The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-18 00:00:00

THE MONSTER CHARTIST PETITION.

Mr. CLARK said he was anxious to call the attention
of the Convention to the report of the Committee of the
House of Commons on the subject of ,the National
Petition. It was represented that that petition
was an attempt to impose upon Parliament, and
therefore it required some explanation should be
given. He believed that all petitions presented
to the House of Commons were inspected by a
Committee appointed for that purpose. Now, in the pre-
sent'instance the principal part of the signatures were not
obtained until Friday and Saturday before the meeting;
therefore it was impossible to count them. Petition
sheets from Leeds were stated to contain 54,000, Man-
chester 170,000 signatures, which was taken as granted
to be correct, and he believed the numbers were cor-
rect.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. O'CoNson made his report of the number of
signatures from a written statement, which was handed
to him shortly before he went down to Parliament,
therefore he could not be blamed. It was impossible
to prevent improper names being placed to public
petitions, and with respect to indecent signatures
he felt confident that they were affixed by
enemies of the Chartists. Delegates could not
be responsible for names attached to a petition. He
believed similar charges might be broue,ht against every
public petition which had ever been presented to Parlia
ment. There might have been some negligence on the
purt of those delegates who prepared and conducted the
p but there was no criminal misrepresentation.—
(Ilear.) A great error no doubt had been made of the
number of signatures to the petition, and therefore he'
thought they ought not to be ashamed to acknowledge
it. They had not wilfully made a false representation
to Parliament, and therefore he moved for a committee
of inquiry.
Several delegates stated they were of opinion there
must be some mistake on the part of the Committee of
the House of Commons, and expressed a wish that they
could get the petition back again to examine it.—(Hear.)
Mr. MURPIELD—Of course there is a mistake. What
Chartist would sign the name of that bad man the Duke
of Wellington to a petition calling for the people's rights?
With respect to their little Queen she was a good girl,
but had a sufficiently large family not to trouble herself
about Petitions; her signature must be false.—(Hear.)
After some further remarks, which it is as well not to
notice, Mr. Murfield moved that a committee be ap-
pointed to draw up and publish a statement which would
convince the public of the pure intentions of the Con-
vention, and set their motives right with the world. If
there was any misrepresentation respecting the petition,
it arose from error, not design.
Nlr. CHILD said it seemed to he the desire of the
House of Commons to starve and degrade the people,
Nothing that was true or just emanated from that piaci
The people had hearts and souls, but they had not foo .
lie thought it was not worth while to take any furtho
notice of -the -niisrepresentsitionsivhich -had- beenmade
respecting the National Petition.

Mr. CLARK believed the Committee of the House of
Commons had made a mistake as to the number of sig-
tures to the petition, and therefore he wished for a
statement to be published, to set the conduct of the Con-
vention right with the public.

Mr. ASHTON was certain there was quite _as much
reason to believe that the petition was signed by up-
wards of five millions as that the number was under two
•
mil lions.

Mr. COCHRANE said their own constituents were
satisfied with the signatures to the petition, and there-
foie he did not see why they should trouble themselves
to convince a body of men sitting at St. Stephen's that
the delegates were right. Mr. C. then indulged in a
violent abuse of the Members of the Commons, who, he
contended, when they returned from the House half
drunk, indulged in the streets in much more obscene
and
disgustinghat language than appeared in the Chartist
petition. did they think of Colonel Sibthorp to
l What
wit?— (Cheers.)
Mr. GRAHAM said he was informed yesterday that it
was the son of a Baronet connected with her Majesty's
Government who went up and down different streets
and put obnoxious and indecent signatures to the peti-
tion. He believed such was the fact.—(Hear, hear.)
The resolution that a committee be appointed to draw
up a statement with respect to the signatures to the
petition, in order to set the public right as regarded the
conduct of members of the Convention, was agreed to
by a majority of 14 to 4.
Mr. Clarke, Mr. Wheller, and Mr. Graham, were no-
minated to draw up the statement.
A report of the Central Chartist Registration Society
having bees brought forward by Mr. Cuffay, and adopted,
it was agreed, that as there remained a great amount of
business to be done in the distribution of bills, &c.,
through the various districts, the proceedings should be
adjourned until Wednesday morning.

