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

rity, not for the benefit of the subject majority, but for
their own sinister interests. He would not ay that all
the allegations in the petition could be proved at the bar,
but when he saw the great multitude of the petitioners,
when he saw that the petition was more numerously
signed than any petition that had ever been presented to
that House, he could not take upon himself to refuse
them a hearing at the bar of that House, which was spe-
cially constituted to protect the rights and to remedy the
grievances of the people. There was nothing in the de-
sire to be represented but what was wise and reasonable ;
and if they valued the possession of political rights them-
selves they ought to respect those who were desirous of
obtaining them. They complained of the length of the
Parliaments. Hon. Gentlemen obtained seats in the Legis-
lature, and however their constituents might feel as to
their mode of acting in that House, Hon. Gentleman
continued to hold their seats, and the places remained
virtually unrepresented for years. The petitioners asked
therefore for more frequent elections. Again, could
anything be more unjust than that a small number in
certain communities should possess greater power than
multitudes in other districts—that 100 persons should
have as much power in one place as 100,000 elsewhere ?
The House had already recognised the principle for the
extension of which the petitioners were now contending.
With respect to the property qualifications, what after
all was property—what could it avail? Ought any man,
because of his poverty, be excluded from the rights which
the more wealthy possessed? Had Providence, when it
denied to poor men the riches it gave to others, also
refused to them the susceptibility of human nature?
Scotland had emancipated herself from the property
qualification, and were the representatives sent to that
douse from Scotland less competent, less trustworthy,
than from any of the other portions of the empire? The
demand of the petitioners to be heard at the bar of the
House was a reasonable one. Let it not be forgotten
that the petitioners were millions, and that in refusing
them their request of being heard at the bar of the
House, they would be creating in each family that com-
posed those millions a centre of discontent. He con-
curred in thinking with his Hon. Friend that it would
be unwise at present, agitated as the country was with
iocial miseries, mingled with political discontent, if the
douse were to refuse the fair demand of three millions
of people to be heard at the bar.—(Cheers.)
Mr. J. FIELDEN was understood to say that the
people of the country were everywhere suffering
the greatest evils, which they attributed to the bad
legislation of that House, and which he agreed with them
in thinking nothing but a radical alteration in its con-
stitution would remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that
it a great sacrifice to himself he was supporting the per-
sons in his employment.—(Hear.) But there was a say-
.ng in Lancashire, that by taking meal out of the tub
and putting none in, you soon came to the bottom. He
knew the state of the country was really deplorable—
(Hear)—and he begged of the Right Hon. Baronet, if
he regarded such a Condition of things, to allow those
petitioners to be heard at the bar. He could not see
how any mischief could arise from holding out the olive-
branch to them. They may make statements that would
induce the House to look into their condition, and they
,nay, at all events, suggast what would be worthy of its
consideration ; and, therefore, he hoped they would not
be refused.—(Hear, hear.) A refusal would lead them
to that disappointment and those reflections which it
would be unwise to disregard.—(Hear, hear.) It would
be much better to spend two or three days in hearing
what they had to say than run the risk of the conse-
quences.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. EASTHOPE said that on a recent occason,
when a motion was submitted to the House by the
Honourable Member for Rochdale, feeling that
it would be compromising himself if he gave any appro-
bation to the principles it contained, he had no hesita-
tion in resisting it by his vote, and if he were to convey,
by the vote he now intended to give, the slightest ap-
proval of those principles he then condemned, or the
least sanction to much of the reasoning by which those
principles were then propounded, he would not hesitate
for a moment to adhere to the same course. But he
perceived the proposition of his Hon. Friend was widely
different from that of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, which
he felt it his duty to oppose. In the present case, the peti-
tioners came forward in numbers beyondcomparison; and
there could be no doubt that they suffered from a state
of the deepest distress. They traced that distress to
sources from which he believed they did not arise, and
asked for remedies which, in his opinion, could only
augment those sufferings which were lamented by all.
