The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

VII it SUN.: LONDON. WEDNESDA Y, MA Y 26,4;841.

care to..provide some legislative remedy. for.th.ose el ilk;
whether the law remained as it was, or whether a fixed
duty was to be substituted for it ; for he understood that
the fixed duty was to depend in some degree on the
averages,—that there was to be a sort of a sliding scale;
and he hoped the Noble Lord would take care nu; to
leave a door open to the same frauds in his systeni as
he had complained of in the present one. He had been
in office under the former system, and he could assure
the Noble Lord • that there had been no want of frauds
under that. EnormouS fortunes had been made under
that system, and great frauds had been committed, and
he was afraid that frauds would be practised . under
every system ; but he had never heard of any frauds
under the existing system except those mentioned by
the Noble Marquis. One argument against the present
system was, the great fluctuation in price which it occa-
sioned ; but he could prove that the fluctuations in price
which it occasioned were not so great as in many parts of
the world. The fluctuations bad been greater in Hol-
land than in this country, and in that country there was
no duty. He held in his hand a return of the differential
price of corn from. 1829 to 1838 in different places in
Europe. In England the differential price had been 31s. ;
at Odessa and Memel 555. ; at Dantzic 545. ; at Amster-
dam
485., and at Rotterdam 265. Now the difference
of price between Amsterdam and Rotterdam could• be
accounted for by the fact that Amsterdam was situated .
in a thickly-populated district, where there was a great
demand, and Rotterdam is a district not so densely po-
pulated. Now in this country there was a greater de-
mand for grain than in any other part of the world ; the
people would have the best grain for food, and consider-
ing the consumption of the. country, he was prepared to
contend that the fluctuation was not so great as it was
in other countries, and that ground for alteration failed
entirely. He thought the subject ought to be brought
on forgeneral discussion either in a Committee of the whole
House or on the second reading of a nil!, and he trusted
the Noble Marquis would prevail upon his Noble Friends
to abstain from those exciting topics, in which they were
apt to indulge on the presentation of petitions. Allu-
sion had been made to what had fallen from his Noble
Friend, relative to the increase in the imports on cotton.
It had been said but small profits were made upon the
manufacture of this immense quantity of produce, but
that appeared to him to have no connection with the
question of the Corn-laws. The fact was, the improve-
ments in the machinery and the introduction of steam
had enabled the manufacturers to manufacture with very
little cost. They did not make the profit now they did
fifty years ago; but they still made profits, although
those were diminished by competition—not by competi-
tion with the foreigner, but. by competition at home.
Other manufacturers; who were aware that profits were
to be made, although not so large as formerly, entered
the field, built new manufactories, established machinery,
and thus introduced fresh competition. He believed
that the lower class of manufacturers were suffering
distress, and that their condition was well worthy the
attention of Parliament. The Noble Lord had alluded
to Birmingham ; now from the official returns, which
' showed an increase in the exports of hardware, he
should consider that Birmingham, Sheffield, and other
places interested in that trade were in a state of prospe-
rity, and looking to the declared as well as the official
value of exports generally, he was of opinion that the
manufacturers . were not in such a state of depression as
had been attempted to be represented.
Lord ASHBURTON and the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE mutually explained.
Earl FITZWILLIAM considered that the most valu-
able part of the very valuable speech of the Noblp Duke
was that in which he recommended that the House should
seriously consider the subject of the Corn-laws, either in
Committee or otherwise. Now he (Earl Fitzwilliam) had
three times endeavoured to induce their Lordships to
adopt such a course, but without effect. With respect to
the lean oxen in France, it should be recollected that not
only did the protection to the -lean ox prevent the intro-
duction of the fat ox into France, but it also prevented
the introduction of French manufactures into Germany
and that was his great objection to the Corn-laws, and to
all prohibitory laws, that they interrupted the coiumerce
between different countries. With regard to the table quoted
by the Noble Duke it was a table of medium prices, not of
averages, for it was made out by the Consuls without any
regard whatever to quantity. He- thought the fixed duty
proposed by the Government would give to the English
agriculturist that to which he was fairly entitled, a pre-
ference over the foreigner in the English market, and
would more than compensate him for all those burdens
in the shape of local taxation, which were represented
as pressing so heavily on the land, although he for-
one did not think the landholder was more burt
dened than any of the other classes. He -believed tha
the sliding scale, as at present constituted, offered a very
great temptation to fraud. The Noble Earl concluded
by presenting upwards of one hundred petitions in favour
of an alteration in the Corn-laws, and one from the
Jewish inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying for a removal
of the Jewish disabilities.

