The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-13 00:00:00

EVVNING EDITION. 11

Icot ditiowof the labouring classes could be improved was
1 by a general distribution of all the property of the rich
lamongst the poor aed labouring classes. Upon that he
need not argue. But that etas the way in Ishich some
had been induced to sign the petition—it was the manner
in which many reckless demagogues had sought to pro-
duce an effect throughout the country, holding out that
all property was to be divided amongst the people in ge-
neral. He was sure that every Member of the house,
and the great majority of the' people were aware that
any scheme cf that kind would tend not only to the
destruction of our institutions, to the destruction
of everything which made this country valuable, but
that it would, before any long time, be the source of
ruin to the labouring classes themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
He knew not how, in any other way that could be proposed
the adoption of a plan of this kind would tend to raise
their means and increase their riches. His belief was
i th t, generally speaking, the ins.itutions of this country
:ended to give to give to the people as great a portion of
freedom and security as had ever been secured by any in-
stitutions to the people of any country. He knew no in-
stance of any people existing on the face of the globe which
I did enjoy these advantages to a greater extene—(Heer,
.
Ihear.) There was great political liberty in some countries;
the security of the person, the general supremacy of the
law, were less strong and less fortified in those countries
than in our own. In other countries, there was a greater
tniiitary force to repress any thing like disturbance; in
those countries there was far less of that freedom to which
he had adverted. So that upon the whole, he knew not
that, by any great change of cur institutions such as the
Hon. Gent:cman had proposed, lie could at all advance or
cremate the welfare of the people of this country. He sup-
posed that the Hon. Gentleman would hardly contend, after
theadeption of Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments,
that the rest of our institutions would remain in their
present state. He could net suppose that the Monarchy,
that our hereditary Legislature, and our various institu•
tions, would remain as they now were—that they would
not be changed for other institutions, if so large and de-
maeratical a change should be adopted. He did not
believe that any such change, even if it could possibly be
accomplished three days hence, would tend to the comfort
and prosperity of any portion of the people—he did not
believe that it would tend to the welfare of the majority of
those who had signed the petition.--( Hear, hear. ) He
could not conclude without adverting to tee means by
which those who professed to be members of the General
Convention professed to carry their object into effect.
They stated that at the unanimous request of the Con-
vention they urged the people to agree to the following
terms—that they should individually and collectively
withdraw their money from the Savings Banks—that
that they should convert all their paper money into gold
--that they should abstain from the use sf all exciaeabla
liquors—that they should commence an exclusive system
of dealing—and that they should exercise their ancient
and constitutional right of providing themselves with
arms. These were the modes which they propose for
the purpose of insuring success.—( Hear, hear. )
Some of those who had impelled the Chartists may have
acted conscientiously; liut there was no doubt that a great
part of them were deluding the credulity of the rest. Ile
was certain that the objects.which they avowed ought to be
opposed with determination, because if they were achieved
they would be fatal to the Constitution of this country,
fatal to those rights which were now complained of as a
monopoly, and fatal to our system of established Govern
went. He (Lord J. Russell) would not say that those
consequences he deprecated would take place. On the
Contrary, he believed that the deluders of the people would
be foiled jay their own efforts. He believed that the great
majority of the working classes now saw as he did, that
the adoption of the propositions in the petition would b
most injurious to themselves.—( Cheers ) He believed
they now spurned the intended advice they received—
(Checrs)—and that they were now beginning thoroughly
to see through the motives of throw designing persons who
had been attempting to delude them merely for the
Purpose of eking out a private income at th,, expense ot
their dupes. lie had no doubt that those crafty persons
would speedily ford their trade at an end, and that the
good sense and virtue of the people of England were fatal
to their schemes and objects.—( Cheers.)
