The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

it was for all those reasons that he opposed the
motion of the Honourable Member. However easy it
•
might be to introduce topics of popular declamation
with regard to the rights of petition, it would in
• his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion he very inconvenient to
• receive petitions on those occasions alluded to by the
• Hon. Member, and would be very detrimental to the
• public service.
Mr. MACAULAY said, that however anxious the
Right lion. Baronet appeared to be with regard to the
right of individuals to petition, his speech seemed to be
directed against the right to petition in general. The
Right Hon. Baronet would give the right to petition
when individuals were taxed ; but when the taxes
press most grievously and most heavily, and when
it would be most grievous upon every one, he
would take it away altogether.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Baronet cautioned them against the practice
• of declamation on the right of petition. Now he
• (Mr. M.) would ask any Hon. Member whether
he had ever heard the
right of petition spoken
Of in more declamatory language—(Cheers)—whether
he had ever hoard the peculiar, sacred, inalienable, he-
reditary privilege of the people more lightly spoken of
than it had just now been by the Right Hon. Baronet ?
(llean hear, and cheers.) The only difference between
the declamation of the Honourable Baronet and
that which he censured on the other side being that
the declamation of the Right lion. Baronet was a prelude
to an attack upon it, instead of an introduction to its sup-
port. He (Mr. M.) would take the right of pe-
tition at the value the Hon. Baronet put upon it. He
(Mr. M.) wanted no other motion than that brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, to show
the impantance of the high inalienable right of
petition, which the declaration of the lionopr-
able Bar: net gave the House reason to fear he would
'withhold- -the right he would take at the valuation of the
Hon. Ban otet, leaving his arguments to the attention of
the Holm .—(Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr. Macaulay)
conceived. ;here were only two cases in which the House
ought to r( :thse to receive a petition. The first was,
when a p ttition was brought before them, expressed in
indecent zu tdl improper language ; the second, when a
petition p; xsyed them to do something which it was not
within the province of the House to do ; as, for example,
supposing 'it to be possible an Hon. Member were in-
duced to :present a petition praying the House to stay
an act,"fl, o ejectment. The proper answer to give in
this Case -w,, aid be, that this was a judicial matter, and,
that, therefo re, the House could not interfere.—(Hear.)
Ii as the pre sent a matter of jurisdiction ?—(oh.) Was
it not, fit f
act, a matter in which the House of Com-
mons only ( iould decide. and one of those privileges
which the c titer branches of the Legislature had not?—
(flear, hear, and cheers.) 'When her Majesty commenced
the Session, she (addressed her statements and advice re-
s.„Per nting C or foreign and domestic policy to both
re-
pute' " 3,fy Lords and Gentlemen ;" but when she
C mae tool 'Patters connected with the right of taxation,
she reeo; iised one of the most sacred and important
principles of the Constitution, 'and the Queen addressed
thent "S " Gentlemen of the House of Commons."—
(Laughter, and mutual cheers.) To them only did
her ,sty recommend these great questions for con-
sideratic
,n.--(Cheers from both sides.) Look at these
facts' 3 ad then see the operation of the principle the
11°n• F ,aronet contended for. The people were every-
where
sending in petitions against the income tax to
the -1 louse of Taords —to those whom the Queen
never addressed on such questions—to those who, under
one,' if the most sacred principles of the Constitution
corm di .1 not (originate any measure of finance—all that the
Y Ise of L ords could do in such case being to throw out
a ...dill sent t ;:aeni by the Commons, while they eouid not
' :01 Yea the s iraallest of its details, their utmost power in
zao‘lifying b. Ling to recommend an alteration.—(Cheers.)
