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

re ale vas the ves En , eh slit: rho .ng r - ;ti e iul ;boa 110 of . 4 st d:? pf, , y, ch rect Ghe hat on or- tut the lid by as it; po , coA" ut coirw mr-• r ra - - 151 ;1 4 1 1; 1 6 I @a a, 9 y S 41i 0:1:1 0 REI [IA 9 0 P 4 49 . 11:1 4' fi' I 4 r ' r I ,4 CI t B :1 0 02; *gdq.--ft ud on a .s, e he 1311 t - J ill lle $ 1:4 . • r Hwy. ,of ro iy • lit seated that Government was able to do that which no Government was able to do ; who represented Gs vernment as bound to attempt that which no Wise Go+ernment dared attempt—that %%Ilia, 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 mul t iply t h e l oaves an d fishes five thou sandfold. 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 representations ? 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 proposition for a national bankruptcy, who could suppose that such a -Parliament as this would lead to any thing but disap pointment amongst the people ? Gentlemen talked of distrppointm en t at t en di ng th e Reform Bill. What a dis appointment would attend the meeting of the first Par llain*nt under the new system, when that Parliament would refuse to answer a petition not to pay the debt— W hen the answer made to the people would be in that s 'ruses that the debts must be paid, even Leough. they were contracted for wars against , s l L ber tYs' and entered into by a Parliament not - ,„`''''ed 'by the people, yet their debts must be paid ? litd then with respect to land, would they not be driving Ott of the c oun t r y by the spoiliation of property all the funds from which labour would be remunerated ? Was it, possible to doubt that the petitioners who had been in ar,heed to si gn t h at pet i t i on to t h e num b er o f th ree mil "°118, that if they obtained what they sought that they would not have great reason to complain of the manner which they had been treated ? What was said after the passhig of the Reform Bill ? There were murmurs of disappointment ; the eople said you promised us the Bill,and the whole Bill, and to be sure we have nothing - *as, but you have given us the means without the * ,...,_ w1---- (Hear.) Could any one doubt that the cry 'o uld be increased twenty times if the people e e*ved what was demanded in that petition ? When ';•"- 1 s tate of things came—and the consequences must °ree themselves on every mind—he defied any human b eing . 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 he 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 scene of famine, misery, and pestilence, could not be 'equalled in modern Europe. If such a state came to pitst, if such a dreadful revolution took place, he should shave one wish with respect to it—and a dreadful wish it `was for an En g li s h man to express as a means o f social melioration--and that was, that some desperate struggle 'lould arise which would call to life some strong ilitary despotism, which would give some sort of pro te eton and security to that property which remained. Bt it if they expected to see the old institutions of the Co! entry revived, they deceived themselves greatly; they we uld never see them again, they would never deserve thee rot again. Every nation would look with utter con tempt at the ruin of those institutions, and at the glory oft he country laid prostrate ; and in the history of the counitry would be told that England had institutions, im peril ett indeed, but institutions which contained within them, telvea the means of conferring happiness, even with their imperfeetions—institutions better than any great eonimi Indy, in all the history of the world, she had lived nudes , 'for 150' years together—institutions which she threw vantouly away, for no purpose whatever, except beeaute she was asked to do so, by persons who said that,. Wfahout these concessions, she would be ruined.— (Loud ch eers.) 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 Unf versa' Suffrage, and he had only to decide whether he aho uld vote for hearing the petitioners at their bar. -Now, he must say that any person who was disposed not to grant UrOversal 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 beard the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leicester, declare that, agre e i n g with him (Mr. Macaulay) i n 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 thcite who sent it, he should give a conscientious vote against ;lur ing the petitioners.—(Cheers from the Ministei.''al 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 b y t h e Ri g h t H on. G entleman of the i a be bo c u or.l n sequenc es w hi c h would follow from granting the souk:: t g Population o f thi s coun t r y th e power they &at the "ses; he was very much inclined to believe friend to Right Hon. Gentleman was no very great f working classes. He told them that he had n d o. e s er i s ee tis h h_ g toward s the petitioners, but entered into a g i v i ng r th u_n se of the consequendes which would result from sufi , p r i ng, ' laborious frugal, industrious, honest, long desari t , Patient people their rights, and entered into a them Roebuck P p l w il of the horrors that would result from giving ) e t r, which plainly indicated to him (Mr. hat he (Mr. Macaulay) entertained no .r d Y good feeling towards g them. The proposition down b‘nolc) had the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Roe soquen s een before put forth with all the gorgeous Geluietnce with which he had heard the Right Hon. i t .an on the subject before, which left no doubt of ot esi n. Tr e . He had seen it on the discussion upon the Re zus".l By the p ro p os i t i on o f the R i ght Hon. Gentle landhe was not to give to the working public of Eng nY Would Povrer, until it was beyond a doubt that they no t use that power improperly. That was the position laid down that night; and then the Right Gentllematt said, could he believe that the labour- At? po p ulatio n could obtain this p ower w ith ou t m i sus i ng si sso rie (Mr. R oebuck) would ask him what they (the use) were at all for ? For what purpose was it that 4 !" e House o f C ommons was formed ? He was prepared of 1? Maintain that by every pr i nc i ple of the Const i tut i on <tywere brought together to represent the whole body tho people. What was it that brought them there ? was that d es i re i n all to proceed upon their wn merits. They were there to prevent the conse- I t tendes of that desire. If he were a strong man, with 14 . 1ko i orie to ch ec k him, he carried out that desire. the strong thi s b ut men j o i n i ng together to prevent ci s 'rong oppressing the weak? It was upon this prin fPie th at P ar li ament was elected for the purpose of per .:l:ling in that ar ena t h e b us i ness o f G overnment, that Which was once performed in the times before us in the 1 th e Market-place. B u t th en if t h e G overnment were o',e watcher s , h e wanted to know who were to watch 7rn--sWito were to watch the watchers? There was .13 Ty one mode, and th at was b y ma ki ng t h em respon vTto the p eo pl e . B ut they were only responsible to a ion of the p eop l e. T hey oppressed the remainder ; age would touch their power. They were delegated ,x a *all section; that section were joined to oppress the aternaincler. The Right Hon. Gentlem an s t oo d f orwar d Ptinst the petitioners, and said they demanded a mini of wages. He (Mr. Roebuck) looked around him pointed to the oth er s id e o f t h e H ouse, and he slistd if there, in that House, they did not demand a la itainiur a of wages ? They said they had landed power, It ild therefore they demanded a mi n i mum pr i ce i n corn. ` - (Cheers.) ••Where was the difference in the landed I l l'eprietor in coming into the m ar k e t, an d sa yi ng hi s ,:liges were corn, and they should not reduce corn below j' certain price ? The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, said it was bad political It: °eo tny to demand a minimum of wages. Was there kr ! difference between bad political economy in a man ) 40.1. 