The Marquis of Clanricarde ridiculed Lord Ripon's argument for refusing to inquire into the possibility of finding a remedy, merely because they might be unable to find one. The distress was spreading to the agricultural districts; the poor-rates were everywhere increasing; and now the Incometax had to be paid in addition to those rates; if they would not submit to the inconvenience of inquiry, he feared that they might be compelled to submit to something worse.

Viscount Melbourne agreed, that Lord Brougham, always able and eloquent, had never addressed the House in a more temperate speech. He did not deny the melancholy and awful state of affairs to which that speech related; the long continuance of the distress, and the time which it took the country to recover from it alarmed him; but he did not think that any good purpose could be answered by the inquiry, or that it would be wise and proper for the House to grant it. The question of the Cornlaws had been fully inquired into; and he thought that the application of change and fluctuation at this time would do more harm than had been attributed to the Cornlaws in the course of the debate.

The Earl of Radnor insisted that the new Corn-law had done no good, for the greater portion of the little corn which had come in under it, had been Colonial wheat and not foreign. With respect to the Tariff, too, but little good could be expected from it, and in some instances harm, he considered, would ensue from it. He recommended Mr. Canning's measure of 1826, for admitting 500,000 quarters of wheat at 12s. duty, as tending to restore confi.

dence even before it was carried into effect.

Lord Wharncliffe said, the repeal of the Corn-laws would only cause such alarm among the agricultural population as would greatly aggravate the existing distress.

In his reply Lord Brougham observed that inquiry was not refused into agricultural distress in 1822. On a division the motion was negatived by 61 to 14.

The most striking shape, however, in which the grievances of the working classes presented themselves to the notice of the Legislature during this Session, was the presentation of a petition, which for bulk and number of signatures, was unparalleled in the annals of Parliament. The sum total of names attached was stated to amount to upwards of 3,000,000. -the proportion of bona fide signatures being considerably lessits prayer was for the enactment of the great constitutional changes which form the " six points" comprised in the Chartist creed-besides these demands, however, the petition declared the weight of the National Debt too great to be borne, and pointed in significant language at the abolition of all "Monopolies," including those of paper-money, machinery, land, religion, the public press, and railway travelling. The conveyance and presentation of this enormous document afforded a curious spectacle, and a task of no small difficulty-it required sixteen men to support it, and was escorted to Palace-yard by a long procession of working men, who marched in good discipline and with peaceful demeanour to the Houses of Parliament. Arrived at the door of the House of Commons, however, it proved too big for admission,

and in order to effect its entrance it became necessary to divide it into sections. Hastily plucked asunder in many parts, each piece formed a load for a troop of the petitioners, who carried it into the body of the House. It there lay on the floor beside the Table, which it overtopped, piled up in massy folds, and was "presented," if that term can be strictly applied to so unwieldy a document, by Mr. T. Duncombe, one of the Members for Finsbury.

In calling attention to its contents, he thanked the House for the kind and respectful manner in which it had been received. The petition, he observed, had nearly 3,500,000 of signatures; and, making allowance for the signatures of females and youths, he was prepared to prove that there were above 1,500,000 of families of the industrious classes subscribers to that petition. He had gathered in conversation with Members what were likely to be the objections to its prayer; and one was, the doubt as to there being any precedent. But in 1785, the promoters of the Lancashire petition against the duties on cotton stuffs were heard at the Bar; in 1789, persons who took a strong interest in the Slave-trade were heard at the Bar, and afterwards referred to a Select Committee; in 1812, on the motion of Lord Brougham, and with the concurrence of Lord Stanley, Mr. Rose, Mr. Baring, (Lord Ashburton,) and Lord Castlereagh, witnesses were heard against the Orders in Council. Unquestionably, the petition which he now presented, proceeding from every part of the empire, was equally deserving of attention. "They will not only prove to you that a state of great

distress exists in this country, but they will also prove, if not to the satisfaction of every man in this House, at least to the conviction of every unprejudiced mind, that those grievances arise from the neglect and misrepresentation of their interests within these walls. They will also state to you what they believe to be the remedy for the evils of which they complain. It will not be for you to decide to-night upon the merits of the remedy they may suggest; that will be for your consideration after having heard their statements. After you shall have heard their arguments, then it will be my duty to propose what I conceive would remedy and correct the abuses and mismanagement under which this country is now labouring."