Bat was the House of Commons to be the only branch
of the Legislature which must be precluded from recei‘ -
inee petit.; Otis pr.-tying- them to execute their own proper
- • function :a ?—(Glieers.) For what earthly reason could
they refuse to admit a petition which was likely to give
rise to' a. discussion on a measure of taxation ? This
course might be proper under the old system, but now,
.•" when its practice, when very great, anti he would act-
knowledgq, very beneficial innovations had been made
• in the old -practice of Parliament, and for which he had
felt it his duty to vote, the reception of such a petition as
that now- in question would not be productive of the slightest
inconvenience. Let the lion. Baronet recollect what he
said a -few nights since about the old forms of the House,
a; • his' respect for ancient usages, and his veneration for
precedents 150 years old, and then proposed the discon-
tinuance of a debate brought on by the presentation of a
petition, on which he (Mr. Macaulay) voted with hint,
and now appealing to• those principles, he (Mr.
Macaulay) would assure the Honourable Baronet that
if the practice now introduced were persevered in, the
people would soon cease to petition the House.—(Oh.)
That was well argued. Having removed that, the only
inconvenience which could arise from petitions of that
sort being presented to the House, he should think
himself inexcusable if he were to give a vote
for the Right Honourable Baronet. And let not
the Right Honourable Baronet think that the
coarse proposed would prevent inconvenience. Ile
would find the contrary. There was nothing more
easy than to have presented 100 or 200 petitions to-
night on the income tax when nothing else was
doing. He had petitions from Edinburgh, praying that
petitions against the income tax might be presented.
Their constituents met and passed resolutions, which they
prayed might be presented ; and Gentlemen who
represented, large constituencies must and would
stand up and receive these petitions even in
their speeches, night after night ; they could not be
prevented from doing that; he (MT% Macaulay) should do
it on the first night of the income tax debate, and others
would do it too.—(Hear.) If the petitions of thepeople
were not to be received in a Parliamentary and
constitutional way, they would be heard in
another way. He never made a vote with'
a clearer conscience in his life than the
vote he should give on this subject. He thought the
country was much indebted to the Hon. Member who
had brought forward this motion.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought the case so clear that he did not believe that
any Ministry, could have a majority in opposition to it ; at
any rate the people were much obliged to the Hon. Member,
because if they carried the motion they would gain a great
privilege, and if they lost it, they would have gained a useful
warning.
e Captain HAMILTON said he would vote with the Hon.
Member for Finsbury if he thought that the people were likely
to suffer by the loss or rejection of his motion; but he did not
think that likely to be the case ; he did dot think that the
question affected the people directly or indirectly. There was
an Hon. Member opposite who he believed intended to intro-
, duce a new Reform Bill. He would like to know how many
of the new constituents would be affected by a tax on incomes
of 1501 per annum.—( Hear, hear.) The working classes of
this country felt no interest whatever in this question. On
the whole, he did not think that any satisfactory ground had
been stated for departing from the Standing Orders, and he must
therefore vote against the motion.
Sir R. PEEL said he should consider he was guilty of a gross
derilection of duty if he took any other course than that of
meeting the Hon. Gentleman's proposal by a direct and decided
negative.—( Hear, hear.) lie should strongly oppose a depar-
ture flora the constant usage of the House of Commons esta-
bli,lied at the period of the Revolution, and uniformly adhered
to by that House.—( Hear.) The House of Commons did, at a
period very shortly subsequently to the Revolution, determine
that they would not receive petitions against taxes for the cur-
rent }ear during the progress of the proceedings with refer once to those taxes. 'the subject had been discussed again and
again, at different periods, aret at periods when there were par-
ties in that House as keenly alive to the necessity of
maintaining popular rights and privileges as any
party could be at this day; the resolutions of the House of Com-
mons had been to adhere to the practice which they found es-
tablished.—( Hear, hear.) And he (B.r R. Peel) was surprised
at the new zeal of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite—it had
never been awakened till he was out of office.—(l.oud cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
• the Chancellor of the Exchequer, felt it to be his duty, in the
year 1840, to propose an addition of 10 percent. to the assessed
taxes--
Mr. MA CA LILA Y said he had never heard of the existence
of the rule until the present period.
