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

PP" -- 3 ~rf I ,q • `Ji'f'.;# l 10 17 a,' (41' gi f dt .?te•-) 9 '7ls oil 6 toci ~d 112,1 rity, not for the benefit of the subject majority, but for their own sinister interests. He would not say that all the allegations in the petition could be proved at the bar, but wkien he saw the great multitude of the petitioners, when, he saw that the petition was m ore numerous l y %hsign ed than any etition that had ever been presented to i at H ouse, he could not rake upon himself to refuse t Jan a hearing at the bar of that House, which was spe c:idly constituted to protect the rights and to remedy the vrievances 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 ou g h t 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 actiug in that House, Hon. Gentleman continued to hold their seats, and the places remained virtually unrepres en t e d f or years. The petitioners asked therefore for m ore f requent elections. Again, could anyth gin be m ore unjust than that a sma ll num b er i n certain communities should possess greater power than multitudes in other districts —that 100 persons should Heave 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 p ro p erty qua li f i cations, 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 t o poor men the riche:s it gave t o o th ers , a l so refused to them the susceistibility of human nature? Scotland had emancipatee, herself from the property ' l l lnl itication, and were the represent a ti ves sent to that House from Scotland less competent, less trustworthy, i than from any of the other portions of the empire? The alletnand of the peti".ioners to be heard at the bar of the Ho use was a rea sona bl e one. Let it not be forgotten that the petitioners were millions, and that in refusing ouse, .hey' me th *ir request of being heard at the bar of the posed would be creating in each family that cem those millions a centre of discontent. He con curred. in t.' ' be urn . sinking with ,his Hon. Friend that it would ; 0 ; tat present, agitated as the country was with i 0 e ' al 'miseries, mingled with political discontent, if the of 4, e were to refuse the fair demand of three millions -3 ,.'°Ple to be heard at the bar.—(Cheers.) De "''', l % J. FIELDEN was understood to say that the 6 i) i : Ple ''f . the country were everywhere sufferin g 7 greatest evils, which they attributed to the bad in. thinking :egislation of that House, and which he agreed with them nothing but a radical alteration in its con :t stitution would remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that a great sacri:ice to himself he was supporting the per i ons i n his employment.—(Hcar.) But there was a say -,,1S ill Lencashire, that by taking meal out of the tub knew--`-` Pittg none in, you soon came to the bottom. He ~, the itate of the country was really deplorable— „kilesr)—and he begged of the Right Hon. Baronet, if the regarded such a condition of things, to allow those PetitiOners to be heard at the bar. He could not see brNeer any mischief could arise from holding out the olive anch to tb cm . Th ey may make statements that would induce the: house to Took into their condition, and they M ay, at, all events, suggesewhat would be worthy of its t" ti sid . e.ration ; and, therefore, he hoped they would not o re ` ,ll sed-=(Hear, liear.) A re f usa l would lead them that disappointment and those reflections which it w e e 'uld be u nw i se to d i sregard.—(Hear, hear.) It would 1,1 much b e t ter to spend two or three days in hearing `what they had to say than run the risk of the cense 'lt'? cee.--(Cheers.) Ste J. EASTHOPE said that on a recent occasion, exhen a motion was submitted to the House by the :tionourable 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 wore then propounded, he wou ld no t h es i tate for a m oment to adhere to the same course. But he Iperceived- the proposition of his Hon. Friend was widely 'different from that of the Hon. Meniber for Rochdale, which the felt it his duty to oppose. In the present case, the peti tioners came forward in numbers beyond comparison; and there could be no doubt that they suffered from a state ' a f 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 sufferinga which were lamented by all. tut, 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 Vie, 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 therefore 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 ifor Westminster had said, that probably many Gentlemen on that (the Mi nisterial) side of the House would be disposed to criti cise the paragraphq 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.—(Bear, hear.) The facts 1. 1! the cue were, unfortunately, generally admitted ; the aistress-steagzgreat, and the number of the "'es ve.ry large. The statements o f the petition, in petiti oners many prtic u l at . 8 , were fou n d e d i n fact. That was not, there :o:uree a question of facts to be investigated ; it was a vat question of policy to be decided. He could con enid:' f or his part, no course more disastrous in the i t, t t of the excited feelings and the sufferings of the v,eitliicihsners, ithatt that the House should take any step it appoint 'mg excite hopes certain to end in ills could cn o e s nt ' be a nd hold out expectations which I man, the Ar - ember strenuou ly realised, The Honourable Gentle- I for Leicester, on a former evening, • the Charter , on whici:t, resisted the main points of , 1 10 n. M e k _ n Pra.yer of the present petition rested. The, I those ~ta'cr stated that he still retained his hostility to 1 in the rint'l". ,_ but what circumstances had occurred , on the 3 e: cval, which could induce him to alter his course ' ne Proesent occasion?—(gear, hear.) There had been add , tint, to.. „ fr - 'cgs /. the numbers of thepetitioners, their suer ,ad not been increasedandyet the Hon. Gentle- 1 ; le an who hadne as i on the former evening voted against the I , on of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, was now pre- I p4l . to - vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member ' Ith Insb 9 r Y. The Hon. Member seemed to think that e granting healt h ,of the proposed inquiry might have some the g e ffect ; but if they were not disposed to grant t:..rensedies for the etitioners sought, what 2 1 utleg effect could the inquiryproduce ? On the con- n '„ 1 , he (Sir J. Graham) was decidedly of opinion that L''' course could 'tend more to aggravate the feel -10 of those petitioners, then to call upon them C .. prove a caso of distress by evidence at the iTthn while the House had its mind made up i -iZto grant the proposed remedy for that distress. ;Agreed with 'the Hon. Baronet that the demand of 40 petitioners ser e . was highly inexpedient, on many grounds, the eting the form of government, the institutions, and ut.,, happiness of the community. Above all he was oft' the subversion of all the great establishments of 07Fountry that would follow the granting of the prayer te es 'ne petitioners would do more to aggravate the dis s e j.,, 3 , poverty, suffering, and sorrow, of these very el ;`, 3 es, than any other course of human policy. He te•Lertained this opinion in common with the Member h,t' Leicester, and he' ember seen no grounds for altering ~` opinion ; and he should adhere to the course he for iberly took by firmly and decidedly opposing the motion. len° motion of th e H on. Member for Finsbury, would 4 41 to disastrous results as to the expectation 4 0 a remedy for the evils mentioned ; so far 4 8 111 proving a remedy, it would be found that ti!esults would be disastrous in the extreme; and, en th t aining that opinion, ho should feel it his duty to resist e raotion. Si Ott th rJ. EASTHOPE explained. He considered that, sedge Present occasion, the petitioners only sought to %m their own prayer, and show the relevancy of e ,,, el r own distresses. He should have taken his former 1 , 0 ,.. 4 . r 5e, and opposed the motion, if he thought that, by of , 1 1g for it, he should recognise any of the principles A . l O Charter. t rkr. MACAULAY said, the absence of* the Members I late Government, on a recent discussion, had been ' p ule 'alluded to • he himself was absent from i4tilaently, 9e., i ' l kkosition, the absence of his Noble Friend was h e Monad purely by accident, and he thought of b i ght say with confidence, that not a single member kay -e late Government had withheld his attendance from ktt so ., W ish to escape stating his opinion. He should t ett• l4, in what he had to say, to follow the very proper 'lee,c'„ r shown by the Hon. Gentleman who had Just sat the ; 1 and if he should be betrayed for a moment by i I:oeitltnence of his feelings on this occasion, no one t t oo attribute it to any want of confidence in, or want I t titi. e 4 „ w ill towards the millions, by whom the present • l e ' was signed. He could not consistently vote for it a leti o . gig as d _il ; it had been shaped with considerable skill ; 1i 5 , 4 ,,Ne;,,'„ wn up in such a manner, that it would be in 4 1 ,1, e s „ .4 to tell his Conservative constituents that he cessg.eer said a single word in favour of Universal li e •Detit• Tl °r in favour of the extensive . changes 1 t e , - 1 At the same time, the % 1 1 mars called for. . wa s k esse, h ,"„rded him the means of saying to y any any 41 'Pf "'uly of pi • 4t t 4 d t ,q 1 •0 ~ Chartists At the time your petition ag th at th e House of Commons, and a motion was ~, . ~, , at %'llequll should be called on to be heard, I op his do t art everninent on that occasion and voted for it. aliolo' t itNztsi • he should not discharge h eed fe _• he had on so important - such evasion ; he l e gati ee. ‘i 5 ,,,,,. recourse to 4 any rern t h eir tts''Pelled to mee., the motion with a direct bar, • i es d s ; eerned to him that when they departed niece', m ust nary rule, not to hear persons at the klo ' 4 1 ) ti t •`'e understood that if they had not e on s , t , laind, ' Yet t h ,lninds to deciding favourably on the I,eive'd th resi st resi:',", they had not completely made up their gay s - qt .11n - i , 't- His mind being made up, he con tle.e- a righ t ~•"6 e and the petitioners themselves would e °I. I -. c l i if at a future time, perhaps R , t ou r pa n , I V Iv e t Years hence, he should have to give a direct ightthe n e so !itti r , b lne of the clauses of the Charter. They o t i -1 1, if h e - Ave some right to complain, and that accu kiintl a g , i could avoid it, they should never have to tkil.te of th him. him. He could not repeat all the lan th,3t ref e , , Ic Petition, but its substance, its essence, he e i !ler e eh _ Lo• When the question was whether the peti ,l;eu old be called on to be heard in support of it— O k iter, t . g enland was that without deduction, addition, a k le c, the People's Charter should passed into kie - -wh n. t , ..; be . Nil Y b ot was the prayer, it was not dealing 1 . e to Y the House, to 'say that they wished it) l4t res es 1 ? 