The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-27 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 26.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
On the motion of Sir T. FRENIANTLE, the SPEAKER
directed his warrant to issue for a new writ for the
election ofa Member for Londonderry in the room of R.
Bateson, Esq., deceased.
MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY.

Mr. HARDY moved the second reading of the
Manchester and Leeds Railway (Bury branch).
Mr. T. EGERTON took the opportunity of re-
marking on the want of formality in referring some
of those branch Railway Bills to the York Railway
Committee, and others to the Leeds Railway Commit-
tee.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
:o be committed.

Several Railway Bills were advanced a stage.
On the motion that Sang's Naturalization Bill be
read a second time,

Mr. HARCOURT moved, pursuant to notice,
that it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection,
that the Committee on Sang's Naturalization Bill have
leave to sit on Wednesday next, and that the Commit-
tee on the Bill have leave to report on the same day.
The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a
second time, and ordered to be committed.
Mr. AGLION BY brought up the Report on tile
Basingstoke and Southampton Railway Bill.
REPEAL OF THE UNION.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the
Corporation of Dublin, under the seal of the Corpo-
ration, praying for a repeal of the legislative union
between England and Ireland. The petitioners stated
that the Act of Union was passed against the will of
the Irish people, at a time when martial law had
been proclaimed, when the Habeas Corpus Act had
been suspended, and when the military force in Ire-
land had been greatly augmented. The petitioners
further stated that to obtain the Act of Union the sum
of 1,500,0001. was expended in the most profligate
bribery. They also stated that the result of the
union had been that 2,300,000 paupers had been
spread over the land, being upwards of one
fourth Of the whole population. The Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman, in bringing up the
petition, said that in entrusting the petition to him
the Corporation of Dublin did not intend to re-
linquish the right of presenting petitions at the bar
of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
also presented forty-seven petitions from Leinster,
with 126,976 signatures attached; fifty-seven from
Munster, with 102,397 signatures; forty-three frotn
Ulster, with 95,835 signatures; thirty-five from
Connaught, with 55,600 signatures ; one from
England, with 70,000 signatures ; one from
Glasgow, with 1,587 signatures ; and one from
British subjects in Nova Scotia, with 2,700 sig-
natures. The total number of signatures to these
petitions being 387,864, all praying for the repeal of
the legislative union between England and Ireland.

STOPPAGE OF THE SUPPLIES.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from
Edinburgh, signed by 17,000 of the inhabitants. The
petitioners complained of the state of the representa-
tion, the system or protective and differential duties,
and of the extent of taxation, and the law of primo-
geniture. They prayed that these grievances might
be taken into immediate consideration by the House,
and that the supplies might not be voted till such a
course was adopted; also a petition from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, containing nearly similar allegations,
and the same prayer.
THE BIRMINGHAM NAVIGATION BILL.

This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. C. RUSSELL, this Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
Mr. C. BERKELEY presented a petition, com-
plaining of certain clauses in the Bill.
DUTY ON PAPER.

Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from the
publishing trade, against the present excise duty on
paper.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition, agreed
to at a public meeting at Glasgow, presided over by
the Lord Provost, condemning the Ministerial policy
in Ireland, ana praying that immediate steps be
taken to investigate into the causes that produce so
much discontent in that country.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from an in-
dividual in Dublin, complaining of injustice done
him by public officers in that city, and praying the
House to take his case into consideration.
COUNTY BANKRUPTCY COURTS.

Mr. SCOTT gave notice that he would, to-
morroW, move for returns relating to the Courts of
Bankruptcy in Manchester, Liverpool, and other
towns in the north of England.
THE NEW POOR-LAW.

Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice, that on the
Order of the Day for going into Committee on the
Poor-laws'.Amendment Act, he would move a resolu-
tion, to the effect, " That notwithstanding the im-
provement proposed by that Pill, the provisions made
for the poor were inadequate, and the provisions of the
Bill were contrary to the principles of the Constitution,
and inconsistent with the dictates of humanity and re-
ligion."
VALUATION OF LAND IN IRELAND.