' But, at the same time, he was bound to believe that a
large number of these three millions and a half of peti-
tioners were sincere and honest in their opinions ; and
he could not utterly neglect their prayers. He did not
wish to say to such a body, that he would refuse to hear
them. He believed that after they had been heard they
would themselves see that they had not made out their
case, and that they had been, to a great extent, deceived
and deluded. He thought, however, that the wise course
would be to err on the side of conciliation, and he should
herefore vote for the motion before the House.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the admissions of
the Hon. Member for Leicester, who had just sat down,
led him directly to the opposite conclusion to that at
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had arrived. The
Hon. Gentleman the Member „for Westminster had
said, that probably many Gentlemen on that (the Mi-
nisterial) side of the House would be disposed to criti-
cise the paragraphs of the petition, to turn them into
ridicule, and comment on them with severity. Now,
nothing could be further, from his (Sir J. Graham's) in-
tention than such a course.—(Hear, hear.) The facts
in the case were, unfortunately, generallY admitted ; the
distress was great, and the number of the petitioners
was very large. The statements of the petition, in many
particulars, were founded in fact. That was not, there-
tore, a question of facts to be investigated ; it was a
great question of policy to be decided. He could con-
ceive, for his 'part, no course more disastrous in the
midst of the excited feelings and the sufferings of the
petitioners, than that the House should take any step
which might excite hopes certain to end in dis-
appointment, and hold out expectations which
could not be realised. The Honourable Gentle-
man, the Member for Leicester; on a former evening,
strenuously resisted the main points of the Charter,
on which the prayer of the present petition rested. The
Hon. Member stated that he still retained his hostility to
those principles ; but what circumstances had occurred
in the interval, which could induce him to alter his course
on the present occasion ?—(Hear, hear.) There had been
no addition to the numbers of thepetitioners, their suffer-
ings had not been increased ; and yet the Hon. Gentle-
man, who had on the former evening voted against the
motion of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, was now pre-
pared to vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury. The Hon. Member seemed to think that
the granting of the proposed inquiry might have some
healing effect ; but if they were not disposed to grant
the remedies for which the petitioners sought, what
healing effect could the inquiry produce ? On the con-
trary, he (Sir J. Graham) was decidedly of opinion that
no course could tend more to aggravate the feel-
ings of those petitiotiers, then to call upon them
to prove a case of distress by evidence at the
bar, while the House had its mind made up
not to grant the proposed remedy for that distress.
He agreed with the lion. Baronet that the demand of
the petitioners was highly inexpedient, on many grounds,
affecting the form of government, the institutions, and
the happiness of the community. Above all he was
satisfied the subversion of all the great establishments of
the country that would follow the granting of the prayer
of the petitioners would de more to aggravate the dis-
tress, poverty, suffering, and sorrow, of these very
classes, than any other course of human policy. He
entertained this opinion in common with the Member
for Leicester, and he had seen no grounds for altering
his opinion; and he should adhere to the course he for-
merly took by firmly and decidedly opposing the motion.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, would
lead to disastrous results as to the expectation
of a remedy for the evils mentioned ; so far
from proving a remedy, it would be found that
its results would be disastrous in the extreme; and, en-
tertaining that opinion, he should feel it his duty to resist
the motion.

Sir J. EASTHOPE explained. He considered that,
on the present occasion, the'petitioners only sought to
explain their own prayer, and show the relevancy of
their own distresses: He should have taken his former
course, and opposed the motion, if he thought that, by
voting for it, he should recognise any of the principles
of the Charter.

Mr. MACAULAY said, the absence of the Members
of the late Government, on a recent discussion, had been
frequently alluded to ; he himself was absent from
indisposition, the absence of his Noble Friend was
occasioned purely by accident, and he thought
he might say with confidence, that not a single member
of the late Government had withheld his attendance from
any wish to escape stating his opinion. He should
attempt, in what he had to soy, to follow the very proper
temper shown by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down ; and if he should be betrayed fur a moment by
the vehemence of his feelings,on this occasion, no one
would attribute it to any want of confidence in, or want
of good will towards the millions, by whom the present
petition was signed. He could not consistently vote for
the motion ; it had been shaped with considerable skill ;
it was drawn up in such a manner, that it would be in
his power to tell his Conservative constituents that he
had never said a single word in favour of Universal
Suffrage, nor in favour of the extensive changes
the petitioners called for. At the same time, the
motion afforded him the means of saying to any
large assembly of Chartists--" At the time your petition
was before the House of Commons, and a motion was
made that you should be called, on to be heard, I op-
posed the Government on that occasion and voted for it."