IMPE RIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at Five o'cloek.
PETITIONS.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented several peti-
tions praying that the society of Odd Fellows might
be put upon the same footing as other benefit societies.
The Earl of EGLINTOS presented several peti-
tions with a similar prayer.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from
certain persons against the Election Recognizances
Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT presented several petitions
from various lodges of Odd Fellows, praying for the
legalization of their society.
LEASES OF MINES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Leases of Mines (Ireland) Bill passed through
ComMittee.
IRELAND.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table
certain returns connected with the operation of the
recent Coercion Act for Ireland.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH called the at-
tention of the House to the fact that arming was
going on extensively in Dublin, and 'yet the
Lord-Lieutenant had not put that Act in force
in the city of Dublin.—(Hear.) With regard
to the purpose which these armaments were intended
to bring about there could be no doubt; they had
already been explicitly declared by Mr. Mitchell.
(The Noble Earl here read several extracts from the
United Irishman, for the purpose of showing
that these armaments were going on for the
avowed object of levying war on the English
Government in Ireland.) The students of Trinity
College and the Dublia Society had offered their
services to the Lord-Lieutenant, but his Lordship,
while accepting their offers, had urged upon them the
necessity of not arming. Now, if while arming on
the part of those seeking a subversion of the
empire was to be suffered thus openly
to go on while those who were anxious
to support the Government were prevented from
arming, there could be no doubt but that the friends
of order and good government would be disheartened
when they found themselves surrounded by those who
were armed for their destruction. They would
suspect that a compromise was intended upon
a question which ought never to be the subject
of compromise, and vast numbers of them
would cease to be true to the Government
from the moment that the Government ceased to be
true to itself, and the consequences would be irre-
trievable ruin to the empire. It was not sufficient
for the Government to support the union, they must
support everything connected with the union—
(Hear, hear)—and they therefore ought to be pre-
pared to give their support to all the loyal subjects of
the empire.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could assure the
Noble Earl that the matter to which he had alluded
had been the subject of anxious consideration both
to the Government and the Lord Lieutenant, but as
the Act alluded to was to be put in force by the
Lord-Lieutenant he thought that it ought to be left
to the Lord-Lieutenant's discretion to decide the time,
the plan, and the mode in which he would exercise these
powers. It was true that the manufacture of arms
was going on to a great extent in Ireland, yet still
implicit credence ought not to be given to all the
statements which had been made on the subject.
Many of which were greatly exaggerated. The
common law of the land gave the Lord-Lieute
nant ample powers of seising all collections
of arms and ammunition which he might
have reason to suspect were made for an illegal pur-
pose. With regard to the answer of the Lord Lieu-
tenant to the deputation of those who had waited on
him to offer their services, he had to state that in
those instances in which he had thought it advisable,
he had caused arms to be given to the persons apply-
ing for them.
Lord BROUG-lIAM had great confidence in the
Lord Lieutenant, yet still he thought it advisable
that every encouragement should begiven to the loyal
subjects, while discouragement should be given to those
who sought to create disunion. He believed that none
but agitators and demagogues desired a repeal of the
union. The great majority of the property, of the good
sense, aye, and of the population of Ireland, was opposed
to a repeal of the union. Still- he thought it necessary
that the loyal subjects shoull be encouraged. He should
like to know the composition of the body to which
arms had been given, and whether or not their ser-
vices had been accepted.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that that
body was composed of men of all shades of politics,
but he declined to state any further particulars.
FLECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR
SCO MANI).
The Earl of EGLINTON moved that "The matter of
the protest given in against the vote of the person as-
suming the title of Lord Colvill, car Lord Colvill of
Ochiltree, being received or counted at the meeting for
the election of the 16 Peers of Scotland, holden at Edin-;
burgh, upon the Bth day of September, 1847, be taken
under deliberation by the House, with a view to direct
such inquiry, and to make such order as to the House+
shall seem proper."
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
Mr. Serjeant Halcombe, counsel for the person
claiming to be Lord Colvill, was called in, and having;
been informed by the. Lord Chancellor of the nature of
address against
n s
up
the resolution, was asked 4f he had anything to urge•
Thepo oLearned
clCieonnensscellaithen o commencedthe title.
Afteran •
a short time the Learned Gentleman stated, in answer to
a question from Lord Campbell, that he did not object to
the inquiry which the resolution sought for, and a Com-
mittee of privileges was then appointed, before which
the claimant is to attend and endeavour to make out his
title.