0 heard on the subject of their illaie,B into If any Gentleman chose to move for an 1 11 tt tg„Tto those distresses, if any Gentleman thought )b e , ,neurt-rending statements they had heard, ought eetils_linstantiated befor e a Committee of the House of NI it u s, 1?e should not oppose such a motion. But to Nation up to the House, demanding that this particular law should be passed without deduction, with out addition, with ou t a lt erat i on — w h en t h e demand was, 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 any 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 for which he had voted. In truth, of 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 hot 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 understated 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 understated 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 any people to prevent a country from sinking into barbarism, and where property was secure it was not in the power of any misgovernment to prevent a country from flourish ing.— (Cheers.) Whoever considered the progress this country had made would see how irresistible was the power of the great principle of the security of property. —(Cheers.) Whatever might be the waste of war, men, where property was secure, could repair faster than war could destroy.—(Hear.) It would be madness to intro 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 hands of the majority of the people of the country without any pecuniary qualification, that they would consent to pre serve the sanctity of the principle of property ? He thought not. Now as a test of that he would take the petition which had been presented by his Hon. Friend ; and what was that petition ? It was signed by three millions and a half of signatures, and lie must there fore consider it us a sort of declaration of the intentions of that body, which, if the Charter 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 being taxed for the purpose of supporting the national credit 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 understand that cheer as an indication of opinion that no faith was to be kept with the public creditor?—(Loud 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 Ministerial 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 land allude to the circumstance of the corn trade, which had so frequently been discussed in that House, they treated of that separately in another part of the petition, and, speaking o f it, sa id t h at t h ey felt convinced that the abo lition of one monopoly alone would not diminish their sufferings without the abolition of the existing monopoly of land.—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a declaration, con sistently and logically following, he would admit, from their previous declarations with regard to the funds— was not that a declaration of opinion on the part of the three and a half millions who had signed the petition, that landed property ought to cease to exist ?—(Min isterial cheering.) They then prayed for the abolition of the monopoly of fixed capital in machinery. Now what could be the meaning of that, - except the depriving a man of his right of property in his mill—the depriving of a right to possess that machinery which he had himself formed? They next prayed for the abolition of the monopoly of the means of travelling and transfer. So that after hav ing confiscated the funds, the land, and the machinery, they would confiscate the railroads.—(Loud cheering and counter cheering.) He firmly believed that such was the intention.—(Continued cheering.) He felt con 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. If he understood the meaning of the petition, it was this, that the only remedy for the evils under which the country was suffering was to be found in a great ? and sweeping confiscation of property.—(Ministerial cheers.) He was firmly convinced that the effect 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 severity on the working classes themselves than on any other por tion of the community.—(Renewed cheering.) But while he censured the doctrines put forward in the peti tion, he was far from bringing any charge against the great body of the persons who had signed it; he did not believe that they were in any degree blameworthy for what they had done—(Cheers)—they acted only, as it was natural they should have acted under the cir cumstances.(Cheers.) He looked upon the petition as a cry of distress, of which he considered that designing men had taken advantage to put it forward in a most pernicious form.—(Loud Opposition cheers.) But if that 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 pecu liar reception ?—(Ministerial cheers.) He did not, for one moment, blame those who had signed the petition. How often did they find men possessing all the advan tages of education—how often did they find even themselves, when suffering from sickness, or vexation, or pecuniary difficulties, or from any other cause, indulging in unreasonable desires, making use of any means, however desperate, to escape from the pressure of distress, and ready to catch at everything that held out a hope of lessening the pressure for the moment, even to the cost of greater future evil. —(Cheers.) Should they blame a man who saw his wife and children starving around him, whose mind was employed in mechanical toil, whose ignorance was .partly the fault of the culpable neglect of the Govern ment ?—(Loud and long continued cheering, which drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) Be it so—the Government might he to blame for neglecting his edu cation—(Continued cheering)—education might remedy the evil—but should they wait until education had taught the masses that it was for their own interest that the rights of property should be secured, and should they at once place in their hands the power of ruining not only all the possessors of p r op er ty in the country, but them selves likewise ? They could not but notice the inequality of condition of the different classes in this country ; they were suffering from acute distress, and they were told by designing 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 to the machinery—to go to the railroads, and to destroy all which they called monopoly, but what he called pro perty.—(Loud cheers.) He had no more unkind feeling towards them for doing so than he had towarls 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 India, who, in a time of general scarcity, crowded round a granary, and demanded that the keys should be given up to them. But he would not, therefore, if he were the sick man's attendant, give him the draught of cold water ; he would not, if he were an English Magistrate in India, give the keys of the granary to the starving population, and thereby, for the sake of affording a little present relief, turn the scarcity into a famine.---(Cheers.) He would not, for the sake of uncertain present relief, incur certain future evil.—(Cheers.) He believed that no person in the House, who had heard the passages of the petition which he had read, but was convinced that such a scheme of spoliation, instead of affording even present relief, would make a great addition to the cala mities from which the petitioners were now suffering ; and would they, by consenting to grant Universal Suf frage, put into their hands the power of effecting all this evil ?—(Ministerial cheers.) That they should ask it was most natural, was not blameable ; but they ought not on that account to grant it.—(Cheers.) The only argument by which he imagined the supporters of this motion would justify their support of it was, that all these consequences would not flow from granting Universal Suffrage—(Hear)—that if it were once granted, and were in full operation, such a course of action would not be taken ; that when they were once possessed of power they would use it in a different wayfrom what they now proposed. It was contrary to all principles of human nature to sup pose that the persons who were then asking a great con cession would not, when they obtained what they asked, demand more, when they knew those who had granted them their former demands had no power to refuse more. But the consequence that would follow this concession would not be what had been asserted. But how was it possible to suppose that this power, if granted, would be used by the parties as they had been told. The petition was nothing but the result of w hat every person had read and heard of, as coining from parties who repre- sented that Government was able to do that which no Government was able to do ; who represented Go vernment as bound to attempt that which no wise Government dared attempt—that which, if Government did attempt, instead of doing more than their duty, they would do a great deal less. This was what had been represented to the people, in stead of telling them the truth, that Government were themselves supported by the people, and could only be supported by the people. Instead of this, it was repre sented that Government had some extraordinary mine of wealth, or a means of relieving- the distress of the people, as though they had a Divine permission—as if they could send them bread from the clouds, water from the rocks, and multiply the loaves and fishes five thou sand fold. And was it possible to believe that the people in after years —was it possible to believe that, the mo ment they gave them this absolute, this supreme responsible power, would forget those