The Marquis of NORMANBY presented petitions
praying for a removal of the Jewish disabilities, from
Shields ; also a petition praying for a revision of the Im-
port Duties, from Haddington ; and a petition from some
place, the name of which we could not catch, praying for
the abolition of Church rates.

Lord PRUDHOE presented several petitions against
any alteration in the Corn-laws.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented several pe-
titions praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
The Marquis of BUTE presented petitions from St.
Asaph and two other places against any alteration in the
Corn-laws.

Their Lordships then adjourned at Half-past Eight
o'Clock to Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 25.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'Clock.

Mr. G. W. WOOD brought up the Report of the
Committee on the Southwark Improvement Bill.
On the motion of Mr. J. A. YATES the Great Leinster
and Munster Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE IMPROVEMENT

Mr. GREG presented several petitions to a similar
effect from parishes in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented seventeen petitions from
ditrerent parts of. Lancashire praying for an imm diatt
and total repeal of the Corn-laws.,
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would, on
Thursday, move that the petition of Patrick Collins,
complaining of a denial of justice on the part of the As-
sistant Barrister of the Queen's County be printed.
Colonel SIBTHORP Moved for a return of all the
Bills passed during the last and present Session
of Parliament, and also of the: Bills discontinued •er
rejected.

Lord SANDON wished to ask a question of. the
Noble Lord opposite. Two most important Bills had
just been brought from the Lords,. the Boroughs Im-
provement Bill and the Drainage Bill. He wished to
know from the Noble Lord what course he would pro-
pose to take with.thetn.
Lord J. RUSSELL sail they very important Bills, and
he would be most sorry that they should not become the
law of the land. However, he could not upon that oc-
casion answer the Noble Lord's question.
Mr. HUAIE presented a petition from an im-
prisoned Chartist, complaining that his health had ma-
terially suffered in consequence of the harsh treatment
he had received, and praying that the House would agree
to the motion about to be made forhis liberation ; also
one signed by. 9,820 of the inhabitants of Stockport and
its vicinity, praying for the liberation of all Chartist
prisoners, especially Frost, Williams, and Jones, who had
been illegally committed.
Mr. (YCONNELL presented a. petition from a la-
bourer named. John Roe, of Nottingham, stating that he
had only 7s. a-week, out of which he had to maintain him-
self, a wife, and four children. He complained of various
grievances, especially that he and his class were not re-
presented 'in that House, and praying that freedom might
be given to all political prisoners.
POLITICAL OFFENDERS.

Mr. T. DUNCOHnisaid,as the principal object
sought by the numerous petitions he had to present would
be fully detailed in his address on the motion on the paper,
he thought he would best consult the feeling of the
House by merely asking the • House to receive
the petitions, and stating the numbers by which
they were signed. The large petition was signed by
rather more than 1,300,000 of the industrious classes.
The others were signed by—from Manchester, 9,997.;
Newport, 5,300 ; Chorley,. Stockton, Congleton, Gate-
house, Cardiff, Holt; Montrose, Newcastle, Dublin, Nor-
folk, Chester, Derby, Ripon, Northampton, and 23 plae.,4
in the neighbourhood of London. These were signed
by 48,884, making, in all, the signatures 1,348,848.
he first prayer of these petitions was this:—" Your pe-
titioners therefore pray that your Hon. House will permit
a humble address to her Majesty, praying that she may be
graciously pleased to give immediate directions for the
liberation of all prisoners now confined in the several
gaols of Great Britain for political offences." The
second prayer was:—" That your Honourable House
will be graciously pleased to present another humble ad
dress, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased
to grant a free pardon to J. Frost, Z. Williams, and W.
Jones, now suffering the penalties of expatriation in a
penal settlement." The third prayer was, that this
House, having done these things, would adopt the prin-
ciple f the Charter.—(Laughter.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said he thought it would be but
fair and satisfactory to that House and to the country
that the Hon. Member who had presented these petitions
should allow the prayer of the petition to be read to the
House. He would, therefore, move that that be
done.—(A laugh.)
The Clerk then read the prayer of the petition.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he was entitled to ask why
the prayer was not annexed to the petition, which was
the usual mode, instead of having the prayer separate
and distinct, as in the present instance.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that if the Hon. and Gallant
Member would take the trouble of unrolling, the petition,
he would find that the prayer which had been read was
a fac-simile of that attached to the petition. The peti-
tion which he (Mr. buncombe) now presented came from
the female, operatives of England, Scotland, and Wales.
The SPEAKER said that it was the larger petition of
which the Hon. and Gallant Member wished to hear the
prayer read.
Colonel SlBTHORP—Certainly.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he understood the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had stated
that the prayer of the petition which he held in his
hand was identical with that attached to the large peti
Lion on the table, and there was therefore an opportunity
of learning its substance ; there would be moreover great
difficulty in unrolling the latter petition on account of its
great size. Under those circumstances he trusted his lion.
and Gallant Friend would withdraw his motion.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he had no wish to obstruct
the presentation of the petition. It was his desire to see
the petitions of all classes duly considered ; he would
therefore do as his Right Hon. Friend suggested.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman had suggested the adoption of the best course
that could have been pursued. He was glad that the
Gallant Colonel had yielded to that suggestion, as other-
wise it, would have appeared as if he wished to make
some jest of the petition.
Colonel SIBTHORP said, with some warmth, that he
did not require the admonition of the Noble Lord, and
that he should treat it-as he did his public conduct with
sovereign contempt. _

