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

r Hon. Member for Kendal, who had on a former occasion
taken a very active part in the revision of the Standing
Orders relating to the introduction of Railway Bills ;
and there was the Hon. Member for Inverness, who had
also taken a great interest in the subject. He should
have been rejoiced to have seen bOth those Hon. Gentle-
men on the Committee. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath supposed that he was wedded to his own
opinion on matters of detail. He could assure the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman that he was perfectly sensible of
the difficulties which he should experience in adjusting
these details, and that he should be glad of any sug-
gestion as to the best method of proceeding. With re-
gard to the specific proposition before the House, if
they postponed the question then they would be com-
pelled to deal with these difficulties at some future day,
and considering the number of applications for Railway
Bills that would probably be made in the course of the
session, be thought it important that they should pro-
ceed with the inquiry at the earliest possible period.
Mr. HAWES gave the Right Hon. Gentleman full
credit for his anxiety to do justice to this very impor,
taut subject, but he had not answered the objection made
by the Noble Lord, that the railway interest was too
strongly represented. The Committee would have to
consider not only the measures necessary to be adopted
for all future railways, but also what alterations the
protection of the public might require to be made in the
regulations of existing railways, so as to protect the
public, against the monopoly which might be created by
a concentration of interests. He objected to increasing
the number of Members beyond fifteen, and he suggested
the propriety of suspending the appointment of the
Committee. There was a great preponderance of rail-
way interests among its members, and he would suggest
to the Right Hon. Gentleman the propriety of substitut-
ing some other names for those of gentlemen connected
with railways.—(Cheers.) He should wish to see his
Hon. Friend the Member for Kendal on that Committee.
His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath had
given notice of a motion on the subject of railways that pre-
supposed some attention to the subject. He should like
to see the Hon. and Learned Gentleman appointed to
the Committee. He trusted that the appointment of the
Committee would be postponed after the objections which
had been made that night. He trusted the House would be
spared the pain of dividing upon the names of individual
gentlemen ; but he also hoped that for some of those
names the Right Hon. Gentlemen would substitute those
of Members unconnected with railway interests.
Mr. P. M. STEWART hoped the House would feel no
delicacy in disposing of his name. It had been put in
without any consultation with himself, and the first
knowledge he had had of his appointment had been ob-
tained from reading the votes of the morning. He felt
grateful for the honour which had been conferred on
him, but he was not at all ambitious of serving on the
Committee. It would be ungrateful in him to decline to
serve, and he would at once state that he was an ho-
norary director of the Greenock Railway, although he
never interfered in its management, nor was he a great
holder of railway stock. If the construction of the
Committee rendered it at all liable to suspicion, he would
recommend the Right Hon. Gentleman to postpone the
appointment of it. The Right Hon. Gentleman, how-
ever, was the best judge as to the proper course of pro-
ceeding to be adopted. He had been put on the Com-
mittee without his consent, and he was not offended in
consequence ; neither should he take offence if he were
put off without his consent.
Mr. WARBURTON thought it right to state, as allu-
sion..had been made to him, that there were reasons why
he should not be appointed on the Committee. He had
no experience whatever as to the details of railway re-
gulation. He held a chief office in a society which re-
quired so much of his attention, that his punctual
attendance at the Committee would be impossible
,; and
although, at present, he was not a subscriber to any
railway undertaking, yet he saw a notice of an applica-
tion about to be made for a Railway Bill to which he
had no doubt his constituents would expect that he
should subscribe ; and, therefore, the objection which
had been made to railway proprietors would equally
apply to him. He complained that there was no one
on the Committee to represent the travelling public.
He did not know whether the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton possessed any railway shares ; he no doubt
would defend the interests of the public ; but he thought
there ought to be persons on the Committee who were
neither directors nor shareholders. .He hoped the
House would stick to the number of fifteen, for if once
they infringed on that rule, they would never be able to
adhere to it afterwards.

