL stua—Captain Elliot is Consul to Texas; he is at present in London ; he is not in the receipt of pa and w ill not be in the receipt of pay until he takes his departure ; he is perfectly ready to take his departure ; 119 is only detained at the instance of the Treasury, who are receiving explanations from him with respect to certain expenses in Hong Kong.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME said he should, on an early day, submit whether Captain Elliot, under present circumstances, was a proper person to be sent out.—(oh, oh.) In reply to a question from Mr. FRENCH, with re spect to the Commission appointed to investigate the Portuguese claims, Sir R. PEEL said a Commission was appointed by the Noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the purpose of receiving and deciding upon the claims of soldiers who had been in the Portuguese service. That Commission had been receiving claims since the 10th July, of last year ; 2,065 claims had been received by that Commission, of which one thousand had been adjudicated upon In 693 cases there had been an admission that a cer tain sum was due. 50,0001. was admitted to be due. A strong representation had been made to the Portuguese Government for the purpose of obtaining a settlement of their claims, and they had every reason to believe that means would be taken for their adjustment. At the time the ad justment was about to be made, the Charter was proclaimed, and a change of Government took place. The new Government, like other new Governments, had required time to consider. He urged the necessity of coming to some speedy arrangement, and as far as as surances could go he had every reason to hope that they would soon come to some satisfactory settlement. He indulged a confident hope that the Portuguese Go vernment, whatever difference of opinion might exist, in the country, that the new Government of Portugal, as well as the old one, would admit the justice of those claims on which awards had already taken place, and he could assure the House that no exertions should be spared on the part of the Government of this country to procure redress for the claimants. LUNATIC ASYLUMS BILL. _ Lord G. goIIERSET moved that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Lunatic Asylums Bill, which had stood for to-mor row, should be read, in order that it might be postponed. In consequence of the decision to which the House had come the other evening he had felt it his duty to con sult his Right Hon. Friend on the subject of the Bill, and they had agreed that, in consequence of that deci sion it would be necessary to make very extensive al terations in its provisions. Those alterations it was his intention to propose, and he would request the Hon. Gentleman opposite who had a notice on the paper on the subject of this Bill, to put off the discussion on it until he (Lord G. Somerset) should have proposed the alterations. . Mr. WAKLEY had no objection to postpone his motion, provided he should not lose a stage by so doing—if the Noble Lord would assure him that he (Mr. Wakley) would occupy the same position with regard to the Bill that he did at present. He felt bound to repeat his opinion that it was impossible to legislate satisfactorily on this subject unless a Commission of In quiry were first issued. The Order of the Day was then read and postponed to the 23d of May. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (IRELAND). Colonel VERNER wished to ask the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, when it was his intention to move that the petition presented from Armagh, com plaining of the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland be printed. Mr. O'CONNELL said that as the Committee ap pointed to try the merits of the Cork Election petition would be sworn that day week, it was impossible for him to name any day for bringing forward the motion. NATIONAL PETITION. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in submitting to the House the motion of which he had given notice, he should ill do justice to the petition, he should be ill dis charging his duty both to the House, and to those whose cause he appeared there to advocate, did he not in the first place, expiess on their behalf his thanks for the kind and respectful manner in which the House had received the petition which he had had the honour of presenting on their behalf yesterday. But he must now call upon the House to increase that obligation by lending him their patient hearing, whilst he stated and advocated to the best of his ability the interests that were at stake in this matter. The individuals on whose behalf he now appeared—at least the persons who signed that petition, which had been presented yesterday—amounted to nearly three-and-a-half millions of the industrious classes of this country. Those three-and-a-half million signatures were not the signatures of the male adult po pulation of this country ! They were the signatures of a considerable portion of the wives of the members of the industrious classes. It contained also the signatures of what he would call the industrious youth of the country. But he was prepared to say, and to prove if necessary, that there were at least above a million and a half of the families of the industrious classes who had subscribed that petition. They had seen, on a late occasion, two petitions presented to that House by Gentlemen on the opposite side in favour of what was called the financial scheme of her Majesty's Ministers, one proceeding from Manchester, signed by 24,000 of the operative and mer cantile classes of that town, presented by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) ; the other presented by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), and laid on the table of the House with great solemnity, proceeding from the town of Carlisle, and signed by 3,000 operatives. