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 say that all
the allegations in the petition could be proved at the bar,
but wkien he saw the great multitude of the petitioners,
when, he saw that the petition was more numerously
%hsign ed than any etition that had ever been presented to
iat House, he could not rake upon himself to refuse
t Jan a hearing at the bar of that House, which was spe-
c:idly constituted to protect the rights and to remedy the
vrievances 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 actiug 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
anyth gin be more unjust than that a small number in
certain communities should possess greater power than
multitudes in other districts—that 100 persons should
Heave 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 riche:s it gave to others, also
refused to them the susceistibility of human nature?
Scotland had emancipatee, herself from the property
'lllnlitication, and were the representatives sent to that
House from Scotland less competent, less trustworthy, i
than from any of the other portions of the empire? The
alletnand of the peti".ioners 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
ouse,
.hey'
me th *ir request of being heard at the bar of the
posed would be creating in each family that cem-
those millions a centre of discontent. He con-
curred. in t.' '
be urn . sinking with
,his Hon. Friend that it would
;0 ; tat present, agitated as the country was with
i 0 e' al 'miseries, mingled with political discontent, if the
of 4,e were to refuse the fair demand of three millions
-3,.'°Ple to be heard at the bar.—(Cheers.)
De "''',l% J. FIELDEN was understood to say that the
6
i) i:Ple ''f. the country were everywhere suffering
7 greatest evils, which they attributed to the bad
in. thinking
:egislation of that House, and which he agreed with them
nothing but a radical alteration in its con-
:t stitution would remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that
a great sacri:ice to himself he was supporting the per-
i ons in his
employment.—(Hcar.) But there was a say-
-,,1S ill Lencashire, that by taking meal out of the tub
knew--`-` Pittg none in, you soon came to the bottom. He
~, the itate of the country was really deplorable—
„kilesr)—and he begged of the Right Hon. Baronet, if
the regarded such a condition of things, to allow those
PetitiOners to be heard at the bar. He could not see
brNeer any mischief could arise from holding out the olive-
anch to tbcm. They may make statements that would
induce the: house to Took into their condition, and they
May, at, all events, suggesewhat would be worthy of its
t"tisid.e.ration ; and, therefore, he hoped they would not
ore`,llsed-=(Hear, liear.) A refusal would lead them
that disappointment and those reflections which it
we e'uld be unwise to disregard.—(Hear, hear.) It would
1,1 much better to spend two or three days in hearing
`what they had to say than run the risk of the cense-
'lt'? cee.--(Cheers.)
Ste J. EASTHOPE said that on a recent occasion,
exhen a motion was submitted to the House by the
:tionourable 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 wore then propounded, he would not hesitate
for a moment to adhere to the same course. But he
Iperceived- the proposition of his Hon. Friend was widely
'different from that of the Hon. Meniber for Rochdale, which
the felt it his duty to oppose. In the present case, the peti-
tioners came forward in numbers beyond comparison; and
there could be no doubt that they suffered from a state
'af 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 sufferinga which were lamented by all.
tut, 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
Vie, 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
therefore 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 ifor Westminster had
said, that probably many Gentlemen on that (the Mi-
nisterial) side of the House would be disposed to criti-
cise the paragraphq 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.—(Bear, hear.) The facts
1.1! the cue were, unfortunately, generally admitted ; the
aistress-steagzgreat, and the number of the "'es ve.ry large. The statements of the petition, in petitioners
many
prticulat.
8, were founded in fact. That was not, there-
:o:uree a question of facts to be investigated ; it was a
vat question of policy to be decided. He could con-
enid:' for his part, no course more disastrous in the i
t,tt of the excited feelings and the sufferings of the
v,eitliicihsners,
ithatt that the House should take any step
it
appoint 'mg
excite hopes certain to end in ills-
could cnoesnt'be and hold out expectations which I
man, the Ar -
ember
strenuou ly realised, The Honourable Gentle- I
for Leicester, on a former evening,
• the Charter,
on
whici:t, resisted the main points of ,
110 n. Me k_n Pra.yer of the present petition rested. The, I those ~ta'cr stated that he still retained his hostility to 1
in the rint'l".
,_ but what circumstances had occurred ,
on the 3 e:cval, which could induce him to alter his course '
ne Proesent occasion?—(gear, hear.) There had been
add, tint, to.. „ fr -
'cgs /. the numbers of thepetitioners, their suer
,ad not been increasedandyet the Hon. Gentle- 1
;
lean who hadneasi on the former evening voted against the I
, on of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, was now pre- I
p4l. to -vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member '
Ith Insb9rY. The Hon. Member seemed to think that
e granting
health ,of the proposed inquiry might have some
the
g effect ; but if they were not disposed to grant
t:..rensedies for the etitioners sought, what
21utleg effect could the inquiryproduce ? On the con-
n'„ 1, he (Sir J. Graham) was decidedly of opinion that
L''' course could 'tend more to aggravate the feel-
-10 of those petitioners, then to call upon them
C.. prove a caso of distress by evidence at the
iTthn while the House had its mind made up i
-iZto grant the proposed remedy for that distress.
;Agreed with 'the Hon. Baronet that the demand of
40 petitioners
sere . was highly inexpedient, on many grounds,
the
eting the form of government, the institutions, and
ut.,, happiness of the community. Above all he was
oft'
the subversion of all the great establishments of
07Fountry that would follow the granting of the prayer
tees 'ne petitioners would do more to aggravate the dis-
s
ej.,,3, poverty, suffering, and sorrow, of these very
el;`,3 es, than any other course of human policy. He
te•Lertained this opinion in common with the Member
h,t' Leicester, and he' ember
seen no grounds for altering
~` opinion ; and he should adhere to the course he for-
iberly took by firmly and decidedly opposing the motion.
len° motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, would
441 to disastrous results as to the expectation
40 a remedy for the evils mentioned ; so far
48111 proving a remedy, it would be found that
ti!esults would be disastrous in the extreme; and, en-
th taining that opinion, ho should feel it his duty to resist
e raotion.
Si
Ott th
rJ. EASTHOPE explained. He considered that,
sedge Present occasion, the petitioners only sought to
%m their own prayer, and show the relevancy of
e,,,elr own distresses. He should have taken his former
1,0,..4.r5e, and opposed the motion, if he thought that, by
of ,11g for it, he should recognise any of the principles
A.lO Charter.
trkr. MACAULAY said, the absence of* the Members I
late Government, on a recent discussion, had been
'pule
'alluded to • he himself was absent from
i4tilaently,
9e.,i'lkkosition, the absence of his Noble Friend was
he Monad purely by accident, and he thought
of bight say with confidence, that not a single member
kay-e late Government had withheld his attendance from
kttso.,Wish to escape stating his opinion. He should
tett•l4, in what he had to say, to follow the very proper 'lee,c'„ r shown by the Hon. Gentleman who had Just sat
the ; 1 and if he should be betrayed for a moment by i
I:oeitltnence of his feelings on this occasion, no one
t too attribute it to any want of confidence in, or want
Ittiti.e4„ will towards the millions, by whom the present
•le ' was signed. He could not consistently vote for
it aletio.
gig as d_il ; it had been shaped with considerable skill ;
1i5,4,,Ne;,,'„ wn up in such a manner, that it would be in
41,1, es„.4 to tell his Conservative constituents that he
cessg.eer said a single word in favour of Universal
lie •Detit• Tl°r in favour of the extensive . changes
1 te, -1
At the same time, the
%11 mars called for. .
was kesse,h,"„rded him the means of saying toy any
any
41 'Pf "'uly of pi • 4t
t4dt ,q 1•0 ~ Chartists At the time your petition
ag that the House of Commons, and a motion was
~, . ~,
, at %'llequll should be called on to be heard, I op-
his dot art everninent on that occasion and voted for it.