representation s ? Gentlemen talked of class legislation, and they were going to give one class absolute, unlimited power, which would lay property absolutely at the feet of labour. How was it possible for any one to suppose, who heard this reasoning, that such would not be the result? Suppose the people were to elect such Members as the Hon. Member for Bath, the Hon. Member for Montrose, and many others, who would firmly oppose the propositions a national bankruptcy, who could suppose that such a Parliament as this would leid to any thing but disap pointment amongst the people ? Gentlemen talked o disappointment attending the Reform Bill. What a die. appointment would attend the'meeting of the first Par liament under the new system, when that Parliament would refuse to answer a petition not to pay the debt— when the answer made to the people would be in that House, that the debts must be paid, even though they were contracted for wars against liberty, and entered into by a Parliament not elected by the people, yet their debts must be paid ? And then with respect to land, would they not be driving out of the country by the spoiliation of property all the funds frees which labour would be remunerated ? Was it possible to doubt that the petitioners who had been in duced to sign that petition to the number of three mil lions, that if they obtained what they sought that they would not have great reason to complain of the manner in which they had been treated ? What was said after the passing of the Reform Bill ? There were murmurs of disappointment ; the people said you promised us the Bill, and the whole Bill, and to be sure we have nothing less, but you have given us the means without the end.—(Hear.) Could any one doubt that the cry would be increased twenty times if the people received what was demanded in that petition ? When this state of things came—and the consequences must force themselves on every mind—he defied any human being to point out in modern or ancient history, a pic ture so full of horror. Distress was made the ground of the application now, and it was extremely bad, but it would be doubled and trebled then. As the Government then would be formed on the spoilation of property, how could it be supposed that under it, property could be respected, or could receive protection. It seemed to him, that as far as be could judge, nothing more horrid could be exhibited than this great country, containing twenty seven or twenty-eight millions of human beings—this vast population, all dependent for their existence on trade and industry, trade with the furthermost ends of the world—than that country under such a system. Such a scene of famine, misery, and pestilence, could not be equalled in modern Europe. If such 'a state came to pass, if such a dreadful revolution took place, he should have one wish with respect to it—and a dreadful wish it was for an Englishman to express as a means of social amelioration—and that was, that some desperate struggle should arise which would call to life some strong military despotism, which would give some sort of pro tection and security tq that property which remained. But if they expected to see the old institutions of the country revived, they deceived themselves greatly; they would never see them again, they would never deserve them again. Every nation would look with utter con tempt at the ruin of those institutions, and at the glory of the country laid prostrate ; and in the history of the country would be told that England had institutions, im perfect indeed, but institutions which contained within themselves the means of conferring happiness, even with their imperfections—institutions better than any great community, in all the history of the world, she had lived under for 150 years together—institutions which she threw wantonly away, for no purpose whatever, except because she was asked to do so, by persons who said that, without these concessions, she would be ruined.— (Loud cheers.) Now, these were the feelings which he entertained respecting this proposition.—(Loud cheers.) Having, therefore, this opinion in his mind, he would oppose the proposition, as long as he sat in that House, for Universal Suffrage, and he had only to decide whether he should vote for hearing the petitioners at their bar. Now, he must say that any person who was disposed not to grant Universal Suffrage, he thought that Gentleman could act a consistent part in voting for hearing the petitioners. But he must confess that it was with some surprise he had heard the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leicester, declare that, agreeing with him (Mr. Macaulay) in all his principles, he now was disposed to vote simply for allowing the persons presenting that pe tition to come to the bar to explain its principles. (Sir John Easthope made some observation, which was inaudible in the gallery.) He (Mr. Macaulay) though he would treat the petition with respect, and those who sent it, he should give a conscientious vote against hear ing the petitioners.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It appeared to him from conviction, that by so doing he was not only acting on the whole for the best for the State, but that he was really doing to the petitioners themselves a great service, and that they would ultimately have no reason for complaining that they (the House) had refused to hear them in support of their demands.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Mr. ROEBUCK, who spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be scarcely audible at first, said, that after the de scription given by the Right Hon. Gentleman of the the consequences which would follow from granting the labouring population of this country the power they sought to possess, he was very much inclined to believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman was no very great friend to the working classes. He told them that he had no ill-feeling towards the petitioners. but entered into a description of the consequences which would result from giving those laborious, frugal, industrious, honest, long suffering, patient people their rights, and entered into a description of the horrors that would result from giving them power, which plainly indicated to him (Mr. roebuck) that he (Mr. Macaulay) entertained nu very good .feeling towards them. The proposition laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Roe buck) had seen before put forth with all the gorgeous eloquence with which he had heard the Right Hon. Gentleman on the subject before, which left no doubt of its origin. He had seen it on the discussion upon the Re form Bill. By the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentle man, he was not to give to the working public of Eng land any power, until it was beyond a doubt that they would not use that power improperly. That was the proposition laid down that night; and then the Right Hon. Gentleman said, could he believe that the labour ing population could obtain this power without misusine. it? He (Mr. Roehuck) would ask him what they (the House) were at all for ? For what purpose was it that the House of Commons was formed ? He was prepared to maintain that by every principle of the Constitution they were brought together to represent the whole body of the people. What was it that brought them there ? It was that desire in all to proceed upon their own merits. They were there to prevent the conse quences of that desire. If he were a strong man, with no one to check him, he carried out that desire. What prevented this but men joining together to prevent the strong oppressing the weak? It was upon this prin ciple that Parliament was elected for the purpose of per forming in that arena the business of Government, that which was once performed in the times before us in the open market-place. But then if the Government were the watchers, he wanted to know who were to watch them—who were to watch the watchers? There was only one mode, and that was by making them respon sible to the people. - But they were only responsible to a portion of the people. They oppressed the remainder ; change would touch their power. They were delegated by a small section; that section were joined to oppress the remainder. The Right Hon. Gentleman stood forward against the petitioners, and said they demanded a mini mum of wages. He (Mr. Roebuck) looked around him —.he pointed to the other side of the House, and he asked if there, in that House, they did not demand a minimum of wages ? They said they had landed power, and therefore they demand e d a m i n imum p r i ce in corn. —(Cheers.) Where was the difference in the landed proprietor in coming into the market, and saying his wages were corn, and they should not reduce corn below a certain price ? The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, said it was bad political economy to demand a minimum of wages. Was there any difference between bad political economy in a man saying that he had his labour to depend upon, and must have a minimum of wages, and the landed pro prietor who said he must have a minimum price in corn ? He perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle man, that many of the miseries of the people bad been caused by bad government.