Bat on an occasion so important he should not discharge
his duty if he had recourse to any such evasion ; he
should feel compelled to meet the motion with a direct
negative. It seemed to him that when they departed
from their ordinary rule, not to hear persons at the
bar, it must be understood that if they had not
made up their minds to deciding favourably on the
motion, yet that they had not completely made up their
minds to resist it. His mind being made up, he con-
ceived that House and the petitioners themselves would
have a right to complain if, at a future time, perhaps
three or four years hence, he should have to give a direct
negative to some of the clauses of the Charter. They
might then have some right to complain, and that accu-
sation, if he could avoid it, they should never have to
bring against him. He could not repeat all the lan-
guage of the petition, but its substance, its essence, he
must refer to. When the question was whether the peti-
tioners should be called on to be heard in support of it—
when the demand was that without deduction addition,
or alteration, the People's Charter should be passed into
a law—when this was the prayer, it was not dealing
fairly by the House, to say that they wished
only to be heard on the subject of their
distresses. If any Gentleman chose to move for an
inquiry into those distresses, if any Gentleman thought
that the heart-rending staternents'they had heard, ought
to be substantiated before a Committee of the House of
Commons, he should not oppose such a motion. But to
send a petition up to the House, demanding that this

particuli r law should be passed without deduction, W.th.
at addition, without alteration—when the demand wee
that the petitioners should be heard in support of that
request, to represent this as merely an inquiry into the
distress of the people, seemed to him merely paltering.
He might, perhaps, more easily than aay other Gentleman
in this House, give his support to the motion ; there
were parts of the Charter to which he was favourable •
there were parts of it for which he had voted. In truth, of
all the six points of the Charter, there was only one to which
he would openly say that he entertained an extreme and
unmitigated hostility. He had voted :for the Ballot ;
with regard to the property qualification of Members, he
agreed with the petition; while there was a property
qualification in the constituencies, he thought a property
qualification in the representatives altogether superflu-
ous. He thought it an absurdity that the Members for.
Edinburgh and Glasgow, should not require a qualifica-
tion, and that it should be required from the Members
for Marylebone and Manchester. If the system were
sound, it ought to be made universal in its application ;
if it were unsound, it ought to be abandoned. No
Conservative ought to stand up for it, for it formed no
part of the old Constitution. After the Revolution, it
was introduced by a bad Government, for the purpose
of defeating what the Revolution had accomplished,
—establishing the Protestant succession to the Crown.
He was decidedly an enemy to Annual Parliaments, but
he could agree with the petitioners so far as limiting the
length of Parliaments. There was one point in the
Charter which was its very essence, and of such im-
portance to it, that if it was withheld the Charter would
be a dead letter, and, if granted, would make it all-
powerful—that was Universal Suffrage. Now, consider-
ing that as the most important part of the Charter, and
being decidedly of opinion, as he was, that such a change
would be fatal to the country, he felt it to be his duty to
declare that he could not hold out the slightest
hope that he would, even under any circum-
stances, support that change. The reasons why
he entertained such an opinion he would state
to the House as shortly as he could—it was
upon no grounds of finality, he entertained no opinion of
that nature.—(Hear.) He admitted that violent and fre-
quent changes in a Government were not desirable, but
this only constituted a presumption against the change
proposed. Every change proposed, every great change
ought to be judged of by its own merits.—(Hear.) He
was bound by no tie to oppose any legislative reform that
would conduce to the public interest ; those persons
greatly under-stated the argument against Universal
Suffrage, who based it alone upon the fact that it would
be fatal to the monarchy and the House of Lords.—
(Hear.) He could not consider the monarchy or the
aristocracy, as the ends of a Government, but only as
the means.—(Hear.) The argument against Universal
Suffrage was greatly under-stated by these who so put
it, because his belief was that it would be destructive of
all those great objects for which all monarchies existed..
