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

jority that carried measures in direct opposition to the interests
and against the wishes of the people. Why, it was that ma-
jority that voted the money. And, therefore, what the people
wanted was to change the constitution of that House, alleging
as they did that it did not truly represent them, their in-
terests, their wants, or their wishes. The people out of doors
declared that the House did not represent them, but only
a sixth part of them. He (Mr. Hume) would go
further than his Hon. Friend (Mr. Williams), that a rerormed
Parliament ae now existing had done acts which an unre-
formed Parliament would not have dreamt of deing.—(Loud
cheers from the Ministerial benches.) They might cheer. He
understood their cheers well, and in answer to them he would
ask, did they carry that Reform Bill which was originally pro-
mised, which was originally proposed, and which,
had it been carried, would have had a very dif-
ferent effect upon the national interests than the present
Bill had ?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) Did
not the Noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) who brought in the
Reform Bill in 1831 declare that the whole and sole object its
flamers had in view was, that all should be represented in the
Commons' House, and that individual interests and class legis-
lation should never more be heard of?—( Hear, hear.) Did
the Noble Lord do what he promised—was he permitted to do
so? Was he allowed to carry his first. Bill—the Bill really
worth having? No such thing. The suffrage was so narrowed
and clogged in that House by gentlemen opposite—the Bill
was so cut and carved, mutilated and maimed, that the objects
which the Noble Lord intended were wholly and completely
defeated. Aye, and the very author of the Bill itself turned
round and assisted to check its flee operation. But was that
any answer to the people out of doors, or were they ton proud
and too strong in their majority to take any heed of them or their
prayers. All knew how that majority had been obtained. Still he
did not blame the House so much as many people did. Per-
haps the House was bet ter than the electors. —( Loud laughter. )
He really believed this to be so.—( Cheers, and great
laughter.) Much has he blamed many, very many of the con-
stituencies, he knew well enough there were most honourable
exceptions to the corruption which too notoriously prevailed in
them. But many of them had acted a most corrupt part,
sending to that House, by the filthy means of bribery, a ma-
jority of individuals who, the moment they took their seats,
thought nothing whatever of the country, but studied and legis-
lated for class interests alone. These were the parties he
blamed. In England there were only from six to seven
hundred thousand electors who voted. Was the whole
adult population to be oppressed because a limited number of
persons alone, to whom the House chose to give the suffrage,
were base and unprincipled in the performance of their duty? It
was such reasons as these which had induced the bringing for-
ward of this motion. It was bad legislation—legislation in fa-
vour of monopolies and class interests, which had caused all
these evils, and no wonder the people looked out for some
radical means of staying this vicious legislation, and construct-
ing a better and worthier system. Could there be anything
more preposterous or more unjust than that in England there
should be two classes—the free class and the slave class ?—(A
laugh.) Why slavery did exist in England. and to as'
great an extent as - in any other country, if not
ta a greater. lie turned, the other day, to a definition of the
slave and the free man, which he thought so good and so
just, that he would read it to the House. The definition of
a free man was—" One to give assent to the laws of the State,
either in person or by his representative ;" and of that class
there were between six and seven hundred thousand in Eng-
land ; for though the number of registered voters might be
about nine hundred thousand, not more than the number he
had stated generally voted. And what was the definition of a
slave? This—" To have no will of his own in the making of
the laws, either in person or by representative, but to be go-
verned by the rule of other men, set in authority over him."
Now to that definition, which he had extracted from the Times
newspaper—(A burst of laughter)—aye, but it was from a
Times of some few years back, when it was the advocate
of every sound and good measure that the country could boast
of.—(Opposition cheers.) To that definition he (Mr. Hume)
gave in his entire and hearty adhesion. So in England they
had seven hundred thousand freemen, and all the rest were
slaves.—(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) He
was glad to hear Hon. Gentlemen approve of what he stated,
and he should be happy to hear a definition more appropriate,
if, indeed, one more appropriate could be found. From some
returns of the electors in boroughs and counties, the result of
an analysis which he had made, was that 347 Members out of
65M--that was a great majority of that House—werereturned
by 180.600 voters. Consequently the power over the
whole country was in reality vested in 180,000 persons.