aliolo't itNztsi • he should not discharge
h eed fe_• he had on so important -
such evasion ; he
legatiee.‘i 5,,,,,. recourse to 4 any
rern their tts''Pelled to mee., the motion with a direct
bar, •
i esds;eerned to him that when they departed
niece', must nary rule, not to hear persons at the
klo ' 41) tit •`'e understood that if they had not
eon s,t,
laind, ' Yet th
,lninds to deciding favourably on the
I,eive'd th resist resi:',", they had not completely made up their
gays - qt .11n-i, 't- His mind being made up, he con-
tle.e- a right ~•"6e and the petitioners themselves would
e °I. I -. c l i if at a future time, perhaps
R,t our pa n ,
IV Ive t Years hence, he should have to give a direct
ightthene so
!ittir, b lne of the clauses of the Charter. They
oti -11, if he-Ave some right to complain, and that accu-
kiintl ag,i could avoid it, they should never have to
tkil.te of th him. him. He could not repeat all the lan-
th,3t refe, ,Ic Petition, but its substance, its essence, he
ei!lere eh_ Lo• When the question was whether the peti-
,l;eu old be called on to be heard in support of it—
Okiter,t.genland was that without deduction, addition,
ak lec, the People's Charter should passed into
kie --whn. t, ..; be . Nil Y b ot was the prayer, it was not dealing
1. e
toY the House, to 'say that they wished
it)l4tres es 1?0 heard on the subject of their
illaie,B into If any Gentleman chose to move for an
111tt tg„Tto those distresses, if any Gentleman thought
)be ,
,neurt-rending statements they had heard, ought
eetils_linstantiated before a Committee of the House of
NI
itus, 1?e should not oppose such a motion. But to
Nation up to the House, demanding that this

particular law should be passed without deduction, with-
out addition, without alteration—when the demand was,
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 any 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 hot 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 understated 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 understated 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 any
people to prevent a country from sinking into barbarism,
and where property was secure it was not in the power
of any misgovernment to prevent a country from flourish-
ing.— (Cheers.) Whoever considered the progress this
country had made would see how irresistible was the
power of the great principle of the security of property.
—(Cheers.) Whatever might be the waste of war, men,
where property was secure, could repair faster than war
could destroy.—(Hear.) It would be madness to intro-
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 hands of
the majority of the people of the country without any
pecuniary qualification, that they would consent to pre-
serve the sanctity of the principle of property ? He
thought not. Now as a test of that he would take the
petition which had been presented by his Hon. Friend ;
and what was that petition ? It was signed by three
millions and a half of signatures, and lie must there-
fore consider it us a sort of declaration of the
intentions of that body, which, if the Charter 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 being
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
understand that cheer as an indication of opinion that
no faith was to be kept with the public creditor?—(Loud
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 Ministerial 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 land
allude to the circumstance of the corn trade, which had
so frequently been discussed in that House, they treated
of that separately in another part of the petition, and,
speaking of it, said that they felt convinced that the abo-
lition of one monopoly alone would not diminish their
sufferings without the abolition of the existing monopoly
of land.—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a declaration, con-
sistently and logically following, he would admit, from
their previous declarations with regard to the funds—
was not that a declaration of opinion on the part of the
three and a half millions who had signed the petition,
that landed property ought to cease to exist ?—(Min isterial
cheering.) They then prayed for the abolition of the
monopoly of fixed capital in machinery. Now what could
be the meaning of that,-except the depriving a man of
his right of property in his mill—the depriving of a right
to possess that machinery which he had himself formed?
They next prayed for the abolition of the monopoly of
the means of travelling and transfer. So that after hav-
ing confiscated the funds, the land, and the machinery,
they would confiscate the railroads.—(Loud cheering
and counter cheering.) He firmly believed that such
was the intention.—(Continued cheering.) He felt con-
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. If
he understood the meaning of the petition, it was this,
that the only remedy for the evils under which the
country was suffering was to be found in a great
?and sweeping confiscation of property.—(Ministerial
cheers.) He was firmly convinced that the effect
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 severity on
the working classes themselves than on any other por-
tion of the community.—(Renewed cheering.) But
while he censured the doctrines put forward in the peti-
tion, he was far from bringing any charge against the
great body of the persons who had signed it; he did
not believe that they were in any degree blameworthy
for what they had done—(Cheers)—they acted only, as
it was natural they should have acted under the cir-
cumstances.(Cheers.) He looked upon the petition as
a cry of distress, of which he considered that designing
men had taken advantage to put it forward in a most
pernicious form.—(Loud Opposition cheers.) But if that
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 pecu-
liar reception ?—(Ministerial cheers.) He did not, for
one moment, blame those who had signed the petition.
How often did they find men possessing all the advan-
tages of education—how often did they find
even themselves, when suffering from sickness, or
vexation, or pecuniary difficulties, or from any
other cause, indulging in unreasonable desires,
making use of any means, however desperate, to escape
from the pressure of distress, and ready to catch at
everything that held out a hope of lessening the pressure
for the moment, even to the cost of greater future evil.
—(Cheers.) Should they blame a man who saw his
wife and children starving around him, whose mind
was employed in mechanical toil, whose ignorance was
.partly the fault of the culpable neglect of the Govern-
ment ?—(Loud and long continued cheering, which
drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) Be it so—the
Government might he to blame for neglecting his edu-
cation—(Continued cheering)—education might remedy
the evil—but should they wait until education had taught
the masses that it was for their own interest that the
rights of property should be secured, and should they at
once place in their hands the power of ruining not only
all the possessors of property in the country, but them-
selves likewise ? They could not but notice the inequality
of condition of the different classes in this country ; they
were suffering from acute distress, and they were told by
designing 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
to the machinery—to go to the railroads, and to destroy
all which they called monopoly, but what he called pro-
perty.—(Loud cheers.) He had no more unkind
feeling towards them for doing so than he had towarls
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 of
India, who, in a time of general scarcity, crowded round
a granary, and demanded that the keys should be given
up to them. But he would not, therefore, if he were the
sick man's attendant, give him the draught of cold water ;
he would not, if he were an English Magistrate in India,
give the keys of the granary to the starving population,
and thereby, for the sake of affording a little present
relief, turn the scarcity into a famine.---(Cheers.) He
would not, for the sake of uncertain present relief, incur
certain future evil.—(Cheers.) He believed that no
person in the House, who had heard the passages of the
petition which he had read, but was convinced that
such a scheme of spoliation, instead of affording even
present relief, would make a great addition to the cala-
mities from which the petitioners were now suffering ;
and would they, by consenting to grant Universal Suf-
frage, put into their hands the power of effecting all this
evil ?—(Ministerial cheers.) That they should ask it
was most natural, was not blameable ; but they ought
not on that account to grant it.—(Cheers.) The only
argument by which he imagined the supporters of this
motion would justify their support of it was, that all these
consequences would not flow from granting Universal
Suffrage—(Hear)—that if it were once granted, and were
in full operation, such a course of action would not be
taken ; that when they were once possessed of power they
would use it in a different wayfrom what they now proposed.
It was contrary to all principles of human nature to sup-
pose that the persons who were then asking a great con-
cession would not, when they obtained what they asked,
demand more, when they knew those who had granted
them their former demands had no power to refuse more.
But the consequence that would follow this concession
would not be what had been asserted. But how was it
possible to suppose that this power, if granted, would be
used by the parties as they had been told. The petition
was nothing but the result of w hat every person had
read and heard of, as coining from parties who repre-

sented that Government was able to do that which-
no Government was able to do ; who represented Go-
vernment as bound to attempt that which no
wise Government dared attempt—that which, if
Government did attempt, instead of doing more
than their duty, they would do a great deal less.
This was what had been represented to the people, in-
stead of telling them the truth, that Government were
themselves supported by the people, and could only be
supported by the people. Instead of this, it was repre-
sented that Government had some extraordinary mine
of wealth, or a means of relieving- the distress of the
people, as though they had a Divine permission—as if
they could send them bread from the clouds, water from
the rocks, and multiply the loaves and fishes five thou-
sand fold. And was it possible to believe that the people
in after years—was it possible to believe that, the mo-
ment they gave them this absolute, this supreme
responsible power, would forget those representations ?