Sir R. INGLIS was sure that his Gallant Friend
did not wish to cast the slightest disrespect upon those
who had signed the petition.
Col. T. WOOD thought that whatever became of the
petition, however'it might, be treated by that House, it
would be found no subject of merriment for her Majesty's
Government.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that the Hon. and Gallant
MeMber having disavowed any intention of treating the
petition. with levity, he and the House were bound to
believe that such was the fact. But this he felt compelled
to say, that he never in his life saw anything more
like levity than the conduct that had just _been adopted
by the Gallant Officer opposite. Whatever might become
of the petition, he thought it would be admitted
on all sides that it would ill have become him to have
presented such a petition without having its prayer
stated and its allegations discussed. It was for
this purpose that he intended to call the
attention of the House to the petition. He was well aware
of the delicacy of the question, and he knew that he might
be told that he was trenching upon the prerogative of
the Crown. But there were times when it became
that House to advise the Crown in the exercise
of its prerogative. An instance of this occurred in
the case of Sir M. Lopez when he was accused of bribery.
In the case .of Sir Manasseh Lopez, sentenced to two
years' imprisonment by the House for bribery, a motion
had been made for a mitigation of his punishment; and
in the course of the debate it was acknowledged by
Mr. Wynn and others that cases might exist in which it
would be proper to petition the Crown to exercise the
prerogative of mercy. Sir Manasseh,. though con-
victed of a gross violation of the laws, „ef the land,
found his punishment at an end after eight molitlis' im-
prisonment. He (Mr. Duncombe) begged to, state, there-
fore, that he was not altogether unwarranted by precedent
in the course he was taking. He maintained, too, that
that was a fit subject for the interference of the 'House ;
and that the Government could not of its own impulse,
any more than in the case of Sir Manasseh Lopei,
well liberate the prisoners without an address to the
Crown. The petitioners had at first sought for redress
also for Frost, Williams, and Jones, as well as for an
adoption of the principles of the Charter. When
they . had done him (Mr. T. Duncombe) the
honour of asking him to take charge of the petition,
he had told them that if they mixed up the, case of
Frost, Williams, and Jones, and the case of the
Charter, with the main object . of the petition, they
would greatly prejudice the cause they had so much at
heart. Last year, when his Hon. Friend the Member
for Westminster brought forward his motion for the re-
lease of Frost, Williums, and Jones on a point of law,
the House negatived the motion by a large majority—
not more than five, he believed, voting for it.
He had . .told the petitioners, therefore, that
there was no hope of the release of Frost, Williams, and
.Jones, or the adoption of the principles of the Charter,
during the existence of the present House of Commons.
and that the House even thought that no further
Reform whatever was necessary. His motion was con-
sequently entirely confined to the case of the home
prisoners, and on the merits of that case alone, he
hoped the subject would be discussed. The petitioners
alluded to the treatment of prisoners in high life for the
purpose. of showing the difference with which they and
individuals in humble station were treated. They.
stated that whenever an industrious man made a sedi-
tious speech the net of the law was spread around him
leaving no chance of escape They had seen a Peer of
the R
Realm acquitted, and justly acquited they said, by, a
Jury of his Peers on a charge of felony, because that
charge had not been substantial. The petitioners also
alluded to the sentence passed 'on Lord Waldegrave and
whose
which name,
the sentences 'on
Captain Duff. Now he (Mr. Duncombe) had an expla—
nation to • offer on the last subject.
was
Itappeianrecl
that
petition,Captain and Duff,
with
some of those political prisoners had been con-
trasted, had the sentence of guilty passed against him.
He had, however, within the last hour received a memo-
randum from a relative of Captain Duff, with a request
that he would read it to the House. The Hon. Gentle-
man then proCeeded to read
imprsonpmartenyt,toaraidbarnfitanle
assault
had been
was
z
sentenced to six months
the communication in ques-
thDelicffh
don, in which it was state. 4
j‘ingt.iniaaoteeCnacpetaoitn..
now well known, but that innocence was not made known
'
on the trial, from his unwillingness to expose other par-
ties to punishment. Captain Duff admitted his being
of onr
at the
policeman.alle alleged o ffeinlicse
ponft
ibreei
present at the commencement of the disturbance, but no
violence was then used by any party. In the second dis-
turbance Captain Duff had taken no part whatever. He
separated from the parties, and proceeded on foot with a
gentleman whom it was not necessary to name, towards
Salisbury Hill." He (Mr. Duncoznbe) thought it just,
under these circumstances, that Captain Duff's name
should not be mixed up with that of the other party.
But let him pass to the treatment which the political of-
fenders had experienced during their confinethent.. He
found that 444 individuals in all had been convicted of
'political offences, of whom 398 had been. releasedprinci,
pally on account of ill health. One of those parties, Mr.
Cowan (as we understood), who had been sentenced to.two
years' impriconment in the Wakefield House of Correction,
year
one of which he had undergone, baying then been
liberated, stated 'in a letter the many hardsiiip.s he had
endured during his confinement, The Ifon, Gentleman
then read the letter, in which it was 'mentioned, among
other things, that the prisoner Was rth4so- ill copse-
quence of an ulcer in his
ld leg
ebrought On by severe pri-
vations, and which woU him an invalid for 'the
"
remainder of his life. He 4 Pe" obliged, with the
otlier prisoners, to rise. at half: past
five o'clock in the
morning ; they then washed themselves 4y a Imp, of,
water, which served fifty indiviCifos 1 444,fthe
after having been used by 'one' twos PqMPIO! 2;) woo