face of the earth whether the poor of this country had
not ground for complaint when such a state of things
existed. But this was a mere difference in the value of
the currency ; they must also take into account the
deterioration in every branch of industry. Take the ar•
tisan, the mechanic, and the labourer; he ventured
to say that on the average it would now require more
than the wages of two days to pay their taxation, while
one would have sufficed in 1813. Take the iron manu-
facture. It would take three pounds of iron at the
present day, at its present price, to pay the taxes, for
which one would have sufficed in 1813. Look, again, at
the cotton manufacture. It would now take more than
two pounds of cotton twist, and more than four yards of
calico, to pay the same amount of taxation for which
one pound of cotton-twist and one yard of calico would
have sufficed in 1813. If they went through the whole
of the manufactures, they would arrive at the same
result. It
,had been said by a distinguished political
man, that the people, in fact, governed themselves ;
that all the taxes were laid upon them for their own
protection and benefit. Let them turn to local taxa-
tion. It was stated by the Poor-law Commissioners
that the local taxation of the country amounted
to twelve millions. That calculation was, he felt
convinced, vastly under the mark. The local taxa-
tion of the city of London was stated by these gen •
tlemen to be 188,500/. He would prove; beyond
dispute, that it amounted to more than half a million,
including taxes paid to the corporation, the taxes paid
on coal and for public improvements, the poor-rates, the
church-rates, and other burdens. This was 300,0001.
more than the amount stated by the Commissioners.
He believed that the local taxation of Eng-
land, Scotland. and Ireland, amounted to more
than 25,000,0001., and when this was added to the
general taxes, the whole amount was about 80,000,0001.
And this was altogether independent of the sums paid
to the Church and the Dissenting clergy ; and for the
maintenance of places of worship and schools, which laid
additional and heavy burdens upon the people. The
principal amount was paid by a population of eighteen
millions and a half; for, with all the complaints of their
fellow-subjects in Ireland, he believed that the Irish
were better off, as regarded taxation, than the prople of
this country. He believed that, taking the last century,
that the taxation of Ireland did not amount to one-
twelfth of the taxation of this country. Now look at
the taxation of France. This year it would be little
more than 50,000,000/., to be paid by a population of
35,000,000, and it embraced nearly all the items con-
tained in our local taxation. Now, why was
this large amount taken from the toil, the
skill, and the sweat of millions of the labour-
ing population ? Why, they must have a
standing army and military police, otherwise these
things would not be submitted to. How did that ques-
tion stand ? The number of the army, independently
of the artillery and the engineers, in the year
.1822 was
91,750. Last year, the first estimate was 129,481.
There was, indeed, an assurance from the Government
that 5,700 men would be reduced ; but, instead of ful-
filling that promise, they came down before the end of
the session with a Bill to add 10,000 men to the existing
force ; not in the ordinary mode, but establishing, for
the first time in the history of this country, a permanent
military force, answering to the Prntorian guards in
ancient Rome.—(Laughter.) The present Government
might not intend this force to be permanent, but they
had established the principle—(Hear)--and such would
be the pressure upon this country, that some of their
successors would constitute the force in the way that be
had described. Why, under the existing law the Go-
vernment had power to take any numbr out of the
129,000 men to the amount of 10,000, place them on
half-pay, and then embody them at their own pleasure
as military police, or gendarmerie. The last vote of the
boroughmongering Parliament fixed the entire force at
109,180 men; the vote of the Reform Parliament last
year fixed the number at 139,481 men, 30,200 more than
the force under the old boroughmongering system.
—(Hear, hear.) Their system of taxing the people
was most partial and unjust. Under the most despotic
Governments of Europe the wealthier classes paid the
larger portion of the taxes. In Prussia, Austria, and
many other countries, the taxes were laid chiefly
on, land. The operation of the income-tax had
proved that they could suck no more out of
the people of this country. Take the article of tea. At
the public sales yesterday and the day before there was
tea sold at 10d. and ls. per lb. ; it paid 2s. 2d. as tax.
There was tea sold at ss. per lb., and that paid the same
tax. Thus the poor paid five times as much as the rich
for this article of consumption. For the commonest
brown sugar, which was mixed to a great extent with
unwholesome materials, the poor paid the same tax as
was paid by the rich on the whitest refined sugar. Take
the instance of tobacco. To be sure it might be said that
the poor man ought not to enjoy such a luxury—
but he had been accustomed to it, and it was one of
those things of which he could not be deprived. A tax
of 800 per cent. was paid upon tobacco, whilst upon
cigars, which could be obtained only by those in better
circumstances, the tax was only 140 or 150 per cent.