1ng th a t h e h a d hi s labour to depend upon, and must liri e „ minimum of wages, and the landed pro e° ? r who said he must have a minimum price in las s , , i _lie perfectly agreed w ith th e Ri g ht H on . Gentle s t hat ae sea many of the mis e ri es o f th e p eo pl e h a d b een 41) 11 1 4 1 - 1 2' bad government.—(Hear, hear.) Few could 4 %11 4, Vls• There was the Poor-law Bill ; this, no °ll lla rs 141 ,,,..Ca05ed much of the misery existing in the r,,ttrt y He would point to the organ of the other rep ssi ,s` The Times, They every day brought out tr aet• - " 1°11 s, just as wild, quite as fearful—quite as de bre afterk ISEltsae security of property as that which was villius t iel in the petition. But was he, therefore, 1)t e u in saying, that in every town—in every tsOle st ,,,lf they acceded to the proposition, they laid N t esej i ti huder the foot of labour. Why were a part of se sa ,'? s4lpity represented, and not the other classes as Or tiplliiiitiere was a still larger, and equally intelligent Pert y e „s ,it he meant the labouring majority c lass e , I': ltr Y, and who were not connected with pro ih the r iSS, l t ia the Right Hon. Gentleman said that these th e 'f. st be so blinded that they would little respect The -- „, - ,L.Property, that they would produce a scene did "uukt 7l4. 3r of bloodshed, confusion, and rapine. llot • m Jud cosva l intit„ ge them as they ought to be judged. He Pla e a t‘ ' d thetri by the words written by a malignant, th, t e z hi s lira foolish demagogue, upon whom he could h' 4t was: , ""'", and whose name he could mention, but th that - 1 1 440 1.1 y beneath contempt. It was not from th e "sely es e would judge them. He would look to a lr p he Ettiwould ask all who had . borne witness . to h ad ' r ut i ce, who had borne witness to Their long 4 b ee h, heaped forbearance of the oppresion which - d • t oeta pe upon th em. It was from these that b ashy vy 's judge his countrymen, and not from the a Y th e c hafin g of an idle document, rendered ridiculous t ie partieswho had 4„ 1; 1 virt u 7 e uon when they drawntheir fellow-men, no better 4te an ha: , and but a little better in wealth, made different Ode se e'llgs from themselves de raded and servbiYle a? Nor they lvh c g h . fc !i he - had known S tl .Pess. el ls own inanY of them to be men of e a t h e. ,ey had wealth and security in property S s Peet i t if I ;,e•eat. electoral body ; h wey then should they w ee otherwise, when persons equally intelli si sus Wiled to that body, and what reason they t'P Vse that then they would have England inn sta.te 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 ali others, he should do so by saying that there was but one feelingin 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.—(Hear, 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 upon his 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. He 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 from 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 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 Hon. 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 he 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 to the relations of property in this country—(Hear, hear)—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 he 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 which caused that body to act as it did. The present aristocratic Government was a fierce, tyrannical , Government, fond of rapine and plunder ; but let them look around, and go a little farther, and they should see I that these people, having power in their hands, and being dt a distance from misery, were not alive to the evils I w h . ;ch their legislation created •, and that, therefore, not o.' ll Y. would they be doing a benefit to the poor, but to the Cch also, by sending amongst them persons who would te2 l them the evils which bad legislation pro duced.—(h,„ 9ar, hear.) Nor did he believe that he was going to give .to one small body, as he called the labouring class, the electi:ln of that House—(Hear, hear)—it would be borne by the whole people of England, the wealth, the intelligence, i lnd the integrity t,f the country.— (Hear, hear.) people • on earth were ever governed by the poor, but always by the wealthy, the thinking, and 4 the le isUre classes. The only diffe rence would be that they would have wealth exercising its legitimate influence, with intellect assisting 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 &Nut his eyes to the experience which he ought to have had, and who, in passing through this country, must have become intimately acquainted with tire 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 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 fund 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, an.l confusion—(Hear)—and in this sense he would for ever, said the Right Hon. Gentle man, oppose to the utaaost of his ability, the demand made shy the people of that . country. He (Mr. Roebuck) did not envy . the feelings of ? the Right Hon. Gentleman who th us estimated his fellow' people ; and, for himself, whether he were in that House or out of it, he would say, that the little ability which he possessed should be devoted to their service ; and he believed that he should be best doing them service when he spoke of them vith kindness, consideration, and affec tion ; and that h, it should do for them that which they ought to expect ; .I.t 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 SQCIn, .e when his fellow-countrymen had more power.