Mr. D'ISR A EL I concurred in a great deal of what had
been said by the Noble Lord. lii all large populous
countries there was ever a leaven of discontent. There
was such a leaven in this country, and that leaven was the
basis of the present movement. But the petition was
signed by considerably more than a minion of our fellow
`objects. Those parties had been talked of on the assump
Lion that the basis of their movement was strictly an eco-
nomical one. He had great doubts upon that head, be.
sca.nee economical movements generally led to tumults, but
e
'dem to an organization. He would admit on the other
hand, that this movement did net proceed entirely from a
desire of political rights, for political rights were so
abstract, and pressed so lightly on the multitude,
that they were never the criein -of great popular
movements. Tire great impulse f ere was a mixed motive.
It was composed of economical and political feelings
Those were the causes of that movement which the No,
ble Lord was obliged to confess to be a great one. The
mixed sentiment of those classes who
spoke in tire petition
was, that their civil rights bad been invaded—those' rights
which involved personal security, comfort, and happiness ; s
and also that they were deprived certain rights whichd
were of a higher character than merefeconomicalt
rations. He ( Mr. D'l. ) did certainly think -1 then s'
civile
rights of the people of England had been invaded.—
( Hear, hear.) Perhapri from no evil intention—perhaps
from a fallacious philosophy which desired to impose upon
this people a system of Government not suited to their
genius arid borrowed from foreign nations. Whatever the
cause of the invasion, he (rslr. D'l.) thought that the feel-
tr.ig of the people c f England note was that their political
rights had been invaded—( hear, near ) —and certain ac-
tive agitators were now stirring up this feeling of discon-
tent, which he might describe as the via inertice of the
masses He would not ascribe the Charter to the New
Poor-law, though he believed it had some connection with
that measure ; but he believed, also, that the consequences
of the present state of feeling amongst those classes would
be soon most seriously felt. He found that the feeling
which produced the Charter arose about the same time
that the Reform Bill was passed, a measure that destroyed
a Constitution which he believed was not understood by
those who assailed it, and perhaps not even understood by
:hose who defended it.—(Laughter and Hear, hear.) Thai
Constitution was, however, intelligible; but it appeared
that the Constitution which had superseded it was
neither defined nor understood. The new Constitution
took political power out of the hands of those saho, in the
exercise of it, combined the discharge of important social
duties, and placed it in the hands of those who performed
no such duties; as, for example, the administration of
justice, the regulation of the parish affairs, the building of
roads and bridges, the employment of labourers, the distri-
bution of relief to the distressed, the commanding the militia,
and the police. The new possessors of political power de
sired to have it freed from such conditions, and from such
duties. They desired to enjoy the power at the least pos-
sible expense and trouble ; and, ! therefore, they called for
cheap Government, and for the institution of a central sys-
tem of administration—that thus both their purses and their
persons might be spared. But he would maintain that
what was called a cheap system of Central Government,
would be found incompatible with the civil rights of the
people of England.—( Hear, bear.) In fact, their civil
rights were already invaded, and this was the cause of the
Charter. The New Poor-law had been passed on the
Principle of outraging those civil rights which had so long
been the cause of the robustness of our cornmoawealth—
(Laughter)—for it told the poor, that instead of applying
as hitherto to their neighbours for relief they must
depend upon a distant Government. That provi-
sion was a disruption of the social tics in this
country. It also taught them that they should no
longer have a right to be relieved by the State, but that in
future their relief must be received as charity. He believed
that alteration had produced great end just discontent, and
be was ready to admit that the Gentlemen on his side of
the House were responsible for it, but not in an equal
degree, as the New Poor Law originated on the other
side. He considered the passing of the Reform Bill MIS
a very great blunder.—( Laughter.) He would also admit
that a great number of the Tory party, arising from their
long stupor, desired to enjoy some of its alleged advan-
tages, and also sonic of the benefits of cheap Government
But referring to the National Petition, he must say it in-
volved a great fallacy namely, that social evils might be
cured by the granting of political rights. But this fal-
lacy was not confined to them. Every evening he heard
Hon. Gentleman at the other side complain that the people
were starving, and that Household Suffrage would remedy
their starvation. 'Why the National Petition demanded
Annual Parliaments—others demanded Triennial Par
liararents. He thought, therefore, that the Noble
Lord had not acted justly in treating the peti-
tioners with derision.—( Cries of " No, no.") tie supposed
the Noble Lord did not oppose the suggestions of a similar
character from Hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he had
obtained political power through their influence, and he
hoped to retain his power through the some influence.