ROBERT PEEL—The RigAt Honourable Gentleman
never heard of the existence of the rule until the present
period; that was what he said; it was unfortunate for
the public that the Right Honourable Ceentleman's informa-
tion was not procured until he was out of o:irsce —(Loud cries
of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition)—so that be had not the
means which he might have bad of exercising the influence of
'office to relieve them from that great grievance.— Cheers from
, the Ministerial benches.) When the Right Hon.. Gentleman
'was a member of the Cabinet, the Right Hon. Ceentil'man the
Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself called u by con-
, siderations of public duty, to propose an addition 1-0 f 5 pea' cent.
to the Customs' duties, and 10 per cent. to the are essed taxes
supposing that every party who was affectee! by the
, Customs' duties, or the assessed taxes, had attea.rrepted to
obstruct that measure by pouring in petitions, he asked
the House whether the Right Honourable Gentleman(
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not have
. availed himself of the resolution of that House whi eh hack been
%enforced 150 years previously, to prevent such obs tructioo ?
cHear, hear)—and he could not help thinking that • the Right
on.
,Gentleman, who was Secretar of We nd: a mernher
of the Cabinet at that time, would not aye aala stultied his
colleagues bp-insisting upon a departure from the established
practice.--( Cheers from the Ministerial bet:ides-) At va-
rious periods, as would be seen by a reference
'.to Hatsell's
Pr ecedents, •attempts have been made to break through the
rule. On the 29th of January, 1760, a petitio' u was presented.
by a number of maltsters against a proposed a
addition to the
duty on malt. On the question that it shoo! d be brought
up being put from the Chair, it was. decided in
the neg,ative nemine contra dicente, the univer 'Pinion of the
House being that it was for the public interestn. clhere to the
established practice. In the year 1783, when art feeling ran
trery high, a petition was presented from the- am%r. ehants and
crauers of Exeter against a proposed alteration in Ae stamp
utaies. The House refused to receive the petition. In 1795,
altixnriod when Mr. Fox and Lord Grey were unttending
st Mr. Pitt--a period when the public mind
es :cited by
the enactment of Bills which were
vse restraints suppo sett to
upon the liberty of the ieo le—
Ifsod been'
c question of constitutional a. peia ,
e est vrould hay privilege had arisen ,a se var"
elesin-ns injunous te ensued—when Mr. Pitt was chat Ted " ith
lend -Lord Grey w o the liberty of the subject, and Tr_ Fox
liberty—n th;,
14th
hroef ci‘mtending for the insintenanc e 711.13';
'that braes were imposed ti:7lt'3!79s' when the the
arl'
tr"i'
Iv"
-pediment was offered to those en
a.
unjust war. and ever, 111-
the .10t. 110 W under consider' :axes' the
question al tee ; "o
certain capitalists, importers. and dealers
the 4th of trch
pared a petition. dealers in foreign:vvine, i re-
praying that so‘ni be imposed on wines in stock. eoproposed duties should- not
that the petition iv brought up, it n the question being . put
five, nemeiie contra dicente. Even a'At'a;hdecitled in the
when'
:popu!ar party was led by such eminent at Period, when he
by general consent that the establisheTeun, the House dean(
'here(' to. Neither the leaders of that parTage should be a, 1-
'who fought under their banners, opposed 3;71;1 any
of the e
by vote or speech ; by the simple enunciation ofthe
stacle eitiu r
the House decided that they would not word "No
the established rule against receiving su departh frog
He' hoped the House of Commons would adherec
tios, wee • to petitions.thiprac-
co in all conflicts of party had been hitherto adhered
.If he had been perfectly certain that a great number of
pe etions would have been presented in favour of the income
'axe that would not in the slightest degree have influenced his
:a.lseusaion on,.Abis point Be conceived that he was doing his
outty11:: -the House of Commons in asking the House to adhere
th • anetitational privileges of the House. He hoped that
he" Vii IP lied formed a portion of the late Government, and
" IA not. kelp thinking they would adhere to
this privilege -

the House
ofth actomthmeyonns'outold
afdeheelreheto
waasu justifiedusage o f tihni s"dke asking
i
rights depended on constitutional usage—on the privileges of
Parliament the rights of the subject depended, not on Acts of
Parliament merely, but by constitutional usages. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said he was a party to imposing
the rule of preventing debating petitions at the time
of presentation. In consequence •of the inconvenience
attending it, the Right Honourable Gentleman reconciled