—(Hear, hear.) Few could doubt this. There was the Poor-law Bill ; this, no doubt, had caused much of the misery existing in the country. He would point to the •rgan of the other party—The Times. They every day brought out propositions, just as wild, quite as fearful—quite as de structive to the security of property as that which was sought after in the petition. But was he, therefore, justified in saying, that in every town—in every village, if they acceded to the proposition, they laid property under the foot of labour. Why were a part of the community represented, and not the other classes as well ? There was a still larger, and equally intelligent community, he meant the labouring majority of the country, and who were not connected with pro perty. Yet the Right Hon. Gentleman said that these classes would be so blinded that they would little respect the rights of property, that they would produce a scene in the country of bloodshed, confusion, and rapine. They must judge them as they ought to be judged. He did not judge them by the words written by a malignant, cowardly, and foolish demagogue, upon whom he could place his finger, and whose name he could mention, but that it was utterly beneath contempt. It was not from him that he would judge them. He would look to themselves, he would ask all who had borne witness to their patience, who had borne witness to their long suffering and forbearance of the oppresion which had been heaped upon them. It was from these that he would judge his countrymen, and not from the trashy wording of an idle document, rendered ridiculous by the parties who had drawn it up. Must they not feel a degradation when they saw their fellow-men, no better in virtue, and but a little better in wealth, made different human beings from themselves by a distinction which rendered them degraded and servile ? Nor were they ig norant, for he had known many of them to be men of business. They had wealth and security in property under the present electoral body; why then should they expect it to be otherwise, when persons equally intelli gent were added to that body, and what reason had they to suppose that then they would have England in a state of anarchy most terrific, as described by the Right Hon. Gentleman? He said there was no argument to sup port , such a proposition. At the present moment they had no physical force men to keep down. They had many millions of suffering people in the country, and if they were to rise up as one man, all their armed force would be as a rush against them. They could do nothing. But, instead of this they found them peaceable and acting in strict obedience to the law. This was the feeling deeply impregnated into the people of England, and, if he were asked to distinguish his fellow countrymen from all others, he should do so by saying that there was but one feeling in the country with respect to obedience to the laws: It was that feeling amongst us which made him feel sensible, that if the whole body of his fellow-countrymen were invested with power, he should walk home as he should do to-night, in peace and security, having the greatest faith in his fellow-countrymen.—(ftear, hear.) And he would say to the Right Hon. Gentleman, with- ' out wishing to be severe upon him, that if ever there were a libel thrown u p on hi s good, patient, forbearing, laborious countrymen, it was that kind of declamation which said that they were unfit to govern themselves.. —(Hear, hear.) Why they had done everything for them (the House of Commons). On . them rested the fabric of English greatness; and now the very fact of their quiet organisation, when making a , demand of this sort, afforded such an example of forbear ance and self-government as had never been seen before in the history of nations. lie should like the Right Hon. Gentleman to put his finger on one portion of history which would show such a spectacle as the floor of that House yesterday.—(Hear, hear.) There were three millions of people who had come froth the many towns and hamlets of this country, in its highways and byeways ; in the security of the law had they signed a document for the indulgence of that right which they i believed in their hearts to be for their general good ; they had not banded themselves together against the law to obtain it, but faithfully, prudently, and respect fully they came and asked for it there.—(Hear, hear.) And from this the Right Hon. Gentleman concluded, notwithstanding the startling instance which :he (Mr. Roebuck) had mentioned, that this petition was to be thrown by as nothing ; that he was to fix his critical opinion and his critical eye, and his grammatical sa gacity, on this document ; and he was to forget the startling fact that there were.three millions of his fellow subjects, who were not now within the pale of the Con stitution, and had come in a peaceable manner to de mand a right which they believed their own.—(Hear, hear.) Let it not be supposed, for one instant, that he agreed in the one-hundredth part of what was contained in that petition; what he asked for was, not that they should be simply heard ; the Honourable Member for Rochdale only asked for an inquiry, and he was met by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester —(Laughter)—the Hon. Member for Finsbury asked for an inquiry also, and then came a strange alteration in the Right lion. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) He saw some thing now which he did not see before.—(Hear, hear.) But now the demand was precisely the same—an inquiry in which they might state their opinions, and why they thought the evils which at present existed in the country arose from bad legislation—the inquiry was precisely the same as that for which the Hon. Member for Roch dale moved the other night, and now a special light had fallen on the Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Roebuck) voted for the motion of the Hon. Mem ber for Rochdale, and lie meant to vote for the petition now before the House, he meant to vote for the Charter. —(Hear.) He asked for the people to be admitted within the Constitution, because he believed that the best Government which could be got for any people, at any time, must be chosen from the whole of the people— (Hear, hear)—and it struck him that if to-morrow they were to transform by legal means, and no violent legis lation, that House of Commons into a complete repre sentation of the people of England, there would be not one iota of difference as fo the relations of property in this country—(Hear, h ear)—with this single and ad vantageous exception, that every man would have the profits of his own labour, only so much being taken from it as was his fair share towards the expenses of the State. The people did not say that all the evils of life were to be attributed to the present condition of that House, but they said that being unrepresented, they paid more largely to the expenses of the State than they ought to do in reference to their condition in numbers ; and, judging from the acts—not the words—of. the majority of that House, they concluded that they were unfairly dealt with, and that they had been, for a long time, a long suffering and a patient people, and they asked to be re presented. Let him look at one or two circumstances which had lately taken place, and he would ask, what would they think if they could be traced to the evils of an aristocratic Government? He did not like such aris tocratic Governments as that of England. He thought that the whole of the people, more particularly the labouring population of it, who had hitherto been the main stay of the Government, but who were now in a state of extreme distress, and, with food scantily supplied, ought to be represented; and he thought that the govern ing body was called upon to do something to relieve their distresses by allowing them to work for food. But the aristocratic body would do no such thing ; he therefore should conclude that it was a spirit of rapine in this aris tocratic body.—(A voice " No.") He took his language from their repeated acts. He said it was a spirit of rapine whirl caused that body to a c t as it did. Th e present aristUcratic Government was a fierce, tyrannical Government, fond o f ra pi ne an d pl un d er ; but let them look around, and go a little farther, and they should see that these people, having power in their hands, and being at a distance from misery, were riot alive to the evils which their legislation created •, and that, therefore, not only would they be doing a benefit to the poor, but to the rich also, by sending amongst them parsons who would tell them the evils which bad legislation pro duced.—(Hear, hear.) Nor did he believe that he was going to give to one small body, as he called the labouring class, the election of that House—(Hear,'hear)—it would be borne by the whole people of England, the wealth, the intelligence, and the integrity a the country.— (Hear, hear.) No people on earth were ever governed by the poor, but always by the wealthy, the thinking, and ; the leisure classes. The only diffe rence would be that they would have wealth exercising its legitimate influence, with i nte ll ect ass i st i ng it, in stead of, as now, wealth exercising none but a malign influence in that House. This constituted the difference between the Right Hon. Gentleman and himself. He had great faith in the patience and virtue of his fellow countrymen The Right Hon. Gentleman doubted it, and said they were not to be trusted, and he grounded his belief on the paper which was now on the table, and he shut his eyes to the experience which he ought to have had, and who, in passing through this country, must have become intimately acquainted with the many sufferings of the thousands around us ; but forgetting all this, • shutting his eyes to all the experience which he ought to have had, he judged 1 of his fallen countrymen from that paper on the table, and he said that they were unworthy of trust, that they delighted in rapine, and would glory in bloodshed—that where they found peace they would make war, where cultivated land they would make a desert—and that great country, which they had contributed almost entirely to raise to its great prosperity—(Hear, hear) his poor labouring countrymen would, if they had the means, reduce to a wide scene of bloodshed, anarchy, and confusion—(Hear)—and in this sense he would for ever, said the Right. Hon. Gentle man, oppose to the utmost of his ability, the demand made by the people of that country. He (Mr. Roebuck) did not envy the feelings of the Right lion. Gentlem an who thus estimated his f e ll ow people ; and, for himself, whether he were in that House or out of it, lie would say, that the little ability which he possessed should be devoted to their service ; and he believed that ho should be best doing them service when he spoke of them with kindness; consideration, and affec tion ; and that he should do for them that which they ought to expect at his hands when he made them all equal in the eye of the law, and would not allow a ser vile class to remain ; and he did believe that property would be more secure when his fellow-countrymen had more power.—.