They imposed a tax of 100 per cent. upon the poor
man's beer ; but upon their own Burgundy and Cham-
pagne no more 15 or 16, or, at the most, 17 or 171 per
cent. He asked them, therefore, if they could stand up
and say that these were not grievances, into which the
representatives of the people were bound to inquire 7
(Dear, hear.) He would conclude with warning the
Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department that
things were now approaching to the state, of the possi-
bility of which the Right Hon. Gentleman had, on a
former occasion, warned the House. So many of the
people were dying of hunger in this metropolis, that the
richer classes and the clergy were forming themselves
into associations to check the progress of destitution and
famine.—(Hear, hear.) It was known that ten millions
of the people were subsisting upon the food of cattle.--
(Hear, hear.) He would now conclude, in the words of
the Right Hon. Baronet, when he said that "If ever the
time came that this country should present the specta-
cle of millions of the people in a state of starvation,
then they would sweep away titles, honours, pensions,
and estates."—(Cheers.) He seconded the resolution.
The SPEAKER having read the resolution, a pause of two
or three minutes took place, when, after loud cries of " Ques-
tion, question" from the. Tory benches,
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose and said that he was perfectly
willing to admit that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for
Rochdale, was fully entitled to the credit which he had
claimed for himself at the commencement of his speech, for
the motives which actuated him in bringing forward this reso-
lution, and also for the moderation with which he had per-
formed the task.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it would not
be just to accuse the Hon. Gentleman of any intention to ob-
struct the business of the House, by moving adjournments from
time to time until the object of his motion should be attained.
He was sure that he rightly estimated the good sense of the
Hon. Gentleman, when he believed that the Hon. Gentleman,
unless he knew that he was supported by a very great portion
of the House, would not feel himself justified in adopting
such a course.—( Hear.) But whatever course he (Mr. Craw-
ford)hoidet notmighrt
nkhereaftereo would
hany
otufhguinhtk Proper to take, he (Sir R. Peel)
to offer that as an objection to
to
oibe met upon its own grounds, and
be
f
future course he might take. He thought
ntd in
resolution,
r e t
f h
enwittwhich
c
it ought also to be met in a fpirit corresponding to that in
which it was brought forward. He would, therefore, only ask the
House, whether it would be consistent with the public interest
that they shbuld vote in favour of that resolution ?—( Hear. )
The resolution was a twofold proposition—first, that it was the
immediate duty of the House to inquire into the grievances of
the people ; and, secondly, that the House was not competent
to grant the supplies nn account of the defects of its constitu-
tion. If this resolution were carried, then the House would
have declared itself criminal in the eyes of the country, and
the sooner it abstained from exercising its functions, and ab-
dicated its authority, the better. The first part of the reso-
lution bore upon an
the political and social institutions of the
country.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") 3 he second part
complained first of the East India Company monopoly—
next, of the monopoly of the Bank of England. It then
passed to the poor-law, which the Honourable Member con-
sidered a just ground of complaint on the part of the people,
the Hon. Gentleman insisting that both the enactment of the
law and its administration were of a nature which demanded
an immediate inquiry—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Sharman
Crawford.) The resolution then passed to the Church Estab-
lishment, which it said the people of this country were dis-
posed to complain of—which was, in this part of the empire, a
public -grievance ; in Ireland still more so, on account of the
peculiar circumstances of that country ; and even in Scotland
a grievous and fruitful source of discontent.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman complained abo of 'the establishment of
the constabulary force in the rural districts; and next he (Mr.
Sharman Crawford) thought that the ancient custom of the
country, that each locality should appoint its own constables,
should be restored. The Hon. Member for Rochdale next
passed to the corn-law. and seriously told the House
that until this, and all the other ingredients in his
aggregate of grievances were inquired into the supplies should
be withheld. Did the House suppose that if they went into
that inquiry they should have arrived at a conclusion satisfac-
tory to the Hon. Gentleman or to the country before the sth of
April.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If the House were now
to institute an inquiry into all the relations of the different
classes of society, and into the functions, duties, privileges, and
constitution of each of the three estates, when would the in-
quiry end ?—( Hear, hear.) It was quite clear—indeed he
thought it was quite clear to the Hon. Gentleman himself—
that the proposition was utterly impracticable. Even if it were
wise to institute such an inquiry, he would ask did the Hon.
