The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-07 00:00:00

tack as the present House of Commons.-,-(Hear, heir.)
He would find a petition would be brought up signed by several
hundred thousands of persons, alleging that they were deprived
of the tight of suffrage, that they arraigned the Parliament as
incompetent to perform its functions, and that the new House
of Parliament, being so arraigned, would be hound, before
performing its legislative functions, to admit its own incompe-
tency, and to institute an inquiry into the grievances cent-
plained of. He should have thought, indeed, during a great
portion of the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, that he was
stenuously contending for a repeal of the Reform Act—( Hear,
hear, and cheers)—and urging them to recur to the constitu-
tion of their old Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) For a great part
of his argument directly went to show that the infusion of
more of the popular and demoeratic principle into that House
had disappointed all public expectation, and nad inflicted
grievances and evils upon the country, from w nick, without
that infusion, they would have been exempt.—(Cheers.)
And this was not merely a taunt, directed at the Noble Lord,
the author of the Reform Bill.—(Hear, hear, and cheers. )
The Honourable Gentleman was prepared with elabo-
rate arguments, was provided with returns and estimates,
to show that taking the years from 1822 to 1836. under the
Parliament as at present constituted, under the Parliament,
reformed as it is, there had been an adlition to the burdens
borne by the people.—( Loud cheers.) In 1822, he said the
unreformed Parliament only required a standing army of
91,000 men ; but he said they reformed the Parliament, they
permitted the middling classes to exercise an influence over
elections, and that was the result. The standing army has
been increased from 91,000 to 137,000 men !—(Cheers.) And
taxation has been increased by the amount of ten millions I—
( Cheers.) Why, it appeared to him, the Hon. Gentleman's
legitimate conclusion must be—let us go back to the times
when the standing army was only 91,000 men, and when taxa-
tion-was ten millions less—( Hear, hear)—rather than follow
the Hon. Gentleman on the path be himself invited them to
pursue—a farther reform of the Parliamentary constitution of
the country.—( Hear, hear.) And all the Hon. Gentleman's
arguments went to show that attachment to liberty, and re-
sistance to oppression, did not at all depend on the Constitu-
tion itself; for see, said the Hon. Gentleman, what the Par-
liament did in 1693 !—( Loughter and cheers, and " 1642 "
from an Hon. Member.) The Hon. Gentleman said
1642, but he (Sir R. Peel) was speaking of 1693. The Par-
liament then passed what some called a Bill, and others a De-
claration of Rights, in which the Parliament claimed
for the people the right of having their Parliaments
frequently called together. William the Third—a power-
ful Monarch, with strong claims on the gratitude of the
people, departed from that claim, and the House of Commons
refused the supplies, or menaced to do so, till the faith s.f the
Crown was pledged that the claim should be fulfilled. Yet
that virtuous Parliament which, backed by the House of Lords,
for two successive years controlled, and, in the opinion of the
Hon. Gentleman, Justly controlled, the Crown—that. Parlia-
m-nt had a much less free constitution than the Parliament in
which the Hon. Gentleman himself held his seat.—( Loud
cheers.) If, then, he were to judge from the greater portion
of the Hon. Gentleman's speech, his decided inference would
be this, that the Hon. Gentleman was no friend to popular
principles—(Cheers and laughter)—his inference would be,
that this gentleman was making an ingenious and logical argu-
ment for the purpose of showing that it would be wise for them
at the present day to go back to the period of 1822, and still
wiser, if they had the courage to do it, to go back at once to
1693.—( Cheers and laughter.) That was the inference he
should have drawn from the greater portion of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's speech. But then there was a commendation of the
present Parliament, qualified, however, in some material re-
spects, for the Hon. Gentleman payed a compliment to him
( Sir R. Peel), for which he was sincerely thankful. He stated
that when it became necessary to make great exertions in order
to equalise revenue with expenditure the present Parliament
did—what ? Did they impose additional burdens on the work-
ing classes ?—( Cheers. ) Did they tax articles of necessity,
or those articles which had been so much con-
sumed by the people of this country that, though
perhaps not to be strictly called articles of necessity, yet were
so essential to the comforts of the people that they partook of
the nature of articles of necessity ? The Hon. Gentleman's
charge against the present Parliament was, that it had raised
the revenue by three or four millions ; but had it increased
the taxation on articles of necessity? No; the Hon. Gentle-
man said, so persuaded were they by his ( Sir R. Peel's)
voice, the effect of his turning round to this side of the House
was so great, that the present Parliament was content to tax
themselves, and to lay that additional borders on themselves,
instead of trying to raise the revenue from the great body of
the people.—(Cheers.) They did so, and, in doing so, he
could not think that they had betrayed that insensibility for
the sufferings of the people, or that keen desire of promoting
their own selfish and exclusive interests, with which the Hon.