—(The I. ton. Gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.) Sir F. EGERTON ss id, he did not think it necessary to speculate as to the p. revise 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 condueted in the eat and most delightful manner. With such an opinion he certainly could not concur. He perfectly coinc;.ded in a •hat had had fallen from the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh ; he believed it would be the height of f 311 y to had 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, as d that would almost be inferred if they were now allowed to appear at the bar. Entirely concurring with the 'MO t Hon. Gentleman, he should give a vote, which, tb ouglh perhaps an unpopular one, would still, he believe. i, lye the correct one. Mr. HAWES said he was so thoroughly convinced that this was a fitting time for all who were anxious for the good of the county; r to speak, that he should take the opportunity of making a few observations on the subject before the House. W ith 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 wi th‘ all tAat 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 grievant !es, but they were, in fact, to vote for or against the Charter. On that sole point he was at issue with his 14 onoura ble Friend. He did not concur with him th at an universal extension of electoral rights would be either wise Dr prudent ; but, on the other hand, he distinctly disclaimed wing any want of confidence in the peo i lle. If the questa: l ; w e re, whether or not the Ch ar t er s h o u ld b ecome t h e of the land, he (Mr. Hawes) w'onLd - feel bound to N'S't against so wild and indefini to a: change. He would ask the Hon. arid Learned Meg iber !or Bath whether, in the public meetings which had, from time to time, been held throughout the country is support of the Charter, they found that enlightened el ass of mechanics to whom it was desirable that the franchise should be ex tended ? Was it 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 71sea,iers whom the Hon. Gentle man had so powerfully cond i ‘mned, 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 p etition were granted, it would be used for the benefit .of those bodies, and not for that of the working clam sea. There were some points in the Charter in which h e ( Mr. Hawes) fully concurred. He was in favour of abolit ,ping the property qualification, and also in favour of Vote by Ballot. He was also prepared for a steady extension of the Suffrage ; but in the present state of educati on in this country, taking the petition itself as an indit :ation, 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 tai 'culated to ameliorate the condi tion of the people, ho nev i :rthelcss could not vote for the Charter. He was not yet prepared to admit that the Reform Bill had been a failure, considering the many wise measures which had resulted 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 language 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. HUME—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 NA ere 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 i that prayer ? Because there might be unreasonable 1 demands in the petition, would they refuse to grant the reasonable demands it contained ?—(Hear.) • i . . _ 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 tain admission here(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 was 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 gergotten 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 in 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.) Ho (Mr. Wakley) never beard 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 he 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 (herous ? 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 wero the particular persens 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 before he supported the five points of the Charter , and if he heard the statements of the people, perhaps he would be convinced of the sixth.--(Laughtbr.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman was opposed to Universal Suffrage, he might come very near 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 9,300,000 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 dishonest legislation, and that they were bound by laws which wore 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 llise .° , F honesty and real worth than was to be found amongst h working people of England,—(Great deers from Lo e th b jdes of the House.) He was glad to hear those clieer franchise a ofn e Members agreed with him as to the cha racter But i ll r f countrymen, Why did they refuse them the .Why did they - keep thorn distinct, as a servile c l ass, h zv iog s no voice in the making of the laws ? ;01f1 the honesty which they admired 10L houses, in the bricks and a t o n ifl o dG r c t o a hv r ee , err : ei or in erlt s the t I f tab uri i t 1 Z.re of the 101. houses ? No, but in the hearts of the peo ;)le.—(Hear, hea?,) 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 nect,lssal nr 7 have a rural police for the protection ot now to operty, The Hon. Member for Edinburgh . said that the discosl tiems of the people were sanguinary, and that the laws w hi c h 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 se auction ? How did it deal with the octogenarian ? H e would say that, whatever might be the opinion of the H ouse as to the ultimate object of the petitioners, after s= .I THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MAY 4, 1842 all the trouble and expense - which ,they !bad gone to' ire preparing this petition, whilst they said that they were not represented in that House, they ought to be allowed the opportunity which they demanded, of making their wishes known is their own words.—(Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL had not intended to take a part in the discussion upon this petition ; but the number of the signatures was so great that he could not refrain fro m th duty of coming down to the House to state his re spect for the petitioners, 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 House 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 institutions 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 aninst the people of the United Kingdom. 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 rim- 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 tliose 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 h e • wou ld as k t h e 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 2—(Cheers,) An Hon. M em b er h a d sa id th at in ancient times th e 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 la-v -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 were many of them were widows and or phans who became possessed of that property within the last ten years, he believed that the 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 by granting at once Universal Suffrage. That was the plain and broad grounds on which be 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 were 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 it 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 he 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 not 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 security 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 in distress—he did not think that, in such A country, it would be safe all at once to destroy the existing system of representation, and to establish Universal Suffrage in its. place. Acting upon those opinions, he could not assent to that which the Hon. Gen tleman, who had last spoken.- had represented-as a:simple r 3 er thatYthe petitioners should be heard at the bar.' eClid 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 11.41 length, what they considered to be their grievances ; and they concluded their prayer in these words :—" Your petitioners, therefore, exercising their just should just consti r t e u m ti e o d n y al trhieghmts,any gross and manifest demand that your Hon. complain, by imme edviailtselyo,fwwithhiocuht alteration, yo ur petitioners deduction,o f M o a e addition,AdutAdults, Votepass r P op eo er p t l y e's Q C ua h l a i r fi te ca r Equal Electoral Dis into law the document entitled the People's waS certainly very plain.