Sir D. NORREYS gave notice that he would
tomorrow put a question to the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary for Ireland, relating to the valuation of land
in that country.
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN FACTORIES.

Mr. WALLACE rose to move that the petitions
which he had presented from certain preachers in the
west of Scotland, praying that they should be in-
cluded in the provisions of the Factories Bill for reli-
gious instruction, be printed.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that there was no need

for haste in the printing of these petitions, as in a
day or two they would be printed by order of the
Select Committee on petitions.
The SPEAKER said that the motion of the Hon.
Member for Greenock was against the rules of the
House, which referred the printing of petitions to the
Select Committee.
Mr, WALLACE then withdrew his motion.
SUPPLY—GRIEVANCES OF THE PEOPLE.
Upon the Order of the Day being read for the
House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply on
the Estimates, •
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to move an
amendment to the effect, that the consideration of
the Estimates be postponed. In doing so he said he
was actuated by no party considerations, and he
should endeavour as briefly as possible to state
his reasons for the course he was about
to adopt. During the late debate, which occupied
the House for such a length of time, he took no part,
because he was aware that it would be attended with
no practical result, for he thought it was little more
than a Sring of blank cartridge without any effect.
He thought it was merely a vote for party purposes,
in which the great intetTsts of the nation were for-
gotten ; in fact, it was a question which turned upon
the numerical strength of the two parties, instead
of being a battle fought for the purpose of protecting
the interests of the great masses of the people.
When a hostile army invaded a country, the best
course to be pursued by the invaded was to cut off
the supplies of their enemies. Ile should adopt, in a
political sense, the same movement, and endeavour to
limit the powers of the intruding party, by cutting off the
means by which alone he could carry on his operations.
It was on this principle that he then came forward
to endeavour to bring forward this motion. It was
not an attempt to rally the broken forces of the
Noble Lord the Member for London. The Noble
Lord had not the country with him. He did not
rest on those principles, which would bring the
people in aid of him. What he wished to do was to
rally a force out of that House in support of mea-
sures that were really wanted. The resolution he
brought forward on a former occasion had been in
some degree misunderstood. It recited a number of
grievances of which the people complained, and said
they ought to be redressed; but the parti-
cular grievance it recited was that which re-
garded the representation. The Honourable
Member for Montrose seemed to object to the reso-
lution, because he said it was one that denied the com-
petency of that House. He did deny the competency
of that House to vote supplies if the charges that
were brought against the House were true. He still
disputed its right on the same grounds. The petition
presented to that House by the Chartists made the
same charges ; a petition had at a more recent period
been presented, which still more completely denied
the competency of that House. It was re-
ceived and laid on the table. It was a
petition from Birmingham, signed by the
Mayor of that town ; it declared that the House did
not represent the - people, and that 950,000 electors
returned a majority of the Members of that House.
A large portion of the Members of that House got
into Varliamnt by the most profligate and corrupt
means, and such being the case, no attention was paid
to the wants of the people. The Members of that
House betrayed a gross ignorance of the condition of
the people, and a recklessness for their welfare ; in short
they made laws for the purpose of denre;,sing the
people. Now the petition to which he had been
referring was a pOition whiCh charged that House
with not being the representatives of the peoplo-,-
the Petition charged that directly—the terms were