Gentleman charged them, and which, he seemed to think,
formed a sufficient ground for abdicating their present position,
and admitting the charge of their incompetency to be per-
fectly well founded. Why, with respect to a vast number of
these questions, they were not unwilling to enter into inquiry
into a great many of them. Take the poor-laws, for instance.
The Hon. Gentleman represented the poor-laws as one of the
grievances of which they had to complain. Why, did the House
of Commons pass the poor-laws merely from a wish to pass a
new law, and without any previous inquiry? A Commission
was appointed by the Crown, an inquiry was made, and abuses
were brought to light. In passing the poor-laws,
the House of Commons had no other object than good—.
seeing the old poor-law was diminishing the com-
forts, and undermining the independence of, the people ;
and they incurred great unpopularity by attempting to intro-
duce a remedy. But that was not till after great inquiry had
been made. Then, with respect to the Bank charter; he
should like to know, after the Hon. Gentleman succeeded in
getting lu
there
oeor e
wereshould
a C
o voteduid om
be mt
nhi toet
tes eu
tillpo pf tyt hh
vee wtißehdson:
—ek House,hoehseshould
oteurla and
wdl
like
that h a
tot inquiredka know
orwe s
intohour
he would get any practicable inquiry into it? But was the
Hon. Gentleman aware of the inquiry that had already been
made into the subject of the Bank charter, joint-stock banks,
and all the other banking establishments of this country? Had
he made himself master of these inquiries? Did he know that
for three successive sessions one branch alone of that inquiry
occupied the attention of a Committee of that House? At the
termination of the first session the evidence heard by that Com-
mittee was not completed, and with the universal assent of Par-
liament another Committee was appointed. That Committee
sat during two sessions, and even then did not make a report to
the House. Was the Hon. Gentleman ignorant of this inquiry?
If he were not, how could he affirm that we have entered into
none of these grievances. If he thought the inquiry had been
an evasive one, be only wished him joy of the sort of inquiry
which he would get at the bar of that House into all the
questions of the Bankcharter, joint-stock banks, and the whole
currency of the country. And what were they to do with the
question of the Established Church while that inquiry went on ?
He would venture to say that the inquiry into the Bank charter
and the whole change of the currency in 1819, would occupy
five months, and he must therefore postpone, ad Grams Ka-
lendas, the inquiry into any other subject. But, in fact,
these questions had been inquired into already, by the effective
intervention of a Select Committee. With respect to other
questions, such as the Church establishment, reform of
Parliament—these questions were rather to be decided
on by the deliberate tense of the House, after
due discussion, than by inquiry either by a Select Committee
or by the whole House. On these grounds, then, and without
raising any other objections to the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man, he felt bound to resist it. He contended it was utterly
impracticable ; it would be absurd to pass a resolution pledging
themselves to an inquiry into all these eight on ten subjects,
which constituted almost the whole state of their domestic
society ; for the House of Commons to present itself to the
people, confessing its own incompetency, declaring itself to be
criminal, and abdicating its functions, because a petition was
presented two or three years since charging them with having
an imperfect constitution, on account of the right of suffrage
being) withheld from a great portion of the people—he con-
fessed he thought it very improbable that the House of Com-
mons would consent to place itself in that position before the
country.—( Cheers ) With respect to many of the details Into
which the Hon. Gentleman had ventured, on a general
occasion like this, they hardly admitted of a satisfaCtory
examination. With respect to the article of tea, he stated that
we had committed a gross and scandalous injustice, because
they placed an equal duty all kinds of tea. Why, the opposite
system was tried, and there was at one time a discriminating
duty on the article. That system was abandoned—not by an
act of the Government, but after a mature inquirybefore the
House of Commons, and in consequence of the difficulty attend-
ing the collection of the discriminating duty. It was not
abandoned from any desire to bear hard on the interests of the
working classes, but because the interests of the revenue re-
quired it. He ventured to say that if the Hon. Gentleman
could insure an equal amount of revenue by the operation of