}lc, however, believed that, if the Noble Lord expected to
establish a Government on what was termed the " Mo-
narchy of the middle classes ;" he would find himself under
a great delusion, which might endanger, not only the
ins'itutions, but also the throne of this country. That
system was foreign to the genius of the people of this
country- If you give political power to the people of this
country, you should also give them concomitant public
duties to fulfil. Since we departed from this prin-
ciple discontent bad increased in the English nation, and
happiness would only be restored in proportion as we ap-
proximated towards it. The Noble Lord had answered
the Hon. Member for Birmingham, but not the Char-
tists. , The Hon. Member for Birmingham had de
livered himself of a skillful ebullition in favour of the middle
classes—but as far as be ( Mr. D's,) could see the Chartists
had nothing to do with the Birmingham Union. The
Chartists expressed the greatest hostility, not against
the middle classes, against the newly enfranchised Consti-
tuency, not the old, which formed the basis of the Noble
Lord's Government. Instead of finding the Hon. Mem-
ber for Birmingham the champion of the Chartists, ire
found him vindicating his late Colleaguev, who were now
the Judges of the Chartists. He (Mr. D'l.) was sorry that
the Chartists were so strongly opposed by both parties in
this House—they were a great body—they complained
of great grievances, and they should not be passed over
without some notice. Though they had been sitting already
five or six months without, as he thought, any particular
results' yet it seemed that the Chartists were now no-
ticed by the Noble Lord as if by accident. In the early
1 part of the Session they saw Lord-Lieutenants of counties,
Noblemen, and Gentlemen, leaving in tire midst of an im .
portant debate, and travelling by railroads to retake cap-
tured towns, and returning just in time to vote.—( Laugh-
ter.) But the Noble Secretary of State took no
I liaise of all this. He thought the Noble Lord now
a
treate3es the petitioners with unjust contempt. The
Noble Lord refused to recognize it as a na-
tional petition. The Noble Lord, however, thought ha
we.; at the head of a Reform Government, which others
did not recoenise under that character.—( Laughter.)
The Noble Lord ought not to be too severe—he ought to
• take the name ::s he found it. Tire Noble Lord seemed
to show great confluence in the temper and virtue of the
people ot the country, great confidence in himself, and
great confidence in his Governtr.e.it.—( Laughter. ) He

hoped the Noble Lord had sufficient grounds for,this confi-
dence. But this did not warrant his contumelious—(" No,
no.")--well, his captious tone towards the petitioners.
The petitioners amounted to 1,260,000 discontented
fellow-subjects. Such a number ought at least to be
treated with courtesy. If he (Mr. 1)'I.) were a Minister,
he should not despise them whether they had good grounds
for discontent or not.--( Laughter.) Perhaps the self-
satisfied tone arose from a persuasion, that the war in the
East was drawing to a close.—(A laugh.) Ho (Mr. D'l.)
knew something of that country, and he could say that
the Noble Lord was mistaken.—( Hear, hear.) Per-
haps it was the monetary panacea of the Hon. Member
for Birmingham that had insp]rA him with satisfaction
It might be said that the Government of the Noble Lord
had been hitherto taken up too much with important af-
fairs, such as the making of Peers, and making promises
to make Baronets, to attend to the Chartists. lie hoped,
however, that during the recess, when there would be no
Cabinet meetings upon subjects of such grave import-
ance, that the affairs of the Chartists would receive more
attention from her Majesty's Ministers. He be-
lieved if the Government chose to take this move
ment as only one of those temporary ebullitions which
were rather the result of a plethoric habit in the country,
than from any other cause, they would find themselves
mistaken. The seeds were so Nn. which would germinate
both to the trouble and the dishonour of this land. If
Ministers insisted on a system of cheap and centralised
Government, they would find in the long run, that they
had seriously injured the naiional character, and probably
had endangered the National Church.