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not wish, in the slightest degree, to detract from the importance of those petitions, but if they were entitled to consideration or regard on the part of that House, assuredly that petition, proceed ing from above three millions of the indus trious classes, which had been yesterday, he would not say presented by himself, but brought down to the House in a most respectful, peaceable and orderly manner by a large body of the people—that petition was, he was sure he might say, worthy of the attention of the House. It was to that petition and to what it contained, that he begged to call the generous attention of the House. He hoped, therefore, that they would give him a patient hearing, not on his own ac - count, but on account of his being the advocate of those industrious millions whose cause he was there to plead. He found, in conversation with Hon. Members, that there was great objection to agreeing to the prayer of the petition. It was asked, was there any precedent for hearing those parties at the Bar of the House in support of the allegations contained in their petition ? He (Mr. D.) wished that that was the only objection. For he was ready to prove that there were precedents for hearing those parties at the bar of the House. In the first place, he would call the attention of the House to what had occurred in the year 1785, when a petition was presented from the clergy, landowners, mer chants, manufacturers, and others in Lancashire, against the duty upon cotton stuffs. The petitioners prayed to be heard at the Bar upon the subject, and that prayer was granted. He should observe, that was not a tax under the consideration of the House, but a tax actually in being. The House, on that occasion, resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, and the peti tioners were heard at the Bar. Aain, in the year 1789, Mr. Wilberforce presented a petition from a large class in this country, who took a very strong interest in the abolition of the slave-trade. Those petitioners were heard at the Bar of the House. But that was considered an inconvenient mode of proceeding ; and, in the fol lowing year, the subject was referred to a Committee up stairs. Then again, in the year 1812, a petition was presented from various parts of Lancashire. and the ma nufacturing districts, against the Orders in Council. On that occasion the then Lord Stanley moved that the pe titioners should be heard at the Bar on their behalf. That motion was supported by several members of the Ministerial party of that day. The first person who op posed it was Mr. Rose, but he subsequently gave way, saying that he thought the House should take into its consideration the petition, and that he should not therefore oppose the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. Baring also supported the motion, and observed that the voice of the nation had spoken loudly against the Orders in Council then complained of. Lord Castle reigh said that he should consent to this motion without making any admission as to the merits of the question, but he was ready to yield to the wishes of the country to go into some inquiry into the subject. The motion was then agreed to, and it was ordered that the Com mittee on the Orders in Council should sit daily. Wit nesses were summoned to attend, and were examined, from Sheffield, Manchester, and other places, on the motion of Lord Brougham. Now he thought that the petition he had presented yesterday was no less entitled to the consideration of the House. It proceeded from every part of the empire, and was in every way deserv ing of the attention of the House. He should not ask them to decide that night on the merits of the petition, but consent to listen to the grievances which those in dividuals would state in detail at the bar of the House. They would show that the country was now suffering from deep distress ; they would also prove, to the satis faction of every one, that those grievances arose from the neglect and misrepresentation of their interest within the walls of the House. They would also state what they looked upon as the proper remedy for their griev ances, upon which the House would have to decide. Now, it might be rather tedious, but it would be neces sary for him to carry the House through it, to watch the progress of this question of reform during the last fifty or sixty years ; and though they might call the Chartists wild and visionary persons, as if the points on which they laid so much stress with regard to reforming that House were now, for the first time, thought of by them, he should prove to the House, that many gen tlemen, both in that and the other House of Parliament, had adopted exactly the some principles. The first time this country took up what was then called " Radical Re form" was in the year 1777, and the House would please to observe that this subject had undergone all _sorts of names. In 1777 Major Cartwright was the active leader of a party called " Radicals." In 1798, when the Whigs took it up, they were c aged " Reformers," and they went on calling it " Reform" till the Reform Bill was passed ; and now these same Radicals were called Chartists." , But if Hon. Members would examine the principles they advocated, it would be found that these Chartists were the Radicals of former days.—(Hear.) In 1777 Major Cartwright made the first movement in fa vour of what was now called, in point of fact, " the Char ter." In 1780 a large meeting was held in Westminster, in favour of Radical Reform, and from that meeting a Com mittee was appointed, called " The Westminster Reform Association ;" that Committee resolved upon what were now.called " the six points of the Charter—viz., annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, &c.After this a Society was formed for what was called ",Constitutional Information;" at the head of this society were the Duke of Richmond, the t o o t arr h pom e p : :e i rn x ti am,paettoonti took i momentte of np f o l ria cinthke, and Charter. this Association oc l7 i B a 3 t on g r circulatedeat enthu siasmthe Earls of Derby, Surrey, Mountnorris, and many place all b confidence ntfiedecoalition,nene Lord unhappilyn dNorthbe ma for nedn mrw the as. F lost;Ro Re formers, -. the people did not know theythnerew,ythhofeoratmqu existed in favour, of "Radical. Reform." What e lookedeived them.t o th e s l e n W l7 h 9 i 2 g , h a o n w d e to look to ; they c t e k t e y n „ u w p a 5 , an es d ta whatblish established. Correspondingcmalrle.dr`eryfl:neowdr question idtoi thato Grey, theyraesywsde was people, and they attributed it to the misrepresentation of the people in that House, otherwise they said it was impossi) le that a civilized country like this would ever have fallen into its present condition. There was one other document to which he would call the attention of the House. It was a proclamation of the Magistrates of Burnley, dated the 26th April, 1842, which prohibited, under the peralties assigned by the law, any number of persons from collecting together to gather alms in Burnley and its neighbourhood. There was an instance of whole masses of the population assembling for the purpose of begging. The unemployed and starving operatives, against whom that proclamation had been issued, published a document in reply to it, asking what they were to do ?