to be uselesS to the others. In summer they worked
from.sii in the Morning until six in-the evening; They
had but a pint of gruel: and half • a pound of bread for
breakfast ;on Sunday they had five ounces of meat. In
winter they had to rise at half-past six in the morning,
and to work during. the day without fire or anything..to
mitigate their sufferings.. How different had these poor
people been treated from the Hunts and the'Burdetts,
when they were confined for political offences.—(Hear,
hear.)- The next in order was that of George Henry
Smith, who complained that he had been ill all the time
he:.had'beenin prison—so much so, that he had taken
twenty-three bottles, of medicine, besides pills and
powders, and had had both blisters and plasters applied
to him, and that upon his release he was called upon to
enter into securities for his good behaviour to the
amount of 7001. Was it not nonsense to call
these poor. men, .when they were called upon
for such heavy bail ? Why, they could not ask
more for Sir F: Thirdett. Gregg died in prison from
' the hard work upon the treadmill hurting his back.
Loyal stated that he had been induced by his solicitor, to
plead guilty on a promise of pardon. His case was a
hard one ; he was a sober, industrious man, who had
been led away by the evil disposed leaders of the Char-
tists, and was one of those who were wounded before
the Westgate ; he suffered. much from his wound, but
he was.sentenced- to transportation for life,' which sen-
tence was afterwards commuted to five years' imprison-
ment in the Penitentiary. A petition had been pre-
sented in his favour signed by the late and the.present
Mayor of Newport and 'l5O clergymen, gentlemen, and
merchants; but it yet had had ' no- effect. There were
other cases ; these were all that were connected with
Houses of Correction, but these were not the only places
where hardship was inflicted. Many complaints were
made of. the discipline of the gaol of Manchester, while
some of those who had been in the Castle at Lancaster
spoke of the governor as a father and a gentleman.
—(A laugh.) While so many were complained against
it was his duty, as it was his pleasure, to bear such
testimony to one who had exercised humanity.
Mr. F. O'Connor was not put to hard labour, neither was
Mr. O'Brien ; they were only under the same restrain
that other political offenders were placed under in for-
mer times.. The question was, whether this treatment
ought to be inflicted upon persons guilty of .political of-
fences—whether they ought to be treated worse than
felons. Felons were not asked at the termination of their
imprisonment to enter into sureties to keep the peace,
but political offenders were ! Now that he asserted
was treatment which political offenders ought not td be
subjected to. He wanted 'to know what was to' be
gained by keeping these individuals in prison. 'He'
maintained that the public opinion was against the
adoption of such a course. The cruelties that had
been inflicted upon these parties, who had been guilty
of no crime, was unworthy of a great country like
England. These individuals had no moral stain upon
them ; on the' contrary, the parties whose petitions
he had presented would be considered by 'the people as
martyrs. He would venture to say that the House knew
nothing at all of human nature if they thought they
could prevent the people entertaining certain opinions
by persecution.—(Hear, hear.) This, perhaps, was the
last opportunity. that House would have of receiving a
petition signed by so many of their fellow-countrymen;
it was, therefore, for them to say how far they would
receive the petition and comply with its prayer. Ile
trusted that he had done what he conceived to be his
duty without giving offence to any one, or prejudiCing
the cause of the petitioners. He now desired to leave it
in the hands of the House, hoping and trusting that the
opinion's which Hon. Members might express, and ;the
vote they might come to in the present case, would cause
joy and satisfaction to thousands throughout the coun-
try. He would therefore beg leave to move that an hum-
ble address be presented to her Majesty praying that, she
be graciously pleased to take into her merciful considera-
tion the cases of all the prisoners at present confined for
political offences in-England and Wales.
Mr. -LEADER seconded the motion.

