The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-26 00:00:00

fourth of the whole population. The Honour-
able and teamed 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 from
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 of 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 BIRMING?AM 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 Gl;sgow, presided over by
the Lord Provost, condemning the Ministerial policy
in Ireland, and 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 Bill, 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
to-morrow 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 lion.
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 firing of blank cartridge without any effect.l
He thought it was merely a vote for party purposes,
in which the great interests 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. He 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-.
culor 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. Ile 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 Parliament 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 depressing the
people. Now the petition to which he had been
referring was a petition which charged that House
with not being the representatives of the people—
the petition charged that directly—the terms were
not qualified but direct and peremptory. The House
had received that petition of the people, and had
directed it to be laid on the table; was it not, there-
fore, necessary for the House to investigate these
charges ? He called upon any Member of that House
to deny, if he could, the charges made in the petition.
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 offered to the House the other
day a petition signed by 950,000 voters, 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 ?—(Hear, hear.) It was true they
represented the landed aristocracy, part of the
middle classes, the moneyed classesl; but a great
body of the people—the working classes—were not
represented at all. He would ask flap House
whether they virtually represented 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 conclude was,
that the grant of the Supplies should be deferred until

after Easter. The first step. the House should take before
grantiug 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, arid 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 lawsi in-
flicted. The Irish Members ought to support him for
they had grievancies, indeed, to complain of.
The Irish people demand 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 Woad- obtain any of those great
objects. No, they had not; but the Irish
Members should not go home without
ihnagviritghesflerstobmadeobjects, .
everye esxaiedrtiuonnlestsowtharedres
demandobtain.
'were grantedand would be justified in using