..,...
___ ~,,„ „--v,
not qualified, but direct and peremptory. Tiiefiodie,,,„ri.st:f I
had received that petition of the people, k iitia-Y
directed it to be laid on the tlib'e ; was it not, ,A -1 '--- '
fore, necessary for the House to investigayt vAllrell/44NW
charges ? Ile called upon any Member of that HbVs4"* --
to deny, if he could, the charges made in the petition'
-1
He would repeat, that that House was not competent to
do any act, or vote any supplies till its Members had
refuted the charges contained in the petition to which
he had referred. He otlered to the House, the other
day, a petition signed by 900,000 persons. complain-
ing that the House did not represent the people,
and the House would not receive it, on the ground
that it could not be considered the petition of the
people. With regard to the suffrage, he did not ask
the House to come to the particular opinions he
entertained, before they came to a vote ; but what he
did ask was, were they virtually the representatives
of the people ?—(1l ear, hear.), It was true they
represented the landed aristocracy, part of the
middle classes, the moneyed classes ; but a great
body of the people—the working classes—were not
represented at all. lie would ask the House
whether they virtually r. presented the people,
and if they did not, how, he would ask, could
they do any act, or vote any supplies ? (Hear.)
The motion with which he had to conclue was,
that the grant of the supplies should be deferred until
after Easter. The first step the House should take before
granting one farthing of the supplies, was to have the
whole estimates before them—to see what the income
was, and what the expenditure was proposed to be. From
-the year 1836 to 1844 the national expenditure had
greatly increased, and he thought that house had to
consider why it had so increased. To this end the
estimates ought, in his opinion, to be referred to a
Committee. On this subject he certainly thought
he was entitled to the support of all those
who called themselves economists. The support of
the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) he par-
ticularly claimed.. Those Members, who advocated
the repeal:of the corn-laws, ought to support him, for no
greater grievance could there be than those laws in-
flicted. The Irish Members ought to support him for
they had grievancies, indeed, to complain of.
The Irish people demanded the same corporate reform
as that which had been granted to England ; they
demanded also a greater number of representatives
in that House ; and lastly, they demanded an equali-
zation of religious freedom with England, and Scot-
land. Now, had the Irish Members any reason to
expect that they would obtain any of those great
objects? No, they had not; but the Irish
Members should not go home without
having first made every exertion towards obtain-
ing these objects. He said unless these demands
were granted Ireland would be justified in using
every lawful means to obtain a repeal of the union.—
(Hear, hear.) He had lately heard the construction
of the law with respect to public meetings
argued most ingeniously by lawyers, but
the construction put upon the law was to
little purpose, if the Government had a large force at
its command. The Government might take the
opinion of their law-officers, but the real interpreter
they would refer to would be the Field-Marshal com-
manding the troops. The Government, when it
wished to oppress the people, could easily stretch
the law to effect that oppression. The only question
they considered, when they wished to practise such
oppression was, whether they had sufficient force to
enable them to do so; and the Commander-in-Chief
was the officer they consulted. Nothing could more
clearly show this than a reference to Irish history.
In 1782 the people of Ireland asserted their rights,
and they asserted them with arms in their hands.
Did any Government say they were illegal? No;
because no Government bad the power, and the
people of Ireland then had arms in their
hands. Such was the case of the volunteers.
But the state of things was altered now ;
and they had Arms Bills for the Irish
people instead of the Irish people having arms. The
Irish journals of that period record that an address
had been presented by the House of Commons to the
Lord Lieutenant, stating what had been gained for
Irelandby the volunteers as to the independence of the
Irish -Parliament and of the Irish judges. The vo-
lunteers continued to assemble in arms for twelve or
thirteen years, and it' was never declared that their
meetings were illegal, or that they were guilty of any
conspiracy. On the contrary, they received the
thanks of Parliament on four different occasions for
the aid they gave in defence of the country,
and also for that which they gave in aid
of the civil power. In the following year
3,000 troops were withdrawn from Ireland, the
ordinary force being 12,000, and those who remained
were recruits and undisciplined soldiers. The
people were left to their own protection. How
different was the state of things now ? The Right
Honourable Baronet in his speech commented
on the nature of the Irish Parliament, and he (Mr.
S. Crawford) admitted that it had become as corrupt
a Parliament as could well be ; but it had neverthe-