— (Hear, but, at the same which v i t o h i e mbraceslotThatA Paymentn Annual u o al the f a l nMg representationet ma Parliaments,g Members, e rs, a cI N time, t h w e a a s r , ) h e I t should wa s svaeyr,y'rexpli cit; p e remptory. That was not a demand merely to be heard at the bar, Mr. DUNCOMBE intimated, that the demand to be 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 bad 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 hide his vote 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, coni plicated and intricate as it was, had produced so many bWsings to the country ; that to the House was entrusted the grave responsibility and the important duty of legis:- luting on behalf of these kingdoins, and that in the charge of that solemn duty they felt bound to put a ne pave upon the proposed plan.--(Cheers.) - • Sir R. PEEL said than although he hoped , he should be 'exposed 'to no = misconstruction W he had remained ilent upon that occasion r yet'irom the course which the debtte'had taken, lie was unwilling to expose himself to the hazard of the slightest misapprehension, or to shrink 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 peti tion by the Noble Lord, he had thought there were two propositions before the House—not quite consistent or compatible it was true—but still on the face of the document there appeared to be two proposals before the House ; the one that they should admit the petitioners to be heard at the bar, the other that the House should immediately pass into law the demands contained in the People's Charter. He did not wish to take any advantage of the objections to the Charter for the purpose of vindicating his vote upon that occasion. If the question of the Charter were not then before them he should still be ready to give his vote against the proposal to hear Counsel at the bar in support of the allegations of the petitioners ; and he should be ready to give that vote upon various grounds. First, he had come to the foregone conclusion at which the Hon. Member for Leicester had declared that he had arrived, that the demands of the petitioners, if complied with, would be mischievous to the petitioners themselves; and, having come to that conclusion, he thought it more just and more respectful to tell them that he did not intend to accede to their petition, rather than to give rise to delusive hopes, which would be sure to end in disappointment,—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Member for Finsbury had told him that the result of his (Sir Robert Peel's) decision upon the present occasion would eitheir awaken hope or fearful disappoint. Well, then, he would not awaken hopes which could not be realised. The Hon. Member only asked him to hear the allegations of the petitioners ; but those allegations went to impeach the Constitution of the country and the whole frame of our society. The petitioners told him that it was wrong to maintain an Established Church ; that 9,000,0001. of public money was diverted from the public purposes to the use of the Established Church ; the petitioners told him that the people of Ireland were entitled to a repeal of the Union ; the petitioners drew most invidious comparisons between the expenses of the Soveregn and the expenses of the people ; and he therefore said that the petition altogether impeached the established order of things. And how was he to gratify the prayer of the petitioners, by hearing them at the bar ? Why, if they were to be heard effectually, would it be done effectually by hear ing four or five persons in speeches at the bar ? Were those speeches to be replied to ? Suppose those speeches failed in their effect, were they then to enter into an inquiry at the bar with respect to the allegations of the petition ? Should he admit that demand for an inquiry, or should he refuse it ? Should he sus pend all the public business of the country, and en ter into each of the allegations of the petition as to the policy of abolishing the Established Church, or of repealing the Union ? Was not that the only effectual way the petitioners had of stating theirgrievances, and was it for the advantage of the petitioners themselves that he should do so ?—(Hear, hear.) And what was the petition itself ? If he had a doubt—which he had not—the speech of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman would have convinced him of the great absurdity there would be in entering into an inquiry into this petition, a petiti on th a t did not repre sent the sentiments of those who had signed it—a petition utterly at variance with the judgment and good sense of the three millions of petitioners, but which had been imposed on th em b y a cowardly demagogue-- (Loud cheers)—one whom the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman knew, and whose personal knowledge of whom entitled him to speak of him with disrespect and con tempt.—(Cheers.) 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 respectable, the industrious, the intelligent, and honest l a b our i ng c l asses of this co un t r y (Cheers)—should he admit him to the bar, (and he had no doubt that it was this person who would come to the bar to defend the allegations of the petition), should he not by this be countenancing the delusions under which the labouring classes lay? Should he admit him, the author of this petition, who put forth a hundred prayers, an acquiescence in each of which would be fatal to the petitioners themselves, for the purpose of 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 him to inquire —a petition so described by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. When he referred to the prayer of the petition, when he referred to the character of him who was said 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 justly towards the petitioners, by refusing at once to accede to the demand, than by giving a delusive hearing, and af terwards telling them that it had made no impression whatever on his mind.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had described the labouring classes of this country. He said, in other countries the appeal was to force, but that here the appeal was to moral power. He said that if the labouring classes of this country did appeal to force, they could bear down every obstacle, but that • they were controlled by their good cause, and the willingness to obey the law. He said, let a decrepid constable go into the midst of a crowd, and seize the most powerful man, and they would observe on the part of the man of superior strength, a willing submission to the authority of the law, and they would see on the part of the . populace, by whom he was surrounded, a willing submission to it also. But what was it that nerved the arm of that person, and what pro duced that tacit submission to the law—the con viction that it was a just one.