himself manfully to support a restriction upon a right almost as
sacred and inalienable as the right of petitioning, viz., the
right of free expression of opinion in presenting petitions. It
was a sense of absolute public iuconvenience that induced the
Right Hon. Gentleman to take that course, ar.d impose the
restriction. It was precisely the same motive and conviction
which led the House of; Commons, at the time of the Revolu-
tion, to impose that restraint, and which had led the House of
Commons subsequently to adhere to it. He (Sir R. Peel)
felt very confident that the House of Commons, recollecting
the period at which the law was made—recollecting the fre-
quent instances in which such an adherence had been sup-
ported—he felt confident that a large majority of that House
would determine not to break through a usage of this descrip-
tion. But even if his conviction was not well founded, and if
there should be a different result:—if he stood alone, he should
feel that he was acting in fulfilment of his public duty in de
fending their rights and privileges, by assisting, as far as his
humble voice could do, in the adherence to this usage.
Sir G. GREY said be quite agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet when he said that that was a question irrespective of
party consideration, and while he entertained this opinion, and
feeling deeply convinced of its truth, he could not but regret
the great warmth with whieh the Right Hon. Baronet had re-
ceived that motion.—( Loud cheers.) The Right Hon.
Baronet asked with extreme warmth, why his ( Sir G. Grey's)
Right Hon. Friend did not advance his opinion on this subject
when he was a member of the late Administration, when the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer was called upon to propose an
additional Customs' duty, and why he did not move then that
the rule be rescinded? Let him (Sir G. Grey) ask the Right
Hon. Baronet whether, on turning to the:votes of that House—
whether, recalling thel proceedings of that House—he
could show him (Sir G. Grey) that any Member of that
House had tendered such petitions?—(Loud cheering. )
If petitions had been tendered to the House from constituencies
against taxes, and the House had rejected those petitions, then
there would have been some ground for the taunt that had
been thrown out against his Hon. Friend. He remembered
no such case at previous periods, though he had witnessed
many instances of it during the present Session. It was now
to be found on the records of the House, that on petitions
against the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet being tendered
by Hon. Members on behalf of their constituencies, the
Speaker had informed those Hon. Members that according to
the rules of the House those petitions could not be
received, and consequently they were entered as
rejected. If precedents were all that were neces-
sary, his Hon. Friend had made out a triumphant
case in favour of the principle for which he contended. But
he would ask were precedents to be all in all on such a ques-
tion ? In a case where the interests of the nation were
vitally affected, were they to be bound entirely by the practice
of their ancestors ?—( Loud cheers)—especially in a case in
which his Right Hon. Friend who sat near him had shown
to demonstration—had shown by arguments against which he hail
heard not the slightest arguments produced from the other
side of the House—that the reasons which influenced their
ancestors had utterly ceased to exist. When petitions might
be debated day by day—and as it might be found by reference
to the Journals of that time, petitioners prayed to be heard by
counsel against a tax—when those petitions might be followed up
by a motion that counsel be called in and heard at the bar of that
House against the tax,that might be such an instrument of delay
and procrastination against a Bill imposing a tax which might
be required for the exigencies of the current year, that instru-
ment might become so powerful in the hands of a minority of
that House, that there might be, and he was willing to admit
that there were sufficient grounds for restricting the right of
the people, that inalienable right of petitioning which he re-
gretted to have heard praised by the Right Hon. Baronet in
terms, while it was attacked in spirit._( Loud cheers.) He
would repeat that there might be reasons for curtailing that right
on the ground of public inconvenience and urgent necessity,
but he would say that his Right Hon. Friend had shown to demon-
stration that they ought not blindly to follow the track of their
ancestors, when the reasons for following the track had en-
tirely ceased, and when, if they adhered to that practice, it
would produce greater inconvenience than any advantage that
could be derived from restricting the right of the people.