less during itsexistence conferred incalculable benefits
upon the Irish people, for it was possible that some-
times the most corrupt bodies could be influenced by
the purest motives towards the people. In conse-
quence of the corruptions of the Parliament, and
the divisions amongst the people, the Irish
nation lost all power, and down to th;a
day the evil had remained in full force, after the
consequences of the unfortunate rebellion of 1798.
A state of suffering and violence had pervaded that
country ever since, from one cause or another,
but most chiefly from supporting the domi-
nation of a small party, to the exclusion
of the great majority. He was surprised that no
allusion had been made to the Arms Act, because he
thought a great mass of evil would arise from the opera-
tion of the Bill; but he supposed the reason for this silence
was that the working out of that Act was found quite
impracticable in the present day. With respect to the
Landlord and Tenant Commission, all he should say
was that many persons looked at it with great doubt,
because it was imagined there was a desire to
1 screen the landlords from the effects of the Commission.
Now the Government, in excusing themselves for the
use of military power, said that they were not the
cause of the agitation which had been raised in Ire-
land. He must deny them that apology. There would
be no agitation which could be at all dangerous to
the Government if it were not for their
obstinate refusal to redress the grievances
of Ireland. It was this which caused agita-
tion, and what he maintained was, that the
Government ought not to be permitted to keep up an
army which would enable them to refuse redress.
There had been a considerable manifestation of pub-
lic feeling in favour of the course which he had felt
it his duty to take on that occasion. On referrip? to
the votes of the Home, he found That petitions
had been presented from thirty-four different
places, calling upon the House to refuse supplies
until the grievances of the people should have been
redressed. The petition which he (Mr. S. Crawford)
had presented that day from the city of Edinburgh
well deserved the attention of the House ;
that petition was signed by 17,000 persons.
In order to show that he was justified
by the feelings of his constituents in taking this
course, he need only refer to the memorial which had
been sent to him from the borough of Rochdale.
The Honourable Member then read a memorial
to the effect that the refusal of supplies until the
grievances of the people had been redressed, was, in the
opinion of the memorialists, a constitutional, just, and
necessary course,and highly approving of the announce-
ment of that course by the Hon. Gentleman. This peti-
tion was signed by 5,500 inhabitants of Roch-
dale, and by 400 electors—a larger number than
had voted for him at the time of his re-
turn for that borough. He admitted that
opposition to the Government in the voting of sup-
plies ought not to be undertaken on light grounds.
The question was, were there sufficient grounds
now to justify such a course ? In his ,judg-
ment the 'grounds were amply sufficient.
The liberties of the people were in danger. If
such proceedings as had taken place in Ireland
were permitted to continue, the power of the
people to express their opinions would be suppressed.
There was a disposition exhibited to restrain the
liberty of speech ; and on this account, among others,
it was necessary to pursue this course. The country
was in a most alarming condition, and it was indis-
pensably necessary that those Members who re-
presented the people in -that House should take
such means as were in their power to secure redress.
Those who maintained that no other power than moral
power should be resorted to by the people, and who
deprecated the use of physical force, were bound
to use every means in their power to show that moral
power was not unavailing, lest men should resort to
other means to obtain redress. He might possibly be
asked, what would be the effect of this remedy if it
were capable of being carried out. He admitted
that the result would necessarily be, either that the
Minister must -redress grievances or resign.
He did not desire to see the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet in that position, if he would
only hold out the smallest hope of redress. He did
not hope that he alone could make any impression on
the House in reference to this question ; all he could
do was, to ask the Right Hon. Baronet to take the
grievances of the eountry into his serious consideration.
He wighed to prevent any supply being. voted until
some indications should be given of an intention, on
the'part of the Government, to redress the grievances
of the people. Whether such a course should be
'adopted or not, depended upon the other representa-.
'fives of the people. He had done his duty by pro..
posing the course which he _ had proposed.
The House would adopt whatever course it might
ptuhrPatos a e
think proper. He had abstained from making any
mere ad cap tandum,ptrrnot :or
votes. n for
lie the
thoughtmere
gc)rf ea t st An
a few
d ought to be made by the representatives
of the country, particularly when the army estimates
should be proposed. The Hon: Member concluded
! by {carnally proposing his motion.