(The Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.) Sir F. EGERTON said, he did not think it necessary to speculate as to the precise effect which would follow the granting of the prayer of this petition. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that out of a general strife a perfect Utopia would arise, under which everything would be conducted in the best and most delightful manner. With such an opinion he certainty c.uld laot concur. fie perfectly coincided in wh a t h a d had fallen from the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh ; he believed it would be the height of folly to hold out to these three millions, of men, who had signed that trashy and con temptible document, that the prayer of their petition would ever be granted, and that would almost be inferred if they were now allowed to appear at the bar. Entirely concurring with the Right Hon. Gentleman,he should give a vote, which, though p er haps an unpopular one, would still, he believed, be the correct one. Mr. HAWES said he was so thorou g hl y conv i nce d that this was a fitting time for all who were anxious for the good of the country to speak, that he should take the opportunity of making a few observations on the subject before the House. With respect to the speech of the Hon. Member for Bath, he would say that it had removed all doubt from his mind as to which way he should vote on this occasion, for with all that fervid eloquence and great talent and boldness which always marked his con duct and speeches in that House, he had told the House and the country that they were not going to vote for an inquiry into these grievances, but they were, in fact, to vote for or against the Charter. On that sole point he was at issue with his Honourable Friend. He did not concur with him that an universal extension of electoral rights would be either wise or prudent ; but, on the other hand, lie distinctly disclaimed having any want of confidence in the people. If the question were, whether or not the Charter should become the law of the land, he (Mr. Hawes) would feel bound to rote against so wild and indefinite a change. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath whether, in the public meetings which had, from time to time, been held throughout the country in support of the Charter, they found that enlightened class of mechanics to whom it was desirable that the franchise should be ex tended ? Was if their views which were advocated in those meetings as stated in the petition ? He contended that the views so advocated, were the views of those leaders whom the Hon. Gentle man had so powerfully condemned, and whose doctrines and opinions he had treated with such merited scorn ; and when this was the case, he had a right to conclude that if the prayer of the petition were granted, it would be used for the benefit of those bodies, and not for that Of the working classes. There were some points in the Charter in which h e (Mr. Hawes) fully con curre d. He was in favour of abolishing the property qualification, and also in favour of Vote by Ballot. Be was also prepared for a steedy extension of the Suffrage ; but in the present state of education. in this country, t a ki ng the petition itself as an indication, he thought a gradual ex tension would be far safer than an immediate assent to the principles of the Charter. Having steadily advo cated every measure calculated to ameliorate the condi tion of the people, he nevertheless could not vote for the THE SUN, LONDON) WEDNESDAY G, MAY 4, 1842. Charter. He was not yet prepared t o a d m it th a t the Reform Bill had been a failure, considering the man `' wise measures which had resulte d from it during the last 'ten years ; and he believed that a safer remedy for the grievances of the people would be found in that Bill than could possibly be found in the Charter. He must, therefore, enter his humble protest against being supposed to vote by any accident for the Charter, but, at the same time, to state that in the general advocacy of progressive reform, he would still be found the firm friend of the people. Mr. HUME said he was sorry to hear the speech of the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down, who, though he made excellent promises, and accused others of being wild and indefinite in their demands, did not state one single object which he had to propose for the relief. of the people. The Hon, Member was for progressive reform. He (Mr. Hume) would be glad to know by what steps. The Hon. Mem ber sail the people were to be judged by the language used at public meetings. He (Mr. Hume) regretted that violent language had often been used; but were the great body of the people to be blamed ?—(Hear, hear.) As well might they attack Hon. Members opposite on ac count of the languag e held by the Right Hon. Baronet, who had stated that England would be as rich as she is if all the manufacturers were engulfed in one common ruin. Sir R. PEEL—I never said that.—(Hear.) Mr. HIJME—It appeared in the Standard, and was copied into other papers. —(Hear.) It was stated that the people were to be judged by their petitions. Now, he would ask, if in that petition they had manifested any intention to defraud the public creditor ?—(Hear, hear, and "Read.") The Hon. Member then read a part of the petition relating to the national debt, and contended that there was no disposition evinced to avoid its pay ment. The petitioners stated that bribery existed in that House to an extent which was best known to its Mem bers. Was that true or not ?—(Laughter.) He wished that every man who was 21 years of age, and who was liable to serve in the militia, should have a vote. That was the only remedy for bribery and class legislation. When the Reform Bill was before the House every evil that could overtake the country was pourtrayed as the certain result of passing that measure. The Right Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, had taken a leaf out of the book of those who opposed that measure, and had depicted the same results as the consequence of universal suffrage. The Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh had misinter preted the intentions of the petitioners, and, if for no other reason, they had a right to be heard against his allegations. If they now refused the request of the petitioners they had only themselves to blame for the consequences. By refusing they were provoking re volution. The petitioners attributed to the present constitution of that House, and the consequent state of the law, the miseries which they suf fered. What 'could be more unjust than the maintenance of monopoly. The law of entail and primogeniture produced a monopoly of the land, which was attended with great misery to the people.-- (Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh.") He assured those Hon. Gentlemen who jeered, that they were laughing at the misfOrtunes of their fellow-men.—(" Oh, oh," and cries of " No.") They were laughing at the sufferings of their fellow-creatures. If the complaints of the people were worth attending to, they ought to be lis tened to with patience, and not laughed at. It might be that he was a very imperfect expounder of the people's intentions and wishes.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Honourable Gentleman here read a document relative to the distress at present suf fered by the poor, but in so indistinct a tone, that we were unable to catch any of it. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to say, in reference to the document, that it was distress such as was described there that they were laughing at. Yet, after the example which they had had at that (the Opposition) side, he must expect that the demand of the petitioners would be refused. He must again repeat, that there was nothing in the para graph of the petition to which he had alluded that could warrant the conclusions of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The petitioners concluded by praying to be heard at the bar of the House, where they would be entitled " to un fold a tale of wrong and suffering." Would they refuse that prayer ? Because there might be unreasonable demands in the petition, would they refuse to grant the reasonable deMands it contained ?—(Hear.) The people only asked to be allowed to be within the pale of the Constitution, and if they were he believed they would only have their due.—(Cheers.) Mr. WAKLEY said, he heard with great surprise and regret the speech of the Hon. Member for Lambeth. —(Hear, hear.) He was sorry to find that a single Member of the newly-enfranchised boroughs of the metropolis was found to oppose so just and reasonable a proposition as that before the House.—(Hear, hear.) When those boroughs were to be enfranchised it was thought that some very troublesome Members would ob. tarn admission liere—(lronical cheers from the Ministe rial benches)—whose principles would be as objection able as those which which were to be fonnd in the peti tion on the table. He thought they had not been much troubled by those Members, and they never would be if they were to take a lesson from the book of reform which had been read by the Hon. Member for Lambeth. That book wai'a large one, but it did not contain any specific plan to extend the rights of the people of this country. If he expressed surprise and regret at the speech of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, he may ex press the same regret and astonishment at the silence which had prevailed on the benches opposite--(Hear, hear)—for he did expect on a question of that kind, affecting the working classes, that the causes which called forth the Kentish fire at Conservative societies, and the denunciations of the Whigs, heard at those assemblies, would have induced Hon. Members opposite to hold out the hope to the people that their interests were not forgotten by their former advocates.—(Hear.) He hoped he should hear something satisfactory from some of those Members, as they represented themselves to be advocates of the working classes ; and there never was a time when their voices could be heard with greater' effect, or a better opportunity afforded them of rendering service to the people than at that moment.