MOl
LA ALNOLONA‘LvIEENS proposedßlLL.
The MarquisßE of
that this
Pr
Bill should pass through: Committee s forma for the
purpose of printing certain amendments of a verbal cha-
racter, and one which. gave a t rig happeal to the
Privy Council. He should move that
theof
Bill be read a
third time to-morrow (this day).
. The Earl:of EbLENBOROUGH said an appeal to
the Privy Council would defeat the object of the Bill.
The foreigners in this country whom• it might be de.
sirable to send away by steamerfuls were not respect•
able traitors, but persons of the lowest class, and to
give each the right of a separate appeal to the Queen
in Council would keep. the Privy Council constantly
sitting.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that if they
were not " respectably traitors"—(Laughter)—they
would not be able to bear the expense of such an appeal.
The Earl of ELLENBOROITGII said he would not
oppose the clause, as it appeared to be useless.
After a few words from. Lord HOLLAND is oppo-
sition to the Bill, which were veryi ndistinotly heard,
The Marquis of-LAN-SDOWN-E felt it necessary to
say a few words after what had fallen from his Noble
Friend, whom he heard with pleasure for the first time
in that House, and who was entitled to its attention as
the descendant of the great and illustrious name which
he bore, and to the recollection of which no one was
more fondly and affectionately attached than he.—
(Hear, bear.) But the present-Bill was not only a less
stringent measure than the one opposed by the late Lord
Holland, but the circumstances under which it was
brought forward were totally different. Besides, in the
speech with which Lord Holland prefaced his protest, he
stated, not as his sole objection to the Bill, but as a prin-
cipal one, .that it would favour the views of the Holy
Alliance. He maintained that every socieV was entitled
to prevent the interference of foreigners in its concerns.
The fact that a Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Denman)
who was eminent for his attachment to the law and
con-
stitution of this country, and who. joined Lord d
Holland
in his opposition to the former Alien Act, ha
his c pub
onvic-
y
declared within the last three days
tiou of the necessity of this Bill, removed all
doubt from his mind with respect to the objections en-
tertained by Lord Holland._ The Bill tbey were now
proposing was only a temporary one, to exist for one
year. He was not desirous that it should become the
permanent law of the land.—(Hear, hear.) He prayed
God it might never be more than a temporary cape-
dient,,-'which was justified by the i,tate of things exist-
ing-thrciughout the world.—(Hear, hear.)
would in fact
Lord ABERDEEN said' the Bill
continue for two years, because it was for a year or to
the end of the next session of Parliament.
The Bill then passed. through Committee.
ELECTION RECOGNIZA.NCES BILL..
Lord MONTEAGIJE proposed the second reading of
this. Bill. The main object was to empower the Election
C°lllllloloo,o
-iiitc.,the Araliditz 4,the:_-recr gni--

zance. As it was a Bill relating to the privileges of
the other House, he hoped their Lordships would not
oppose it.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill on the ground
that while the existing law enacted that the determina-
tion of the examiner of recognizances should be final
and conclusive, this Bill would give a power to a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons to set it aside. He had
no objection that the matter should be sent back to a
Committee. It might be very well to alter the law
prospectively, but he objected to their passing an ea post
facto law on the subject. He thought the House of
Commons mistook their proper course. He would move
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord REDESDALE supported the second reading.
He thought it would be a most ungracious thing on the
part of their Lordships' House if' they were to say, " You
are in a difficulty, get out of it as you can ; we will not
help you."—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL said that but for the present Bill
the petitioners in the eight cases now pending would
clearly have a right to proceed under Sir R. Peel's Act,
which made the certificate of the examiner of recog-
nizances final. Against this certificate the Bill gave an
appeal, to the most objectionable of all tribunals—the
Election Committee. After the proper officer, Mr.
Booth, had declared the recognizances in certain cases
good, the House had no right to assume that they were
bad, as was done by this Bill. The question was one
which ought to be referred to a court of law ; and on
that ground he felt that the present Bill was objection.
able in principle, and would support the motion that it
be read a second time that day six months.