Great complaints were made of the delays that take place in
coming to decisions in that House, and the repeated adjourn-
ments that take place, and he felt bound to speak more strongly
on that subject, as in the late division that took place with re-
gard to postponing the debate on the income tax, he voted, on
the only occasion on which he did vote, in the majority with
the Right Hon. Baronet. But if constituencies could not have
their sentiments made known in that House by petition to be laid
on the table, abstracts of which petition were printed sometimes
in extenso, it would necessarily become incumbent on Members,
knowing the strong feeling that existed among their consti-
tuents when any subject of importance arose, to address the
House and protract the debate indefinitely.—( Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) Let Hon. Gentlemen on the
opposite side hear the end of the sentence before they cheered.
He would say procastinate not with the view of procrastination
or delay, which he utterly disclaimed, and had disclaimed by
voting against it, but simply because that other legitimate
course of expressing the sentiments of their constituents was
by adhering to a practice, which, however wise then, was now-
most unwise, because unnecessary, and further unwise, because
it must be bad to grant delay and inconvenience on
questions in which the interests of the country were concerned,
by repeated protractions of debates on questions of importance
of this kind, and by adjournments, which, he thought, was
the interest of the representatives not to carry beyond the point
absolutely necessary for the assertion of their principles. How
often were petitions referred to in debates in that House, as an
index of the wishes of the people ? But that course could not
be adopted in the present instance. No man could speak, upon
the subject of the proposed income tax, of the sentiments of
the constituency of another man ; and, therefore, they would
all be compelled to rise in their places, if instructed so to do
by their constituents, in muter to make known their wishes to
the House. He, for one, notwithstanding the incredulous
cheers of the Right Hon. Baronet, sincerely and honestly de-
precated such a course. He was for confining debates in that
House within reasonable and moderate limits. He saw, how-
ever, in the determination of the Right Hon. Baronet to shut
out the people from presenting petitions in the case of the
income tax—( Hear, hear, hear)—the necessary consequence
which be deprecated ; and not having heard the slight-
est reason for adhering to the former practice, seeing
that the defence of the present practice rested simply upon the
precedents which might be quoted in its favour, and as an
essential difference had taken place in the practice of the House
regarding the reception of petitions, obviating the inconve-
nience which was the foundation of the rule, he should most
cordially and cheerfully give his support to the motion of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury.—( Cheers. )
Mr. C. BULLER said, that he hoped the course he had
taken on a former occasion, might be a sufficient excuse for his
addressing a few words to the House upon the subject then
under their consideration. The House would remember, that
the Right Hon. Buronet had refused to allow of the slightest
delay in bringing his resolution before the House. He (Mr.