Mr. HUME believed the present movement on the
part of the working classes, originated from a deep-rooted
discontent, on account of the sufferings they had endured.
He believed that, having joined most cordially in promoting
the reform of that house in 1832, they had expected
better results would follow than they had experienced.
The speeches the House had heard that evening had very
little to do with the prayer of the petition. The petition
did not contain any proposition relative to piper currency,
and although they might have suffered under the Poor-
laws, the Poor-laws were not mentioned in the petition.
The Hon. Member who seconded the petition had stated
all his own special opinions without looking to the prayer
of the petition. The Noble Lord had not dealt fairly with
the petitioners, because lie had referred to matters not
contained in the petition. What the petitioners prayed
was that the House would take the petition into their con.
sideration, and use their utmost enaeavours, by all consti-
tutional means, to have a law passed granting to every
male of sound mind and of age. the right of voting
for Members, and they prayed for protection to the
Voters, Annual Parliaments, and the remuneration of
Members. The prayer of the petition, therefore, was for
a change in the representation of the people. The peti-
tioners certainly stated they were heavily taxed—but would
the Noble Lord deny that, and would he deny that this
discontent, so wile-spread, could long continue without
danger to the country ? What had the House to do with '
the cuirency or with the Poor-laws? They might be the
affects of bad legislation, but they were to judge of the
Chartists by what they saw in their petition. The Noble
Lord had asked whether any one supposed that the changes
which the Chartists desired would produce that ameliora-
tion they expected. He would tell the Noble Lord that
ae did for one; and when the Noble .Lord said these men
did not know what they asked for, he would tell him that no
Englishman who loved the Constitution of his country could
abject to the principles on which the Charter was founded,
and a Nobleman, whose son was then in the House, had
taken a distinguished lead in favour of three of those prin.
eiples. The House of Commons did not fully and freely
,present the opinions of the people of England. The
petitioners demanded their rights—they stated that time
Ind corruption had taken from the people their pri-
vileges, and that the House of Commons was now
elected by one-sixth of the people, which was
contrary to the original basis of representation. Black.
stone, Smith, and Lord Camden, had stated that taxation
and representation ought to go together, and that no man
could be a freeman who had taxes imposed on him, if lie
had no voice in the election of those who imposed them.
That was the principle on which the British Constitution
rested, as stated by some of the ablest writers. The
Chartists said they were slaves, inasmuch as they hod no
voice in the passing of laws which affected their rights and
liberties; and they attributed their privations and distress
to this—that the laws passed were for the benefit of the
teN at the expense of the many. He 'would now tell the
Noble Lord how Universal Suffrage would procure cheap
bread, which the Noble Lord had professed himself unable
to understand. Why, they would send into the House men
who would repeal the Corn-laws—(i-lear, hear)—they
would send into Parliament men who would repeal these
-axes that made food dear. At present the House of
Commons belonged to the Aristocracy, it represented only
the Aristocracy, and it was composed of men who by their
nation Were iemoved from the people, and did not know
their sufferings, and therefore they refused them their
rights. His eculd not agree with the Horn Member op•
posits, that the Noble Lord had treated the petition
'ightly.—( Hear, hear. ) He had certainly stated his opi
nions fairly, and that he differed with the petitioners both
as to their demands and as to the way they sought to ob-
tain them. He (Mr. Hume) did not approve of the term
Universal Suffrage. He thought representation ought to be
extended to every man of age, and of sound mind, who
paid taxes, and performed the services of the State—
men who were in the militia, and so on ; because if an
Englishman was bound to give allegiance to the Crown
mod the Government, the Crown and the Government
were bound to give him protection. Government was a
sort of mutual compact, and therefore he wished to see the
Suffrage extended to every man. It was thought by
some, that this demand on the part of the Chartists was
<omething new. He could show that men high in. the
ranks of the aristocracy had made similar demands long
,go. In the years 1779 and 1780, there was a Conven-
'ion, at which delegates attended from the City of Lon-
don, Westminster, Gloucester, Newcastle, from the
Counties of Surrey, York, Middlesex, Sussex—in short
from 35 counties. They called their Assembly, " a
aleeting of Delegates," and he thought the Chartists had
sdopted a foolish name in styling their Assembly 4. The
National Convention." " National Convention" carried
with it recollections which every good 'man in the country
would wish to forget. Many people thoughtlthere was
not much in a name ; but, in the course of his political
experience he bad found there was a great deal in a name;
and his opinion was, " National Convention" was a bad

title.—(l-fear.) In 1779 and 1780, various meetings took
place, which were attended by many great men—among
them Mr. Pitt, whose memory was so dear to gentlemen
opposite. Mr. Pitt was one of the earliest Reformers.