—that they could not live without the necessaries of life, and that they should have them from somewhere ; that they did not wish to injure property, but that they could not lie down and die. That document was signed by the starving and unemployed operatives of Burnley. Was that, he (Mr. Duncombe) wished to know, a state of things in which to let England remain ? Was possible that such a state of things could continue ? He would aek the Right Hon. Baronet by what mean> he proposed to cure and redress their grievances. He surely did not mean that his Income-tax or his taritl would cure those evils. The Income-tax would bring the middle classes to the level of the people, and the ta riff would have the effect of throwing thousands into the workhouse. Surely the Right Hon. Baronet did not in tend to put down Chartism by having recourse to a sus pension of the Habeas Corpus ? He trusted the Right Hon. Baronet would proceed by reason and conciliation. He was happy to be able to acknowledge that yester. day the petition had been respectfully treated, although there were paragraphs in it from which the majority of the House no doubt dissented ; he did not say that ha subscribed to them all himself. He was sorry, however, to say that there was a portion of the Press which sup ported the party opposite trying to throw ridicule upon the signatures attached to the petition. But while he found thul: with one portion of the Press, he was glad to find that by one of the papers of that day the petition was at least treated with some degree of respect; or, at all events, that portion of the prayer which asked that the peti tioners should be heard at the bar, was supported by the journal to which he referred, he meant the Morning Herald. (The Hon. Member then read a portion of tin leading article of the Morning Herald of this morning on the subject of the petition.) He denied that there had been any " cheating" as stated in that journal, for the purpose of swelling the signatures to the petition. But he entirely agreed with that journal in thinking that nothing should interfere with their hearing what those petitioners had to say ; and, he trusted that if it were possible to apply a remedy to their grievances, thr House would be ready to adopt it. These petitioners had conducted themselves yesterday in the mos peaceable and orderly manner, and all their proceedings had been marked by a respect for the law. They did not talk about physical force, and there was nothing about physical force mentioned in the petition. Some people objected to this petition, because it advo cated the Repeal of the Union. It did no such thing ; it only stated what Lord Spencer said some time before, viz., that if the vast majority of the people of Ireland m ere in favour of that repeal, no doubt they would be entitled to it ; but if the vast majority were not in favour of it, he would resist it to the death. All the petition stated was, that if the majority of the Irish people were in favour of the repeal of the Legislative Union, the) were entitled to have it. What had been the conduct of the Chartist Convention sitting in London ? It had been exemplary in the extreme ; and he would just read their last address to the working classes, previous to the pre senting of this petition.—(Mr. Duncombe then proceeded to read the address, which commenced " Fellow Coun. trymen," recommending the people never to have re course to violence in advocating those principles which were founded on reason alone. This address has already appeared at length in the columns of The Sun.) if, would now ask the House, at all events, to give thes) petitioners a hearing. It would not occupy them long. The number that should be heard, or of whom the) might ask questions, should not exceed six in number. This inquiry could not occupy more than two days ; but if it did take ten days, those ten would surely be wel, spent in the present state of public affairs and public feel ing. They might think this petition absurd—they migh' think many of their schemes and propositions wild and visionary ' - but let them not sh u t th e i r d oor aga i nst then) till they had heard what they had to say for themselves. He did not know that he need occupy the time of the House at any greater length, though he had more docu ments, which would prove that Radical or Chartist Re form was progressing rapidly throughout the country. If they' doubted his statements as to the determination o; the people to have the House differently constituted, let them hear these people at the bar of the House. they failed to convince them, it would be their own fault. At all events, by hearing them they would identify them selves, as they ought to do, with the people, and obtain what at present they stood greatly in need of, their con fidence, affection, and gratitude. The Hon. Member con cluded by moving that the persons who had signed the National Petition presented yesterday, should be heard by themselves, counsel, or agents, at the bar of the House. Mr. LEADER said he had very great pleasure in seconding the motion. The whole matter might be com pressed into very few words. Vast numbers of the work ing classes were suffering, and asked to be allowed to state their grievances at the bar of the House. The whole question was, would they refuse to hear them? They could not possibly doubt the sincerity of the petitioners. There had, indeed, been an attempt made by one of the papers, which supported the party opposite, to throw discredit on yesterday's proceedings. It was stated that they resembled a May-day show, and that there were not more than 15,000 or 20,000 persons in the procession. It was said, also, with respect to the petition, that it could not be signed by three millions and a half of persons. It was not pretended that the signatures were all those of grown men; many were those of women, and there were a great number by persons who had not attained twenty-one years of age, He asked any one who doubted the genuineness of the signatures, whether it was not notorious that, at the public meetings held in different parts of the country during the last year, there had been any topics that called up so much the cheers of the people, as anything connected with the Charter ?