Hillier) confessed, that until he had accidentally discovered the
rule of 1816, he had, in common with the public generally,
been utterly unaware of its existence. He thought that the
Speaker of that time might have been mistaken upon the
subject ; and he had, therefore, asked the Right Hon. Gee-
tleman, who now filled the Chair, for his opinion on the
matter. When he had been told that the rule was, that
when the resolution was once proposed, they should be precluded
from presenting any petitions upbn the subject, he had respect-
fully put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would not
postpone the Committee of Ways and Means, so that the
country should have at least more than one week to express its
opinion upon the proposed tax. The answer of the Right
Hon. Baronet was—he (Mr. Buller) should give him that
credit—remarkable for its explicitness and for its brevity.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter on the Opposition benches.) The
Right Hon. Baronet would hear of no delay in bringing for-
ward his resolution. Now, in the year 1816, when it had been
proposed by the Opposition of that day that the income tax
should be discontinued, that great constitutional Minister—
( Laughter)—whose respect for popular rights ought to be a
model to Ministers of the present day—he and Lord Bexley
yielded so far at least to the wishes of the party opposed to
them as to allow the question to be deferred until the public
opinion was so strongly expressed that the obnoxious tax was
repealed. Was there ever an attempt made to enforce the
rule under such circumstances as the present ? It should be
remembered that the people had had no warning that such a
tax would be proposed, and that no opportunity had been given
them of expressing their sentiments upon the subject, although
the tax was one on which in former times .the opinions of the
country had been more strongly expressed than upon any other oc-
casion. Now the Government came down and took the House by
surprise, giving the people only one week to express their opi-
nions, the Right Hon. Baronet availing himself of this rule to
prevent them from being heard at all.—(Hear, hear, hear. )
At the same time, he quite agreed with the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet as to the rule laid down, that Hon. Gentlemen do not do
on one side of the House what they did on the other.—( Hear,
hear, and a lauo. ) They seemed to hold that it would be im-
proper to do se.—(Laughter.) It was a rule that applied to
more things than the question now under consideration.—
( (hear, hear.) He thought, however, that there was some-
thing in connexion with this, not so very discreditable to that,
the Opposition side of the House ; for during the eleven
years that they sat on the other (the Ministerial) benches, no
occasion arose for the rule to be applied.—(Chee:s.) No ob-
noxious tax was proposed against which the people wished to
petition. Loud cheers, after which Sir Robert Peel
made some observations across the table.) 0 yes,
(continued Mr. Buller) there was one obnoxious
tax introduced—the ten per cent. tax, and petitions were pre-
sented against it ; but no occasion arose notwithstanding, in
which this rule for excluding petitions was put in force.—
( Cheers from the Opposition.) One argument used by the
Right lion. Baronet the Member for Stamford as to the ex-
pediency of the rule, seemed to him (Mr. B.) to have some
force—that was, that the people ought not to be allowed to
petition on those subjects which they felt so acutely that they
would petition too much.—(Cheers and laughter.) That was
to say, that if they had the right of petition at all, they ought
to be allowed to exercise it only on subjects in which they felt
no interest.—( Renewed cheers and laughter.) This rule was
unworthy of a Reformed Parliament, for it was passed only to
prevent the people from expressing their opinions in the most
peaceable and constitutional manner.
Mr. WALLACE, who spoke for some time amidst great
interruption from cries of " Divide," said he was quite est°.
nished both on this occasion and before, at the silence of so
many Gentlemen apposite, and that the Right Hon. Baronet
did not come to face this question as he ought to do with so
great a majority. But he (Mr. Wallace) was an old fox-
hunter, and he knew from experience that when a hound be-

came a mule one, it was not long till he became a
skirter.—( Great laughter.) An Honourable Gentleman
opposite had said that it was not the people, but the middle
classes, who opposed the income tax. But disi the Hon. Gen-
tleman think that the people consisted only of the working
classes 7—(Hear, hear.) That reminded him of the officer
who would not allow that he was a soldier, thinking the name
applied only to the privates, and he was therefore called "Mr.
Otrice;•, and no soldier."—( Laughter.) But what were the
Commoners of that House, if not the people? What else
were they but the people ? He should like to see the lion.
Gentleman go to the hustings and make such a speech.—(Loud
ebiiers.) He should like to be present with the Hon. Gen-
ileman there, and take the change out of him..—( Cheers and
in.ghter, ) He (Mr. Wallace) was glad he had given way to
the
_Right Hon, Baronet. That Right Hon. Gentleman had
never ozlore during this Session made so quick an appearance.
The H. ht Hon. Baronet throughout his speech had done no_
hbut advert to old usages. If that was all that could be
saidting in (fence of the course they were adopting—if they did
nothing but revert to old usuges—then the House would fall
into even greater disrepect with the people than it had already.