Now, what did this show ? It proved the very limited num-
ber f the persons who had the power of ruling the destinies
of the country, for good or evil. No more than one-fortieth
of the male adult population of the country possessed the fran-
chise ; and this could not be considered a fair system
of representation. So much for the constitution of the House.
It was, therefore, idle to use the term of freemen towards the
unrepresented classes—they were no more than slaves, for no
stale ever suffered so much from mismanagement as the great
mass of the people of England. The Legislature, as at pre-
sent constituted, supported monopoly and heavy taxation, and
no man could deny it. He thought his Hon. Friend's argu-
ment with respect to the poor-laws had been unfairly treated.
The principle that every man should depend upon his own la-
bour instead of being dependent upon the industry of others
—that was the principle on which he supported the Bill when it
was first introduced ; but the cruelty and injustice was this,
that while the Legislature declared that every man should
depend upon his own industry, they passed laws which pre-
vented the poor man from procuring labour, and also taxed his
food, and thus prevented him from supporting himseelf. He
had even supported the poor-laws, because he considered that
it prevented the idle from living upon the means of the more
industrious classes; but, at the same time, he meant that the
Legislature should give every man an opportunity of living by
his own labour, and, to the honour of Englishmen, he should
say that they always preferred getting their livelihood by their
own exertions instead of being dependent upon others. What
the country wanted was a system of free trade, by which the
demand for labour would he increased, and therefore all
monopolies were unjust. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite
did not at all notice the subject of the corn-laws, and
sorry was he to say that those laws were kept up for
their own interests by both Houses of Parliament. The
Right Hon. Baronet did not acknowledge that he was
aware those laws had the effect of diminishing the
demand for labour. He (Mr. Hnme) could only say that at
least seven-eigththsef the revenue derived from the Customs was
taken out of the pockets of the poor men, and yet the House of
Commons burdened them with taxes and restrictions for selfish
motives. Surely this conduct was unworthy of a number of
gentlemen who called themselves Christians. The first evil
under which the country groaned was a defective system of
representation. Let the voice of the millions be heard within
the walls of that House, and then no further cause of griev-
ance would remain. The only question was would anything
be done for the amelioration of the condition of the people.
Whenever any attempt was made during a remote period to urge
forward the cause of Reform, the same answer was invariably
given as that of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. His Hon.
Friend would be ready to adopt any arrangements that could
be made, provided there was a beginning made in redressing
the grievances of the country, for he was sore that where there
was a will there was a way. The Right Hon. Baronet
had admitted the existence of those grievances, and had
said that the best and most proper place for inquiry_ into
those grievances would be in a Committee of the House
of Commons. Now he (Mr. Hume) would say, that there
ought to be a Committee appointed to investigate every
grievance, even if it took forty Committees at a time—( A
laugh)—and let them bring a report before the House, and
then have the House act on their recommendation. But
whether they made this inquiry now or not, he felt as-
sured that eventually relief, must be given. He perceived
that the Hon. and Gallant Member for Lincoln seemed
amused at some of his remarks, but he (Mr. Hume) thought
he was the last man who would be induced to laugh at
the distresses of .the country. He concurred cordially in all
that had fallen from his Hon. Friend, and would support his
motion, except the last paragraph of it.
. Colonel SIBTHOIIP contended the Honourable Mem-
ber for Montrose was not justified in saving that
the country was in distress, as in the county
he lived in every labourer was in full employments
He had received a letter the other day, a portion of which he
would read. The writer says :—" Sir Robert Peel has every
reason to be proud of the position he at present stands in from
the improved condition of the country." That was the letter
he had.—( Laughter.) He had no doubt the country would
prosper under the present Administration, notwithstanding the
poison and venom of the Anti-Corn-law League, and those
quack doctors, who were going about the country, not caring
how many they cured, and not telling how many they killed.