Such a change was utterly incompatible with
civilization, which he considered to rest upon
, the security. of property.—(Hear, hear.) Where,
property was insecure, it was not in the power of amt
people to prevent a country from sinking into barbarisr i,
and where property was secure it was not in the pow er
of any misgovernment to prevent a country from flouris .h-
-ing.— (Cheers.) Whoever considered the progress e his
country had made would see how- irresistible was ..the
power of the great principle of the security of proper ty.
—(Cheers.) Whatever might be the waste of war, Hoene
where property was secure, could repair faster than, war,
could destroy.—(Hear.) It would be madness to i ntro-
duce any system which had not for its basis the security
of property ; and could it be said that they could have
the assurance of a Government, placed in the hai ids of s
the majority of the people of the country without any et
pecuniary qualification, that they would consent Ito pre- I
serve the sanctity of the principle of property ? Had
thought not. Now as a test of that he would talcs 3 the a
petition which had been presented by his Hon. FiLend ;
and what was that petition ? It was signed by, three
millions and a half of signatures, and he must there-
fore consider it as a sort of declaration ,el* the
intentions of that body, which, if • the Charger was
passed into a law would become sovereign in the
country, and return the majority of representatives
in that House. If he was so to consider it, it was im-
possible for him to look without great anxiety ,to such
objects as this.—" Your petitioners complain of bethg
taxed for the purpose of supporting the national credit
by men who had not been elected by the people, and who
had therefore no right to tax them."—(Loud cheering-:
from the Opposition side of the House.) Did he clearly.,l)
understand that cheer as an indication of opinion that.:-.y
no faith was to be kept with the public creditor?—(Loud4
Ministerial cheers.) Was it the expression of an opinion
that a national bankruptcy would be just and politic?
(Renewed cheering from the Ministerial benches., with
cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) If it were not
that, he was utterly at a loss to comprehend its meaning.
—(Continued Mineeerial cheering.) For his own part,
he was convinced that it was utterly impossible to make
any distinction between the right of the fundholder to
his dividends and the right of the landlord to his land—
(Hear, hear)—and to do the petitioners justice, they
did not attempt to draw any such distinction. They
were against all monopoly of land—there could be
no mistake as to the meaning which they attached to-
the term, they did not by the term monopoly of landi
allude to the circumstance of the corn trade, which hadl
so frequently been discussed in that House, they treatedt
of that separately in another part of the -petition, an.dt,
speaking of it, said that they felt convinced that the abo -
lition of one monopoly alone would not diminish thei r
sufferings without the abolition of the existing monopol
of land.—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a declaration, colt-sistently and logically following, he would admit, from
their previous declarations with regard to the funds-e-
-was not that a declaration of opinion on the paet of the
three and a half millions who had signed the petition,
that landed property ought to cease to exist ?—(Ministeri pl
cheering.) They then prayed. for the abolition of the
monopoly of fixed capital in machinery. Now what con/ id
be the meaning of that, except the depriving a man .71 •
his right of property in his mill—the depriving: of a rigs
to possess that machinery which he had himself formed :?
They next prayed for the abolition of the monopoly sf
the means of travelling and transfer, So that after ha- r-
ing confiscated the funds, the land, and the machines y,
they would confiscate the railroads.—(Loud cheerit
and counter cheering.) He firmly believed that su ph
was the intention.—(Continued cheering.) He felt ctnie
vinced that that was the only meaning that could be at -
tached to those parts of the petition.—(Renewed cheer -
ing.) It was hardly necessary for him to go further. :11
he understood the meaning of the petition, it was this,
that the only remedy for the evils under which e 12e
country was suffering was to be found in a g rest
and sweeping confiscation of property.—(Minise trial
cheers.) He was firmly convinced that the c afect
of any such measures must be not only to ruin , the
rich but to make the poor poorer—(Cheers)—and 'that
! must ultimately press with infinitely greater sever:Ay oa
the working classes themselves than on any other teorette
tion of the community.—(Renewed cheering.) But ;el/
V
while he censured the doctrines put forward in the pet.
tion, he was far from bringing any charge against the ri
great body of the persons who had signed it; he did
not believe that they were in any degree blameworthy es',
for what they had done—(Cheers)—they acted only, aef
it was natural they should have acted under the cire;;i c 7,
cumstances.—(Cheers.) He looked upon the petition as fav
a cry of distress, of which he considered that designing.
