The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1840.

ments should not be made that were not capable of being
proved. It had been stated that since 1603 a parti-
cular class of wages had fallen from 375. to 4q.
That could certainly not be attributed to any
one cause. The increase of machinery, the use
of power-looms to a large extent, and 10,000 other
improvements had been brought into operation since
that time, which had a great tendency to lessen the
amount of manual labour, while production was increased.
Mr. PRENTICE suggested that the amount the weaver
earned, and not the price paid per yard, should be looked
at. He had had some experience in these matters, and he
must say that he did not think the weaver ever earned ten
times as much as he did at present.
Mr. JOLLY had spoken of fine plain muslin!, and in
1803 the weaving of these articles was ten times more than
it was at present.
A DELEGATE—Did the wearers get ten times as much
wages?
Mr. JOLLY—Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Derby, thought there could be no
doubt that the Corn-laws limited the supply of employ-
ment and increased the price of food.—( Hear, hear.)
The Corn-laws pressed on particular classes, and it was
to remove that pressure they had been sent there.—
(Hear, hear.) It would be a pity, as well as folly, to
draw an exaggerated picture of the evil effects of the
Corn-laws, because the truth was sufficiently distressing
to excite the sympathy of every friend of humanity.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The state of the trade of
Derby had improved, and employment had increased since
the last meeting of the Delegates, but that improvement was
by no means likely to be lasting. The parties who had
suffered most in Derby were the workers of gloves and
hese. There had been a great revival of that branch of
trade, owing to the four or five weeks of fire weather ;
but he understood it was likely very shortly to relapse into
its former state of dulness. But the state of Derby was
not to be taken as a fair criterion of any other town. There
had been a great demand for labour in consequence of the
railways near Derby, and there was a variety of other em-
ployment, so that nearly every member of a family
was employed.—( Loud cries of " Hear.") The feeling
of the people of Derby, however, on the subject of the
Corn-laws, was one of despondency, but he thought that
despondency was in some degree unnecessary, because
they would not take history as their guide. They ought
to bear in mind the number of years the Reform Bill, the
Catholic Relief Bill, and the Repeal of the Test and Cor-
poration Acts, were agitated, before carried into effect—
( Hear.) A great deal of expectation had been raised that
something would be done by the reformed House of Com-
mons, and the people had been bitterly disappointed at the
slowness of the reformed House of Commons to do justice ;
but he thought the people of England were as able
now to carry on agitation for the repeal of the Corn-laws
as ever they were, and be had not the least doubt in kis
own mind that their efforts would be ultimately crowned
with success.—( Cheers. )
Mr. B.ICON, of Maidstone, mentioned that a great deal
of distress existed among the agriculturists in his part of
the country. Among the small farmers the distress was
very great, because they had great difficulty in raising
money to meet the demands upon them from
week to week. They were obliged to sell
their corn before Christmas, in order to pay
their rents, and the great evil of the Corn-laws
with regard to them was, that they were obliged to buy
corn to support themselves; but the large farmer could
keep his corn until there was a wet harvest, when it would
fetch a higher price. He wished to mention ono face with
regard to the Anti-Corn-law Circular. having nothing
else to do, he had made it his business to visit the coffee-
hi.uses and eating-houses of London, and he found they
would be most willing to receive the Circular at the price
of one penny, which lie thought might be done, because
by having an agent in London they could distribute the
paper without the penny stamp; the parties he had men-
tioned not wishing to sen.l it into the country, but merely
requiring. it for the perusal of their customers. lie sug-
gested that that should be taken into consideration by the
Executive Cominittee ; and also that there should be in
each number of the Circular an address to every trade,
showing 'now the Corn-laws operated on every branch of
industry.

Mr. RicuAßDsos thought if the Circular was made a
good newspaper, and sold at a low price, it would be
found to be a most efficient instrument for forwarding the
views of Corn-law repualers.
Mr. COATES suggested that the Circular should be sent
to every public-house, where it would be read by an
astonishing- number of persons.
Mr. LEns, of Saddleworth, begged to state that trade
was worse in that portion of the West Riding of Yorkshire
from which he came. The condition of the people was
deplorable, end they weie almost perishing from famine.