Mr. FOX MAULE, who spoke with his back to. the
reporters' gallery, and frequently, in a most indistinct
tone of voice, so as to be quite inaudible at times, said
that in rising to • address • himself to the House on' the
subject which had been brought forward by the Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down, he must express his dis-
sent from the charge which had been made against that
House of having treated with levity a petition relative to
the national charter which had been presented to it
some time ago: He (Mr. F. Maule) could bear testi-
mony that no signs of levity or frivolity were shown by
the House on that remarkable occasion, when the largest
petition which had been for a long period presented to the
House, was introduced by the then Member for Birming-
ham, in a manner which he (Mr. F. Maule) was Sure
obtained the approbation of all parties in the House,
whether adverse or not to the prayer of the petition.
On the present occasion no disposition was ex-
hibited generally to receive the petition with any
levity. It 'was the petition of the working classes
of that country, a body of whom, he might say,
that whatever might be the causes which in-
fluenced them on certain occasions, had, during some
months past of severe privation,_ conducted themselves
in a manner which , insured to them the respect of the
country at large, even though many of them made de-
mands for political privileges of so exorbitant a nature
as rendered it impossible to grant them. With regard to
what his Hon. Friend had stated, relative to that House
interfering with her Majesty in the exercise of the ,pre-
rogative 'of mercy, he (Mr. F. Maule) thought the case
selected by his Hon. Friend was by no means suited to
the present question (as we understood). •He
(Mr. F. Malik) was not one of those to whom it seemed
right that that House should interfere with the Crown in
the exercise of any of its prerogatives. He admitted at
once that it was right that the representatives of the
people should address the Crown on any subject they
thought it to be their duty to their constituents so
to do. But he much questioned the expediency of the
House interfering with the Crown in the exercise of the
prerogative of mercy; if they did so, it should be under
the most urgent circumstances. In his opinion, the ,pre-
rogative of mercy was established in the Crown as an in- •
herent right, for the purpose of extending it to all eases
where its doing so was called for, as in cases of doubtful
verdicts, &c. It was for that House to watch that the
prerogative of mercy should not be exercised for any bad
or improper purpose, But if that House took upon it-
self to address the Crown on the exercise of the piero-
gative of mercy, especially under such circumstances as
the present, he feared that circumstances would arise, in
which parties would be encouraged to enter into the 6om-
mission of offences, such as those which were called po-
litical, from a hope that a cotirse similar to thatnow
adopted would be pursued in their behalf, He, there-
fore, doubted the prudence of the course now taken by
his Hon. Friend. With respect to the details eniered
into by the Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. F. Manic) was not
prepared to meet them—some of them, at least, 't'hich
were quite now to him. But this he could say, that in
no matter whatever had any sentence of the law been
inflicted with, any 'great degree of severity. With • re-
spect to the meetings which those parties to whorl' the
present motion referred had held, he (Mr. F. Maule) saw
these meetings first begin in a constitutional niannevs and
gradually assume that unconstitutional appearance which
at last led to the interference of Government to sup-
press assemblies where good order ought to have pre-
vailed instead of seditious practices, which called' forth
the immediate interference of the law and the autho-
rities. With respect to the open violation of the law
which had been committed, they all knew that political
offences meant something more than the word implied.