Mr. TRELAWNEY said that he had been requested to
support the present motion, but he was not prepared to go the
length it proposed.--( Hear, hear.) He admitted the people
had many grievances to be redressed, but he could not sanction
the present proceeding.—( Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ...
Majority against the motion
THE LANDLORD AND TENANT COMMISSION.
Mr. WAKLEY rose to put a question to the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government, with respeet to the
Landlord and Tenant Commission in Ireland. He had been
much startled the other evening, at hearing the Right Hon.
Baronet declare that the Commission was wholly composed of
Irish landlords. The other statements of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet with respect to the Commission were very gratifying.
He, however, believed that it was utterly impossible that the
Commission could fulfil the desired object, if it consisted merely
of Irish landlords. The discussion that evening with respect
to the appointment of persons on the Railway Committee
turned very much upon the appointment of persons interested
in railways upon the Committee, to which much objec•
tion was urged. He did not mean to cast the slight-
est reproach on the appointment of the Irish Commission,
but. he did say that it would have been more satisfactory if the
Commission had been composed of tenants as well as landlords.
He was sure that all the farmers' friends in that House would
vote for such persons being en such a Commission. He believed
the complaints generally in Ireland were against the landlords
and not the tenants; it therefore seemed but reasonable that
they should expect some tenants on the Commission. He
hoped, therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet would not ob-
ject to introduce some tenants into this Commission. An Irish
Member remarked to him (Mr. Wakley) the other evening,
that there was no tenant in Ireland competent to go into the in-
quiry. If that were true, it was the most extraordinary thing
he had heard of. At any rate, if it were true, he knew that
there would be no difficulty finding tenants in this country
capable of being placed on the Commission.—(A laugh.) He
felt if this course was adopted, that it would give satisfaction
to England as well as Ireland.
Sir R. PEEL said there was one proposal of the Hon. Gen-
tleman which he certainly could not adopt, namely, that of
sending English tenants to be members of the Irish Commis.
lion.—(Laughter.) If he (Sir R. Peel) had made that pro-
posal, and had said that tenants in Ireland were not competent
to be upon the Commission, what would Hon. Gentlemen then
have said ?—( Hear, hear.) He could well anticipate the man-
ner in which the Government would have been addressed.
Mr. WAKLEY—I did not say so.
Sir R. PEEL did not agree with the Irish Member, who-
ever he was. It was certainly not his (Sir R. Peel's) fault
that these persons were not on the Commission. The first
person the Government applied to to become a member of the
Commission was Mr. More O'Ferrall.-- ( Hear, hear.) He
was selected on account of the great knowledge he had shown
of the subject, and on account of the sympathy manifested
by him for the condition of the occupying tenantry.
That gentleman declined on account of his health. He (Sir
R. Peel) mentioned this to show that the Government had had
no intention of mixing up questions of a religious description
with the question to ba inquired into by the Commission. He
wished to show the animus of the Government in appointing
this Commission, and be was sure that from the estimation in
which the members of the Commission were held in Ireland,
and from the sympathy they had shown for the condition of
the occupying tenantry, that public confidence would be given
to them. The first step taken by the Commission was to put
themselves in communication with the poor-law guardians,
from whom they obtained a cordial response. The Commis-
sionear: had made their report, as far as it had gone, J: compre-
hensive hensive as possible. As yet the labours of the
had given the greatest satisfaction, and lie thought under these
circumstances that it would be unwise to make any alterations
in it.
he
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORDwthisehelotatomisstsaitaen,,
thatwithout
meaning to fasten any imputation on
was aware that a feeling of dissatisfaction had
.beencereeadteaspleinn
Ireland in consequence of none but lraenadtleorr
confidence if other
the Commission. It would placed
persons, not landlords, were pve on that Commission. lie