—(Hear and cheers.) Did they believe that if the people of this country were in the condition described ; that if the state of the country was justly described in this memorial ; that if, on one hand, this House had, by unconstitutional means, created an unbearable despotism, and on the other a degrading slavery ; if that was a just representation of the Constitution and the law of England, that there would be that tacit submission to the law which gave the decrepid constable the authority he possessed? Did they think that the high-spirited people, of whom the Leerned Gentleman had given that description, would have the respect which they now paid to the law if they did not feel that it was one which guaranteed the safety of property, and secured liberty, that it was a law for 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 of judg ing of the people of other countries, and where would they find a more intelligent, more patient, more inde pendent, more high-spirited people than the people of England ?--(Cheers.) He would grant it. But what had formed that character ? He asked in. turn, was 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 had been formed under those institutions, of which the peti tion contained the impeachment. If it were true 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 for authority, nor should they deserve the character which bJth the Hon. Gentlemen had given them.—(Cheers.) He did not understand the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh to state that the people of this country were of a sangunary disposition, and that if they gave them the power, there would be a spoliation of property. He understood the Right Hon. Gentieman to take this petition, as prefaced, by a designing andcowardly dema gogue.—(Hear, hear.) He knew not who it meant; he adopted the description from th e H on . an d Learned Gent!einan—and if that were true—who had passed this libel on the petitioners ?—(hear, hear.) How did the lion. and Learned Gentleman maintain the high cha racter of the petitioners, if they could be parties to a pe 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 de luded in this instance, what security could they give him that when they were practically in the posses sion of power, another designing demagogue might not say to them, now you aro possessed of power, and you would be a degraded, a cowardly race, if, being ossessed of the means of procuring redress, you did not sei4e it ? lie did not believe that the people would yield to such delusions, but what security could the Hon. and 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 mado alterations in the Constitution, on principles like those laid down in this petition - if they thought public faith ought not to be maintained, ;hat the public creditor ought not to be paid, because debts were incurred by Parliament without due authority, for the support of wars which were unjust,—if they talked of land as a monopoly,—they were then exciting hopes which they could not raise without confusion, and which they could not disappoint without danger.—(Cheers.) And lie understood the Right lion. Gentleman to argue also that there would be such anarchy and confusion arise from this basis, that shaking the security of property, or spoliation of all property, would be the re sult. But he did not understand the Right Hon. Gen leman to say that the people of England were sangui nary and barbarous in their disposition. On the grounds, therefore, of the delusion that must arise from acced- in; to the prayer of the petition, he must refuse to ac cede to it. If he should be told th a t the Ch ar t er was involved in this question, that in deciding it they were deciding the questions of Universal Suffrage, of Annual Parliaments, and of Vote by Ballot, he was also content to rest his refusal on those grounds. He be. lieved that Universal Suffrage would be incompatible with that mixed monarchy under which they lived ; he believed that this mixed monarchy was important rather in the ends to be achieved by it than in the means which tended to that end, that its end was the promotion of the happiness of the people ; but, in a country circum stanced as this was, to substitute a mere democracy for that mixed form of government, which, imperfect ,as it might be, had for a hundred and fifty years secured to them more partial and true liberty than any country had ever enjoyed, not excepting the United States of Ame rica, excepting no country whatever—they might be suffering, they 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 changes in the Constitution, with 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 permitted 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, precipitate changes, however plausible they might a pp ear i n speculation. Mr. 3LkCAULAY explained—He did not use words attributing cruelty, or a sanguinary disposition to the petitioners, and he trusted the House would bear him out in that statement.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. MUNTZ said that the debate had taken so peculiar a turn that he felt c a ll e d u pon to expl a i n w hy 'he voted for the motion. lie toted for the motion upon >1 .0.4 0 'w; (2 . ," ..... the same ground as he voted the other night for the mo tion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, not for the sake of the petition, but for the sake of inquiry. When he looked around him and saw thousands and thousands of his fellow-creatures starving for want, and when he saw throe millions petitioning the House for inquiry, he could not resist granting it.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. OSWALD opposed the motion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury, because he thought it a dishonest and shabby motion, and held out false hopes to the people. Mr. VILLIERS was not disposed to deny many things that he had heard that evening with respect to extending the suffrage, but when they sat there night after night denouncing each other, it was not at all as tonishing that the people should think the House ought to be reformed. The people, in the discussions that had taken place in that House, saw the cause of all their miseries ; and it was not therefore for the House to turn round upon them and refuse to hear them. He did not say the House was bound to adopt all the remedies pro posed in the petition, but he could not see how they could refrain from hearing them, as the result of that I hearing might be that the House might decide upon I progressive alterations in the constitution of the House. He believed the doctrine proposed by the Orange Lodges was far more dangerous than any proposition contained in the Charter. Lord CLEMENTS said, as no Member for Ireland had yet addressed the House, - and as the Repeal of the Union had been mixed up with the debate, he wished to say a few words. In Ireland they were not accus tomed to meet with the sympathies of the public in England. He was not disposed to be m a d e a catspaw of on the present occasion. The Repeal of the Union was a question worthy of discussion by itself. He did not advocate that measure ; but that was not the manner in which the question of the Repeal of the Union ought to be brought before the House. If the poorer classes of England were aggrieved let them bring their grievances before the House, but he wished not to be coupled up in any way with this measure.