Gentlemen talked of class legislation, and they were
going to give one class absolute, unlimited power, which
would lay property absolutely at the feet of labour. How
was it possible for any one to suppose, who heard this
reasoning, that such would not be the result? Suppose the
people were to elect such Members as the Hon. Member
for Bath, the Hon. Member for Montrose, and many
others, who would firmly oppose the propositions a
national bankruptcy, who could suppose that such a
Parliament as this would leid to any thing but disap-
pointment amongst the people ? Gentlemen talked o
disappointment attending the Reform Bill. What a die.
appointment would attend the'meeting of the first Par-
liament under the new system, when that Parliament
would refuse to answer a petition not to pay the debt—
when the answer made to the people would be in that
House, that the debts must be paid, even
though they were contracted for wars against
liberty, and entered into by a Parliament not
elected by the people, yet their debts must be paid ?
And then with respect to land, would they not be driving
out of the country by the spoiliation of property all the
funds frees which labour would be remunerated ? Was
it possible to doubt that the petitioners who had been in-
duced to sign that petition to the number of three mil-
lions, that if they obtained what they sought that they
would not have great reason to complain of the manner
in which they had been treated ? What was said after
the passing of the Reform Bill ? There were murmurs
of disappointment ; the people said you promised us the
Bill, and the whole Bill, and to be sure we have nothing
less, but you have given us the means without the
end.—(Hear.) Could any one doubt that the cry
would be increased twenty times if the people
received what was demanded in that petition ? When
this state of things came—and the consequences must
force themselves on every mind—he defied any human
being to point out in modern or ancient history, a pic-
ture so full of horror. Distress was made the ground
of the application now, and it was extremely bad, but it
would be doubled and trebled then. As the Government
then would be formed on the spoilation of property, how
could it be supposed that under it, property could be
respected, or could receive protection. It seemed to him,
that as far as be could judge, nothing more horrid could
be exhibited than this great country, containing twenty-
seven or twenty-eight millions of human beings—this
vast population, all dependent for their existence on
trade and industry, trade with the furthermost ends of
the world—than that country under such a system. Such
a scene of famine, misery, and pestilence, could not be
equalled in modern Europe. If such 'a state came to
pass, if such a dreadful revolution took place, he should
have one wish with respect to it—and a dreadful wish it
was for an Englishman to express as a means of social
amelioration—and that was, that some desperate struggle
should arise which would call to life some strong
military despotism, which would give some sort of pro-
tection and security tq that property which remained.
But if they expected to see the old institutions of the
country revived, they deceived themselves greatly; they
would never see them again, they would never deserve
them again. Every nation would look with utter con-
tempt at the ruin of those institutions, and at the glory
of the country laid prostrate ; and in the history of the
country would be told that England had institutions, im-
perfect indeed, but institutions which contained within
themselves the means of conferring happiness, even with
their imperfections—institutions better than any great
community, in all the history of the world, she had lived
under for 150 years together—institutions which she
threw wantonly away, for no purpose whatever, except
because she was asked to do so, by persons who said
that, without these concessions, she would be ruined.—
(Loud cheers.) Now, these were the feelings which he
entertained respecting this proposition.—(Loud cheers.)
Having, therefore, this opinion in his mind, he would
oppose the proposition, as long as he sat in that House,
for Universal Suffrage, and he had only to decide whether
he should vote for hearing the petitioners at their bar.
Now, he must say that any person who was disposed not
to grant Universal Suffrage, he thought that Gentleman
could act a consistent part in voting for hearing the
petitioners. But he must confess that it was with some
surprise he had heard the Hon. Gentleman, the Member
for Leicester, declare that, agreeing with him (Mr.
Macaulay) in all his principles, he now was disposed to
vote simply for allowing the persons presenting that pe-
tition to come to the bar to explain its principles.
(Sir John Easthope made some observation, which was
inaudible in the gallery.) He (Mr. Macaulay) though
he would treat the petition with respect, and those who
sent it, he should give a conscientious vote against hear-
ing the petitioners.—(Cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) It appeared to him from conviction, that by
so doing he was not only acting on the whole for the
best for the State, but that he was really doing to the
petitioners themselves a great service, and that they
would ultimately have no reason for complaining that
they (the House) had refused to hear them in support of
their demands.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. ROEBUCK, who spoke in so low a tone of voice
as to be scarcely audible at first, said, that after the de-
scription given by the Right Hon. Gentleman of the
the consequences which would follow from granting the
labouring population of this country the power they
sought to possess, he was very much inclined to believe
that the Right Hon. Gentleman was no very great
friend to the working classes. He told them that he had
no ill-feeling towards the petitioners. but entered into a
description of the consequences which would result from
giving those laborious, frugal, industrious, honest, long-
suffering, patient people their rights, and entered into a
description of the horrors that would result from giving
them power, which plainly indicated to him (Mr.
roebuck) that he (Mr. Macaulay) entertained nu
very good
.feeling towards them. The proposition
laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Roe-
buck) had seen before put forth with all the gorgeous
eloquence with which he had heard the Right Hon.
Gentleman on the subject before, which left no doubt of
its origin. He had seen it on the discussion upon the Re-
form Bill. By the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, he was not to give to the working public of Eng-
land any power, until it was beyond a doubt that they
would not use that power improperly. That was the
proposition laid down that night; and then the Right
Hon. Gentleman said, could he believe that the labour-
ing population could obtain this power without misusine.
it? He (Mr. Roehuck) would ask him what they (the
House) were at all for ? For what purpose was it that
the House of Commons was formed ? He was prepared
to maintain that by every principle of the Constitution
they were brought together to represent the whole body
of the people. What was it that brought them there ?
It was that desire in all to proceed upon their
own merits. They were there to prevent the conse-
quences of that desire. If he were a strong man, with
no one to check him, he carried out that desire.
What prevented this but men joining together to prevent
the strong oppressing the weak? It was upon this prin-
ciple that Parliament was elected for the purpose of per-
forming in that arena the business of Government, that
which was once performed in the times before us in the
open market-place. But then if the Government were
the watchers, he wanted to know who were to watch
them—who were to watch the watchers? There was
only one mode, and that was by making them respon-
sible to the people. - But they were only responsible to a
portion of the people. They oppressed the remainder ;
change would touch their power. They were delegated
by a small section; that section were joined to oppress the
remainder. The Right Hon. Gentleman stood forward
against the petitioners, and said they demanded a mini-
mum of wages. He (Mr. Roebuck) looked around him
—.he pointed to the other side of the House, and he
asked if there, in that House, they did not demand a
minimum of wages ? They said they had landed power,
and therefore they demanded a minimum price in corn.
—(Cheers.) Where was the difference in the landed
proprietor in coming into the market, and saying his
wages were corn, and they should not reduce corn below
a certain price ? The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Edinburgh, said it was bad political
economy to demand a minimum of wages. Was there
any difference between bad political economy in a man
saying that he had his labour to depend upon, and must
have a minimum of wages, and the landed pro-
prietor who said he must have a minimum price in
corn ? He perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, that many of the miseries of the people bad been
caused by bad government.—(Hear, hear.) Few could
doubt this. There was the Poor-law Bill ; this, no
doubt, had caused much of the misery existing in the
country. He would point to the •rgan of the other
party—The Times. They every day brought out
propositions, just as wild, quite as fearful—quite as de-
structive to the security of property as that which was
sought after in the petition. But was he, therefore,
justified in saying, that in every town—in every
village, if they acceded to the proposition, they laid
property under the foot of labour. Why were a part of
the community represented, and not the other classes as
well ? There was a still larger, and equally intelligent
community, he meant the labouring majority
of the country, and who were not connected with pro-
perty. Yet the Right Hon. Gentleman said that these
classes would be so blinded that they would little respect
the rights of property, that they would produce a scene
in the country of bloodshed, confusion, and rapine.
