The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-04 00:00:00

debtte'had taken, lie was unwilling to expose himself to
the hazard of the slightest misapprehension, or to shrink
from the duty of declaring boldly and decidedly his
opinions upon the subject then under their consideration.
Until he had heard the construction put upon the peti-
tion by the Noble Lord, he had thought there were
two propositions before the House—not quite consistent
or compatible it was true—but still on the face of the
document there appeared to be two proposals before the
House ; the one that they should admit the petitioners
to be heard at the bar, the other that the House
should immediately pass into law the demands contained
in the People's Charter. He did not wish to take any
advantage of the objections to the Charter for the
purpose of vindicating his vote upon that occasion.
If the question of the Charter were not then before
them he should still be ready to give his vote against
the proposal to hear Counsel at the bar in support
of the allegations of the petitioners ; and he should be
ready to give that vote upon various grounds. First,
he had come to the foregone conclusion at which the
Hon. Member for Leicester had declared that he had
arrived, that the demands of the petitioners, if complied
with, would be mischievous to the petitioners themselves;
and, having come to that conclusion, he thought it more
just and more respectful to tell them that he did not
intend to accede to their petition, rather than to give
rise to delusive hopes, which would be sure to end in
disappointment,—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable
Member for Finsbury had told him that the result
of his (Sir Robert Peel's) decision upon the present
occasion would eitheir awaken hope or fearful
disappoint. Well, then, he would not awaken
hopes which could not be realised. The Hon. Member
only asked him to hear the allegations of the petitioners ;
but those allegations went to impeach the Constitution
of the country and the whole frame of our society.
The petitioners told him that it was wrong to maintain
an Established Church ; that 9,000,0001. of public money
was diverted from the public purposes to the use of the
Established Church ; the petitioners told him that the
people of Ireland were entitled to a repeal of the Union ;
the petitioners drew most invidious comparisons between
the expenses of the Soveregn and the expenses of the
people ; and he therefore said that the petition
altogether impeached the established order of things.
And how was he to gratify the prayer of the petitioners,
by hearing them at the bar ? Why, if they were to be
heard effectually, would it be done effectually by hear-
ing four or five persons in speeches at the bar ? Were
those speeches to be replied to ? Suppose those speeches
failed in their effect, were they then to enter into an
inquiry at the bar with respect to the allegations of the
petition ? Should he admit that demand for an
inquiry, or should he refuse it ? Should he sus-
pend all the public business of the country, and en-
ter into each of the allegations of the petition as
to the policy of abolishing the Established Church, or of
repealing the Union ? Was not that the only effectual
way the petitioners had of stating theirgrievances, and
was it for the advantage of the petitioners themselves
that he should do so ?—(Hear, hear.) And what was
the petition itself ? If he had a doubt—which he had
not—the speech of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman would have convinced him of the great
absurdity there would be in entering into an
inquiry into this petition, a petition that did not repre-
sent the sentiments of those who had signed it—a
petition utterly at variance with the judgment and good
sense of the three millions of petitioners, but which had
been imposed on them by a cowardly demagogue--
(Loud cheers)—one whom the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman knew, and whose personal knowledge of whom
entitled him to speak of him with disrespect and con-
tempt.—(Cheers.) He (Sir R. Peel) knew not who he
described ; he took his description from the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, and should he admit the author of
that petition, as described, the man who had so perverted
to his evil purposes the minds of the respectable, the
industrious, the intelligent, and honest labouring classes
of this country (Cheers)—should he admit
him to the bar, (and he had no doubt that
it was this person who would come to the
bar to defend the allegations of the petition), should he
not by this be countenancing the delusions under which
the labouring classes lay? Should he admit him, the
author of this petition, who put forth a hundred