—(Cheers and laughter.) The sister country had plenty of grievances to complain of. The great reason of complain was, the manner in which the representative system had been there carried out by the Reform Bill.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh ! Read, read I Question, question !") That system re quired great alteration. He considered that the adoption of the prayer of this petition would be utterly subversive of the institutions of the country, and he repudiated the idea that Ireland should be brought forward in this manner to serve the purposes of an individual. Mr. O'CONNELL would not be influenced in voting for this measure by reason of that part of it which prayed for a Repeal of the Union. His sentiments on that subject were distinctly understood, but he was not influenced in the vote he was about to give by the mention of it in the petition In fact, he did not wish to be identified with the petition at all.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to separate himself entirely from the petition. He was led to give the vote which he was about to give in favour of the motion, because he belived that Universal Suffrage was the right of the people, because he believed that every Ezjglishman was entitled to have a voice in the election of representatives to that House. If he wanted a proof of the correctness of this position he would turn to the speech of the able and Learned Mem ber for Edinburgh, who had been unable to draw the line where servitude should end and enfranchisement should begin—for all those who were refused the franchise were in a state of servitude. The comparison made by the Noble Lord to the case of the juryman did not apply. The juryman decided on the property of others, the voter only protected his own. Ile should vote for the motion because he felt satisfied that the suffrage ought to be extended. The state of the country was awful— the petitioners complained of the sufferings they endured and asked to be heard at the bar, and in asking that he thought they were not going too far. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in reply, said, that after the manner in which that petition was about to be treated by the House, if ever the industrious classes should again condescend to approach that House, he would become no party to their degradation. —(Cheers and cries of " Oh ! oh ") If the object of the petition had been to bring about that sweeping confiscation of property which the Hon. Member for Edinburgh had denounced the weight of their indignation ought to fall not on the petitioners, but oa the person who had brought it to the table of that House.— (Cheers and cries of "Oh!") Yes ! he (Mr. T. Duncombe) was the person who was responsible for the petition.—(Renewed cheering.) No man in the House ought to have pre s ent e d suc h a petitionif such had been its object, and if he believed such to have been the object of the petition he would not have presented it. He would not say that if he had drawn up the petition he would have drawn it up precisely in its present form; there were many parts of it from which he dissented. But what was it that the people asked for ? They did not wish for a sweeping measure of confiscation ; all they asked was to be permitted to bring their cause be fore the House, and if they were permitted to do so he would produce at, the bar of that House the advocates of the petitioners, working men, to show that the evils of which they complained originated in class legislation, and those who so had libelled them would then perceive that these men were not only entitled to the franchise, nut that the House would be neither dishonoured nor disgraced by seeing some of these men sitting on the benches as Members. There was nothing like confis cation in the petition. In some parts it was worded ambiguously, and he would do the Right Hon. Baronet opposite the justice to say that he had not taken advantage of the ambiguity. He did not corn . pima, of the conduct of Members opposite—it was of the conduct of those on his own side of the House that he complained.—(Cheers.) The petitioners prayed the House, if it refused inquiry, then to pass the Charter, and concluded by expressing their desire to promote the peace of the United Kingdom, the security of property, and the prosperity of commerce. What was there in that to show that they desired the con fi sca ti on o f pro perty, the destruction of the Monarchy, the destruction of the Chnrch, and of the sponging out of the National Debt. THe Right Hon. Baronet took part of a sentence from the speech of the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, who had stated that the petition had emanated from a malignant cowardly demagogue, whose name he would indicate if he were not beneath his contempt. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) did not know to whom the Hon. and Learned Member alluded ; but if it were to the individual to whom he (Mr. Duncombe) supposed it was, the Hon. and Learned Member had been grossly misled. He had a document in his possession, signed P. M'Dowal, J. Morgan, and John Campbell—(Laughter) --and those were the indi viduals who had drawn up the petition. These three indi viduals, he was bound to say, drew up the petition, and he did not believe any other individuals even saw that petition until it was printed and submitted for signatures to the individuals who had signed it. He was extremely sorry to see the course about to be adopted with respect to that petition, for all he had to ask of them was to hear the petitioners. The Charter was not the question, in the first instance. After having heard them, it would be time to rise and propose a remedy. All before them, then, was simply to give the parties a hearing. He said that three millitms and a half of the industrious classes were entitled to that hearing. It would be a con solation to those individuals to be heard. He could not believe, as Hon. Gentlemen had represented there, that by allowing the working classes to be within the repre sentative or electorial branch of the constitution, would endanger the nation ; on the contrary, he felt convinced that it would add to the stability of the institutions of the country.—(Hear.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion 49 Against it Majority against the motion -238 Mr. STUART WORTLtY moved for returns relat ing to the system hitherto adopted for the suppression of the slave-trade on the western coast of Africa. Captain PECHELL thought the motion of the Hon. Member involved a reflection upon the officers of her Majesty's navy who had been employed on that station, and that an opportunity of explanation ought to have been allowed. Sir G. COCKBURN said, that if he saw any attempt in the present motion to throw a slur on the officers of the navy, he should certainly oppose it; but he could perceive no such thing, and why the Honourable Gen tleman could suppose that such a return would cast a slur on the officers employed on that station, he certainly could not see. The more that house and the public wore made acquainted with every _action of the navy, the more they would be satisfied with the conduct of the officers and men. lie had no objection to the motion. Captain PECIIELL, amidst (cries of " Spoke, spoke," " Chair, chair,") explained that his ob jection was the absence of all information whereon the Hon. Member could ground his motion. Mr. S. WORTLEY was surprised at the Hon. and Gallant Member's objection. It wasthe first time that the llon. Gentleman had ever made any complaint with respect to the motion, though it had been on the paper upwards of a week, and had been once postponed. lie (Mr. S. Wortley) disclaimed any intention of passing a slur on the noble profession of the navy. Viscount PALMERSTON said, that as far as he was concerned, he should be happy to support the motion of the Hon. Member. He considered the exertions of the navy were beyond all prab2 0, in their attempts to suppress the slave traffic. Thera was no mode of suppressing it, except by means of a naval police, and every effort was made by the Admirr:tty for the purpose of putting it down.