Gentleman himself think it would lead to the redress of these
grievances, if such they were ? He (Sir R. Peel) did not
think that the Hon. Gentleman had any party object in view
when he brought forward this motion. He meant to say
that he did not think the Honourable Member
bad any intention of bringing it forward for the purpose of an-
noying or obstructing the party who, from political motives, sup-
ported those who managed the affairs of the Government in
that House. He thought that nothing could result from the
inquiry. How could it ? The only effect would be to raise
expectations which could never be realised, and to give forth
to the world an acknowledgment of the folly and incapacity of
the British House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member had not contented himself with putting forth these
propositions, but told the House not to vote supplies, as
they were not the representatives of the people ; and in-
sisted that a very extensive reform of Parliament was a ne-
cessary preliminary before the House should proceed to exer-
cise any of its functions. The Hon. Gentleman told them
that there were 6,000,000 of adults in the empire, and that
only 1,000,000 were represented in Parliament, and he
thought that it was an injustice to the other 5,000,000 that
they should be subjected to taxation. The Hon. Gentleman
insisted that representation should be co-existent with taxa-
tion, and yet he would confine representation to -adult males.
But females also were subject to taxation. why did he not give
them the franchise ? They had the power of voting in many
institutions, and there could be no reason for excluding them
from the Parliamentary franchise if it was to be co-extensive
with taxation.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD—Certainly not.—( Laughter. )
Sir R. PEEL must say then that the Hon. Member for
Rochdale was a very great Reformer indeed --(Laughter. )
Why did the Hon. Member confine the franchise to adults ?
Persons below the age of maturity were subject to taxation.
They were subject also to military service. Why, then, on
the Hon. Member's own principle, did he exclude them from
the franchise ? The proposal of the Hon. Gentleman, there-
fore, was neither more nor less than this, that the whole po-
pulation of this country, without reference to the possession of
a house—the whole population of every part' of the United
Kingdom, who contributed to the taxes by indirect taxation,
should, wale and female, be entitled in point of justice to a
share of the suffrage. Was it. possible, supposing the principle
of the Hun. Gentleman to be just—was it possible for him to
test it by practical application ? If he put it in ope-
ration he might depend that -his new House of Par-
liament would be ble o precisely the same at-

a minority was prepared to refuse the supplies. He
wished a majority to go with him in affirming the prin-
ciple that grievances should be redressed before the
supplies were granted. It- was not his intention, after a
vote should be taken on this question, to interfere
further in opposition to the Government.—(Hear, bear.)
He felt that no individual Member ought to undertake
or attempt to proceed in a course with regard to the
supplies, which would not be supported by public
opinion out of doors, or that would not be supported by
a sufficient number of Members in the House.—(Hear,
hear.) He was not the man to undertake this. He
wished to bring his proposition fairly before the House
and the public, and it would then be for the advocates
of popular rights and the public to take any course
they might think best. Such a proceeding as that of
raising the question of grievances on the motion of sup-
plies, ought to be supported by public opinion, or else it
could have no weight, nor could it ever be of any use.
He did not contemplate a system of factious adjourn-
ments, but his object was, if possible, to get a
majority with him. Although he might on this
occasion be defeated by the majority, yet he would never,
despair of ultimately obtaining a majority with him.