Lord STANLEY, while admitting that there were
grave objections to the Bill, thought it the only method
of escaping from a dilemma and supplying a cases
omissus in the former Act, which had not been antici-
pated at the time it was passed. The main consideration
for their Lordships was how to do substantial justice
between the petitioners and the sitting Members and to
carry out the intention of the Legislature.
The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in thinking
this a most objectionable measure, contrary to all the
rules of law and principles of justice. The existing Act
prescribed all that was to be done by petitioners. They
had strictly complied with the Act, and it would be most
unjust to require them to do more.
The Earl of DEVON denied that the Bill would affect
any parties who had complied with the provisions of the
existing Act. They had not so complied, but, by an
oversight of ,the officer had obtained a certificate that
they had done so.
Lord DENMAN said the examiner of recognizances
had performed the duty imposed on him by Act of Par
liament, and to attempt, by a new Act, to set aside his
decision, would open a wide door to abuse. He felt
bound to oppose the second reading of this Bill.
tord -BROUGHAM said a few words in explanation.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the second reading
Against it
Majority for the second reading —lO
The House then adjourned at Half-past Eight o'clock

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 17.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

NEW MEMBERS

Mr. TOWNLEY for Sligo, and Mr. CuRTEIS for Rye,
took the oaths and their seats.
THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time and
passed :
Folkestone Waterworks Bill.
North of Scotland Fire and Life Assurance Company
(Incorporation of company) Bill.
Worcester New Gas Light Company (Additional
Capital and Amendment) Bill.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.

The reports on the following Bills were further
considered and. agreed to :
Patent Galvanized Iron Company (incorporation of
company, with powers to hold lands, to raise money
by loan, and to purchase letters patent) Bill.
Tadcaster and Halton Dial Turnpike Road (diver-
sion, &c., of the road in the parish of Tadcaster)
Bill.
PROTECTION OF THE CROWN AND
GOVERNMENT.

Lord C. MANNERS, presented a petition from
Loughborough against the Bill for the better protec-
tion of the Crown and Government.
Col. TIIOMPSON presented a petition from Sun-
derland, praying for an extension of the elective
suffrage, &c.

The- Earl of MARCH presented petitions against
the duties on attorneys%certificates.
Mr. COWAN presented petitions from various
parts of Scotland against the Diplomatic Relations
with Rome Bill.

Mr. H. BERKELEY presented petitions from
Bristol, complaining of the decision aof the Court of
Arches and the Privy Council in the case of a
person named Banes, against clergymen seceding
from the Established Church and becoming Dissent-
ing clergymen.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from
Dublin praying for a repeal of the legislative union.
Sir J. YARDE BULLER presented a petition
from a place in Devonshire praying for the restora-
tion to their families of Frost, Williams, and Jones.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON presented a petition
from Clitheroe, signed by upwards of 1,000 persons,
against the Bill for the better security of the Crown
and Government.

Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition
from St. Pancras in favour of the People's Charter.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from Glas-
gow against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome
Bill.

Mr. HORSMAN presented petitions in favour of
the alteration of the law with respect to ecclesiastical
courts, and in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from
Penrith, praying for the general enfranchisement of
all church property, and a better provision for spiritual
destitution.

Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from
Lymington in favour of the Health of Towns
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition, signed by the
chairman of a public meeting, held at Manchester, at
which the greater number of persons present were
shopkeepers, who had recently enrolled themselves as
special constables. They stated that they believed
that the discontent existing in the country arose from
the consciousness among the working classes that they
had no voice in the legislature, and they prayed the
House to pass a measure similar iu its principles
to those embodied in a document called the People's
Charter.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the
Bill for the better security of the Crown and Go-
vernment.

Mr. BERNAL wished to correct a mistake which
had occurred in the reports of the proceedings of the.
House. Some newspapers had stated that he had
presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation
of the city of Rochester, against the Bill for the
better security of the Crown and Government,
whereas the petition which he had presented was
against the Health of Towns Bill.
WEST INDIAN COLONIES.
Mr. HUME said, as the Committee had not yet
presented their report, he begged to postpone his
motion with respect to these colonies until after the
recess.

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.
Mr. HUME—Sir, I beg to give notice that after
the recess I shall call the attention of the House to
the representation of the people—(Hear, hear)—and
take the sense of the House upon the question.