He found, on looking at the proceedings of the Assembly
•o which he bad alluded, that they had come to a resolu-
tion to petition for " an alteration in the duration of Par-
liament by shortening it to the period of one year; for by two
Acts that passed in the reign of Edward 111. it was ordered
that Parliament should be holden every year and more
often if need be."—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Hume) had
seen two Parliaments in one year--( Hear, hear)—and he
did not see why there should not be again two Parlia-
ments in one year—it was perfectly consistent.—( Laugh-
ter.) The resolution went on—" The object then being to
prevent the Crown acting without Parliament." 'Writs
were annually issued, and in some instances, two or three
times a year.—( Laughter. ) If Gentlemen would attend
to their business, the House would do more, and sit fewer
nights than they now did.—( Hear, hear.) A resolution
hed also been passed by that assembly in favour of the
Ballot. On the 31 of June 1780 the Duke of Richmond
introduced into the House of Lords a Bill for the purpose o!
restoring to the people the constitutional right of voting in
the elect;on of Members of Parliament. Tne feliowing
were the heads of that Bill introduced by a Nobleman,
after 26 years' experience :—Parliament to last one year;
the number of Members to continue the same ; every
male person, or subject of Great B-itain, to be entitled to
vote at the age of 21 ; every county to be divided into dis-
tricts, each district to be called a borough ; each borough
to send one Member. That was completely earrying out
five of the points of the Charter. Amon., the Friends of
the People, in 1782, were the Duke of Richmond. the Earl
of Surrey, Major Cartwright, the Lord Mayor of London,
Mr. Duncombe, &e., and they formed an Association, and
prelaimed the sane principles as were contained in the
Charter. On the 30th of May, 1795, similar resolutions
acre agreed to at a meeting, at which Mr. Smith. the
Member for Norwich, was in the Chair. The Hon. Mem-
bers for Middlesex and Hereford also attended that meet-
ing. He (Mr. Hume) extremely regretted that Sir F.
Burdett was not in his place, because be held in his hand
an extract from a speech delivered by that Hon. Baronet,
on the 15th of June, 1809, when Member for Westminster.
Sir Francis Burdett had presented a petition praying that
the franchise should be extended to all the citizens paying
taxes—that the country should be divided into districts,
each returning a Member—and that Parliaments should be
restored to the constitutional duration. " The remedy I
have proposed," he said, " is safe, constitutional, practicable,
and simple ; calculated to give satisfaction to the commu-
nity—to preserve the rights of the Crown, and restore the
balance of the Constitution. To this my aspirations have
ever been directed—higher I do not wish to ascend—lower
I never can be brought."—( Loud cheers, and laughter
from the Ministerial Benches.) It was not uninteresting
to observe the opposite definitions given of Universal Suf-
frage by Tory and Radical writers. In Blackwood it was
described as meaning " the destruction of property,
order, and civilization ; impracticable in an old and
highly peopled state; and necessarily ruinous to the
security of life and liberty." On the other hand,
the Chartists asserted that " to deprive any member of
the community of his right to vote, in making the laws, or
electing those who are to make them, was neither more
nor less than an outlawry of such individual—putting him
out of the pale of the Constitution—that it is, in fact, a
robbery, if the leas► particle of his property is touched for
the purposes of the community which thus excludes him—
that a man deprived of his vote is to all intents and pur-
poses a slave, for be is wholly dependent on others for life,
and liberty, and comfort, which he is obliged to commit to
the care and keeping of persons whom he despises, perhaps
detests." He (Mr. Hume) held by this opinion ; and in
its support he would quote two high authorities—the
Noble Lord (J. Russell) and Earl Grey. The Noble
Lord, in introducing the Reform Bill, said, In the
ancient Constitution of the country no man could be
taxed for the support of the State who had not con-
sented by himself or his representatives to such tax."