They must judge them as they ought to be judged. He
did not judge them by the words written by a malignant,
cowardly, and foolish demagogue, upon whom he could
place his finger, and whose name he could mention, but
that it was utterly beneath contempt. It was not from
him that he would judge them. He would look to
themselves, he would ask all who had borne witness to
their patience, who had borne witness to their long
suffering and forbearance of the oppresion which
had been heaped upon them. It was from these that
he would judge his countrymen, and not from the
trashy wording of an idle document, rendered ridiculous
by the parties who had drawn it up. Must they not feel
a degradation when they saw their fellow-men, no better
in virtue, and but a little better in wealth, made different
human beings from themselves by a distinction which
rendered them degraded and servile ? Nor were they ig-
norant, for he had known many of them to be men of
business. They had wealth and security in property
under the present electoral body; why then should they
expect it to be otherwise, when persons equally intelli-
gent were added to that body, and what reason had they
to suppose that then they would have England in a state

of anarchy most terrific, as described by the Right Hon.
Gentleman? He said there was no argument to sup-
port , such a proposition. At the present moment
they had no physical force men to keep down. They
had many millions of suffering people in the country, and
if they were to rise up as one man, all their armed force
would be as a rush against them. They could do nothing.
But, instead of this they found them peaceable and acting
in strict obedience to the law. This was the feeling deeply
impregnated into the people of England, and, if he were
asked to distinguish his fellow countrymen from all
others, he should do so by saying that there was but one
feeling in the country with respect to obedience to the laws:
It was that feeling amongst us which made him feel
sensible, that if the whole body of his fellow-countrymen
were invested with power, he should walk home as he
should do to-night, in peace and security, having the
greatest faith in his fellow-countrymen.—(ftear, hear.)
And he would say to the Right Hon. Gentleman, with- '
out wishing to be severe upon him, that if ever there
were a libel thrown upon his good, patient, forbearing,
laborious countrymen, it was that kind of declamation
which said that they were unfit to govern themselves..
—(Hear, hear.) Why they had done everything
for them (the House of Commons). On . them rested
the fabric of English greatness; and now the
very fact of their quiet organisation, when making a ,
demand of this sort, afforded such an example of forbear-
ance and self-government as had never been seen before
in the history of nations. lie should like the Right
Hon. Gentleman to put his finger on one portion of
history which would show such a spectacle as the floor
of that House yesterday.—(Hear, hear.) There were
three millions of people who had come froth the many
towns and hamlets of this country, in its highways and
byeways ; in the security of the law had they signed a
document for the indulgence of that right which they i
believed in their hearts to be for their general good ;
they had not banded themselves together against the
law to obtain it, but faithfully, prudently, and respect-
fully they came and asked for it there.—(Hear, hear.)
And from this the Right Hon. Gentleman concluded,
notwithstanding the startling instance which :he
(Mr. Roebuck) had mentioned, that this petition was to
be thrown by as nothing ; that he was to fix his critical
opinion and his critical eye, and his grammatical sa-
gacity, on this document ; and he was to forget the
startling fact that there were.three millions of his fellow-
subjects, who were not now within the pale of the Con-
stitution, and had come in a peaceable manner to de-
mand a right which they believed their own.—(Hear,
hear.) Let it not be supposed, for one instant, that he
agreed in the one-hundredth part of what was contained
in that petition; what he asked for was, not that
they should be simply heard ; the Honourable
Member for Rochdale only asked for an inquiry, and he
was met by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Leicester
—(Laughter)—the Hon. Member for Finsbury asked for
an inquiry also, and then came a strange alteration in
the Right lion. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) He saw some-
thing now which he did not see before.—(Hear, hear.)
But now the demand was precisely the same—an inquiry
in which they might state their opinions, and why they
thought the evils which at present existed in the country
arose from bad legislation—the inquiry was precisely
the same as that for which the Hon. Member for Roch-
dale moved the other night, and now a special light had
fallen on the Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Roebuck) voted for the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Rochdale, and lie meant to vote for the petition
now before the House, he meant to vote for the Charter.
—(Hear.) He asked for the people to be admitted
within the Constitution, because he believed that the best
Government which could be got for any people, at any
time, must be chosen from the whole of the people—
(Hear, hear)—and it struck him that if to-morrow they
were to transform by legal means, and no violent legis-
lation, that House of Commons into a complete repre-
sentation of the people of England, there would be not
one iota of difference as fo the relations of property in
this country—(Hear, h ear)—with this single and ad-
vantageous exception, that every man would have the
profits of his own labour, only so much being taken from
it as was his fair share towards the expenses of the State.
The people did not say that all the evils of life were to be
attributed to the present condition of that House, but they
said that being unrepresented, they paid more largely to
the expenses of the State than they ought to do in
reference to their condition in numbers ; and, judging
from the acts—not the words—of. the majority of that
House, they concluded that they were unfairly dealt
with, and that they had been, for a long time, a long-
suffering and a patient people, and they asked to be re-
presented. Let him look at one or two circumstances
which had lately taken place, and he would ask, what
would they think if they could be traced to the evils of
an aristocratic Government? He did not like such aris-
tocratic Governments as that of England. He thought that
the whole of the people, more particularly the labouring
population of it, who had hitherto been the main
stay of the Government, but who were now in a state
of extreme distress, and, with food scantily supplied,
ought to be represented; and he thought that the govern-
ing body was called upon to do something to relieve their
distresses by allowing them to work for food. But the
aristocratic body would do no such thing ; he therefore
should conclude that it was a spirit of rapine in this aris-
tocratic body.—(A voice " No.") He took his language
from their repeated acts. He said it was a spirit of
rapine whirl caused that body to act as it did. The
present aristUcratic Government was a fierce, tyrannical
Government, fond of rapine and plunder ; but let them
look around, and go a little farther, and they should see
that these people, having power in their hands, and being
at a distance from misery, were riot alive to the evils
which their legislation created •, and that, therefore,
not only would they be doing a benefit to the poor, but
to the rich also, by sending amongst them parsons who
would tell them the evils which bad legislation pro-
duced.—(Hear, hear.) Nor did he believe that he was
going to give to one small body, as he called the labouring
class, the election of that House—(Hear,'hear)—it would
be borne by the whole people of England, the wealth,
the intelligence, and the integrity a the country.—
(Hear, hear.) No people on earth were ever
governed by the poor, but always by the wealthy,
the thinking, and;the leisure classes. The only diffe-
rence would be that they would have wealth exercising
its legitimate influence, with intellect assisting it, in-
stead of, as now, wealth exercising none but a malign
influence in that House. This constituted the difference
between the Right Hon. Gentleman and himself. He
had great faith in the patience and virtue of his fellow-
countrymen The Right Hon. Gentleman doubted it,
and said they were not to be trusted, and he grounded
his belief on the paper which was now on the table, and
he shut his eyes to the experience which he ought
to have had, and who, in passing through this
country, must have become intimately acquainted
with the many sufferings of the thousands around
us ; but forgetting all this, • shutting his eyes to
all the experience which he ought to have had, he judged 1
of his fallen countrymen from that paper on the table,
and he said that they were unworthy of trust, that they
delighted in rapine, and would glory in bloodshed—that
where they found peace they would make war, where
cultivated land they would make a desert—and that
great country, which they had contributed almost
entirely to raise to its great prosperity—(Hear,
hear) his poor labouring countrymen would, if
they had the means, reduce to a wide scene of
bloodshed, anarchy, and confusion—(Hear)—and in this
sense he would for ever, said the Right. Hon. Gentle-
man, oppose to the utmost of his ability, the demand
made by the people of that country. He (Mr. Roebuck)
did not envy the feelings of the Right lion. Gentleman
who thus estimated his fellow people ; and, for himself,
whether he were in that House or out of it, lie would
say, that the little ability which he possessed should
be devoted to their service ; and he believed that
ho should be best doing them service when he
spoke of them with kindness; consideration, and affec-
tion ; and that he should do for them that which they
ought to expect at his hands when he made them all
equal in the eye of the law, and would not allow a ser-
vile class to remain ; and he did believe that property
would be more secure when his fellow-countrymen had
more power.—.(The Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat
amidst loud cheers.)