He was assailed on all hands by petitions for la ork from
people whom he knew to be respectable and honest, and it
was really heart-rending to witness the distress that ex-
Isted.--( Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN stated that in the cotton trade in Lan-
cashire the rate of wages bad declined 15 per cent. this year.
Mr. COATES observed# ought to b.O borne in naiad that
this deciension of wages was contemporaneous with the
spring trade.
Mr. PIIENTICE mentioned that trade was so bad in Stock-
port that the manufacturers declared they could not give
out work at all unless at such a reduction as would make
n difference of 2001. a-week in that place slime.
Mr. Mortals observed that similar distress existed in
Bradford.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Executive Committee
would sit every day from eleven till two o'clock, to whom
the Delegctes were rcque,ted to make any suggestions that
might occur to them. Toe general public meeting would
take place every day at two o'clock, till which boar to-
morrow the Delegates then adjourned.

that the Church had a Calvinistic Creed, and an Arminian
clergy ; others thought there was enough of Arminianism
to satisfy them, and sufficient liberty for a Calvinistic
clergy. In fact, the Church was so constituted as to
admit persons of different minds and persuasions ; those
only who agreed, however, in the grand, the distinguishing
principles of Christianity. What, then, was the next
policy under these circumstances ? In his opinion, boldly
to meet the difficulty. The Church was founded on
liberty of conscience, and the right of private judgment.
It allowed a certain latitude of opinion ; therefore let there
be an expansion of the sense of subscription ; in that he
was quite certain that there would be a great relief to
really sincere and tender consciences. He had never
met a single clergyman who contended that the formu-
laries of the Church were to be adhered to: strictly in
every iota. And it should be recollected that what
these petitioners required had been recommended from the
throne in 1689, and only got rid of by an intrigue
of which, as a Churchman, he was ashamed to speak,
and by a groundless cry of Volumus leges Anglia mutare?
A groundless cry it was, unless the smallest detail of
Church government was to be considered as unchangeable
as the laws of the Medes of old. Of this he felt con-
vinced, and he spoke from the sincerest zeal for the wel-
fare of the Church, that if these alterations, so conscien-
tiously asked for, were not now acceded to, they would
hereafter be carried amidst changes far more violent and
to be dreaded.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of LONDON said, after the temperate
and sensible speech of the Most Rev. Prelate who began
the discussion, and the Most Rev. Primate, he should not
have spoken, had he not felt that the speech of his Right
Rev. Brother of Norwich, was in a great degree a libel
on the clergy.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Right Rev. Prelate, unaccustomed to debate, and there-
fore, perhaps, not knowi▪
ng the import of the terms be
used—( A laugh)—had talked of the Church being
founded on liberty of conscience. Most certainly
it was the glory of the Church that conscience was not in-
terfered with by its formularies, except so far as was re-
quired by the integrity of the Christian religion. But
the Church was founded on TiteTit—(Cheers)—on great
truths extracted from the Bible, and condensed into those
compendiums of belief which were necessary to secure in
its clergy a uniformity of right doctrine.--( Hear, hear.)
Let it be recollected that subscription to the Articles was
only required from the clergy, who were now, more than
ever, averse to tamperi▪
ng. with them.—( Hear, hear.)
Most ungrateful would this country be to Divine Provi-
dence if it abandoned these securities for the true faith
which had so long continued unaffected by the vicissitudes
of time.--( Hear, hear.) This cry for change was cer-
tainly not new—it had been ably and unanswerably ex-
posed by that wise man, Mr. Burke, when clumsily ex-
pressed in the House of Commons in 1772. As to the
expansion of the subscription, nothing could be more fatally
pernicious. If the Articles swore wrong, for God's sake alter
them, but don't allow an expansion of the sense of the sub-
scription, which virtually meant that every man might
subscribe in any sense lie chose, and which would admit
any extent of heresy, for the sake of a few morbid con-
sciences.—( Ilear, hear.) He thought there ought to be
a Legislative body within the Church—he had long
thought so; the only difficulty which he had not been able
to solve was, how it was to be formed.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented several petitions
against the Intrusion of Ministers in the Church of
Scotland. Also against any grant of public money for
Church Extension, and ono from a Society for promoting
Religious Liberty, in Glasgow, praying for the entire
severance of Church and State.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 26.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Four
o'Clock, when Sir A. Grant, the new Member for Cam-
bridge, Mr. B. Botfield, for Ludlow, and Colonel Rawdon,
for Armagh, took the oaths and their seats.