—(Hear, hear.) He con fessed, for his own part, that he thought it would be a good thing for all persons in the House, not in the habit of going much to public meetings, to hear the petitioners at the bar, in order that they might become acquainted with the intelligence and ability of the men who were excluded from th 4 franchise. He believed it would have a good effect on Members.—(Hear, hear.) Many of them must recollect the effect of Lord Brougham being heard against the Orders in Council, and many must recollect the effect produced by the address of the Hon. Member for Bath in favour of the Canadians. Those who now came before them were in a worse situation ; they were Englishmen, who paid the taxes, but were not allowed to have a voice in making the laws. He recollected, some time since, being told by a late Attorney-General (Lord Campbell), that Chartism was entirely put down. It was true that the violence of Chartism was done away. He had heard last night physical force repudiated by some of the principal men among the Chartists ; they appealled to the moral force of the millions of enlightened men who demanded their rights. He told the Attorney-General of that day, and he would repeat it to the House, that the real principle of Chartism never could be put down till they had re dressed the grievances of those who complained, or till they had brought those who now had no voice in the re presentation within the pale of the Constitution. This was his firm conviction. With respect to that petition which they were called upon that night to consider, it was merely for the petitioners to be allowed to be heard at the bar of that House. No doubt that any Hon. Gen tleman, eitber on that side of the House or the other, would be able to pull that petition to pieces, and to show in it a number of unwise expressions. They might, perhaps, ridicule it to that House, though not to the country. Any clever writer i u the Quarterly Review, or a reviewer in the Edinburgh, might take up that petition, showing a great deal in it of a dangerous tendency, calling on the House, therefore, to have no thing whatever to do with it. He thought this could be done, and would be done. He had had instances that evening. Before he came iuto the House he had been talking to a friend on the subject, opposed to him in politics, and he pointed out many, to him, objectionable paragraphs.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to know what document—at any rate those that came before them—could not be pulled to pieces ? No doubt this petition would he sneered at, but this only made the stronger case for what they now asked the House to grant, viz., a hearing to the petitioners themselves, in order that they might explain what was meant by the petition. Any Act of Parliament was dif ficult of explanation, frequently to those who formed it ; how then could they expect this petition to be intelligible to everybody ? This was a strong reason why they should be heard, in order that they might know what was demanded of the House. He believed their demands might be enumerated in a few words ; they were com prised in what was called the Charter-,---viz., Universal Suffrage ' the Ballot, the Abolition of the Property Quali fication, for Paying Members, and for Electoral Districts. It was unnecessary to enter into the details of the ques tion. It had been before the House of Commons, al though not that House of Commons, and many highly in telligent men had advocated the principles, and he never heard the respectability of those men questioned. Yet there was something about the name of the Charter which seemed to terrify men. Mr. Grote had introduced the question of the Ballot. Sir William Molesworth had introduced the same question ; and many other Members had brought forward the question of the extension of the suffrage. Therefore, it would be improper to enter into those questions now. There was another question before them, and that question was, whether they should hear the petitioners at the bar of the House, or refuse to hear them ? If they wished to secure the affection and the confidence of the great body of the people—and he believed they did wish to do so—then they would not re fuse them their reasonable request to be heard in their own case. It was unwise to govern a nation by fear, rather than by affection, and feeling that to be the case, he would appeal to their sympathies on behalf of their fellow-subjects, and urge upon them the duty of allowing them to be heard at the bar of their delegates. The question having been put, Dr. BOA EING rose to support the motion of his Hon. Friend. More than three millions of their fellow subjects had asked to be heard at the bar of the House of those who called themselves the representatives of the people, but who, they felt, had by incr using oppression, denied them the right of representation. These people were in a state of the deepest distress, for which the re presentatives of the people had been unable to devise any remedy. These persons were called on to contri bute to the expenses of the State ; they were called upon to make greater sacrifices for that purpose, and to bear a heavier proportion of those burdens than their more opulent fellow-subjects—he could scarcely call them fel low-citizens, because all the power was concentrated in the hands of a privileged few, who exercised their autho. rity, not for the benefit of the subject majority, but for their own sinister interests. He would not ay that all the allegations in the petition could be proved at the bar, but when he saw the great multitude of the petitioners, when he saw that the petition was more numerously signed than any petition that had ever been presented to that House, he could not take upon himself to