Sir F. EGERTON said, he did not think it necessary
to speculate as to the precise effect which would follow
the granting of the prayer of this petition. The Hon.
Gentleman seemed to think that out of a general strife
a perfect Utopia would arise, under which everything
would be conducted in the best and most delightful
manner. With such an opinion he certainty c.uld laot
concur. fie perfectly coincided in what had had fallen from
the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh ; he believed it
would be the height of folly to hold out to these three
millions, of men, who had signed that trashy and con-
temptible document, that the prayer of their petition
would ever be granted, and that would almost be inferred
if they were now allowed to appear at the bar. Entirely
concurring with the Right Hon. Gentleman,he should
give a vote, which, though perhaps an unpopular one,
would still, he believed, be the correct one.
Mr. HAWES said he was so thoroughly convinced
that this was a fitting time for all who were anxious for
the good of the country to speak, that he should take the
opportunity of making a few observations on the subject
before the House. With respect to the speech of the
Hon. Member for Bath, he would say that it had removed
all doubt from his mind as to which way he should vote
on this occasion, for with all that fervid eloquence and
great talent and boldness which always marked his con-
duct and speeches in that House, he had told the House
and the country that they were not going to vote for an
inquiry into these grievances, but they were, in fact, to
vote for or against the Charter. On that sole point he
was at issue with his Honourable Friend. He did
not concur with him that an universal extension
of electoral rights would be either wise or prudent ; but,
on the other hand, lie distinctly disclaimed having any
want of confidence in the people. If the question were,
whether or not the Charter should become the law of
the land, he (Mr. Hawes) would feel bound to rote
against so wild and indefinite a change. He would ask
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath whether, in the
public meetings which had, from time to time, been held
throughout the country in support of the Charter, they
found that enlightened class of mechanics to whom it
was desirable that the franchise should be ex-
tended ? Was if their views which were advocated
in those meetings as stated in the petition ?
He contended that the views so advocated,
were the views of those leaders whom the Hon. Gentle-
man had so powerfully condemned, and whose doctrines
and opinions he had treated with such merited scorn ;
and when this was the case, he had a right to conclude
that if the prayer of the petition were granted, it would
be used for the benefit of those bodies, and not for
that Of the working classes. There were some points
in the Charter in which he (Mr. Hawes) fully concurred.
He was in favour of abolishing the property qualification,
and also in favour of Vote by Ballot. Be was also prepared
for a steedy extension of the Suffrage ; but in the
present state of education. in this country, taking the
petition itself as an indication, he thought a gradual ex-
tension would be far safer than an immediate assent
to the principles of the Charter. Having steadily advo-
cated every measure calculated to ameliorate the condi-
tion of the people, he nevertheless could not vote for the

THE SUN, LONDON) WEDNESDAY G, MAY 4, 1842.

Charter. He was not yet prepared to admit that the
Reform Bill had been a failure, considering the man `'
wise measures which had resulted from it during the last
'ten years ; and he believed that a safer remedy
for the grievances of the people would be found
in that Bill than could possibly be found
in the Charter. He must, therefore, enter his
humble protest against being supposed to vote by any
accident for the Charter, but, at the same time, to state
that in the general advocacy of progressive reform, he
would still be found the firm friend of the people.
Mr. HUME said he was sorry to hear the speech of
the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down,
who, though he made excellent promises, and
accused others of being wild and indefinite in their
demands, did not state one single object which he
had to propose for the relief. of the people. The Hon,
Member was for progressive reform. He (Mr. Hume)
would be glad to know by what steps. The Hon. Mem-
ber sail the people were to be judged by the language
used at public meetings. He (Mr. Hume) regretted that
violent language had often been used; but were the great
body of the people to be blamed ?—(Hear, hear.) As
well might they attack Hon. Members opposite on ac-
count of the language held by the Right Hon. Baronet,
who had stated that England would be as rich as she is
if all the manufacturers were engulfed in one common ruin.
Sir R. PEEL—I never said that.—(Hear.)
Mr. HIJME—It appeared in the Standard, and was
copied into other papers. —(Hear.) It was stated that
the people were to be judged by their petitions. Now,
he would ask, if in that petition they had manifested any
intention to defraud the public creditor ?—(Hear, hear,
and "Read.") The Hon. Member then read a part of
the petition relating to the national debt, and contended
that there was no disposition evinced to avoid its pay-
ment. The petitioners stated that bribery existed in that
House to an extent which was best known to its Mem-
bers. Was that true or not ?—(Laughter.) He wished
that every man who was 21 years of age, and who was
liable to serve in the militia, should have a vote. That
was the only remedy for bribery and class legislation.
When the Reform Bill was before the House every evil
that could overtake the country was pourtrayed as the
certain result of passing that measure. The Right
Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh,
had taken a leaf out of the book of those who
opposed that measure, and had depicted the
same results as the consequence of universal suffrage.
The Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh had misinter-
preted the intentions of the petitioners, and, if for
no other reason, they had a right to be heard against
his allegations. If they now refused the request of the-
petitioners
they had only themselves to blame for the
consequences. By refusing they were provoking re-
volution. The petitioners attributed to the present
constitution of that House, and the consequent
state of the law, the miseries which they suf-
fered. What 'could be more unjust than the
maintenance of monopoly. The law of entail and
primogeniture produced a monopoly of the land,
which was attended with great misery to the people.--
(Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh.") He assured those
Hon. Gentlemen who jeered, that they were laughing at
the misfOrtunes of their fellow-men.—(" Oh, oh," and
cries of " No.") They were laughing at the sufferings
of their fellow-creatures. If the complaints of the
people were worth attending to, they ought to be lis-
tened to with patience, and not laughed at. It
might be that he was a very imperfect expounder
of the people's intentions and wishes.—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) The Honourable Gentleman here
read a document relative to the distress at present suf-
fered by the poor, but in so indistinct a tone, that we
were unable to catch any of it. The Hon. Gentleman then
went on to say, in reference to the document, that it
was distress such as was described there that they were
laughing at. Yet, after the example which they had
had at that (the Opposition) side, he must expect that
the demand of the petitioners would be refused. He
must again repeat, that there was nothing in the para-
graph of the petition to which he had alluded that could
warrant the conclusions of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The petitioners concluded by praying to be heard at the
bar of the House, where they would be entitled " to un-
fold a tale of wrong and suffering." Would they refuse
that prayer ? Because there might be unreasonable
demands in the petition, would they refuse to
grant the reasonable deMands it contained ?—(Hear.)
The people only asked to be allowed to be within the pale
of the Constitution, and if they were he believed they
would only have their due.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WAKLEY said, he heard with great surprise
and regret the speech of the Hon. Member for Lambeth.
—(Hear, hear.) He was sorry to find that a single
Member of the newly-enfranchised boroughs of the
metropolis was found to oppose so just and reasonable
a proposition as that before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
When those boroughs were to be enfranchised it was
thought that some very troublesome Members would ob.
tarn admission liere—(lronical cheers from the Ministe-
rial benches)—whose principles would be as objection-
able as those which which were to be fonnd in the peti-
tion on the table. He thought they had not been much
troubled by those Members, and they never would be if
they were to take a lesson from the book of reform which
had been read by the Hon. Member for Lambeth.
That book wai'a large one, but it did not contain any
specific plan to extend the rights of the people of this
country. If he expressed surprise and regret at the
speech of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, he may ex-
press the same regret and astonishment at the silence
which had prevailed on the benches opposite--(Hear,
hear)—for he did expect on a question of that
kind, affecting the working classes, that the causes which
called forth the Kentish fire at Conservative societies,
and the denunciations of the Whigs, heard at those
assemblies, would have induced Hon. Members opposite
to hold out the hope to the people that their interests
were not forgotten by their former advocates.—(Hear.)