On the motion of Mr. G. PALMER, the British Iron
Company's Bill was read a third time, and passed.
Soveral petitions were presented against certain clauses
in the Hull Dock Bill.—Referred to the Committee.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition from
Stroud praying for Church Extension.
Mr. ARCHBOLD presented a petition from the
county of Kilkenny, and two from parishes in the same
county against any alteration in the Corn-laws, and against
the importation of foreign flour.
Sir W. HE ATH COTE presented several petitions
from Hants against any alteration in the Corn-laws, for
Church Extension, and against any further grant to the
College of Mayhooth.
Captain WEMYSS presented three petitions praying
for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. MURRAY presented three petitions against
Church Extension.
Major HANDL E Y presented a petition signed by up-
wards of 1,500 handloom-weavers of the City of Norwich,
praying for protection for native industry; also a petition
from Cork against the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. GREG presented a petition from Lancashire
against the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. BOUSFIELD presented seven petitions from
Yorkshire, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
CORN-LAWS.—CITY PETITION.
The Sheriffs of London and Middlesex appeared at the
bar in their official costume, amid much laughter and
chewing, and presented a petition front the Mayor, Alder-
men, and Common Council of London, praying for the
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. LIST ER presented a petition from the West
Riding of Yorkshire praying for a total repeal of the Corn-
laws.

Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions from parishes in
Kent in favour of Church Exten.ion ; end petitions from
places inNorthartipton, Denbiglishire,and Yorkshire against
any further grant to the College of Maynooth, and for
the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented 31 petitions from
East Retford, Reading, and other places praying for a total
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. E. BULLER presented petitions from Stafford-
shire to the same effect : also a petition from Burton-upon-
Trent, praying for the abolition of Church-rates, and a
petition against the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill.
Mr. D. ROCHE presented a petition from the Grand
Jury of the city of Limerick in favour of the present Corn-
laws. The Hon. Member did not, however, agree in the
prayer of the petition, as he was in favour of a fixed duty.
Captain AL SAGER presented several petitions flout
places in Southwark, and in the vicinity of London,
against Sunday trading,.
Lord G. STUART presented a petition from Ayr-
shire praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Captain AL SAGER presented a petition from Little-
hampton, in Essex, against the window-tax. The peti-
tioners prayed that houses should be exempted from the
tax which continued for six mouths untenanted.
Mr. PARKER presented a petition from Yorkshire,
against the present Corn-laws.
Mr. BRAMSTON presented petitions from Essex,
against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. FITZROY KELLY presented a petition from
Mr. R. Bateman, praying for an alteration in the laws of
debtor and creditor.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from St. Paul's,
Westminster, signed by 704 persons, praying for a total
repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition to the same effect
from Hampstead, signed by 410 persons ; and two similar
petitions from places, the names of which wo could
not catch ; also two petitions from places i❑ Scot-
land, praying for an extension of the suffrage ;
also, a petition from several of the inhabitants of
London, praying that the British Museum and the Na-

tional Gallery might be open to the public in proper
hours on Sundays. He would move that the petition be
printed, as he intended to bring forward a motion on the
subject on Tuesday next.
Mr. BAINES presented several petitions praying fora
total repeal of the Corn-laws ; also four petitions against
any grant of money for the purposes of Church Exten-
sion • also, petitions against Church-rates from places in
Hertfordshire, and a petition against the Chinese war from
some place in the county of York.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD presented a petition in favour of
Medical Reform.
Mr. F. DUNBAR presented petitions against the
Corn-laws.