— (Hear, hear.) The discussion had taken too wide a range. The proposition before them was simply this, whether 3,300,000 of their fellow-countrymen, who asked to be heard at the bar of the House, were to be answered with " Yes," or " No." And the answer would convey happiness or disappointment to them. The manuer in which their request was made showed that they were justified in making it.—(Cheers.) They merely asked to be heard at the bar, and 'the House hesitated to see if their demands were just or not. In the very outset they alleged that they had no represen tatives m that House, and was it not then fair to permit them to give a faithful and honest relation of those grievances.—(Hear.) What said a great leader of the Whigs that very night ? What representation did the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, give of the people of the country ?—(Hear.) Was it not right to see if the people were the sanguinary mon sters they were represented to be.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) never heard such a representation of the people of England as that made by the Member for Edinburgh, in a speech of great imagination, and exhibiting a comprehensive and powerful mind. It was absolutely frightful and terrific.—(Hear, hear.) Where did the Right Hon. Gentleman reside ? Where had he passed his days ? With whom did he associate? What books had lie read ?—(Hear, hear.) Where had he the foundation to justify the opinion he had given of his fellow-countrymen ?—(Hear, hear.). From whom did they select their navy ? Was their navy mutinous, cowardly, and treacherous? Where did they select their valiant soldiers-from ? Were they mutinous, or trea cherous ? What was the character of their merchants, their professional men, and their tradesmen ?—(Hear.) It was too much to treat the people, en masse, as the Right Hon. Member did. Who were the particular persons he pointed at—what class of the tradesmen, the carpenters, the masons, or the smiths ? But, after all, he (Mr. W.) was not so much disposed to find fault with many parts of the Right-Hon. Gentle- man's speech ; but yet, if there was any Member of that House who ought,. more than another, to support the mo tion of his Hon. Colleague, that person was the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh.—(Cheers.) Only ten or eleven years ago, the Right Hon. Gentleman was an ad vocate for Extension of the Suffrage, and perhaps it would not be long befor e h e su pp or t e d the five points of the Charter , and if he heard the statements of the people, perhaps he would be convinced of the sixth.—(La ugh ter.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman was opposed to ITe_i . eoret 1 Suffrage, he might come v e ry ne a r it.—(Cheers.) He was aware of what might be said by persons who opposed this motion. They might say that it was a vote, aye or no, for the Charter—(Hear, hear)—but he (Mr. W.) denied it in tote. The question was, whether 3,300,000 per sons were to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House—whether they were to have the opportunity of relating their grievances in their own language, and in their own way ?—(Hear, hear.) Let them look to the present system of representation. Were the 101. voters incorruptible?—(Hear, hear.) Look to the disgraceful proceedings which had taken place in the Committee rooms, and the bribery and corruption which were exposed before those Committees. (Hear, hear.) Look to the horrible and disgusting corruption exhibited -at the last elections.—(Hear.) Was it to the working classes that corruption was to be ascribed ? No ; but to the 101. householders, whom the House had preferred. Nothing could be more dangerous to the character of the nation than that such practices should go unpunished, and that the House should be determined to sustain a con stituency so polluted. The working people told the House that this was a dishohest legislation, and that they were bound by laws which were made, not by their representatives, but by the representatives of those dis honest and corrupt constituencies. They said, and he believed it was. true, that they would purify the constitu ency by admitting the working people into it.—(Hear.) He believed that was true, for he had been much amongst the working classes of this country, and he had travelled much in other countries, and he had never seen more of honesty and real worth than was to be found amongst the working people of England.—(Great cheers from both sides of the douse.) He was glad to hear those cheers. But if Members agreed with him as to the cha racter of their countrymen, why did they refuse them. the franchise ? Why did they keep them distinct, as a` servile class, having no voice in the making of the laws of Government ? Did the honesty which they admired and cheered rest in the 101. houses, in the bricks and mortar, or in the furniture of the 101. houses ? No, .' but in the. hearts of the people.—(Hear, hear.) For merly the people throughout the country slept without fear or danger, without lock or bar upon their doors. But how was it now ? It was necessary now to have a rural police for the protection of property, The Hon. Member for Edinburgh said that the disposi tions of the people were sanguinary, and that the laws which legislators, elected by them, would make would also be sanguinary and destructive of property. But he asked,could they pass any law more sanguinary than the New POor-law ?—(Hear, hear.) How did that law deal with the widow ? How did it deal with the victim of seduction ? How did it deal with the octogenarian ? He would say that, whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the ultimate object of the petitioners, after all the trouble and expense which they had gone to in preparing this petition, whilst they said that they were not represented in that House, they ought to be allowed v :le opport un it y w hi c h t h ey demanded, of making their w i s ; , es k nown in t h e i r own words.—(Hear.) y ok el J. RUSSELL had not intended to take a port in the discussion upon this petition ; but the number ce the signatures was so great that he could not refrain fn.. the duty of coming down to the House to state his re spect for the petitione rs, and his abhorrence of the doc trines which their petition contained.—(Much Cheer ing.) He disclaimed all that the Hon. Member for Mon trose charged upon the opponents of the motion before the House.-(.Hear, hear.) He disclaimed all want of sympathy with the thousands of his countrymen who were now undergoing the greatest distress. He felt com passion for their distress and admiration for their for titude ; but when the Honourable Member asked the House to comply with the motion, the Honour able Member implied that to concede the motion would place the people in a better condition. He (Lord John Russell) must be permitted to deny the position altogether. It had been said that there would be no evil in bringing the nature of the mo narchy under the discussion of that blouse now. What would be the result? If that House went into a new in quiry as to the whole institutions of the country, as to whether faith should be kept with the public creditor, and whether the property in land should be preserved, what would be the consequence, if this House drove all the ancient and venerable institutiors of the country loose as matters of discussion, if not of destruction?— (Hear, hear.) Would it not be to transfer the pro perty and capital to other countries, and to di minish the funds for the employment of labour here ? His Right Honourable Friend had gone into the various allegations of the petition, and had pointed out very conclusively the several points. The petitioners said that a debt was imposed by persons who had no right to bind them (the petitioners) to its payment.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend pointed out also that the property in land and machinery was complained of by the petitioners, and it was said that in pointing these out, his Hon. Friend was making accusations a g ainst the people of th e United Krn inkdo. He (Lord J. Russell) denied that allegation. But the Hon. Member for Bath, perhaps safely for his own argument, but not fairly to his Right Hon. Friend. informed the House that the petition was drawn up 'by a malignant and cowardly demagogue —(Here there was a cry of "No," and some murmuring in the House, when Mr. Roebuck stood up, and, as was understood, acknowledged the expression.) Well, then, the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had destroyed the character of the petition by giving that character of the person whom he supposed to be its author. Had not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in thus attacking the petition made a charge against those three millions of persons who signed it ?—(Hear, hear.) Had he not attacked them as much as his Right Hon. Friend ? But the Right Hon. Gentleman said that the House might throw aside the allegations of the petition without refusing the prayer. But he would ask the Right Honourable Gentleman might not those who signed the petition be also misled so as to elect as a Member of Parliament the person who framed it ?—(Cheers.) An Hon. Member had said that in ancient times the people met in the market-place and elected those who were to make laws for them. That was true, and it was also true that this was a great pri vilege. But if the people were induced to elect as lea.- makers men like the framers of this petition, they would be deprived of any remedy, and they would contri bute to the overturning of all the foundations of pro perty which they themselves expected, and that regard for the law which was truly said to be their characteristic would soon be at an end. It was quite clear that the object of the author of that petition was to wipe out the whole of the National Debt with a sponge, for he denied that it was national, and said that the people had no right to pay it. Now he (Lord J. Rus sell) believed that if you would go into any market.. place and collect a crowd, and show them that the pub lic debt was contracted upon the national faith, and that the holders wore many of them were widows and or phans who became possessed of that property within the last ten years, he believed that tho majority would reject the proposition for such a spoliation.