—(Cheers.) After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY in ex planation, the motion was agreed to. PAYMENT OF WAGES. Mr. FERRAND moved that the following Members be nominated to the Select Committee on the Payment of Wages :—Mr. Ferrand, Lord Ashley, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. John Fielden, Viscount Jocelyn, Mr. Shar man Crawford, Mr. henry Redhead Yorke, Mr. Baird, Mr. George William Wood, Earl of llillsborough, Mr. Thomas Dimcombe, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Charles Pelham Villiers, Sir John Hanmer, and Sir John Guest. Mr. BROTHERTON said that before the motion was agreed to he would move that Mr. Cobden be named as one of the Committee. It appeared that there were eight Memb e r s f rom th e o th er s id e an d seven from his (Mr. Brotherton's), but there was no person from Lan cashire.--(gear, hear.) The Committee appeared to him to he a one-sided one.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to have persons who knew the difference between mills and print-works—(Hear, hear)—persons who understood something of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The Com initt,de would not give confidence to the country if some person connected with the manufacturing interest were not upon it, and he should therefore move that Mr. Cob den's name now bo added to the Committee. Mr. C. BULLER would move that the debate should be adjourned, After all the nonsense that had been spoken on the subject—(Cries of Order.) He was per fectly in order. A great deal of nonsense had of spoken on the subject, and the character of whole body of the manufacturers of the country was affected by it. lie had observed that whenever there was a motion of this sort the Members of the Govern- NMX ment stole out of the House. It was too late an hour of the night, and the House was too thin, to determine to what Members the inquiry should be committed. He ' therefore moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. FERRAND said he had applied to several Mem bers of the House to allow their names to be put on the Committee. He had received communications from hundreds of the working classes, and he was now in a condition to prove the statements which he had made. He had communicated to the Hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) the name of a person who gave him the information respecting the truck system which he, had detailed to the House, and in a day or two after wards two friends of the Hon. Member called upon the gentleman in Manchester, and held out threats to him. Mr. BROTHERTON—That cannot be true. Mr. FERRAND said it was true ; and the Hon. Member for Stockport had also used him ill ; for he had communicated to the public newspapers a private note of his (Mr. Ferrand's), and had exposed a person who gave him information to great obloquy and persecution.— (Hear, hear.) He would not bring forward the evidence which was within his reach, unless the working people who were his witnesses could be protected against their masters. Mr. COBDEN said that there must be some little mistake again in this matter ; he certainly did publish the letter of the Hon. Member, but he thought that there was no objection to his doing so. The Hon. Gen tleman seemed to wish to imply that he had attempted to hurt some working man. Why, the writer of that letter was no working man ; he was a man in a respect able station of life, a noted political partisan and a lead ing Tory in Manchester, a corn dealer.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) could not then be considered as having been guilty of a breach of confidence. He was not at all anxious to serve on the Committee. In answer to a question from Mr. HUME, Sir J. GRAHAM remarked that he should be very sorry that the Hon. Member for Salford should be ex cluded from this Committee, and he thought that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough would be acting judi ciously if he included the Hon. Member. After a few words from Mr. VILLIERS, Lord PALMERSTON suggested that some person connected with the Government, should be placed ou the Committee. Mr. WAKLEY seconded the proposition. After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, Dr. BOWRING thought the best course would be to adjourn the debate. The debate was then adjourned. The Exchequer Bills Bill was read a third time and passed. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock. QUEEN'S THEATRE, TOTTEN HAM-STREET. After a creditable performance of the Conscript Bro thers, an interesting drama of the Swiss 'school, a new comedietta, from the pen of Mrs. Hallett, ran lightly through its scenes. its title is Woman's Whims, or who's to win her, and the answer involved in these questionary words, has its own pleasing and pecu liar development. Idonea (Miss Rogers), daughter of a rich county Justice, has determined to wed none but him who shall woo her from total disinterestedness. Charles Avonmore (Mr. Reeves), a frank and sincere hearted officer, has also predetermined to espouse him self to none but from pure motives of affection. The issue of the piece may readily be judged from minds so appositely formed. An exchange of cha racters on the part of Idonea, between herself and her waiting girl, produced some good points ; the most hypo chondriacal awkwardness characterising every movement of the false lady, while genuine grace gleamed in the per son and demeanour of the young gentlewoman, habited though she was servantile disguise. Miss Rogers here was winning. The Hon. Augustus Lavington (Mr. X. Parry) represented w e ll one o f those military epheme rals who, gay in gilt and regimentals, seek out pretty faces to betray them, and wax hysterical at any thing that is not faint as a rose, or soft as a zephyr. Simon, at the " Stags" (Mr. Manders), pourtrayed the rustic waiter quite au fait. Indeed, the cleverness thrown by him into his peculiar cast of character, was well sustained throughout the three pieces in which he took a part : nor should we forget the one sweet warbler of the theatre, Miss Wrighten, who carolled charmingly in Michael, Putty, and Berthalcla. ROYAL ACADEMY. On Saturday the Members of the Royal Academy gave their Anniversary Dinner at their apartments in Trafalgar-square, which was attended by a numerous assemblage of guests of the first rank and talent, among whom were—the Lord Chancellor, the first Lord of the Treasury, First