Mr. E A STH OPE presented a petition from Leicester of
e,775 persons, complaining of the way in which their former
petitions had been treated on the subject of the Corn-laws,
and of the great regret and disappointment with which
they had observed the manner in which Mr. Villiers' mo-
tion had been treated when it was last brought forward,
and which had reluctantly compelled them to believe that
the great measure of Parliamentary Reform was a failure,
and had disappointed the expectations of the people, and
that their grievances would not be remedied until they ob-
tained a greatly extended system of representation ; they
therefore prayed for Household Suffrage, Vote by Ballot,
and Triennial Parliaments.
Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE presented a petition from
one of the suburbs of Nottingham, signed by 965 persons,
against the present Corn-laws.
Mr. GALL Y KNIGHT presented a petition, signed
by twenty ministers of the Established Church, in favour of
the Church Revenues Bill, which they considered would
conduce greatly to the safety of the Establishment.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY presented a petition from the
congregation of Wesleyan Methodists at Staley Bridge,
praying that Dissenting chapels might be exempted from
Church-rates.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the physi-
cians and surgeons of Gloucester, against the Vaccination
Extension Bill, which had passed the House of Lords ;
and in favour of the Small-pox Prevention Bill, which had
been introduced into that House ; also a petition from per-
son employing fifty labourers, stating that they were in
great distress from the existing Corn-laws, and praying for
their total and irrevocable repeal ; also a petition from
certain inhabitants of London, complaining of the treat-
ment of Henry Vincent in the Penitentiary, and praying
the House to afford some remedy.
Mr. LITTON presented. a petition against Church
Intrusion.
Mr. G. ROCHE presented petitions for the repeal
of the Corn-laws.
Mr. E WART presented similar petitions, and also for
the abolition of the Post-horse Duty.
Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the West
Riding of Yorkshire, complaining of the incarceration of
Feargua O'Connor in the felon's cells of the gaol of York.
Mr. WAKLEY said, seeing the Attorney-General
in his place, he wished to know from him whether
Mr. O'Connor had been placed in that species of confine-
ment by orders of the Government'—( Order.) Sorely
this was a ease of in.essing grievance.—( Hear.)
The SPE AhE EZ said the Hon. Member could ask the
question when the petitions were over.
Mr. WAKLEY a:dwd if he would be allowed then, in
doing so, to make a few observations, as lie was now en-
titled to do, ck. tile petition, which clearly came within the
rule allowing sFeaking petitions, as it concerned press-
ing erievanees.--.( Hear, hear. )
The SPEAKER Said the Hon. Member could not
make those observations now, as the question that the pe-
tition do lie on the table had been put, without remark,
before the Hon. Member rose ; nor could he do more than
simply put the question, after petitions.
Lord R. GROSVENOR
presented a petition from
Chester, for the abolition of Church-rates.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from the merchants of Edinburgh, stating that by reason of
the tax on the importation of foreign sugar, which made a
difference in favour of the British Plantation Sugar, of be-
tween 21s. and 425. per cwt., a sum of four millions was
imposed on the people of this country, and praying for the
abolition of the tax.

NOTICES.
Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion for an address to her
Majesty, to secure the opening of the National Gallery and
the British Museum on Sundays, between one and four.
FREEMEN.
Mr. F. KELLY gave notice for the 4th June, of a
motion to give to all freemen having the Parliamentary,
the Misnicipal franchise.
_ _

COFFEE AND SUGAR.
Mr. E WART gave notice that on June 6 he should
move for a reduction of the duties on sugar and coffee.
Mr. PEASE asked the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Colonies whether he had yet receivced any official in-
formation respecting a question he had put to him on a
previous occasion, relating (as we understood) to the re-
moval by Sir Charles Metcalf of a Stipendiary Magistrate,
and if so and such were the case, whether it had received
the approbation of the Government.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had written to Sir C. Met-
calf on the subject soon after the Hon. Member had asked
him the question, but had not yet received any answer.
Mr. E.' ASE begged also to ask how far it was the
Noble Lord's intention to propose the licensing of the re-
moval of the natives of Ilindostan to the .Mauritius ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member would
shortly have an opportunity of seeing in the clauses of the
proposed Bill.