— (Hear, hear.) But he was not so sure but that they might by some cry of the moment be so misled as to elect men who would be guilty of that spoliation, which the people, if they understood it, would never consent to.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly a matter of great difficulty to determine who should be entrusted with the franchise, but for his part, he believed that in giving the trust of electing Members of Parliament, they should combine property, intelligence, and know ledge. He would not say that those who at present held that trust were the very best to whom it _Could be com mitted ; but he believed that they afforded a better security for the institutions of the country, and a better security for the steady progress of liberty, than could be obtained bygranting at once Universal Suffrage. That was the plain and broad grounds on which he rested his opposition to the motion. He was aware that it was said that males of a certain age had an indefeasi ble and inalienable right to elect their representatives in the Commons' House of Parliament. Now he could never understand that indefeasible and inalienable right. —(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the question of the franchise was a question to be defined by the in stitutions and the laws of the country. He saw no more right a person of twenty-one years had to elect Members of Parliament than he had to be a jury man ; they might just as well say that every man of a certain age had a right to sit upon a jury upon difficult and intricate questions of law or property; they might even as well say that every man had a right to exercise the judicial functions, as was the case in some of the republics of antiquity. If it wore for the good of the people at large, for the welfare of the nation, for the advancement of good government, that a certain number of persons, defined by certain limitations of pro perty, should have, the right to elect Members to Parlia ment, and if it would be disadvantageous to the com munity that the right should be exercised in the form of Universal Suffrage, he then said, let the good of the people at large prevail ; the matter was one upon which the Legislature should decide as upon everything else, and no inalienable right could be claimed against that which the public good prescribed. The Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last said that his (Lord John Russell's) Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had given a terrific representation of the people of England—that he had represented them as " sanguinary, ' and as if they were ready for destruction and rapine. Now his Right Hon. Friend had said no such thing. For his part he thought it was very likely that at many of these elections they would find, even if they had Universal Suffrage established, that a respect for property, a re spect for old habits, and a general regard for the Consti tution of the country, would produce elections not very different from those which took place now that property was one of the qualifications required for the franchise. But, although that might be generally the case, he did not think, in the present state of the education of the people—he would not then say whether that objection might ever be removed—that they could feel assured that there might no t arise periods of popular ferment when; under some peculiar circum stances, Members would be returned to that House whose votes would not be in accordance with the prin ciples of the Constitution, but would lead to its destruc tion and would shake the security of property. The British Constitution was, in his eyes, too precious, and the arrangements of our social system were at the same time too intricate, to allow him to put them to such hazards.—(Loud cheering.) He could well conceive that in the United States of America, the only country which he could at all compare to this for the enjoyment of liberty, and the full fruits of civilization—he could well conceive that in that coun try, where there was no aristocracy, where every office was elective, where there was no Established Church, where there was no accumulation of property, Universal Suffrage might be. exercised without injury to order, without injury to the general se cur ity of society. But in this country, where there were so many institutions, which, while he believed them to be of the utmost value in holding society together, were at the same time in the possession of property—he spoke of such institutions as an aristocracy ; and the Established Church, which, being in possession of great property, might be held up as _prizes, to people ha distress—he did not think ,, g t h a t, in such a COUPtr.n....a_wo.9,lcl ha mare CM. t d est ro y I oho 4,ystem or representation, and to establish Universal Suffrage in its place. Acting upon those opinions, he could not assent to that which the lion. Gen tleman, who had last spoken, had represented as a simple prayer that the petitioners should be heard at the bar. He did not so understand the question.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Honourable Member for Bath had put it more fairly in saying it was the Charter to which they had to say "aye," or " no," that night. What did he find stated by the petititioners themselves ? They had stated, at full length, what they considered to be their grievances ; and they concluded their prayer in these words :—" Your petitioners, therefore, exercising their just constitutional rights, demand that your Hon. House should remedy the many gross and manliest evils of which your petitioners complain, by imme diately, without alteration, deduction, or addition, pass into law the document entitled the People's Charter, which embraces the representation of Male Adults, Vote by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, No Property Qualifica tion, Payment of Members, and Equal Electoral Dis tricts." That language was certainly very plain.— (Hear, hear.) It was very explicit ; but, at the same time, it was, he should say, very peremptory. That was not a demand merely to be heard at the bar. Mr. DUNCOMBE intimated, that the demand to he heard at the bar was also one of the prayers of the petition. Lord J. RUSSELL admitted, that the petitioners asked to be heard at the bar ; but immediately after wards, he found the other words he had just read. They asked to be allowed to explain their views ; but they asked it for the purpose of establishing the Charter. Now he could not believe that any Counsel, or any agents, would per suade him to grant the different points of the Charter. He should vote in opposition to their adoption, what ever might be the speeches made at that bar. And he therefore thought himself bound at once to put an end to any misunderstanding—(Hear, hear)—and not to en deavour to hid e hi s vo t e by any pretence that he wished to hear the explanations of Counsel. He believed it would be better for the future welfare of the people that, if the House did not mean to grant the prayer of the petition, they should at once state to the petitioners that a compliance with their wishes would tend to shake the security of property, would tend to increase the privations of which they complained, would endanger that constitution of society which, com plicated and intricate as it was, bad produced so many blessings to the country ; that to the House was entrusted the grave responsibility and the important duty of legis lating on behalf of these kingdoms, and that in the dis charge of that solemn duty they felt bound to put a ne gative upon the proposed plan.—(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL said that although he hoped he should be exposed to no misconstruction if he had remained silent upon that occasion, yet from the course which the • debate had taken, he was unwilling to expose himself 1 the hazard of the slightest misapprehension, or to shria from the duty of declaring boldly and decidedly his opinions upon the subject then under their consideration Until he had heard the construction put upon the pctl tion by the Noble Lerd, lie had thought there_ wee two propositions before the House—not quite consistee or compatible it was true—but still on the face of ;7: • document there appeared to be two proposals before House ; the one that they should admit the petititee. to be heard at the bar, the other . that the House should immediately pass into law the demands coOtai i ned in the People's Charter. He did not wish to take any advantage of the objections to the Charter for this purpose of vindicating his vote upon that cceasioe.. • If the question of the Charter were not then before them he should still be ready to give his vote agairea - the proposal to hear Counsel at the bar in mire-ion of the allegations of the petitioners ; and he should ee ready to give that vote upon various grounds. he had come to the foregone conclusion at vvhich Hon. Member fur Leicester had declared that he arrived, that the demands of the petitioners, if comp with, would be mischievous to the petitioners themseia and, having come to that conclusion, he thought it T 1: just and more respectful to tell them that he di - intend to accede to their petition, rather than to !Y rise to delusive hopes, which would be sure to erg disappointment,—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon! Tee!