He did not charge the present Government in particular
with inattention, fur other' Governments had been
equally culpable, and he knew that the late Government
was as much to blame as the present one. He was
aware that he should be opposed in his motion by
perhaps the principal supporters of the late Government,
and he therefore wished it to be distinctly understood
that he made no accusation against the present Govern-
ment. He wished to impress on the House the necessity
of inquiry. He said that if the Government refused to
grant that inquiry, it then became the duty
of that House, as a body, to refuse the
supplies until such inquiry were obtained. This was a
constitutional principle which he was desirous of carry-
ing out.—(Hear, hear.) He wished the House to reflect
upon the situation in which it was placed with the coun-
try. It stood, as it were, as a criminal at the bar, the
charges against it being its own votes.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not wish to trespass further on the attention of
the House, but he trusted that it would be conceded
that he had brought his motion forward temperately,
for he had endeavoured to avoid everything which
might f3r a moment give offence to any one.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—" That whereas
complaints have been made to this House on various oc-
casions, by petition, to the effect that the people are
suffering under unjust and partial legislation, and under
the effects of monopolies of various kinds, political
and ecclesiastical, created and kept in existence for the
benefit of favoured classes ; that by the taxes imposed
on food, for the support of one of these monopolies, the
supply is restricted and the price raised, whilst at the
same time the demand for labour is diminished and
wages reduced, and the profits of manufacturing and
commercial industry deeply Injured ; that the burthen
of general taxation has been increased to an intolerable
extent, by an extravagant expenditure in every depart-
ment of the State, and that this taxation is so imposed
as to press most oppressively and heavily on the indus-
trial portion of the community ; that laws have
been passed injurious to the rights of the
people, and arbitrary proceedings of Government
have taken place dangerous to public liberty ;
that in order to sustain this system an unconstitutional
amount of standing army is kept up for the home ser-
vice, and the ancient constitutional constable superseded
by the hired police ; all which would be wholly unne-
cessary if the grievances of the people were redressed,
and just and impartial government established. It is
further complained, that these and other grievances are
produced by the bad constitution of the CoMmons'
House ; that by the limitation of the suffrage, the long
duration of Parliaments, and corruption and undue in-
fluences in the election of representatives, this House,
as at present constituted, does not truly represent,
and is not responsible to the people, and therefore
does not legislate for their interests ; that, notwith-
standing frequent respectful petitions presented to this
House, the complaints of the people have neither been
inquired into nor redressed ; that from these causes an
alarming state of discontent prevails generally over:the
United Kingdom : It is therefore the immediate duty of
this House to make inquiry into these complaints ; and
as this House can have no right to vote supplies except
as being the representatives of the people, it is impera-
tively necessary that the charges brought against its
present constitution and competency in the petitions
which have been received and recorded among its pro-
ceedings, should be inquired into, and, if found to be
justly made, redressed, before this House shall proceed
to the voting of supplies."
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said his Hon. Friend having
stated so clearly his views on this question, he had no
hesitation in seconding the resolution. He confessed
that if it had involved the principle of a small minority,
factiously opposing the granting of the supplies against
a large majority, he would not have been prepared to
have taken that course. The object of this motion was
simply:to inquire into the grievances of the people. The
first important point to establish was the existence of
those grievances. His lion. Friend had stated generally
what he considered to be those grievances, as they had
been described in petitions which had been laid on the table
of that Hous?. His Hon. Friend had not in his motion
gone any thing approaching so far as examples which
might be found on the Journals of that House, but espe-
cially in the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord the
Member for London (Lord J. Russell) when he introduced
into that House the Reform Bill. The Noble Lord
on that occasion stated to the House the object he
had in view in proposing that Bill, in the following
words :—" I propose that the people should send to this
House their real representatives, to deliberate upon their
wants, to consult upon their interests, to consider their
grievances, and to attend to their desires." Now, nothing
was expressed in the resolution proposed by his (Mr:W.'a)
Hon. Friend, that was not expressed in language much
stronger, in his opinion by the Noble Lord, when he in-
troduced the Reform Bill. He would ask any Hon.
Member whether the Reform Bill had produced the re-
sult anticipated by the Noble Lord ? He believed that
every honest man would answer in the negative. When
that Bill was introduced, the entire people of this coun-
try exhibited a willingness to risk even their lives and
property in defence of that measure, which they anti-
cipated would secure to them those benefits which the
Noble Lord had described. Their anticipations had
been attended with nothing but disappointment. - Some-
times three millions of the people presented a petition,
in which they stated that that House did not represent
them. They had many examples of proceedings in that
House which went farther than the motion of
his Hon. Friend. In the year 1642, when the Monarch
of that day attempted to raise taxes without
the authority of the House of Commons, when he pro-
ceeded to accomplish his object, the House of Commons
resisted the arbitrary attempt, and the first great and
important step they took in opposition to the tyrannical
attempt was to give direction to the Lords of the Trea-
sury to stop the supplies. This step not only put a stop
to the King's object, but ultimately led the Sovereign to
the scaffold. Again, in the reign of William the Third.
That Monarch, in ascending the throne, entered into a
compact with the people, which compact was usually
called " The Bill of Rights." As soon as he had as-
cended the throne, he neglected his engagement, and
endeavoured, by all the means in his power, to avoid it.