Colonel RAWDON, in seconding the motion, said
that it was not without regret that he presented
himself to the notice of the House. He presented
himself for the purpose of entering his protest against
the course which it appeared the Government
was determined to adopt towards Ireland.
The House would bear in mind that, during
the course of the Irish discussion, he had had no op-
portunity of addressing the House. The number of
English Members who had addressed the House on
the subject had exceeded that of Irish Members. He
thought the social and political condition of Ireland
was such as to demand inquiry. Let the House
remember what M. de Beaumont, a person uncon-
nected with any English or Irish political party, had
said as to the state of Ireland. (The Hon. and Gal-
lant Officer here read an extract from M. de Beau-
mont's work, in which that gentleman stated that
the condition of the North American Indian, as far
as regarded physical comforts, was superior to
that of the Irish peasant—that it was impossible
to find in the world a race of men subject to greater
physical privations than the Irish peasantry, that the
greater portion of the population of Ireland was fed
upon potatoes, and that whereas, in other countries,
beggars formed the exception, in Ireland they formed
the rule. Surely, when such was the state of the country
inquiry into its condition was imperatively demanded.
He knew it must weary the House to speak on the
subject of Ireland after the long debate that had taken
place on that subject, but the House must recollect
that more English Members had spoken than Irish,
and he hoped therefore the House would allow
him to say a few words. During the whole
discussion in Ireland the temperance movement had
never once been alluded to.—(Hear, hear.) They
had not had an intelligible answer yet from the
Right Hon. Gentleman as to what course he
intended to pursue with respect to Ireland.
He had held out no hopes of redress for
the wrongs of the people of Ireland. For the pre-
sent the door might be considered shut against the
Irish people. The Irish Members must go back
and tell their constituents that there were no
hopes for the people of Ireland from that House.
He had heard the other evening, with some indigna-
tion, an Hon. and Gallant Member express a wish
that agitation should be put down in that House. He
(Colonel Rawdon) said that that House was the place
for agitation—the constitutional and the proper place.
He still clung to the Act of Union, but when he heard
such expressions as those he had alluded to, his feelings,
he must say, began to waver. If there could be found
one way more successful than another to increase
agitation, it would be in attempting to suppress the
discussion of Irish grievances in that House. He
sincerely believed the time was come when
Irishmen should make themselves more heard in that
House. They must be more heard, for the Govern-
ment were not determined on what was necessary
and right. He could assure the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that however concilia-
tory his expressions were, he could see nothing
tangible in his intentions. The Right Hon. Baronet
might stave off substantial measures for a time, but
it would be only for a time. Until he consented to
a great alteratipn-in the Church, and to a franchise
equal to that of England, there could be no hope of
permanent peace in Ireland. For these reasons he
seconded the motion.
Sir H. DOUGLAS, in reply to _what had fallen
from the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, said he could
assure him that he had "not spoken hastily on the sub-
ject to which the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had
alluded, and certainly he had not spoken with
any bad feeling to Ireland. What he had
stated was, that he considered the motion of
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell)
to be a motion for party purposes, and not for the good
of Ireland ; and he further stated that when that
motion should be triumphantly negatived, he should
be ready to give effect to his sincere disposition to do
everything to favour Ireland, stopping short only at
that point to go beyond which would Le ultimately
injurious to both England and Ireland.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he had listened with
great attention to the speeeh of his Honour-
able Friend, the Member for Rochdale, but he must
confess that he did not think his Honourable Friend
had made out any. case for the postponement of the
present Committee of Supply. If his Hon. Friend
had introduced into his motion a proposition that the
estimates should be laid before the House, before any
portion of them should be voted for the purpose
of such estimates being referred to a Select Committee,
he (Mr. Williams) would then have supported his
Hon. Friend. His Hon. Friend, however, merely
proposed a postponement of tke estimates until after
aster, without showing any distinct or clear
ground why that course should be adopted.
He (Mr. Williams) thought the House was fairly
entitled, not only to have the army estimates,
but the ordnance estimates also laid before them, in
order that they might be well considered before