refuse them a hearing at the bar of that House, which was spe cially constituted to protect the rights and to remedy the grievances of the people. There was nothing in the de sire to be represented but what was wise and reasonable ; and if they valued the possession of political rights them selves they ought to respect those who were desirous of obtaining them. They complained of the length of the Parliaments. Hon. Gentlemen obtained seats in the Legis lature, and however their constituents might feel as to their mode of acting in that House, Hon. Gentleman continued to hold their seats, and the places remained virtually unrepresented for years. The petitioners asked therefore for more frequent elections. Again, could anything be more unjust than that a small number in certain communities should possess greater power than multitudes in other districts—that 100 persons should have as much power in one place as 100,000 elsewhere ? The House had already recognised the principle for the extension of which the petitioners were now contending. With respect to the property qualifications, what after all was property—what could it avail? Ought any man, because of his poverty, be excluded from the rights which the more wealthy possessed? Had Providence, when it denied to poor men the riches it gave to others, also refused to them the susceptibility of human nature? Scotland had emancipated herself from the property qualification, and were the representatives sent to that douse from Scotland less competent, less trustworthy, than from any of the other portions of the empire? The demand of the petitioners to be heard at the bar of the House was a reasonable one. Let it not be forgotten that the petitioners were millions, and that in refusing them their request of being heard at the bar of the House, they would be creating in each family that com posed those millions a centre of discontent. He con curred in thinking with his Hon. Friend that it would be unwise at present, agitated as the country was with iocial miseries, mingled with political discontent, if the douse were to refuse the fair demand of three millions of people to be heard at the bar.—(Cheers.) Mr. J. FIELDEN was understood to say that the people of the country were everywhere suffering the greatest evils, which they attributed to the bad legislation of that House, and which he agreed with them in thinking nothing but a radical alteration in its con stitution would remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that it a great sacrifice to himself he was supporting the per sons in his employment.—(Hear.) But there was a say .ng in Lancashire, that by taking meal out of the tub and putting none in, you soon came to the bottom. He knew the state of the country was really deplorable— (Hear)—and he begged of the Right Hon. Baronet, if he regarded such a Condition of things, to allow those petitioners to be heard at the bar. He could not see how any mischief could arise from holding out the olive branch to them. They may make statements that would induce the House to look into their condition, and they , nay, at all events, suggast what would be worthy of its consideration ; and, therefore, he hoped they would not be refused.—(Hear, hear.) A refusal would lead them to that disappointment and those reflections which it would be unwise to disregard.—(Hear, hear.) It would be much better to spend two or three days in hearing what they had to say than run the risk of the conse quences.—(Cheers.) Sir J. EASTHOPE said that on a recent occason, when a motion was submitted to the House by the Honourable Member for Rochdale, feeling that it would be compromising himself if he gave any appro bation to the principles it contained, he had no hesita tion in resisting it by his vote, and if he were to convey, by the vote he now intended to give, the slightest ap proval of those principles he then condemned, or the least sanction to much of the reasoning by which those principles were then propounded, he would not hesitate for a moment to adhere to the same course. But he perceived the proposition of his Hon. Friend was widely different from that of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, which he felt it his duty to oppose. In the present case, the peti tioners came forward in numbers beyondcomparison; and there could be no doubt that they suffered from a state of the deepest distress. They traced that distress to sources from which he believed they did not arise, and asked for remedies which, in his opinion, could only augment those sufferings which were lamented by all. ' But, at the same time, he was bound to believe that a large number of these three millions and a half of peti tioners were sincere and honest in their opinions ; and he could not utterly neglect their prayers. He did not wish to say to such a body, that he would refuse to hear them. He believed that after they had been heard they would themselves see that they had not made out their case, and that they had been, to a great extent, deceived and deluded. He thought, however, that the wise course would be to err on the side of conciliation, and he should herefore vote for the motion before the House. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the admissions of the Hon. Member for Leicester, who had just sat down, led him directly to the opposite conclusion to that at which the Right Hon. Gentleman had arrived. The Hon. Gentleman the Member „for Westminster had said, that probably many Gentlemen on that (the Mi nisterial) side of the House would be disposed to criti cise the paragraphs of the petition, to turn them into ridicule, and comment on them with severity. Now, nothing could be further, from his (Sir J. Graham's) in tention than such a course.—(Hear, hear.) The facts in the case were, unfortunately, generallY admitted ; the distress was great, and the number of the petitioners was very large. The statements of the petition, in many particulars, were founded in fact. That was not, there tore, a question of facts to be investigated ; it was a great question of policy to be decided. He could con ceive, for his 'part, no course more disastrous in the midst of the excited feelings and the sufferings of the petitioners, than that the House should take any step which might excite hopes certain to end in dis appointment, and hold out expectations which could not be realised. The Honourable Gentle man, the Member for Leicester; on a former evening, strenuously resisted the main points of the Charter, on which the prayer of the present petition rested. The Hon. Member stated that he still retained his hostility to those principles ; but what circumstances had occurred in the interval, which could induce him to alter his course on the present occasion ?