the discriminating duty, there would be no objection to ap-
portion the tax to the quality of the tea. With respect to the
duty on beer. that did not weigh with particular force against
the present Government, by one of the members of which the
tax on beer, as distinguished from malt, was removed. He
altogether denied the charges brought against that House. A
full inquiry had been instituted into several of these matters,
and he believed there was a strong desire on the part
of that House with regard to taxation, to consult
the interests of those upon whom, under any sys-
tem, the burden of taxation must fall. But above all, "eon-
-tinned the Right Hon. Baronet, I conjure the House not to
lower itself in the eyes of this country, and declare it is unfit
to perform the great duty it is called on to discharge, by ad-
mitting its incompetency as a Legislature, because a petition
numerously signed has been presented to it, claiming for the
whole of the people of this country a right to the possession of
the suffrage.—( Cheers. )
Mr. HUME admitted that some of the arguments of his
Hon. Friend were not so applicable to the resolution as others
had been; but he put it to the Right Hon. Baronet who had
just sat down (Sir R. Peel), and he put it to the House, whe-
ther any time could be more appropriate, any opportunity more
convenient, for bringing his proposition before the House than
that which had been chosen. The constitutional doctrine was
to bring forward the state of the country- whew the- means of
carrying on the service of the country were asked at the hands
of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore, he thought the
Right Hon. Baronet decidedly wrong in stating that this was
not the proper time for bringing forward such a resolution.
And had, be (Sir R. Peel) taken any notice of the observarions
which had fallen from his Hon. Friends in moving and seconding
that resolution? Had be not merely skimmed over these ob-
servations, and directed his remarks to the resolution
itself, refraining carefully from grappling with the facts and
statements which were elicited in support of it ? Again, had
the Right Hon. Baronet taken any notice of the general dis-
tress, the almost universal destitution, which overspread the
country, ? Does he deny that distress, that appalling suffering?
No ! If he does not, then, why refuse to agree to the reso-
lution, for his Hon. Friend had distinctly stated that the chief
ground on which he brought it forward was this far-spread
misery. And all these miseries, afflictions, and casualties
were in a country abounding in everything which could make
man happy, and render society blessed. And could any man
shut his eyes to the facts adduced, and deny a due attention
to the observations of his Hon. Friend? He (Mr. Williams)
distinctly stated that it was on account of the frightful and in-
creasing destitution of the people, and on that account only, that
he asked the House to agree to the aesoluton that had been
submitted to it. He (Mr. Hume) did not ask the Honourable
Baronet or the House to agree in all that the resolution stated,
but he challenged them to look over it, and to deny, if they
could, many of the statements it contained. But the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had, in fact, shuffled the question
altogether.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) It did not appear to
him (Mr. Hume) that the Government intended to do any-
thing at all this.session for the people, but to go on, as they
did fast session, and let the destitution make, if that were pos-
sible, even greater head than it had done. He (Mr. Hume)
bad been urged, out of the House, to support this motion.
ee
to d
givey r e qt
their
support i
r-
Out of doors they ascribed the misery and destitution that pre-
vailed to the bad legislation which took place in it, and to the
hope
for sympathy
looked as a
remedy,
to it, as he (Mr. Hume) felt himself bound to do. In
the year 1835, it was threatened a stop the supplies, hut he
suggestions
those
fo i n
whomthis
they resolution
could they
(Mr. Hume) believed that he was about the only person who
was sincere in his determination to do so, had the anticipated
emergency really arisen. At that time an Administration—a
liberal and popular Administration— had ben rejected by the
Crown against the will of the House.—(" Hear, hear," from
the Tory benches.) The Crown was •about to go on with a
Government which did not enjoy the confidence of that House.
—(Continued cries of " Hear, hear" from the Tory benches.)
What could they do, had the Crown persisted in its
unwise and unconstitutional course, but deprive it of the means
of acting in defiance of the House of Commons ?
Sir R. PEEL—" Hear, hear."
Mr. HUME—What was their situation no- ? If the Right
Ron. Baronet had a majority it was well known to be a ma-