He hoped he should hear something satisfactory from
some of those Members, as they represented themselves
to be advocates of the working classes ; and there never
was a time when their voices could be heard with
greater' effect, or a better opportunity afforded them of
rendering service to the people than at that moment.—
(Hear, hear.) The discussion had taken too wide a
range. The proposition before them was simply this,
whether 3,300,000 of their fellow-countrymen, who asked
to be heard at the bar of the House, were to
be answered with " Yes," or " No." And the answer
would convey happiness or disappointment to them.
The manuer in which their request was made showed
that they were justified in making it.—(Cheers.) They
merely asked to be heard at the bar, and 'the House
hesitated to see if their demands were just or not. In
the very outset they alleged that they had no represen-
tatives m that House, and was it not then fair to permit
them to give a faithful and honest relation of those
grievances.—(Hear.) What said a great leader of the
Whigs that very night ? What representation did the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh,
give of the people of the country ?—(Hear.) Was it
not right to see if the people were the sanguinary mon-
sters they were represented to be.—(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Wakley) never heard such a representation
of the people of England as that made by the Member
for Edinburgh, in a speech of great imagination,
and exhibiting a comprehensive and powerful mind.
It was absolutely frightful and terrific.—(Hear, hear.)
Where did the Right Hon. Gentleman reside ? Where
had he passed his days ? With whom did he associate?
What books had lie read ?—(Hear, hear.) Where had
he the foundation to justify the opinion he had given of
his fellow-countrymen ?—(Hear, hear.). From whom
did they select their navy ? Was their navy mutinous,
cowardly, and treacherous? Where did they select their
valiant soldiers-from ? Were they mutinous, or trea-
cherous ? What was the character of their merchants,
their professional men, and their tradesmen ?—(Hear.)
It was too much to treat the people, en masse, as the
Right Hon. Member did. Who were the particular
persons he pointed at—what class of the tradesmen,
the carpenters, the masons, or the smiths ? But,
after all, he (Mr. W.) was not so much disposed
to find fault with many parts of the Right-Hon. Gentle-
man's speech ; but yet, if there was any Member of that
House who ought,. more than another, to support the mo-
tion of his Hon. Colleague, that person was the Right
Hon. Member for Edinburgh.—(Cheers.) Only ten or
eleven years ago, the Right Hon. Gentleman was an ad-
vocate for Extension of the Suffrage, and perhaps it
would not be long before he supported the five points of
the Charter , and if he heard the statements of the people,
perhaps he would be convinced of the sixth.—(La ugh ter.)
If the Right Hon. Gentleman was opposed to ITe_i . eoret 1
Suffrage, he might come very near it.—(Cheers.) He was
aware of what might be said by persons who opposed this
motion. They might say that it was a vote, aye or no,
for the Charter—(Hear, hear)—but he (Mr. W.) denied
it in tote. The question was, whether 3,300,000 per-
sons were to be heard by counsel at the bar of the
House—whether they were to have the opportunity of
relating their grievances in their own language, and in
their own way ?—(Hear, hear.) Let them look to the
present system of representation. Were the 101. voters
incorruptible?—(Hear, hear.) Look to the disgraceful
proceedings which had taken place in the Committee
rooms, and the bribery and corruption which were
exposed before those Committees. (Hear, hear.)
Look to the horrible and disgusting corruption exhibited
-at the last elections.—(Hear.) Was it to the working
classes that corruption was to be ascribed ? No ; but
to the 101. householders, whom the House had preferred.
Nothing could be more dangerous to the character of the
nation than that such practices should go unpunished,
and that the House should be determined to sustain a con-
stituency so polluted. The working people told the
House that this was a dishohest legislation, and that
they were bound by laws which were made, not by their
representatives, but by the representatives of those dis-
honest and corrupt constituencies. They said, and he
believed it was. true, that they would purify the constitu-
ency by admitting the working people into it.—(Hear.)
He believed that was true, for he had been much amongst
the working classes of this country, and he had travelled
much in other countries, and he had never seen more
of honesty and real worth than was to be found amongst
the working people of England.—(Great cheers from
both sides of the douse.) He was glad to hear those
cheers. But if Members agreed with him as to the cha-
racter of their countrymen, why did they refuse them.
the franchise ? Why did they keep them distinct, as a`
servile class, having no voice in the making of the laws
of Government ? Did the honesty which they admired
and cheered rest in the 101. houses, in the bricks and
mortar, or in the furniture of the 101. houses ? No, .'
but in the. hearts of the people.—(Hear, hear.) For-
merly the people throughout the country slept without
fear or danger, without lock or bar upon their doors.
But how was it now ? It was necessary now to
have a rural police for the protection of property,
The Hon. Member for Edinburgh said that the disposi-
tions of the people were sanguinary, and that the laws
which legislators, elected by them, would make would
also be sanguinary and destructive of property. But he
asked,could they pass any law more sanguinary than the
New POor-law ?—(Hear, hear.) How did that law deal
with the widow ? How did it deal with the victim of
seduction ? How did it deal with the octogenarian ?
He would say that, whatever might be the opinion of the
House as to the ultimate object of the petitioners, after

all the trouble and expense which they had gone to in
preparing this petition, whilst they said that they were
not represented in that House, they ought to be allowed
v:le opportunity which they demanded, of making their
wis;,es known in their own words.—(Hear.)
yokel J. RUSSELL had not intended to take a port in
the discussion upon this petition ; but the number ce the
signatures was so great that he could not refrain fn..
the duty of coming down to the House to state his re-
spect for the petitione rs, and his abhorrence of the doc-
trines which their petition contained.—(Much Cheer-
ing.) He disclaimed all that the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose charged upon the opponents of the motion before
the House.-(.Hear, hear.) He disclaimed all want of
sympathy with the thousands of his countrymen who
were now undergoing the greatest distress. He felt com-
passion for their distress and admiration for their for-
titude ; but when the Honourable Member asked the
House to comply with the motion, the Honour-
able Member implied that to concede the motion
would place the people in a better condition.
He (Lord John Russell) must be permitted
to deny the position altogether. It had been said that
there would be no evil in bringing the nature of the mo-
narchy under the discussion of that blouse now. What
would be the result? If that House went into a new in-
quiry as to the whole institutions of the country, as to
whether faith should be kept with the public creditor,
and whether the property in land should be preserved,
what would be the consequence, if this House drove all
the ancient and venerable institutiors of the country
loose as matters of discussion, if not of destruction?—
(Hear, hear.) Would it not be to transfer the pro-
perty and capital to other countries, and to di-
minish the funds for the employment of labour
here ? His Right Honourable Friend had gone
into the various allegations of the petition, and had
pointed out very conclusively the several points. The
petitioners said that a debt was imposed by persons
who had no right to bind them (the petitioners) to its
payment.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend
pointed out also that the property in land and machinery
was complained of by the petitioners, and it was said
that in pointing these out, his Hon. Friend was making
accusations against the people of the United Krn
inkdo.