—(Hear, hear.) There had been no addition to the numbers of thepetitioners, their suffer ings had not been increased ; and yet the Hon. Gentle man, who had on the former evening voted against the motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, was now pre pared to vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. The Hon. Member seemed to think that the granting of the proposed inquiry might have some healing effect ; but if they were not disposed to grant the remedies for which the petitioners sought, what healing effect could the inquiry produce ? On the con trary, he (Sir J. Graham) was decidedly of opinion that no course could tend more to aggravate the feel ings of those petitiotiers, then to call upon them to prove a case of distress by evidence at the bar, while the House had its mind made up not to grant the proposed remedy for that distress. He agreed with the lion. Baronet that the demand of the petitioners was highly inexpedient, on many grounds, affecting the form of government, the institutions, and the happiness of the community. Above all he was satisfied the subversion of all the great establishments of the country that would follow the granting of the prayer of the petitioners would de more to aggravate the dis tress, poverty, suffering, and sorrow, of these very classes, than any other course of human policy. He entertained this opinion in common with the Member for Leicester, and he had seen no grounds for altering his opinion; and he should adhere to the course he for merly took by firmly and decidedly opposing the motion. The motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, would lead to disastrous results as to the expectation of a remedy for the evils mentioned ; so far from proving a remedy, it would be found that its results would be disastrous in the extreme; and, en tertaining that opinion, he should feel it his duty to resist the motion. Sir J. EASTHOPE explained. He considered that, on the present occasion, the'petitioners only sought to explain their own prayer, and show the relevancy of their own distresses: He should have taken his former course, and opposed the motion, if he thought that, by voting for it, he should recognise any of the principles of the Charter. Mr. MACAULAY said, the absence of the Members of the late Government, on a recent discussion, had been frequently alluded to ; he himself was absent from indisposition, the absence of his Noble Friend was occasioned purely by accident, and he thought he might say with confidence, that not a single member of the late Government had withheld his attendance from any wish to escape stating his opinion. He should attempt, in what he had to soy, to follow the very proper temper shown by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ; and if he should be betrayed fur a moment by the vehemence of his feelings,on this occasion, no one would attribute it to any want of confidence in, or want of good will towards the millions, by whom the present petition was signed. He could not consistently vote for the motion ; it had been shaped with considerable skill ; it was drawn up in such a manner, that it would be in his power to tell his Conservative constituents that he had never said a single word in favour of Universal Suffrage, nor in favour of the extensive changes the petitioners called for. At the same time, the motion afforded him the means of saying to any large assembly of Chartists--" At the time your petition was before the House of Commons, and a motion was made that you should be called , on to be heard, I op posed the Government on that occasion and voted for it." Bat on an occasion so important he should not discharge his duty if he had recourse to any such evasion ; he should feel compelled to meet the motion with a direct negative. It seemed to him that when they departed from their ordinary rule, not to hear persons at the bar, it must be understood that if they had not made up their minds to deciding favourably on the motion, yet that they had not completely made up their minds to resist it. His mind being made up, he con ceived that House and the petitioners themselves would have a right to complain if, at a future time, perhaps three or four years hence, he should have to give a direct negative to some of the clauses of the Charter. They might then have some right to complain, and that accu sation, if he could avoid it, they should never have to bring against him. He could not repeat all the lan guage of the petition, but its substance, its essence, he must refer to. When the question was whether the peti tioners should be called on to be heard in support of it — when the demand was that without deduction addition, or alteration, the Peopl e ' s Ch ar t er s h ould be passed into a law—when this was the prayer, it was not dealing fairly by the House, to say that they wished only to be heard on the subject of their distresses. If any Gentleman chose to move for an inquiry into those distresses, if any Gentleman thought that the heart-rending staternents'they had heard, ought to be substantiated before a Committee of the House of Commons, he should not oppose such a motion. But to send a petition up to th e H ouse , d eman ding that this particuli r law should be passed without deduction, W.th. at addition, without alteration—when the demand wee that the petitioners should be heard in support of that request, to represent this as merely an inquiry into the distress of the people, seemed to him merely paltering. He might, perhaps, more easily than aay other Gentleman in this House, give his support to the motion ; there were parts of the Charter to which he was favourable • there were parts of it f or w hi c h h e h a d vote d. I n trut h , o f all the six points of the Charter, there was only one to which he would openly say that he entertained an extreme and