prayers, an acquiescence in each of which would be
fatal to the petitioners themselves, for the purpose of
establishing the rights of the labouring classes of this
country? It was the allegations of the petition into which
the Hon. Member for Finsbury asked him to inquire—a
petition so described by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath. When he referred to the prayer of the petition,
when he referred to the character of him who was said
to be the author of it, when he referred to the certain
consequences of raising expectations which they knew
must be disappointed—on all these grounds, he thought
he should be acting more respectfully, and more justly
towards the petitioners, by refusing at once to accede to
the demand, than by giving a delusive hearing, and af-
terwards telling them that it had made no impression
whatever on his mind.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had described the labouring classes of this
country. He said, in other countries the appeal was to
force, but that here the appeal was to moral
power. He said that if the labouring classes of
this country did appeal to force, they could bear
down every obstacle, but that • they were controlled
by their good cause, and the willingness to obey the law.
He said, let a decrepid constable go into the midst of a
crowd, and seize the most powerful man, and they would
observe on the part of the man of superior strength, a
willing submission to the authority of the law, and they
would see on the part of the
.populace, by whom he was
surrounded, a willing submission to it also. But what
was it that nerved the arm of that person, and what pro-
duced that tacit submission to the law—the con-
viction that it was a just one.—(Hear and cheers.)
Did they believe that if the people of this country
were in the condition described ; that if the state of the
country was justly described in this memorial ; that
if, on one hand, this House had, by unconstitutional
means, created an unbearable despotism, and on the other
a degrading slavery ; if that was a just representation of
the Constitution and the law of England, that there
would be that tacit submission to the law which gave
the decrepid constable the authority he possessed? Did
they think that the high-spirited people, of whom the
Leerned Gentleman had given that description, would
have the respect which they now paid to the law if they
did not feel that it was one which guaranteed the safety
of property, and secured liberty, that it was a law for the
poor as well as for the rich?—(Cheers.) The other
Hon. Member for Finsbury said he had travelled in
different parts of Europe, and had opportunities of judg-
ing of the people of other countries, and where would
they find a more intelligent, more patient, more inde-
pendent, more high-spirited people than the people of
England ?--(Cheers.) He would grant it. But what
had formed that character ? He asked in. turn, was
it the mere brick and stone of the houses in which they
lived ? No, it was the laws, the institutions of a free
country.—(Cheers.) Their respect for the laws had
been formed under those institutions, of which the peti-
tion contained the impeachment. If it were true
that the people of England lived in a state of degraded
despotism on the one hand, and of a degraded slavery
on the other, they could neither have that respect for
authority, nor should they deserve the character which
bJth the Hon. Gentlemen had given them.—(Cheers.)
He did not understand the Right Hon. Member for
Edinburgh to state that the people of this country were
of a sangunary disposition, and that if they gave them
the power, there would be a spoliation of property. He
understood the Right Hon. Gentieman to take this
petition, as prefaced, by a designing andcowardly dema-
gogue.—(Hear, hear.) He knew not who it meant;
he adopted the description from the Hon. and Learned

Gent!einan—and if that were true—who had passed this
libel on the petitioners ?—(hear, hear.) How did the
lion. and Learned Gentleman maintain the high cha-
racter of the petitioners, if they could be parties to a pe-
tition full of trash, and which contained applications,
which to accede to would be their ruin, and the prayer
of which ought to be treated with utter disrespect? As
the Noble. Lord had justly observed, if they could be de-
luded in this instance, what security could they give him
that when they were practically in the posses-
sion of power, another designing demagogue might
not say to them, now you aro possessed of power,
and you would be a degraded, a cowardly race, if, being
ossessed of the means of procuring redress, you did not
sei4e it ? lie did not believe that the people would yield
to such delusions, but what security could the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman give him, if they were now so de-
ceived, against their being deceived again ? He under-
stood the Right Hon. Gentleman to argue, that if they
mado alterations in the Constitution, on principles like
those laid down in this petition - if they thought public
faith ought not to be maintained, ;hat the public creditor
ought not to be paid, because debts were incurred by
Parliament without due authority, for the support of
wars which were unjust,—if they talked of
land as a monopoly,—they were then exciting hopes
which they could not raise without confusion, and which
they could not disappoint without danger.—(Cheers.)
And lie understood the Right lion. Gentleman to argue
also that there would be such anarchy and confusion
arise from this basis, that shaking the security of
property, or spoliation of all property, would be the re-
sult. But he did not understand the Right Hon. Gen-
leman to say that the people of England were sangui-
nary and barbarous in their disposition. On the grounds,
therefore, of the delusion that must arise from acced-

in; to the prayer of the petition, he must refuse to ac-
cede to it. If he should be told that the Charter was

involved in this question, that in deciding it they were
deciding the questions of Universal Suffrage, of Annual
Parliaments, and of Vote by Ballot, he was also
content to rest his refusal on those grounds. He be.
lieved that Universal Suffrage would be incompatible
with that mixed monarchy under which they lived ; he
believed that this mixed monarchy was important rather
in the ends to be achieved by it than in the means
which tended to that end, that its end was the promotion
of the happiness of the people ; but, in a country circum-
stanced as this was, to substitute a mere democracy for
that mixed form of government, which, imperfect ,as it
might be, had for a hundred and fifty years secured to
them more partial and true liberty than any country had
ever enjoyed, not excepting the United States of Ame-
rica, excepting no country whatever—they might be
suffering, they might be undergoing privations, he deeply
regretted it, he sympathised with those sufferings, he ad-
mitted their fortitude, he respected their patience—
but he could not consent to make these momentous
changes in the Constitution, with the certainty of pro-
ducing no alleviation in those sufferings, and with the
certainty only of incurring the risk of destroying that
Constitution, which, he believed, if they permitted it to
remain untouched, would secure to their descendants as
it had secured to their ancestors, those blessings which
would never be found in any rash, precipitate changes,
however plausible they might appear in speculation.
Mr. 3LkCAULAY explained—He did not use words
attributing cruelty, or a sanguinary disposition to the
petitioners, and he trusted the House would bear him
out in that statement.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ said that the debate had taken so
peculiar a turn that he felt called upon to explain why
'he voted for the motion. lie toted for the motion upon