—(Cheers.) His attention had been first drawn to this mat-
ter by seeing the observations of the Honourable Member
for Liskeard. He (Mr. Wallace) was at that time in
the country, suffering from ill-health. As soon as he
saw those observations he felt that if no one else interfered, it
would be his (Mr. Wallace's) duty, as an independent Mem-
ber of that House, to propose a resolution similar to the one
now under discussion. He had prepared his resolution, and
had it in his pocket when his Hon. Friend the Member for
Finsbury showed him the resolution at present under discus-
sion, and asked him (Mr. Wallace) to second it. Had he
hrunk from the performance of his duty on the present occa-
ion he should have felt ashamed to meet the constituency of
anest Scotehmen which he represented. The right of peti-

ture could pursue would be to support the measure introduced
by the Government.
Me. E Toe; veiti th,,, ie.. lied voted t: ir the seeend
of the Government meestice, under the supposition that
might, undergo considerable amendments in Committee; but
he was very sorry to find that he had been di-appointed in that
expectation.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the protection
given by the Bill of the 2.ight Hon. Baronet to the growers of
wheat was insufficient, while the scale as regarded barley and
oats was repudiated by every friend of British agriculture. He
had not been aware, too, at the time he had voted for the se-
cond reading of the Bill, of the intentions of the Government
upon the suhject of the tariff, and of that tariff he greatly
dis-
approved.
Under these circumstances he could not help ex-
pressing his dissent from the measure of the Government, and
his regret that they had been introduced by the Right Hon
Baronet.—" Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.)
Mr. FIELDEN, who spoke in a tone which rendered him
almost totally inaudible, was understood to say that that House
had shown its determination to protect no interest but that of
the agriculturist. They had not protected the labouring
classes—they had not protected the hand-loom weavers. They
had a cart with only one wheel. Under these circumstances
he could not vote for the third reading of the Bill ; if he were
for the motion, he should be voting for that which was unjust
in pi inciple and unwise in practice.
Mr. BROTH ERTON observed that there had been a con-
stant increase in the price of foods since the year 1815, while
there had been no corresponding increase in the rate of wages.
On the contrary, wages had of late years been constantly
declining. The rate of wages had diminished during those
periods when food was at the highest price. It was to thatqlepre-
cietion of wages and the consequent suffering among the
labouring classes that he wished to invite the serious attention
of the House. It was an indisputable fact, that many labourers
in Stockport were now earning no more than 10d. a week.
He believed that those evils were mainly owing to the present
Corn-laws. Those laws were equally unjust and impolitic; they
had been founded for the purpose of excluding foreign corn,
while it was evident that this country, which had imported on
the average 2,000,000 quarters of wheat of late
years, could not dispense with supplies from abroa
The increasing population could not be provided for without an
extension of manufactures. He believed that the effect of the
Corn-laws was to burden the people with a tax of twenty mil-
lions a year. The object of sach laws was to keep up the rents,
and he entreated the House to consider whether it was fair to
sacrifice their interests for such an object. —( Cries of Divide.")
Sir VALENTINE BLAKE said he had intended to move a
resolution, in Committee, to the following effect : —" That, not-
withstanding the benevolent desire expressed in her Majesty's
Speech on the opining of the Session, and the exist ess
declaration of her 'Majesty's Government thereon, that they
would not sanction any law which would tend to increase
the restrictions in the supply of corn in the home market, a
law had been proposed by her Majesty's Government, and
advanced far towards accomplishment, which would increase
the price of corn to the consumer, and make the monopoly
of the landed aristocracy more durable, and therefore
more intolerable." The Hon. Member proceeded to say,
amidst repeated interruptions, that his reason for not proposing
this resolution was, that. he had hoped to see some more compe-
tent Member bring forward that view of the subject. He re-
gretted that no one had done so. He regarded the present sys-
tem as one of gross fraud and injustice, and was convinced that
that was the light in which it would be viewed by the country.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For Mr. Cobden's motion
Against it . ...
Majority against the motion
—.150
Mr. J. W. HEN DLEY moved the adjournment of the de-
bate on the Bill till Monday next.