unmitigated hostility. He had voted : for the Ballot ; with regard to the property qualification of Members, he agreed with the petition; while there was a property qualification in the constituencies, he thought a property qualification in the representatives altogether superflu ous. He thought it an absurdity that the Members for. Edinburgh and Glasgow, should not requi re a qualifica tion, and that it should be required from the Members for Marylebone and Manchester. If the system were sound, it ought to be made universal in its application ; if it were unsound, it ought to be abandoned. No Conservative ought to stand up for it, for it formed no part of the old Constitution. After the Revolution, it was introduced by a bad Government, for the purpose of defeating what the Revolution had accomplished, —establishing the Protestant succession to the Crown. He was decidedly an enemy to Annual Parliaments, but he could agree with the petitioners so far as limiting the length of Parliaments. There was one point in the Charter which was its very essence, and of such im portance to it, that if it was withheld the Charter would be a dead letter, and, if granted, would make it all powerful—that was Universal Suffrage. Now, consider ing that as the most important part of the Charter, and being decidedly of opinion, as he was, that such a change would be fatal to the country, he felt it to be his duty to declare that he could not hold out the slightest hope that he would, even under any circum stances, support that change. The reasons why he entertained such an opinion he would state to the House as shortly as he could—it was upon no grounds of finality, he entertained no opinion of that nature.—(Hear.) He admitted that violent and fre quent changes in a Government were not desirable, but this only constituted a presumption against the change proposed. Every change proposed, every great change ought to be judged of by its own merits.—(Hear.) He was bound by no tie to oppose any legislative reform that would conduce to the public interest ; those persons greatly under-stated the argument against Universal Suffrage, who based it alone upon the fact that it would be fatal to the monarchy and the House of Lords.— (Hear.) He could not consider the monarchy or the aristocracy, as the ends of a Government, but only as the means.—(Hear.) The argument against Universal Suffrage was greatly under-stated by these who so put it, because his belief was that it would be destructive of all those great objects for which all monarchies existed.. Such a change was utterly incompatible with civilization, which he considered to rest upon , the security . of property.—(Hear, hear.) Where, property was insecure, it was not in the power of amt people to prevent a country from sinking into barbarisr i, and where property was secure it was not in the pow er of any misgovernment to prevent a country from flouris .h -ing.— (Cheers.) Whoever considered the progress e his country had made would see how - irresistible was ..the power of the great principle of the security of proper ty. —(Cheers.) Whatever might be the waste of war, Hoen e where property was secure, could repair faster than, war, could destroy.—(Hear.) It would be madness to i ntro duce any system which had not for its basis the security of property ; and could it be said that they could have the assurance of a Government, placed in the hai ids of s the majority of the people of the country without any et pecuniary qualification, that they would consent Ito pre- I serve the sanctity of the principle of property ? Had thought not. Now as a test of that he would talcs 3 the a petition which had been presented by his Hon. FiLend ; and what was that petition ? It was signed by, three millions and a half of signatures, and he must there fore consider it as a sort of declaration ,el* the intentions of that body, which, if • the Charger was passed into a law would become sovereign in the country, and return the majority of representatives in that House. If he was so to consider it, it was im possible for him to look without great anxiety , to such objects as this.—" Your petitioners complain of bethg taxed for the purpose of supporting the national cre dit by men who had not been elected by the people, and who had therefore no right to tax them."—(Loud cheering-: from the Opposition side of the House.) Did he clearly.,l) understand that cheer as an indication of opinion that . :- . y no faith was to be kept with the public creditor?—(Loud4 Ministerial cheers.) Was it the expression of an opinion that a national bankruptcy would be just and politic? (Renewed cheering from the Ministerial benches., with cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) If it were not that, he was utterly at a loss to comprehend its meaning. —(Continued Mineeerial cheering.) For his own part, he was convinced that it was utterly impossible to make any distinction between the right of the fundholder to his dividends and the right of the landlord to his land— (Hear, hear)—and to do the petitioners justice, they did not attempt to draw any such distinction. They were against all monopoly of land—there could be no mistake as to the meaning which they attached to the term, they did not by the term monopoly of landi allude to the circumstance of the corn trade, which hadl so frequently been discussed in that House, they treatedt of that separately in another part of th e - petition, an.dt, speaking of it, said that they felt convinced that the abo - lition of one monopoly alone would not diminish thei r sufferings without the abolition of the existing monopol of land.—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a declaration, colt- sistently and logically following, he would admit, from their previous declarations with regard to the funds-e -was not that a declaration of opinion on the paet of the three and a half millions who had signed the petition, that landed property ought to cease to exist ?—(Ministeri pl cheering.) They then prayed . for the abolition of the monopoly of fixed capital in machinery. Now what con/ id be the meaning of that, except the depriving a man .71 • his right of property in his mill—the depriving: of a rigs to possess that machinery which he had himself formed :? They next prayed for the abolition of the monopoly sf the means of travelling and transfer, So that after ha- r ing confiscated the funds, the land, and the machines y, they would confiscate the railroads.