Relative to the punishment, out of three hundret and
seventy-nine convictions, there remained only thirty-
nine for punishment ; of those, nine were senkced
to transportation, having been guilty of 4 'high
treason ; one was sentenced to transportation Am ten
years ; and of all. the persons who had been 'found
guilty and sentenced to death, not one suffered Clio ex-
treme penalty of the law. The prayer of the petition
alluded to addressing the Cirown for a free pardon for
Frost, Williams, and Jones. He should be deqeiving
the Houie and those individuals if he attempted
to hold out any hope or a free pardon bei4g ex-
tended to thorn, He could hold out no such hope, either
as an individual or a member of the Goverinnent.
As for the other part of the prayer of the petitiob, that
was matter for the consideration of the Hoto,e,
trusted, therefore, that his lion, Friend, instead of per-
severing in endetivonring to obtain an address 4z) the
Crown, would give that House an opportunity of
discussing the principles of the Charter and embodying
its principles, if the House agreed to them, in a Bill.
With reference to the whole question he trusted that his
Hon. Friend, having brought it fully before, the llotise,
and having awakened the attention of the Goverm4nt to
the situation of those individuals who were now in prison,
would not. press his motion to a division, because he
thought he could neither improve the conditiClA 11), Which
he was placed himself by the statements he had made,
.or
that of the -parties, With respect to the statement that had
been made by his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury,
that Mr. O'Connor and Mr. O'Brien had not been pet to
hard labour he must remind him that the 4eatcglees, if
they were different, had been passed by the Judges, and
that it was only in those instances where the Judges had
ordered hard -labour to be inflicted that it was adopted.
In conclusion he must say that lie deeply regretted the
circumstances in which these several parties were placed,
but of this he was certain, that the door to thel Royal
clemency was no more shut against them than it NM to
any other subject of the Crown I he therefiire trusted
that his Hon, Friend would Withdraw the motion; •
Mr. O'CONNELL said if his Friend the Hon. Member
for Finsbury divided the House he should certainly vote
with him. as he thought this was a case in which the
House should press upon the .Government to di charge
theSe parties, It was a ease in short in which the opinion
of 'the House ought to be in favour of mercy. The Hon.
Gentleman who had spoken last had adverted to the
conduct of the working classes, and had passed' a high
eulogium upon them. He had stated however that they
had been.
punished to deter others from committing
similar offences. Now, what was the case ? Why
there was no Chartism in the country.—(tHear, hoat,)
ono It
He thought therefore tbat the House to extond
the arm of mercy, in order that it might he said that
there were 114 political fiffel:l4M imprisoned in the country.
_(Hear, hear,) The Hon. Gentleman had adverted
to England and Scotland,_ but he had forgotten Ire-
land., He (Mr. O'Connell) thanked God there WM an
political offenders in the prisella of %hat country.
They therefore did nut want mercy. there. All that they
asked far was instice.Hear, hear.) In conclusion he
trusted the House would take the subject-motto f q
petition into consideration,
Mr. LE41411, could not allow a subject Of such
importance tq the maintenance of peace among the V 1111•
mtipity to pass without making some few ellaerValions.
There was a feethlg among the workie& clßssas,. that
there was 9np for The tleh- and another for the poor.
ge mast confess that his own opinion was of late there
had been a great exhibition of partiality with respect to
the treatment of parties who had committed offences, and
at several meetings which he had attended lately. • the.
course which had been ado to \vial 4:e4R. ect 'id,' Lord
Capclige 4.94 Earl
.. tout been coin-
Ilad been • Ol3ted with respect to