He (Lord J. Russell) denied that allegation. But the
Hon. Member for Bath, perhaps safely for his own
argument, but not fairly to his Right Hon. Friend.
informed the House that the petition was drawn
up 'by a malignant and cowardly demagogue
—(Here there was a cry of "No," and some murmuring
in the House, when Mr. Roebuck stood up, and, as was
understood, acknowledged the expression.) Well, then,
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had destroyed
the character of the petition by giving that character
of the person whom he supposed to be its author. Had
not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in thus attacking
the petition made a charge against those three millions
of persons who signed it ?—(Hear, hear.) Had he not
attacked them as much as his Right Hon. Friend ? But
the Right Hon. Gentleman said that the House might
throw aside the allegations of the petition without
refusing the prayer. But he would ask the
Right Honourable Gentleman might not those who
signed the petition be also misled so as to
elect as a Member of Parliament the person who
framed it ?—(Cheers.) An Hon. Member had said that
in ancient times the people met in the market-place and
elected those who were to make laws for them. That
was true, and it was also true that this was a great pri-
vilege. But if the people were induced to elect as lea.-
makers men like the framers of this petition, they would
be deprived of any remedy, and they would contri-
bute to the overturning of all the foundations of pro-
perty which they themselves expected, and that regard
for the law which was truly said to be their characteristic
would soon be at an end. It was quite clear that the
object of the author of that petition was to wipe out
the whole of the National Debt with a sponge,
for he denied that it was national, and said that the
people had no right to pay it. Now he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) believed that if you would go into any market..
place and collect a crowd, and show them that the pub-
lic debt was contracted upon the national faith, and that
the holders wore many of them were widows and or-
phans who became possessed of that property
within the last ten years, he believed that tho majority
would reject the proposition for such a spoliation.—
(Hear, hear.) But he was not so sure but that they
might by some cry of the moment be so misled as to
elect men who would be guilty of that spoliation,
which the people, if they understood it, would never
consent to.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly a matter of
great difficulty to determine who should be entrusted
with the franchise, but for his part, he believed that
in giving the trust of electing Members of Parliament,
they should combine property, intelligence, and know-
ledge. He would not say that those who at present held
that trust were the very best to whom it
_Could be com-
mitted ; but he believed that they afforded a better
security for the institutions of the country, and a better
security for the steady progress of liberty, than
could be obtained bygranting at once Universal Suffrage.
That was the plain and broad grounds on which he
rested his opposition to the motion. He was aware that
it was said that males of a certain age had an indefeasi-
ble and inalienable right to elect their representatives in
the Commons' House of Parliament. Now he could
never understand that indefeasible and inalienable right.
—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the question
of the franchise was a question to be defined by the in-
stitutions and the laws of the country. He saw no
more right a person of twenty-one years had to elect
Members of Parliament than he had to be a jury-
man ; they might just as well say that every man
of a certain age had a right to sit upon a jury
upon difficult and intricate questions of law or property;
they might even as well say that every man had a right
to exercise the judicial functions, as was the case in
some of the republics of antiquity. If it wore for the
good of the people at large, for the welfare of the nation,
for the advancement of good government, that a certain
number of persons, defined by certain limitations of pro-
perty, should have, the right to elect Members to Parlia-
ment, and if it would be disadvantageous to the com-
munity that the right should be exercised in the form of
Universal Suffrage, he then said, let the good of the
people at large prevail ; the matter was one upon which
the Legislature should decide as upon everything else,
and no inalienable right could be claimed against that
which the public good prescribed. The Hon. Gentleman
who had spoken last said that his (Lord John Russell's)
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had given
a terrific representation of the people of England—that
he had represented them as " sanguinary, ' and as if
they were ready for destruction and rapine. Now his
Right Hon. Friend had said no such thing. For his
part he thought it was very likely that at many of these
elections they would find, even if they had Universal
Suffrage established, that a respect for property, a re-
spect for old habits, and a general regard for the Consti-
tution of the country, would produce elections not
very different from those which took place now
that property was one of the qualifications
required for the franchise. But, although that might be
generally the case, he did not think, in the present state
of the education of the people—he would not then say
whether that objection might ever be removed—that
they could feel assured that there might no t arise periods
of popular ferment when; under some peculiar circum-
stances, Members would be returned to that House
whose votes would not be in accordance with the prin-
ciples of the Constitution, but would lead to its destruc-
tion and would shake the security of property. The
British Constitution was, in his eyes, too precious,
and the arrangements of our social system were
at the same time too intricate, to allow him
to put them to such hazards.—(Loud cheering.)
He could well conceive that in the United States of
America, the only country which he could at all compare
to this for the enjoyment of liberty, and the full fruits
of civilization—he could well conceive that in that coun-
try, where there was no aristocracy, where every office
was elective, where there was no Established Church,
where there was no accumulation of property, Universal
Suffrage might be. exercised without injury to order,
without injury to the general security of society. But
in this country, where there were so many institutions,
which, while he believed them to be of the utmost value
in holding society together, were at the same time in
the possession of property—he spoke of such institutions
as an aristocracy ; and the Established Church, which,
being in possession of great property, might be held up
as
_prizes, to people ha distress—he did not think,,g that, in
such a COUPtr.n....a_wo.9,lcl ha mare CM. t destroy I
oho 4,ystem or representation, and to establish
Universal Suffrage in its place. Acting upon those
opinions, he could not assent to that which the lion. Gen-
tleman, who had last spoken, had represented as a simple
prayer that the petitioners should be heard at the bar.
He did not so understand the question.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the Honourable Member for Bath had put
it more fairly in saying it was the Charter to which
they had to say "aye," or " no," that night. What did
he find stated by the petititioners themselves ? They
had stated, at full length, what they considered to be
their grievances ; and they concluded their prayer in
these words :—" Your petitioners, therefore, exercising
their just constitutional rights, demand that your Hon.
House should remedy the many gross and manliest
evils of which your petitioners complain, by imme-
diately, without alteration, deduction, or addition, pass
into law the document entitled the People's Charter,
which embraces the representation of Male Adults, Vote
by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, No Property Qualifica-
tion, Payment of Members, and Equal Electoral Dis-
tricts." That language was certainly very plain.—
(Hear, hear.) It was very explicit ; but, at the same
time, it was, he should say, very peremptory. That was
not a demand merely to be heard at the bar.
Mr. DUNCOMBE intimated, that the demand to he
heard at the bar was also one of the prayers of the
petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted, that the petitioners
asked to be heard at the bar ; but immediately after-
wards, he found the other words he had just read. They
asked to be allowed to explain their views ; but they asked
it for the purpose of establishing the Charter. Now he could
not believe that any Counsel, or any agents, would per-
suade him to grant the different points of the Charter.
He should vote in opposition to their adoption, what-
ever might be the speeches made at that bar. And he
therefore thought himself bound at once to put an end
to any misunderstanding—(Hear, hear)—and not to en-
deavour to hide his vote by any pretence that he wished
to hear the explanations of Counsel. He believed it
would be better for the future welfare of the people that,
if the House did not mean to grant the prayer of the
petition, they should at once state to the petitioners
that a compliance with their wishes would tend to shake
the security of property, would tend to increase
the privations of which they complained, would
endanger that constitution of society which, com-
plicated and intricate as it was, bad produced so many
blessings to the country ; that to the House was entrusted
the grave responsibility and the important duty of legis-
lating on behalf of these kingdoms, and that in the dis-
charge of that solemn duty they felt bound to put a ne-
gative upon the proposed plan.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said that although he hoped he should
be exposed to no misconstruction if he had remained
silent upon that occasion, yet from the course which the

•
debate had taken, he was unwilling to expose himself 1
the hazard of the slightest misapprehension, or to shria
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 pctl-
tion by the Noble Lerd, lie had thought there_ wee
two propositions before the House—not quite consistee
or compatible it was true—but still on the face of ;7: •
document there appeared to be two proposals before
House ; the one that they should admit the petititee.
to be heard at the bar, the other. that the House
should immediately pass into law the demands coOtaiined
in the People's Charter. He did not wish to take any
advantage of the objections to the Charter for this
purpose of vindicating his vote upon that cceasioe.. •
If the question of the Charter were not then before
them he should still be ready to give his vote agairea -
the proposal to hear Counsel at the bar in mire-ion
of the allegations of the petitioners ; and he should ee
ready to give that vote upon various grounds.
he had come to the foregone conclusion at vvhich
Hon. Member fur Leicester had declared that he
arrived, that the demands of the petitioners, if comp
with, would be mischievous to the petitioners themseia
and, having come to that conclusion, he thought it T 1:
just and more respectful to tell them that he di -
intend to accede to their petition, rather than to !Y
rise to delusive hopes, which would be sure to erg
disappointment,—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon! Tee!•:
Member for Finsbury had told him that the
of his (Sir Robert Peel's) decision upop the ea e-
occasion would eitheir awaken hope or
disappoint. Well, then; he would not
hopes which could not be realised. .The Hon. Me..l!
only asked bins to hear the allegations of the petitiore:.
both os
the eemaml letig;
and tail- eon t
wh()ire impeach tloief Co
uorn sstoi
incefhrru,s)Crntchloirli;cellitipiiii;unebt
phthicacattitp9tii,uootrcsoo;ooss
essovt,lr:tel
odonfgtp;:otiecnbi
11,11
insete1:1111;11:.,
EwaTnashtseadivertedbEstablishediesthi
et id(
f
t
people of Ireland were entitled to a repeal of the ;
the petitioners drew most invidious comparisons between
the expenses of the Soveregn and the expense-t; of• thy
people ; and he therefore said that the petitioe
altogether impeached the established order of thine-.