How could the Noble Lord, after making that declaration
to induce the Heine to pass the Reform Bill, now laugh
at the demand for Universal Suffrage ? Either the Noble
Lord must have a short memory, or he must have marvel-
lously altered his opinions.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Earl Grey said, specking of the Reform Bill, and he (Mr.
Hume) would apply it to the Chartist petition, " I be.
lieve the measure to be one of peace and conciliation. Li
1786 (the Noble Earl continued) I supported Mr.
Pitt in his measure for shortening Parliaments—
and making the House of Commons more fully, fairly, and
freely representing the people." [f he (Mr. Hume) ewe
asked, would Household Suffrage give cheap bread ? lie
vould reply that it would send into that House me❑ who
would better attend to the wants and interests of the corn•
munity ; aed he would say openly that he supported it
and had proposed it, as a step to a more extensive Reform.
The condition of the country rendered absolutely essential,
' in his opinion, some immediate progress towards further
Reform, and if Household:Suffrage had been conceded, he

believed it would have stopped much of the discontent that
prevailed.—( Hear, hear.) He begged pardon of the
House for having so long trespassed upon them, but he
felt that it was most important to the best interests of the
country, that when a petition came up, signed by 1,200,000
of the industrious classes, they should be treated with con-
sideration and respect. They deplored the want of edu-
cation, and complained that the House had neglected its
duty in spreading that enlightenment of the popular mind
which would be the best basis of a strong and good Go-
vernment. They wished not to affect the interests of the
Aristocracy or the stability of the Throne, but they wished
to keep the Aristocracy in their proper sphere, and to give
the CoMmons of England their duo weight and influence.
He entreated the House to dev.se means of giving satis-
faction to the now discontented masses. And he did im-
.plore the Noble Lord well to consider if the Constitution
would not be more endangered by resisting these demands
than by basing the Government on the suffrages of four or
five millions of electors. If the Noble Lord rejected
these demands, he (Mr. Flume) belieeed that the best in-
stitutions of the country would be perilled—but if every
man in the country had a vote, he believed men would be
sent to this !louse anxious to correct abuses, and especially
to eontroul unnecessary expenses, and to give to industry
its due reward. On these considerations, therefore, he
should give his support to the motion.
Mr. SLANEY said he could not agree to going into
Committee on a petition which asked so large an altera-
tion ie the Constitution, and one which appeared to him
not at all calculated to lead to the end which the petitioners
professed to have in view. He would have been willing
to give to their prayer every consideration, if he believed
that it was in any degree likely to forward their own ob-
ject. They complained that they were suffering under
deep distress. Nobody could doubt, who had read their
petition, that they greatly exaggerated in their statements,
and that these statements were not derived from the peti-
tioners themselves, but were suggested t ) them by evil
councillors.—(Hear, hear.) Still, he lamented that
he was obliged to confess the existence of great distress
among the lower orders, and to relieve this distress he hoped
and trusted that something might be done. He wished
to turn from the political part ef the subject, and to avoid
entering into the interminable discussions connected with
the Cern-laws, and the Currency, and the Poor-laws.
The petitioners required a remedy, of which he doubted
the propriety ; nay, be believed that the very fact of going
into Committee en such a proposition would tend to un-
settle the public miad, and shake the confidence of capi-
talists in the stability of things. The population had in-
creased six times more in the large towns than in the
country; but no corresponding alteration hal taken place
in the provision for the comforts and improvement of
the people. In Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham,
and other large towns, one :in seven or one io ten
of the population lived in great distress—in cellars.