Mr. BLEW ETT seconded the motion.
The House divided, and there appeared--
For the adjournment
Against it
247
Majority
On the question, that the Bill he read a third time, being put
by the Speaker,
Dr. POWRING opposed the third reading, and pressed
his opposition to a division.
The numbers were— •
For the third reading
Against.......
90
Majority for the third reading --139
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. F. FRENCH upon his legs, moving the following
clause :—" Provided always, and be it enacted, that so much of
this Act as allows the importation into Ireland of flour, the
produce and manufacture if any foreign country, or of any
British possession out of Europe, shall not commence and take
effect until from and after the expiration of six calendar months
from the passing hereof." He trusted that, on the principle of
doing justice to Ireland, the Right Baronet would not refese to
accede to the introduction of the clause.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had proposed to subject all the corn
growers of the country to immediate competition with the
foreigner. Take the example of oats for instance. Complaints
had been made that sufficient protection was not given to
Irish oats, yet he proposed to subject the Irish oat
growers at once to competition with the foreigner.
He had a strong impression that it would be for the benefit of
the growers themselves that the law should come into imme-
diate operation. If he were to agree to the motion of the Hon.
Gentlemen he doubted if it would be of any benefit to those
whom the Hon. Gentleman sought to serve. He did
not imagine that there was that immediate danger from foreign
competition which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend,
Under all the circumstances, he thought he should be
subjecting himself to. a charge of partiality if. he con-
sented to exempt any one particular interest from the
immediate operation of the Bill. He believed there was no
danger of immediate competition, and therefore he could not
consent to the introduction of the clause.
Sir W. SOMER VILLE slid there were many Gentlemen
on the opposite side of the House who opposed the moderate
proposition of the late President of the Board of Trade for the
admission of foreign flour. Is was not a question of individual
interest, but one vitally interesting to Ireland. And now these
Hon. Gentlemen were coming forward to give a third reading
to that Bill, which would destroy all those interests. He would
lake to ask the Hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they were
sincere in the occasion of their opposition to the late proposal ?
—( Hear.) He would read a few extracts from one or two
speeches of Gentlemen opposite against that proposition, and
then he would ask Hon. Gentlemen how they conld reconcile
their consciences to vote for
,the third reading of tnis Bill. The
first he came to was the Hon. Member for Belfast. The Hon.
Gentleman said, on the occasion of the propositiOn being made
to the House, that he did not oppose the measure upon narrow
principles, but upon the broad principle that it would interrupt
agricultural improvements. It was a measure affecting the in •
terest of all classes. He (Mr. E Tennant) was then prepared
to show that the proposal would not be a sufficient. In- tection
against America. These were the words of the Hon. Gentleman,
and he ( Sir W. Somerville) could not see how the Hon.
Gentleman could now support the Right Hon. Baronet. The
Hon. Member for Donegal also said, that the effect of the
proposition would be to break faith with 1,800 persons, who
had commenced business on the security of this law.
The Honourable Gentleman then said that the pro-
position, if carried into a law, would destroy all their interests.
He would leave those Hon. Gentlemen to settle this matter
with their own consciences : however they might settle it with
their own consciences, he did not know what they would do
with their constituencies.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he formed a better estimate of
time than the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down ; he
should not, therefore, occupy the House with any lengthened
observations. Owing to the noise in the House, we werer
un-
able to cat
asch the Hon. Member's observations furthf than
that he wofopio in that the clause of the Hon. Gentleman
was one that the House could not accede to.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that if his Hon. Friend persisted in
dividing the House he must vote against it.
Mr. CHRISTMAS said, that though he did not entirely
concur in the measures of her Majesty's Government, not con-
sidering that sufficient protection was afforded, still, as he
approved of the main principles of the measure, he thought it
right to vote for the third reading.
After a few words from Mr. AL J. O'CONNELL,
Mr. F. FRENCH withdrew his motion.
On the question being again put that the Bill be read a third
time.