•: Member for Finsbury had told him that the of his (Sir Robert Peel's) decision upop the ea e- occasion would eitheir awaken hope or disappoint. Well, then; he would not hopes which could not be realised. .The Hon. Me..l! only asked bins to hear the allegations of the petitiore:. b ot h os the e e m a m l letig; and t a il - e o n t wh() ir e impeach tl o ie f C o u o r n s s t o i in c e fhr r u, s )Crn t chl o ir l i;ce l l i tip i i i i;u n ebt ph th icac a tti t p9ti i ,uoo t r cs oo;ooss e s so v t,l r :t e l odo n f g tp;:o t ie c nb i 11,11 i n sete 1: 11 1 1 ; 11 : ., Ew a T n as h tseadivertedbEstablishediesthi e t i d ( f t people of Ireland were entitled to a repeal of the ; the petitioners drew most invidious comparisons between the expenses of the Soveregn and the expense-t; of• thy people ; and he therefore said that the petitioe altogether impeached the established order of thine-. And how was he to gratify the prayer of the petitioner e by hearing them at the bar ? Why, if they were to heard effectually, would it be done effectually by - ing four or five persons in speeches at the bar ?" Were those speeches to be replied to ? Suppose those speech:; failed m their effect, were they then to enter into en inquiry at the bar with respect to the allegations of the petition ? Should he admit that demand for *till inquiry, or should he refuse it ? Should he sua pend all the public business of the country, and -ea ter into each of the allegations of the petition - es to the policy of abolishing the Established Church, or of repealing the Union ? Wits not that the only effectual way the petitioners had of stating theirgrievances, was it for the advantage of the petitioners therriSavo:; that he should do so ?—(Hear, hear.) And what the petition itself ? If he had a doubt—which he had not—the speech of the Honourable and Learnte! Gentleman would have convinced him of the greet absurdity there would be in entering into, ice inquiry into this petition, a petition that did not repre sent the sentiments of those who had signed it—a petition utterly at variance with the judgment and geo:t sense of the three millions of petitioners, but which ha: been imposed on them by a cowardly demagogue-- (Loud cheers)—one whom the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman knew, and whose personal knowledge of whole entitled him to speak of him with disrespect and Con - tempt.—(Che?rs.) He (Sir R. Peel) knew not who he described ; he took his description from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and should he admit the author of that petition, as described, the man who had so perverted to his evil purposes the minds of the respeetable, the industrious, the intelligent, and honest labouring classes of this country -- 2 (Cheers)--eshould he admit him to the bar, (and he had no doubt that it was this person who would come to oe. bar to defend the allegations of the petition), should he not by this be countenancing the delusions under whieli the labouring classes lay? Should he admit him, the- - author of this petition, who put forth a liantized prayers, an acquiescence in each of which would fatal to the petitioners themselves, fur the purpose or' establishing the rights of the labouring classes of this • - country? It was the allegations of the petition into which the Hon. Member for Finsbury asked htn to inquire-:. petition so described by the Hon. and Learned Member foe Bath. When he referred to the prayer of the petitiof'., when he referred to the character of him who was sai•i; - to be the author of it, when he referred to the certain - consequences of raising expectations which they knew must be disappointed —on all these grounds, he thought ! he should be acting more respectfully, and more just;,.* towards the petitioners, by refusing at once to accede t,, the demand, than by giving a delusive hearing, and e !•-• terwards telling them that it had made no impressio:t whatever on his mind.-L(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had described the labouring classes of tlii4 country. He said, in other countries the appeal was force, but that here the appeal was to mol - ;:i power. He said that if the labouring classes of this country did appeal to force, they could bee down every obstacle, but that they were control d by their good cause, and the willingness to obey ttse He said, let a &Tepid constable go into the midst of e. crowd, and seize the most pow: rful man, and they wan:d • observe on the part of the man of superior strength,' willing submission to the authority of the law, and would see on the part of the pnpulace, by Whom he surrounded, a willing submission to it also. But was it that nerved the era' of that person, and what pr • (laced that tacit submission to the law—the tee, viction that it was a just one.—(Hear and eleeete. Did they believe that if the people of this couttee were in the condition described ; that if the state . of country was justly described in tLis memorial; tlea, if, on one hand, this House had, by unconstltutioc H f means, created an unbearable despotism, and on the ethe a degrading slavery ; if that was a just representation et the Constitution and the law of England, that he would be that tacit submission to the law which gee, the decrepid constable the authority he possessed? . they think that the high-spirited people, of whom tie! Leerned Gentleman had given that description, weeel have the respect which they now paid to the law if they did not feel that it was one which guaranteed the slava, of property, and secured liberty, that it was a law foe the poor as well as for the rich?—(Cheers.) The other Hon. Member for Finsbury said he had travelled in different parts of Europe, and had "opportunities ofjade ing of the people of other countries, and where vroula they find a more intelligent, more patient, more hide. : pendent, more high-spirited people than the people ce: England ?.—(Cheers.) He would grant it. But whet had • formed that character ? Ile asked in turn, wee it the mere brick and stone of the houses in which they lived ? No, it was the laws, the institutions of a free country.—(Cheers.) Their respect for the laws Peel been formed under those institutions, of which tho peti tion contained the impeachment. If it were tree.. that the people of England lived in a state of degraded. - despotism on the one hand, and of a degraded slavery,' on the other, they could neither have that respect authority, nor should they deserve die character which bath the Hon. Gentlemen had given them.—(Cheere.) He did not understand the Right Hon. Member Edinburgh to state that the people of this country were of a sangunary "-disposition, and that if they gave tie ea the power, there would be a spoliation of property. Ile understood the Right Hon. Gentieman to take petition, as prefaced, by a designing andcowardly dern:;.- gogue.—(Hear, hear.) He knew not who it means; he adopted the description from the Hon. and Learn Gentleman—and if that were true—who had passed tiiie libel on the petitioners ?—(Hear, hear.) How did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman maintain the high cha racter of the petitioners, if they could be parties to a pea . tition full of trash, and which contained applications, which to accede to would be their ruin, and the prayer of which ought to be treated with utter disrespect? As the Noble Lord had justly observed, if they could be tie luded in this instance, what security could they give hint that when they were practically in the . posse :i -gen of power, another designing demagogue insmaet not say to them, now you are possessed of. power, and you would be a degraded, a cowardly race, if, r ,-. e ? did be) o th at the people would redress, could t p : o isz s u se ci s iti se d d ei o u f si t o b i e ls m : e b a ut n t s lv o li f ic; F t rol c ir u i r n i g t the Hon. axed Learned Gentleman give him, if they were now so de ceived, against their being -deceived again ? He under stood the Right Hon. Gentleman to argue, that if they made alterations in the Constitution, on principles those laid down in this petition ;if they thought public . faith ought not to be maintained. that the public credit=or ought not to be paid, because debts were incurrecrbe Parliament without due authority, for the support . wars which were unjust„—if they talked of • land as a monopoly,—they were then exciting her which they could not raise without confusion, and whin:' they could not disappoint without danger.—(Cheers.) And he understood the Right lion. Gentleman to argee also that there would be such anarchy and confusieu arise from this basis, - that shaking the security property, or spoliation of all property, would be the r:• - salt. But he did not understand the Right Hon. Gee- , leman to say that the people of England were santeu - nary and barbarous in their disposition. On the ground-, therefore, of the delusion that must arise from am:d ing to the prayer of the petition, he must refuse to ac cede to it. It' the should be told that the Charter wee involved in this question, that in deciding it they wr , ri deciding the questions of Universal Suffrage, of Aniet Parliaments, and of Vote by Ballot, he was a>•.., content to rest his refusal on those grounds. Ile b.!- lieved that Universal Suffrage wou ld be incompatiya with that mixed monarchy under which they lived ; tea , believed that this mixed menarche , was important rata ▪'r in the ends to be achieved by it than in the aaeau. • which tended to that end, that its end d m w a oo aesothetry oiro promo o ti o o s ! of the happiness of the people ; b stanced as this was, to substitute a mere democracy for. that mixed form of government, which, imperfect tas it might be, had for a hundred and fifty years secured t them more partial and true .liberty than any country had ever enjoyed, not excepting tl e United States of Ant • rich, excepting no country m hatever—they might he suffering, t h e y might be undergoing privations, he deeply regretted it, he sympathised with those sufferings, he ad mitted their fortitude, he respected their patience— but he could not consent- to make these momentous c h anges in the Constitution, milli the certainty of pro ducing no alleviation in those sufferings, and with the certainty only of incurring the risk of destroying that Constitution, which, he believed, , ,if they pertmtted it to remain untouched, would secure to their descendants as.- it had secured to their ancestors, those blessings which would never be found in any rash, preepititte chane• however plausible they might appear in speculation. Mr. MACAULAY explainetleeHe did not use e eels attributing cruelty, or a sanguinary disposition to the petitioners, and he trusted the House would boar hhn out in that statement.—(Huge hear.) Mr. MUNTZ said that the debate had t takea so peculiar a turn that he felt called upon to orlain why he voted for the motion. He Toted for the motion upon 11 .9 ,;1 11. • Y ?'• t -..< ." ;:'{ . t i ~ ~~ 7 , 1 4 ? 4 .4 1 ,t fa r, ./':'-, MI