The House of Commons and the House of Lords had
then virtue enough to enforce that Monarch's compliance
with his engagement ; and, in 1683, a Bill passed both
Houses of Parliament, by which Parliaments were made
triennial. That Bill was rejected by the King. In the
next year the Parliament repassed that Bill, and the
Parliament, according to Burnet, told the King that
unless he gave his assent to that B:11, that he would re-
ceive no supplies, and no supplies were voted until that
Bill received the Royal assent. The first and most im-
portant proposition in the resolution of his Hon. Friend
was that that House did not represent the people.
How did the question stand with regard to the represen-
tation of the people in that House ? Five millions out
of six millions of the people were without any voice at
all in the representation ; yet two-thirds of the taxation
were borne by the non-represented classes. The Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government,
in introducing the income-tax, said he could not consent
to increase the burdens on the lower classes, saying he
could bring conclusive proof to show that taxation had
reached its limits.—(Hear, hear.) These were the opi-
nions of the Right Hon. Baronet. Judge Blackstone
laid it down as his opinion that the people should ac-
quiesce in the judgment of the law because they had a
voice in the making of those laws through their repre-
sentatives. But what could be said for the five millions
who were without representation ; and yet what could
be done without them? - He would next turn to the con-
stitution of that House itself. What could be more
monstrous, more base, than the bribery so often proved
before the Election Committees ? When Mr. Maddocks
brought a charge against a Member of that House, at
the time of Lord Castlereagh, that Noble Lord said
the sale of seats in that House was as notorious
as the sun at noon-day. The Honourable
Member then quoted several instances of bribery at
elections, and then alluded to the deficiency of voters.
Seventy-one towns returned to that House 121
Members, with a constituency less in number then the
West Riding of Yorkshire; 20 towns, with a consti-
tuency of 2,923, returned the same number of Members
as 20 other towns, having a constituency of 153,940.
Lord Chatham said that taxation without representation
was unconstitutional. Locke and Lord Grey were of a
similar opinion, opposed to these opinions were the facts,
that Harwich returned four Members . to Parliament,
whilst the West Riding of Yorkshire and the great town
of Manchester returned only the same number. The
taxation had increased in an alarming proportion. In
1/336, the expenditure was 44,200,0001, in 1843,
51,700,0001., being 7,500,000 L more than the
taxation of 1836, and the difference was suffi-
cient to maintain every department of the United
States annually, and yet that great country had
paid its debts to the last farthing.—(Hear, and laughter.)
He spoke of the Government of the United States, and
not of the States themselves, but he believed they too,
would discharge their debts.—(lronical cries of " .Hear,
hear.) The people were subjected to a greater taxa-
tion now than in any one year during the last war. Me
took for his authority one of the most enlightened
men of his day—who had written with as much ability
as any man living, and proved himself to be well ac-
quainted with the position of this country—he meant
the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the
Home Department.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Like
all prudent men, the Bight Hon. Baronet made all his
statements under the mark ; and what did he state ?
In the year 1812, he said, the amount of the
taxes was 61,200,0001., the price of gold 5/. Is. per
ounce ; in 1813 the amount of the taxes was 73,300,000 L,
the price of gold 5/. 6s. lid. per ounce. In the first in-
stance there was a depreciation in the currency, as com-
pared with the standard value, of 38i per cent. ; in the
second instance the depreciation was 41 per cent. Re-
duce the amount to the present standard, with gold at
3L 17s. 100. per ounce, and it would appear that the
average taxation of those five years was forty-five
Millions, tn millions less than in the twenty-eighth
year of peace. He would ask_every honest man on the

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON trusted that if the name of
any gentleman were substitued for his on the Committee
it would be some gentleman connected with Ireland.
Sir JOHN EASTHOPE had no objection to have the
name of some other gentleman substituted for that of
himself, if such were the desire of the House.
Mr. GLADSTONE would not object to postpone the
appointment of the Committee as so many gentleman
had expressed their willingness to retire.
Sir G. GREY hoped that, in the reconstruction of
the Committeee, the Right Hon. Gentlemen would take
care that every part of the country should be adequately
represented.
Mr. WALLACE had not made a personal objection
to any one, and he trusted that no misunderstanding
would exist on the subject.
The motion was thtn withdrawn.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.

On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the following
Members were nominated as the Select Committee on
the Merchant Seamen's Fund:—Mr. William Gladstone,
Sir Howard Douglas, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Lyell, Mr.
Hodgson Hinde, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Rice, Sir John
Hanmer, Captain Gladstone, Admiral Dundas, Mr.
Corry, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Ross, Mr. Hutt, and Mr.