MR. F. O'CONNOR.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved for an unopposed return of
a copy of the rules and regulations of the jail at York.
Mr. Sergeant TA L FOURD said he had that day re-
ceived a communication from Mr. O'Connor of great inte-
rest and importance relative to his confinement in York
Castle, on which he had been in communication with the
Under-Secretary of State, and as he proposed taking future
steps on the subject, he would suggest to his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Wakley) not to ask the questions of the Attorney-
General he had intimated his intention of putting.
Mr, WA KLE Yassented.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL brought in two Bills to
amend the Registration of Voters in England.
Sir CHARLES ADAM wished to correct an error in-
to which he had fallen in answering a question relating to
the North West Passage. He had stated that the Admi-
ralty had received no despatch on that subject—he now
found that during his absence in the Easter holidays
such a despatch had been received by the
Noble Lord at the head of the Board of
Admiralty, and it was now amongst the records
of the Admiralty. He saw also that in the public
Newspapers it was stated that a dispatch had been received
from the officers engaged in the expedition—that was an
error, he had not said that, but that a dispatch had been
received respecting them. He was anxious to make this
explanation, so that it should not be supposed that the
Hudson's Bay Company had neglected their duty upon so
important a subject.
Mr. GOUL BURN said, in the absence of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Stamford, he bad to state on his
behalf, that he, considering that during the pendency of an
election it might in many respects be inexpedient to enter
into a discussion upon the circumstances attending upon
the appointment of Mr. Horsman, he would postpone
any further questions upon it, reserving to himself the
right to ask for any explanation he might think necessary
under the circumstances, at a time, probably, when Mr.
Horsinea might be in a position to give that explana-
tion himself.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would certainly be very glad
if there was any undersevading or rule laid down with re-
gard to the acceptance of office. He had already observed
that Mr. Stewart had some weeks back declared his reach-
flees to resign office at any time it might be convenient. Of
course he was not able to state precisely what occurred
during his absence from town.
ROUGH RICE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
anxious to take that opportunity of correcting a mistake
that appeared to prevail with regard to some observations
that had fallen from him a few nights previously on the
subject of rough rice. He had obscived that his statement
was not very correctly reported in some quarters, and
lie was therefore anxious, as the question was one
of some importance, to set the matter right. He had not
said that the American Minister had not made any re-
presentation to the Government of England. That was
not so; and he thought he had sufficiently explained that
the American Minister had made a representation—in
tact that he had presented a note to his Noble Friend on
the subject, and one of the objections he had
made to the motifs* of the Right Honourable
Gentleman opposite was, that it ought not to
he entertained while negotiations were pending. He had
not stated that no representations were made, but that the
American Niiniater was not instructed by his Government
to press the question.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MO R PETH presented about fifty petitions, for
the repeal of the Corn-laws, from the operatives employed
in manufacturing establishments at Huddersfield and other
places in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
Sir G. STRICK LAND presented forty petitions from
various places in Yorkshire, all praying for the total and
immediate repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. FIELDEN presented similar
petitions.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from a place in
Somersetsbire, praying the House to continue the protec-
tion to agriculture.
Admiral ADAM presented a petition, signed by 500 in-
habitants of Kinross, praying for the repeal of the Corn-
laws. Many of the petitioners had stated to him since
they had signed the petition, that if the Corn-laws were
tv.t abolished altogether, they hoped the House would
modify them to a great degree.
Mr. VILLIERS presented forty-two petitions from
places in Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, and
Cheshire, and from various Dissenting congregations.
CORN-LAWS.
Mr. VILLIERS having been called upon by the
Speaker, rose and addressed the House as follows :—Mr.