they were voted. Ile thought too that the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer ought to lay his financial
budget before the Parliament before any public
money was voted, in order that the House might
see how the money was to be obtained.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, had stated last year that there had been
a balance of receipts over expenditure of 1,400,0001.,
but it appeared that there was not a single farthing
saved ; for on the other side of the account
it appeared that 1,300,0001. had been received
from the sale of the Chinese dollars, and 1,600,0001.
had been paid for the China opium which had been
seized. It was admitted that the income-tax had
brought in 5,500,000/., but the public never
received any, account of the real amount
of taxation in the financial statement. They
were not aware that 4,500,000/. had been in-
tercepted by the various public officers in
its way to the Treasury. The Commissioners of
Customs had been denounced as unfit for the exer-
cise of the trust reposed in them. They inter-
cepted an amount of taxation to the amount of
1,200,0001. If there was a Select Committee pro-
perly constituted, not composed of Members of the
existing Government, or of the late Government,
but of independent Members of Parliament, attached
to no party, he had no doubt it would prove, from the
practice and experience of former years, that
a large amount might be saved to the country.
He would ask, what reason could there be for this
enormous expenditure of the public money, when at
the opening of the session her Majesty had informed the
House that she had the strongest assurances of the
most amicable disposition on the part of all foreign
Powers, of uninterrupted peace ? What were the
actual facts of the case ? Why, that in the navy es-
timates there was an increase of nearly two millions
sterling over that of the year 183;. Now he should
call on the Hon. Gentleman opposite to explein to this
House why a sum of 25,0001. more was required
for the expense of the marine force intended to serve
on shore, than what it was in former years.
He (Mr. Williams) thought this was a surreptitious
mode of keeping up a standing army. What
else, he would ask, could be their reason
for keeping up an army of 129,677 men, a larger
army than ever was known in this country
since the occupation of France ? He should
like to hear this explained, the more so
when they considered that, independent of this large
army, no less than 10,000 pensioners had been em-
bodied by a vote of that House last year, and also
that they had 20,000 armed police. Did they sup-
port this large military establishment because they
proposed to govern the country by military force;
for if they did not in the present state of the foreign
relations of this country, there could be no pretence
for it. The. Right Hon. Baronet opposite had said
he was obliged to support this enormous army on ac-
count of the state of Ireland, but he (Mr. Williams)
contended that the necessity for doing this arose
solely from the policy pursued by the Right. Hon.
Gentleman towards the country. It was proposed to
vote 34,000 men for the navy this year. He should
like to know how was such a large force as this re-
quired now, when in 1822 the naval force comprised
only 21,000 men, namely, 13,000 seamen, and 8,000
marines ? In the years, 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835,
only 27,000 men were voted for this service. There
was another important question to which he wished
to direct the attention of the House, and it was a
matter upon which the Admiralty had never given
any satisfactory information to the House, and that
was the large amount. of the naval pension list, for
the amount of these pensions was more this year than
it was in the year 1818, after the war, when there
were a great number of officers pensioned off, and
when it was likely to have more upon the list
than at any other period, owing to the nu-
merous casualties incident to the war. He
should wish the Right Hon. Baronet to state
why. there had been so great an increase in the
pensions to naval officers. He complained of
the manner in which the naval estimates had
been made out. The army estimates were plain,
but such was not the case with respect to the
navy. Now, what was the amount of the pen-
sions given to the widows and children of naval
officers ? In 1818 the whole amount of pensions
given to those individuals was 18,8001.; in 1822 it
was 112,0001., while this year it was 210,0004
Now, he should like to know why this vast increase had
taken place. When they compared the amount received
by the naval officers, and their widows and children,
with the amount given to sailors, the man who fought
their battles, what did they get? Why, out of the
1,100,0001., they, got about 207,0001. Was it
to be supposed that these men would be
satisfied, and not consider themselves ill-used ?
He would next advert to the pensions in the civil de-
partment of the Admiralty. After the last reduc-
tion of the war establishment, the amount of pole
sions in this department was 99,600/., and this year
it came to no less a sum than 162,0001., nearly
double what it was at the close of the war. He
wanted to know what circumstances called for that
extra expenditure. Then there were the dockyards,

..-