Lord of the Admiralty, the Speaker, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, General-in-Chief, Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Horse, President of the Board of Con trol, First Commissioner of Land Revenues, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Baron, Vice-Chancellor of England, Attorney and Solicitor-General, the Governor of the Bank, Chairman of the East India Company, Chairman of the Board of Customs, Field Officer in Waiting, Master and Warden of Dulwich College; French Ambassador ; American, Prussian, Netherlands, Belgian, Saxon, Bavarian, Spa nish, Portuguese, Sardinian, Sicilian, Grecian, Turkish, Danish, Swedish Ministers ; Dukes of Wellington, Su therland, Devonshire, Beaufort, Newcastle ; Marquises of Northampton, Anglesey, Lansdowne, Westminster, Normanby ; Earls Grey, De Grey, Burlington, Eldon, Ripon, Howe, Clarendon, Mini°, Ca:vdor, Lincoln; Vis counts Duncannon, Melbourn ~'Palinerston ; Bishops of London, Durham, Llandaff, Chichester, Hereford, Nor wich ; Lords Monteagle, Cottenham, John Russell, F. Egerton,. How ick, Sudely,Seaton, Prudhoe, Northwick e, Colborne, Alford, Campbell ; Right Hons. Sir J. C. Hobhouse, F. Baring, 11. Labouchcre, J. W. Croker ; Sirs R. H. Inglis, J. Herschel', Swinburne, G. Phil lips, H. Wheatley, 'Willoughby Gordon, 11. Ellis, T. Baring, T. D. Acland, J. Lubbock, G. Staunton ; Rev. Sydney Smith, Chevalier Bunsen, J. Morrison, J. Neeld, E. R. Tunne, W. Wells. S. Rogers, C. Babbage, W. Segnier, J. Cartwright ; Esqs. —Stokes, B. Hawes, G. Knott, T. G. B. Esteotirt, J. H. Ilippesley, A. Milne, R. A. Muuro. R. Vernon, S; Jones Lloyd, T. Baring, Macready, H. Hallum, &c. INDECENT ASSAULT. Charles Manning, a tall young man of respectable ap • pearance, and dressed in deep mourning, was charged before Mr. Maltby, at Marlborough-street, yesterday, with committing the following gross and indecent as sault upon a respectable married female, named Anne French. The complainant stated, that between seven and eight o'clock on Monday evening, she called at No. 14, Sack ville-street, Piccadilly, where her husband is the foreman of an extensive business, and, while speaking to the female servant, a mere child, who opened the door, the defendant carne up, and thrusting his head over her shoulder, a,de,rvssed to the girl some very improper words, and, on complainant telling him he ought to be ashamed of himself, he suddenly turned round and assaulted her, in a very indecent and violent manner, She indignantly repelled him, and asked him how he dared to so grossly insult a respectable ma r r i e d woman, upon which he laughed derisively, and repeated his offensive behaviour, and also attempted to draw her clothesup over her person. Complainant screamed out for assistance, and the defendant then desisted and walked on. At the instant no person was in sight, and com plainant, determined that he should not escape, followed him into Regent-street, and for some distance along the colonade of the Quadrant, whon meeting with a police constable she gave him into custody. Mr. MALTBY (to defendant)—Pray what are you ? Defendant—l have been a butler in a nobleman's family, but am now out of a situation. Mr. MALTBY—I must say that the assault is a most gross one, and I shall inflict on you the greatest amount of punishment the law allows. You are therefore fined 51., or two months' imprisonment. The defendant said he had not the money about him, and was conveyed to the lock-up cells, but in a short time afterwards the fine was paid. SPONTANEOUS COMHUSTION.—As there has been much said and written on this subject, it is of great importance that we should know, especially as the Lucife r aey nature; u m g g a e t e s t t i aa s n dh oi es nwt used so extensively, what mischief is likely to result from its use, and from the use of substances of a k the following letter from Professor Booth to lucifer match makers, it deserves public notice : " Gentlemen,—l have seen so much of the disastrous effects arising from substances containing ingredients liable to sponta neous ignition in producing fires, that as I looked upon the in troduction of your Self-lighting Sealing Wax with Jealousy, I have tested and analyzed it with great care. By this I find all my objections to its use removed, as, from the absence of sulphur in its combination, it is impossible that spontaneous ignition can take place with them, as has occurred with Con grevo matche , , and other pyrotechnic componnds. The com bustible elements are perfectly free from danger, and I have no hesitation in pronouncing yours as safe as ordinary sealing wax, as smart friction alone will cause their ignition.—l have the honour to remain, your obedient servant, ABRAHAM_ BOOTH, Lecturer on Chemistry, late Lecturer at the Royal Adelaide Gallery, &c.—London, April 23, 1842.—Messrs. Davis, Brothers, and Co., Patentees of Self-lighting Sealing wax, Poultry." THE NEW CORN-LAW.—Some doubt was felt at first, whether the duty of 275. Bd., declared on the same day, would not remain in force until a fresh declaration of the averages and duties ; but yesterday morning it was intimated at our Custom-house, that the new duties of 13s. on wheat, and on other grain iu proportion, would be received. Some wheat, we understand, was liberated at that rate of duty in the course of the day, so that the Bill is now at work, as far as the duties are concerned.—Lieerpoot Times. OPERATIONS 01. TIIE striking illustra tion of the magnitude of the transactions of the British empire may be drawn from the recent records of the Mint. Between the years 1816 and 1836, the money coined in it amounted in round numbers to a quarter of a million of copper, twelve millioas of silver, and c onsiderably - above fifty-five millions of gold, making a total of between sixty-seven and sixty-eight millions of money sent into circulation within twenty years. The clam for coining th is enormou s amount of precious metal was pearl ' ' , four hundred and twenty-one thousand pounds, and the actual cost about two hundred and fourteen thousand pounds, leaving a profit to the company of moneyers not much less in amount. STOPPAGE OF IRON -WORKS.—We regret to learn that a large number of forges in this neighbourhood (Wolver hampton) have ceased work, whereby a great number of hands are thrown suddenly out of employment. Among the exten sive forges closed are those of E. and G. Thorneycroft (Wed nesbury), Russell Brothers, George Jellicoe, and G. B. Thorneycroft (Shrubbery Iron-works). Several other exten sive works are daily expected to cease operations ; indeed, we believe there is not a single forge-owner that does not con template the necessity of stopping.— Staffordshire Examiner. iVhsS KELLY'S: - :'I7IIEATILE.—This neat little theatre, fitted up in a new and commodious manner, opened on Monday night. The piece of Captain Stevens commenced the enter- „ ,;:, tainments, after which, in the Sister of Charity, Miss Kelly resumed her old character of the Scsur de Charite, displaying -, ;A in its performance, her accustomed vigour. A new debutante . 4 h,0, in the person of a Miss Isaacs, enacted the part of Nanette. The Sul Irish Tutor concluded the evering's entertainment. !MMI tk) ~~iYti ( .;.Sl. \ ~z__