There bad been no provision made for public
walks.—( Roars of laughter.) Gentlemen might laugh,
but this was a very important point. So agein with
respect to education, something must be done for the
lower orders. And he trusted that next Session some
steps would be taken towards securing to the people these
practical benefits.

Mr. O'CONNELL wished to say a few words, as he
felt it his duty to take a decided part against the Chartists
out of the house, and felt it equally his duty to express his
opinions in the House favourable to their principles, though
not to their mode of operations.--( Hear, hear.) He was
not for-Annual Parliaments, for he believed the result would
be, as in America, that little intereA would be taken in the
elections occurring so often. He candidly confessed that
he was a thorough Radical Reformer—he was for extend-
ing the Suffrage to the greatest possible extent ; but as to
Universal Suffrage, the Chartists did not mean that, for they
excluded women. It was impossible, indeed, in the existing
state ofsociety that there should be universality of Suffrage.
He utterly denied the right of the wealthier classes to
call themselves the master classes, and he could not see
why, within the limits to which he had adverted, any
Englishman should be deprived of his vote. The prin-
ciples extracted by his Friend from text writers, were
femiliar to the mind of every lawyer, so much to, indeed,
that the Han. Member for Ripon, in speaking of Canada,
talked of them in the freest possible manner. The prin-
ciples there laid down, were to give to every man the
same right, and he was robbed of his property
if he was deprived of the right to vote. Now.
what was the effect of the franchise in England?
Why, 19 per cent. was the utmost of the population
in England that had a right to vote, and in Ireland it was
only four per cent. Was it therefore to be wondered at
that with such a source of grievance as the people of Eng-
land hid, they were not in a state of contentment and
quietude. The people of Ireland had still greater eause.of
complaint, for there 96 out of every 100 were deprived of
the right of voting. He would not now enter into the topic
of the Ballot, though he must confess himself to be in its
favour, nor would he enter into the new qualification ques-
tion, though there existed that absurd anomaly that the
Members for England and Ireland were obliged to
qualify, while the Members for Scotland did not. He
would suppert the payment of Members for their services
if that was required —( Hear, hear.) He was thoroughly
convinced the present system of exclusive voting which had
been established by the aristocracy in that House, and
by which they were returned, would have yielded to the
force of public opinion, had it not been for the course pur-
sued
by the Chartists—( Hear, hear)—who had advocated
the ridiculous notion of going to the Savings Banks, and
promulgated the evil doctrine of resorting to arms.—
( Hear, hear.) If they had bad any desire to effect good
for the people, they would have advised them to save all
the money they could. The truth was, the Chartists
were the protectors of the aristocracy and their exclusive-
ness, while they attacked the middle classes who were the
sinews of society. The Chartists suggested violent mea-
sures, and they spoke treason continually.—( Hear, hear.)
Nothing now was so common r‘s treasonable recommenda-
tions —( Hear, hear.) They used the most traitorous lan-
guage, by which they terrified the best members of society
and weakened the public safety. He was sorry to have
heard the Noble Lord speak as he did with respect to some
of the observations that had been made by the Hon. Mem-
ber
for Birmingham relative to the fluctuations that would
take place if his plan of the currency were to be adopted. He
said that it would increase the democratic power, and he in-
stanced in favour of that argument that whiCh had taken place
in America. The example of America was no discourage
ment to those who encouraged the democratic principle.
Had they not paid off the National Debt ?—( Hear, hear.)