Philip Miles.
SUPPLY—REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. _

On the SPEAKBR being about to read the Order of the
Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of
S upply,
Mr. WALLACE said that he had some petitions to
present:
The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Gentleman that
he could not present them.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to bring for-
ward the motion of which he had given notice. He ad-
mitted it was an unusual motion, but the reason he
brought it forward was, that there was not a fair repre-
sentation of the people in that House, and that their
grievances were not attended to by the House. They
complained of the monopolies on corn, one of the prin-
cipal of which was the tax on food, by which the manu-
facturing and commercial interests of the country suffered.
He would not at present enter on this subject. They
complained of the colonial monopolies, of which the
principal was the sugar monopoly. They complained of
the banking monopolies, and the East India monopoly,
and above all, they complained of the monopoly of the
Church. This was a monopoly felt particularly in
Ireland, and it was now being felt in Scotland.
The people complained of •an enormous burden
of taxation caused by wars, which would not have been
undertaken if the people were truly represented. He
did not want, however, that the public cxedit should be
destroyed by not paying the interest of the debt incurred
by those wars. The people complained of the manner in
which the public money was expended, and the system
of taxation. They complained of their rights being in-
vaded, and of unjust laws being passed. They complained
of the new poor-law, but the principle of this law he did
not intend to enter upon. One of the Acts invading the
rights of the people was the Arms Act. That iltiLct could
not have been carried if the people were truly repre-
sented, and it appeared now that the branding of the
arms would render it impracticable. But what he com-
plained of was, the arbitrariness of the Act. This,
amongst other things, produced the cry ft a. the repeal
of the union. The people frequently asked for inquiry,
but it was uniformly denied. There was an inquiry de-
manded respecting the conduct of certain judges, but it
was refused. They asked for inquiry into the standing
army. There were, he believed, 38,000 regu-
lar troops, and 9,000 armed constabulary, in Ireland.
These would be entirely unnecessary if the
just demands of the people were attended to.
But what they principally complained of was the state
of the representation. Only one in seven had the fran-
chise, and could that be considered a fair representation
of the people? Another reason why the people con-
sidered that this House did not truly represent them,
was thit it was returned by corrupt practices. This
House received the. petitions of the people, and had
them recorded, but while they did not contradict their
grievances, they refused all inquiry. One of the peti-
tions presented to that House was signed by. 3,500,000
persons. In that petition they used the following strong
language. " Your House, as at present constituted, has
not been elected by,.and acts irresponsive of, the people.
It only represents parties, and legislates for the benefit
of the few without any regard for the welfare or the in-
terests of the many." Thus, they challenged the House
to the proof of what they said, but they were disre-
garded. On the occasion when the Hon. Member for
Finsbury moved that no person should sit on Election
Committees. who would not make a declaration that he
had not used any undue means to procure his return,
only 19 Members voted in favour of his motion, thus
acknowledging the charges made against them, and
that they were not in a condition to deny those charges.
This House then stood in the position of an accused
party. It. permitted no inquiry, and it did not
deny the charges which were brought against it.
The inquiry that was demanded in the petition of the
Char-ists was refused;:the numbers being 287 against it
and 49 for it. The House having been in that position,
he maintained that it was not in a fit condition to impose
taxes. The forms of the House allowed the people to
call for redress of grievances before any supplies were
granted. Those rules were framed for the purpose of
defending the liberty of the subject. It was true that
those rules ought not to be taken advantage of except
under extraordinary circumstances, but he was there to
maintain that those extraordinary circumstances now
existed. It was not his object, as he had before stated,
to force the House to commit itself to a particular-prin-
ciple of reform. His resolution merely required the
House to consider the demands of the people, and whe-
ther there were faults in the system of representation or
not. He was not going. to abandon those principles
which he had declared, in his opinion, should be the
foundation of reform. But he did not wish to commit
the House, or any Honourable Gentleman who might
vote with him, to this particular principle. lie
wished the House to go into an inquiry, in order
to ascertain whether that principle was a right one.