men had taken advantage to put it forward in a mesee
pernicious form.—(Loud Opposition cheers.) But if that eels::
were so, ought they to encourage that form by going
out of their way, by deviating from the usual course -of
Parliamentary proceedings, in order to give it a
,peen-:
liar reception?—(Ministerial cheers.), He did not, for, e,
one moment, blame those who had signed the petition. eliN
How often did they find men possessing all the advaneeee6
tages of education—how often did they find
even themselves, when suffering from sickness, or
vexation, or pecuniary difficulties, or from any' 00j
other cause, indulging in unreasonable desires" et- c,O
making use of any means, however desperate, escape
from the pressure of distress, and ready to catch at ;;f3
everything that held out a hope of lessening the pressure
,ftee.„
for the moment, even to the cost of greater future evil.:frO,'d
—(Cheers.) Should they blame a man who saw hie.
wife and children starving around him, whose mind eel!,
was employed in mechanical toil, whose ignorance was 04i0Ti
partly the fault of the culpable neglect of the GoverEr! sit
ment ?—(Loud and long continued cheering, which ee-o
drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) Be it' so—the •
Government might be to blame for neglecting his edu- ,
cation—(Continued cheering)—education might remedy
the evil—but should they wait until education had taughS4r-ecs
the masses that it was for their own interest that 07,7' '
rights of property should be secured, and should they'
once place in their hands the power of ruining not only
all the possessors of property in the country, but thew g
selves likewise ? They could not but notice the inequality. 'et
of condition of the different classei in this country ; they .rog
were suffering from acute distress, and they were told by
desighing men that the only way to get rid of their Cala-
mities was to go to the funds—to go to the land—to go J, H 4
to the machinery—to go to the railroads, and to destroy If)1-
all which they called monopoly, but what he called pro- -(/
perty.—(Loud cheers.) Be had no more unkind J
2lt,
feeling towards them for doing so than he had towards
the sick man suffering from burning fever, 'for asking
for a draught of cold water, which would be his death—
than he had towards the unfortunate inhabitants ofe,
India, who, in a of general scarcity, crowded round. „,:e "•
a granary, and demanded that the keys should be given:
up to them. But he would not, therefore, if he were di* ,OVS'4,I
sick man's attendant, give him the draught of cold Water ?',Pe
givehewould
hneoyt
a, ioff hteh
ew egrr
ae
naanr
yEnglishthe
sA
r 4'
tlaargivisntgratepopinnilantdijoz,;;:
'5
and thereby, for the sake of affording a little present:.
relief, turn the scarcity into a famine.—(Cheers.) He o'/
would not, for the sake of uncertain present relief, incur ee'''''4o
certain future evil.—(Cheers.) He believed that no .01;4
person in the House, who had heard the passages of the Alio
petition which he had read, but was convinced that eigelf
such a scheme of spoliation, instead of affording even,.,_ fit
present relief, would make a great addition to the cats-1,
mities from which the petitioners were now suffering
and would they, by consenting to grant Universal Sat.
' seo4er
frage, put into their hands the power of effecting all thle'!bqs
evil ?—(Ministerial cheers.) That they should ask e'd
was most natural, was not blameable ; but they ought.. it J)
not on that account to grant it.—(Cheers.) The mill eft ';';ls
argument by which he imagined the supporters- of thiSest46;4#
motion would justify their support of it was, that all these. 1 'tips
consequences would not flow from granting Univerial,,:iii/Le6
Suffrage—(Hear)—that if it were once granted, and were:.,e ed
in full operation, such a course of action would not be :1•104,
taken ; that when they were once possessed of power thg..-.
would use it in a different wayfrom what they now propos . swle!
It was contrary to all principles of human nature to sup-. 'erAe ‘to'
pose that the persons who were then asking a great con- ,
cession would not, when they obtained what they asked, . el?
demand more, when they knew those who had granted-,,, I;9:°.eetio
them their former demands had no power to refuse morte 00d
But the consequence that would follow this conceSslO,' 004 ,
0"
would not be what had been asserted. But how was itese-1"
possible to suppose that this power, if granted; would be
,k
used by the parties as they had been told. 'The-petition
was nothing but the result of what every 'person /14dev:.
read and heard of, as coming from parties who repro'