—(Loud cheerit and counter cheering.) He firmly believed that su ph was the intention.—(Continued cheering.) He felt ctnie vinced that that was the only meaning that could be at - tached to those parts of the petition.—(Renewed cheer - ing.) It was hardly necessary for him to go further. :11 he understood the meaning of the petition, it was this, that the only remedy for the evils under which e 12e country was suffering was to be found in a g rest and sweeping confiscation of property.—(Minise trial cheers.) He was firmly convinced that the c afect of any such measures must be not only to ruin , the rich but to make the poor poorer—(Cheers)—and 'that ! must ultimately press with infinitely greater sever:Ay oa the working classes themselves than on any other teorette tion of the community.—(Renewed cheering.) But ;el/ V while he censured th e d octr i nes put f orwar d i n the pet. tion, he was far fr o m b r i ng i ng any c h arge aga i nst t h e r i great body of the persons who had signed it; he did not believe that they were in any degree blameworthy es', for what they had done—(Cheers)—they acted only, aef it was natural they should have acted under the cire;;i c 7, cumstances.—(Cheers.) He looked upon the p e ti t i on a s fav a cry of distress, of which he considered that designing. men had taken advantage to put it forward in a mesee pernicious form.—(Loud Opposition cheers.) But if that eels:: were so, ought they to encourage that form by going out of their way, by deviating from the usual course - of Parliamentary proceedings, in order to give it a ,peen-: liar reception?—(Ministerial cheers.), He did not, for, e, one moment, blame those who had signed the petition. eliN How often did they find m e n p osses s ing a ll t h e advaneeee6 tages of education—how often did they find even themselves, when suffering from sickness, or vexation, or pecuniary difficulties, or from any' 0 0 j other cause, indulging in unreasonable d es i r es" et- c , O making use of any means, however desperate, escape from the pressure of distress, and ready to catch at ;;f3 everything that held out a hope of lessening the pressure ,ftee . „ for the moment, even to the cost of greater f u t ure ev il.:f r O,' d —(Cheers.) Should they blame a man who saw hie. wife and children starving around him, whose m ind e el!, was employed i n mec h an i ca l t o il, w h ose i gnorance was 04i0Ti partly the fault of the culpable neglect of the GoverEr! sit ment ?—(Loud and long continued cheering, w hich ee- o drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) Be it' so—the • Government might be to blame for neglecting his edu- , cation—(Continued cheering)—education might remedy the evil—but should they wait until education had taughS 4 r-e c s the masses that it was for their own i n t erest t h at 07, 7 ' ' rights of property should be secured, and should they' once place in their hands the power of ruini ng no t only all the possessors of property in the country, but thew g selves likewise ? They could not but notice the inequality. 'e t of condition of the different classei in thi s country ; t hey . r og were suffering from acute distress, and they were told by desighing men that the only way to get rid of their Cala mities was to go to the funds—to go to the land—to go J , H 4 to the machinery—to go to the railroads, and to destroy I f) 1 - all which they ca ll e d monopo l y, b ut what he called pro- -(/ perty.—(Loud cheers.) Be had no more unkind J 2 l t , feeling t owar d s th em f or d o i ng so t h an h e had t owar ds the sick man suffering from burning fever, 'for asking for a draught of cold water, which would be his death— than he had towards the unfortunate inhabitants of e , India, who, in a of general scarcity, crowded round. „ , :e "• a granary, and demanded that the keys should be given: up to them. But he would not, therefore, if he were di* ,OV S '4,I sick man's attendant, give him the draught of cold Water ?',Pe givehewould h n e o y t a , i o f f h t e h e w e g r r a e n a a n r yEnglishthe s A r 4 ' t l a a r gi vi s n t g rate pop in ni l a n t di jo z ,; ;: '5 and thereby, for the sake of affording a little present:. relief, turn the scarcity into a famine.—(Cheers.) He o'/ would not, for the sake of uncertain present relief, incur ee'''''4o certain future evil.—(Cheers.) He believed that no .0 1 ;4 person in th e House, who had h ear d th e p as sages of the Al i o petition which he had read, but was convinced that eig e lf such a s c h eme o f spoliation, instead of affording even,.,_ f it present reli e f, wou ld ma k e a great add i t i on to t h e cats - 1 , mities from which the petitioners were now suffering and would they, by consenting to grant Universal Sat. ' se o 4 er frage, put i n t o t h eir h an d s t h e power o f e ff ecting all thle'!bqs evil ?—(Ministerial cheers.) That they should ask e'd was most natural, w a s not blameable ; but th e y ought . . it J) not on that account to grant it.—(Cheers.) The mill e ft ';' ; ls argument by which he imagined the supporters - of thiSest 46 ;4 # motion would justify their support of it was, that all these. 1 't i ps consequences would not flow from granting Univerial,,:iii/ L e6 Suffrage—(Hear)—that if it were once granted, and were:.,e ed in full operation, such a course of action would not be :1•1 0 4, taken ; that when they were once possessed of power thg..-. would use it in a different wayfrom what th ey now propos . swle! It was contrary to all principles of human nature to sup-. 'erAe ‘t o ' pose that the persons who were then asking a great con- , cession would not, when they obtained what they asked, . el? demand more, when they knew those who had granted-,,, I;9:° . ee ti o them their former demands had no power to re f use morte 0 0 d But the consequence that would f o ll ow t hi s conceSslO,' 004 , 0" would not be what had been asserted. But how was it e se- 1 " possible to suppose that thi s power, if grante d ; woul d be ,k used by the parties as they had been told. 'The-petition was nothing but the re su l t of what every 'person /14de v:. read and heard of, as coming from parties who repro'