It might be said that this motion of his would be a
nonentity, unless it were carried further. If the House
should affirm this resolution, he should then move an-
other resolution, to the effect that the House should
either appoint a Select Committee or resolve itself into
a Committee to inquire into the state of the representa-
tion. It might, however, be said that this inquiry would
last a long time, and that the supplies could not be dis-
pensed with for so long a time as that inquiry would
last. He did not wish to impede the granting the sup-
plies. But if the Government should think fit to grant
this inquiry he would be ready to vote for the supplies
for three, four, or sib months, or as long as that inquiry
should last, The question now raised was not whether

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNE-SDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 7,, 1844

tack as the present House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.)
He would find a petition would be brought up signed by several
hundred thousands of persons, alleging that they were deprived
of the right 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 bound, before
performing its legislative functions, to admit its own incompe-
tency, and to institute an inquiry into the grievances coin-
plained of. He should have thought, indeed, during a great
portion of the speech of the lion. Gentleman, that he was
,tenuously 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 democratic principle into that House
had disappointed all public expectation, and had inflicted
grievance. and evils upon the country, from which, 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 ad lition 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 ; bat 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, hoar)—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 of 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-
ment 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 lion. 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 ; hut 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 Pirliament was content to tax
themselves, and to lay that additional burden 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 withoit 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 cow-
forts, and undermining the independence of, the people ;
and they incurred great unpopularity by attempting to intro-
bdeuecne
Ina
ardeme.edyihen But ,
with i that
respect was n o t till
to
tahftee r
Bankgreat inquirycharter;h
had e
should like to know, after the Hon. Gentleman succeeded in
getting a Committee of the whole House, and that a resolu-
it
tion were voted that till the Bank charter was inquired into
there should be no supply voted,—he should like to know how
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 there grievances. If he thought the inquiry had been
an evasive one, he 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 Bank charter, 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 Grcecas 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 sense 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 son-
fessed be 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 thii, 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 inquiry before 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 vent tired' 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, con-
tinued 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 when the means of
carrying on the set-vice of the country were asked at the hands
of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore, he thought the
Right Hon. Baronet decidedlywrong in stating that this was
not the proper time for bringing forward such a resolution.
And had he (Sir R. Peel) taken any notice of the observations
which had fallen from his Hon. Friends in moving and seconding
that resolution ? Had he 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 b'essed. 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 tbataccount 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 last 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.
Out of doors they ascribed the misery and destitution that pre-
vailed to the bad legislation which took place in it, and to the
suggestions in this resolution they looked as a remedy, requir-
ing those in whom they could hope for sympathy to give their
support to it, as he (it Hume) felt himself bound to do. In
the. year 1835, it was threatened to stop the supplies, but he
(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 now'? If the Right
Hen. Baronet had a majority it was well known to be a ma-

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. Ile ( Mr. Hume) would go
further than his lion. Friend (Mr. Williams), that a reformed
Parliament as 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
13111 had 2—( 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 mo7e 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 free operation. Bet was that
any answer to the people out of doers, or were they too 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 wasbet ter than the electors.—( Loud laughter.)
lie 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•
your 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
t.r a greater. He 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 cr by his representative ;" and of that class
!Isere 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.ko-
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 beauty 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 lion. 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
658—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 of 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 admit 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 lowards the
unrepresented classes—they were no snore than slaves, for nu
slave 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 be 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. Home) 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 sure 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. lie concurred cordially in all
that had fallen from his Hon. Friend, and would support his
motion, except the last paragraph of it.
Colonel SIB THORP contended the Honourable Mem-
ber for Montrose was not justified in saving that
the country was in distress, as in the county
lie lived in every labourer was in full employment.
He had received a letter the other day, a portion of which be
would read. The writer says :—" Sir Robert Peel has every
reason to be proud of the position be 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 22
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 respect to the
Landlord and Tenant Commission in Ireland. lie 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 ol'ject, 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 erged. lie 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, lie
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 in 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-
sion.—(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 lion. 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 lie 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. lie (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 be inquired into by the Commission. He
wished to show the animus of the Government in appointing
this Commission, and he 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-
sion had made their report, as far as it had gone, ascorre
hensive as possible. As yet the labours of the Commission
had given the greatest satisfaction, and he thought under these
circumstances that it would be unwise to make any alterations
in it.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD wishcedomtomis,ta.sitoen,,
t withoutat
meaning to fasten any imputationon had been created thein
lie
was aware that a feeling of dissatisfaction
-eater confidence if other
Ireland in consequence of none butlandlords being placed upon
the Commission. It would gi g
persons, not landlords, were -plvaecedton that Commission. He