And how was he to gratify the prayer of the petitioner e
by hearing them at the bar ? Why, if they were to
heard effectually, would it be done effectually by -
ing four or five persons in speeches at the bar ?" Were
those speeches to be replied to ? Suppose those speech:;
failed m their effect, were they then to enter into en
inquiry at the bar with respect to the allegations of the
petition ? Should he admit that demand for *till
inquiry, or should he refuse it ? Should he sua
pend all the public business of the country, and -ea-
ter into each of the allegations of the petition -es
to the policy of abolishing the Established Church, or of
repealing the Union ? Wits not that the only effectual
way the petitioners had of stating theirgrievances,
was it for the advantage of the petitioners therriSavo:;
that he should do so ?—(Hear, hear.) And what
the petition itself ? If he had a doubt—which he had
not—the speech of the Honourable and Learnte!
Gentleman would have convinced him of the greet
absurdity there would be in entering into, ice
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 geo:t
sense of the three millions of petitioners, but which ha:
been imposed on them by a cowardly demagogue--
(Loud cheers)—one whom the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman knew, and whose personal knowledge of whole
entitled him to speak of him with disrespect and Con -
tempt.—(Che?rs.) 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 respeetable, the
industrious, the intelligent, and honest labouring classes
of this country --2(Cheers)--eshould he admit
him to the bar, (and he had no doubt that
it was this person who would come to oe.
bar to defend the allegations of the petition), should he
not by this be countenancing the delusions under whieli
the labouring classes lay? Should he admit him, the- -
author of this petition, who put forth a liantized
prayers, an acquiescence in each of which would
fatal to the petitioners themselves, fur the purpose or'
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 htn to inquire-:.
petition so described by the Hon. and Learned Member foe
Bath. When he referred to the prayer of the petitiof'.,
when he referred to the character of him who was sai•i; -
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 just;,.*
towards the petitioners, by refusing at once to accede t,,
the demand, than by giving a delusive hearing, and e !•-•
terwards telling them that it had made no impressio:t
whatever on his mind.-L(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had described the labouring classes of tlii4
country. He said, in other countries the appeal was
force, but that here the appeal was to mol-;:i
power. He said that if the labouring classes of
this country did appeal to force, they could bee
down every obstacle, but that they were control d
by their good cause, and the willingness to obey ttse
He said, let a &Tepid constable go into the midst of e.
crowd, and seize the most pow: rful man, and they wan:d
• observe on the part of the man of superior strength,'
willing submission to the authority of the law, and
would see on the part of the pnpulace, by Whom he
surrounded, a willing submission to it also. But
was it that nerved the era' of that person, and what pr •
(laced that tacit submission to the law—the tee,
viction that it was a just one.—(Hear and eleeete.
Did they believe that if the people of this couttee
were in the condition described ; that if the state. of
country was justly described in tLis memorial; tlea,
if, on one hand, this House had, by unconstltutiocHf
means, created an unbearable despotism, and on the ethe
a degrading slavery ; if that was a just representation et
the Constitution and the law of England, that he
would be that tacit submission to the law which gee,
the decrepid constable the authority he possessed? .
they think that the high-spirited people, of whom tie!
Leerned Gentleman had given that description, weeel
have the respect which they now paid to the law if they
did not feel that it was one which guaranteed the slava,
of property, and secured liberty, that it was a law foe 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 ofjade-
ing of the people of other countries, and where vroula
they find a more intelligent, more patient, more hide.:
pendent, more high-spirited people than the people ce:
England ?.—(Cheers.) He would grant it. But whet
had • formed that character ? Ile asked in turn, wee
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 Peel
been formed under those institutions, of which tho peti-
tion contained the impeachment. If it were tree..
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
authority, nor should they deserve die character which
bath the Hon. Gentlemen had given them.—(Cheere.)
He did not understand the Right Hon. Member
Edinburgh to state that the people of this country were
of a sangunary "-disposition, and that if they gave tie ea
the power, there would be a spoliation of property. Ile
understood the Right Hon. Gentieman to take
petition, as prefaced, by a designing andcowardly dern:;.-
gogue.—(Hear, hear.) He knew not who it means;
he adopted the description from the Hon. and Learn
Gentleman—and if that were true—who had passed tiiie
libel on the petitioners ?—(Hear, hear.) How did the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman maintain the high cha-
racter of the petitioners, if they could be parties to a pea .
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 tie-
luded in this instance, what security could they give hint
that when they were practically in the . posse :i-
-gen of power, another designing demagogue insmaet
not say to them, now you are possessed of. power,
and you would be a degraded, a cowardly race, if, r ,-.
e ? did be) o that the people would
redress,
could
tp:oiszsusecisitiseddeioufsitobielsm:ebautntslvolific;Ftrolciruirnigt
the Hon. axed
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
made alterations in the Constitution, on principles
those laid down in this petition ;if they thought public .
faith ought not to be maintained. that the public credit=or
ought not to be paid, because debts were incurrecrbe
Parliament without due authority, for the support .
wars which were unjust„—if they talked of •
land as a monopoly,—they were then exciting her
which they could not raise without confusion, and whin:'
they could not disappoint without danger.—(Cheers.)
And he understood the Right lion. Gentleman to argee
also that there would be such anarchy and confusieu
arise from this basis,- that shaking the security
property, or spoliation of all property, would be the r:• -
salt. But he did not understand the Right Hon. Gee-,
leman to say that the people of England were santeu -
nary and barbarous in their disposition. On the ground-,
therefore, of the delusion that must arise from am:d-
ing to the prayer of the petition, he must refuse to ac-
cede to it. It' the should be told that the Charter wee
involved in this question, that in deciding it they wr,ri
deciding the questions of Universal Suffrage, of Aniet
Parliaments, and of Vote by Ballot, he was a>•..,
content to rest his refusal on those grounds. Ile b.!-
lieved that Universal Suffrage
would be incompatiya
with that mixed monarchy under which they lived ; tea ,
believed that this mixed menarche, was important rata ▪'r
in the ends to be achieved by it than in the aaeau. •
which tended to that end, that its end
dmw a oo aesothetry oiro
promootioos!
of the happiness of the people ; b
stanced as this was, to substitute a mere democracy for.
that mixed form of government, which, imperfect tas it
might be, had for a hundred and fifty years secured t
them more partial and true .liberty than any country had
ever enjoyed, not excepting tl e United States of Ant •
rich, excepting no country m hatever—they might he
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, milli 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 pertmtted 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, preepititte chane•
however plausible they might appear in speculation.
Mr. MACAULAY explainetleeHe did not use e eels
attributing cruelty, or a sanguinary disposition to the
petitioners, and he trusted the House would boar hhn
out in that statement.—(Huge hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ said that the debate had
ttakea so
peculiar a turn that he felt called upon to orlain why
he voted for the motion. He Toted for the motion upon