Speaker, I believe the House is perfectly aware that it is
in consequence of the very singular course the House
thought proper to adopt with respect to the last motion
that I thought it right to submit to the House on the subject
of the Corn.lar,vs, that I have thought it my duty again
to press the same question on the consideration of
the House. I trust the House will feel that if the course
adopted on that occasion was unsatisfactory to the public,
offensive to the persons interested in this discussion, and
almost cruel to those who refer the cause of their sufferings
to the present state of that law, neither can it be recom-
mended on the score of its advantage and convenience to
this House.—(Hear.) I know that it may be said that
the cause of the course pursued was occasioned
more immediately by the motion of my Hon. Friend the
Member for Bridport.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.) But I ask, when was it that he made his motion
for the adjournment of the House? When the House had
refused to adjourn the debate on the question at all, and
that refusal occurred after six hours out of seven had been
occupied by Members who spoke against the motion, after
forty Members favourable to the motion had left the House,
and after persons on this side who represented most im-
portant interests, had been alluded to by the last speaker,
and who felt themselves called upon to address the House
in consequence. Under these circumstances nay Hon.
Friend thought that the more expedient and advantageous
course would be, seeing it was the object of the other side
to get a decision upon any terms on that night in their
favour, to adjourn the House to give an opportunity
of ascertaining what was the real opinion of the House on
the subject. I own Ido not regret that the House should
have been put to inconvenience on this subject, when it was
disposed to shrink from the discussion of a question so
deeply interesting to the people at large. Ido not sup-
pose that is for the advantage of those who are desirous of
maintaining the present law, to attract public attention
to this subject more than need be.---( Hear, hear. )
As to the scornful manner in which the Hon. Member for
Bristol referred to the manner in which he had introduced
the subject into the House—when he complained of that
impatience which Gentlemen like himself felt at being
detained front their avocations in the country, to hear te-
dious treatises on the Corn-laws—l say, taking that Hon.
Member to represent the taste and temper of the House, I
cannot suppose it can be much more agreeable at this sea-
son of the year, when there is still more to divert the mind
away from the House, to hear another essay on that which
can only affect the poverty and privations of the humbler
classes of society. But I hear complaints that I have
again ill selected the moment to discuss
this question. I do not know when the time
would be that it would be extremely agreeable to the
majority of this House to discuss it.—( Hear.) The alle-
gation of the Hon. Member for Bristol or Somerset was
that he wished to attend some Bench of Justice who were

accustomed to receive the benefit of his learning.—
( Hear.) I am told at this time gentlemen in the
country forsake the Bench and take the field on
' another service, and that the tenants are now passing in
review before their Lords, and it is complained that Mem-
bers arc compelled to come from the country to town to
hear such a tedious treatise as this of the Corn-laws. Cer-
tainly lam not disposed to under-rate those duties, which
are far more innocent than many other occupations, but I
am persuaded they would be more likely to attract the con-
fidence and respect of the people to this House,
by giving a portion of their attention to the laws
which oppress them, than by displaying their
inefficiency on the bench, and their incompetency in the
field. —( Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") How-
ever, Sir, whether it was trick or policy that terminated
prematurely the debate on the last occasion, I certainly
have no reason to complain. I listened anxiously to the
things said and done upon that occasion, and I have found
the cause rather aided by that discussion ; and I, anxiously
watching the diseussion of this question, feeling assured
that it has almost done all for it which it has always done
, for questions based on truth and justice, and for those
based on error.—( Hear, hear.) The discussion of this
question has done all it eau for the discovery of truth on
this subject, and taken away all pretence from those who
have uniformly opposed it, and has brought it back to the
plai❑ and simple question which the people ask,—What
right and reason have one class of proprietors of the
country to impose heavy burdens on the rest of the I
community, for the purpose of saving their own fortunes ?
That is the question the people ask, and it has not
been answered. In that the y must be satisfied, or they
must contin ..e to think this I.e.v rests on nothing but the.
rough rule of might, or of reckless violence, and that it is
a law passed for the benefit of the few and the injury of
Hear, hear.) That wa3 the opinion entertained of
those laws by the great body of the people, as far as the
public sentiment could be calculated by the ordinary means.
Ile wished to call the attention of that House to the pro-
gress which the question had made of late years,
It had beer, denied that the people at all cared k r
this subject, and what bad been the result ? In 1837 the
question was mooted in that House, and either through a
despair of justice or the dread of a conflict, great apathy
was shown, and when he (Mr. V.) rose to propose his
motion, some country Member was enabled to count the
House out. This is now the fourth Session since that
period. I heve now a much larger audience. This is the