Were they not free from taxation, and their flag floated as
safely on the seas as the flag of Britain? Lo-ik to demo.
cratic Athens—look at the first 400 years of the Roman Re.
public—was it not democratic ? and it only ceased its au-
thority when it became aristocratic.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Look at Venice—she arose out of the sea by the force of
democracy, and it took 700 years of the strides of the
aristocracy to put down that power. Look at Switzer-
land, at Holland, and at Norway, charged as it had
been by the Holy Alliance with a heavy debt, by tile de-
mocratic power they had paid it off. Look also at Bel-
gium—there they had General Suffrage, the Vote by
Ballot, and frequent Parliaments, and in spite of all the
inconveniences of a new Government, which Europe had
hung upon them, and their being compelled to keep up a
large army, there was no country that was advancing to
greater prosperity.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Although all
these things had arisen from the democratic principle,
it could not be of use if it was not kept within
the pale of the law.—( Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he
would readily vote for going into Committee, and if there
was any chance of obtaining it, which he knew there was
not, he should vote for a considerable Extension of the
Suffrage, the Ballot, Shortening the Duration of Parlia-
ment, doing away with the property qualification, and
allowing constituencies to pay the expenses of their
Member:3.—( Hear, hear.)

Mr. WALLACE, agreeing in much of what had been
slid by others who had preceded him, would state briefly
the course he intended to take. He would vote for going
into Commit, ee in order to see what could be done there
ii this important meter. Although he did not agree to
all the demands of the Chartists, he retained firmly his
&ten declared opinions. He agreed to four out of the six
demands of the Chartists. He disagreed from Universal
Suffrage, but agreed to Household Suffrage. He disa-
greed from Annual Parliaments, but he was decidedly fa-
vourable to Triennial. He agreed to Vote by Ballot,
and paid Representatives..—( Hea-, hear.) He agreed also
to no qualifications for Members, and he sat in that House
without being required to produce one. He agreed to
equal representation as being sound in principle, and
was prepared to admit that where 1,200,000 of thinking
men had signed E petition to obtain these thino:s, it would
be gross presumption in him to say that this House should
net go into Committee on the question. Though he did not
think it at all likely, yet if these men, and those who advo-
cated their cause, should show him, inCommittee, good re,t-
-so:1 for ge lag against his opinions with respect to Universal
Suffrage and Annual Parliaments, he would change those
opinions ; at the same time, it was right to say, he saw
very little chance of this.—(Hear, hear.) He, however,
t4incereiv believed that with Triennial Parliaments and
Household Suffrage all the benefits desired could b 3 ob-
tained.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. WHITE would vote for the Committee. He
thought the people ought not to be satisfied till they were
fully and fairly represented in that House.—( Hear.)
Gen, JOHNSTONE would support the prayer of the
petition, because he had not heard a single argument
against the claims it put fcrth. They must either re-
lieve
the petitioners from taxation, or they must
give them the right of choosing their Representatives.
That was the true state of the case, and how far it was
expedient, it was for the gentlemen on the other side of the
House to determine. What was the cause of all the evils
that had been complained of? Why, the National Debt
and nothing else, and until the people obtained a House
of Commons, so constituted as to be able t•, grapple with
it, they would not be relieved.—( Hear, hear, and cries of
" Oh, eh.") Without they could relieve the people from
taxation, they could give them no substantial redress, and
the only way to do that was to give Universal Suffrage ;
by that he meant that every male person, twenty-one
years of age, should have a vote in the representation of the
country, that vote being taken by Ballot. He thought
the House could not do justice to the petitioners, unless
they granted the Committee.
Mr. VILLIERS said that it was his intention to vote
for the Committee, and the Hon. Member who had just sat
down would not deter him from doing so, although he had
alluded to the only circumstances that were likely to pre-
vent Hon. Members from doing so. lie could not allow
the lion. and Gallant Member to bring discredit on this
question by the arguments he had advanced.
the understood the Hon. Member to say that the National
Debt should be grappled with, and that he implied to mean
an attempt to shake the public credit.
Gen. JOHNSTONE—If the prayer of the petition was
not granted, the people ought to send Members who would
grapple with it.---.( Hear, hear.)
Mr. VILLIERS said his alarm was founded upon
the meaning which the Hon. Member attached to
the word grappling. If he thought by voting for
the motion he was in any way identifying himself
with the erroneous views of the petitioners or
their recommendations to a disobedience of the laws, no
persons would be further from advocating the measure.
He could not see, however, that voting for the measure
committed any one to the adoption of these sentiments.
He saw nothing in the prayer of the petition inconsis-