He traced the history of Constitutional Reform in the country for the last fifty or sixty years. Many called the Chartists wild and visionary; but several eminent men of both Houses had advocated the same principles. When Major Cartwright advocated Reform in 1777, it was called "Radical Reform;" and at that time the people almost repudiated the name of "Radical" as a stigma. In 1798, the Whigs took up the cause of Reform, and they were then called "Reformers :" but those who were originally called Radicals, and afterwards Reformers, were now called "Chartists;" the Chartists were the Radicals of former days.

He doubted if the House was aware of the state of the public mind and of the country. The petition had received its number of signatures in the course of the last three or four months; the persons interested in it were en

rolled in about 600 national associations in England and Scotland; about 100,000 subscribed Id. weekly to keep up the agitation; and between 50,000 and 60,000 of those had pledged themselves to continue to subscribe as long as they received 1s. of wages, and until they were heard within the House of their Representatives. The distress which they were suffering swelled the cry; and while that distress was recognised in the delusive promises of a Queen's speech, without the offer of a remedy, it could not be expected but that they should make their way into that assembly, and endeavour to do something for themselves. He had received, he would venture to say, 500 communications on the subject; and of those he read a few, describing the destitute state of numbers in Sheffield, Wolverhampton, Burnley, the Vale of Leven, Edinburgh, and other places, and the zeal and cooperation of numbers in the agitation of legislative measures from which they expected relief. In Burnley the people were so famished, that some had disinterred a dead cow; and used it for food. Would it be possible for such a state of things to continue? Surely Sir Robert Peel did not expect his Incometax and Tariff to cure it? Nor could he mean to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and put down the Chartists by force. He appealed to the conduct of the Chartists themselves, to the procession which bore the petition, and to the terms of the last address issued by the National Convention, (which he read,) to show that the Chartists did not contemplate violence: The House might think their arguments visionary and absurd, but they could not refuse to

hear them; while by doing so they would gain some portion of what they much needed the confidence, affection, and gratitude of the great body of the nation. Mr. Duncombe moved" that the petitioners who signed the National Petition be heard at the Bar of this House, by themselves, their counsel, or agents, in support of the allegations of their petition."

Mr. Leader seconded the motion, declaring it mere blindness to doubt the sincerity of the petitioners, or the increasing numbers in which they came before the House, although Lord Campbell had said, after the prosecutions of the Chartists, "that Chartism was put down." To Mr. Duncombe's list of precedents Mr. Leader added Mr. Roebuck's having been permitted to plead at the Bar for the Lower Canadians.

Sir James Graham said, that nothing was further from his intention than to turn the paragraphs of the petition into ridicule. Unfortunately, the foundation of the petition was generally admitted: the distress was great; the number of petitioners complaining of that distress was large; and their statements were, in many particulars, founded in fact. It was not, therefore, a question of fact to be investigated, but a question of policy to be adopted; it was not a question of fact to be inquired into, but a question of political remedy to be decided on by the House; and as he could not conceive a course more likely to be disastrous than to excite hopes which were certain to be disappointed, and to hold out expectations which those who consented to the inquiry were aware would be fallacious, he must oppose the present motion.

Mr. Macaulay besought the

House, if he should be betrayed into any expressions not entirely consistent with a calm view of the question, to attribute it to the warmth with which he viewed the subject generally, and to no want of kindness towards the petitioners. He could not consent to hear them at the Bar, as if the House had not fully made up their minds to resist what was asked; for he could not but see that the petitioners demanded the Charter. To some parts of the Charter indeed he was not opposed :—as, the vote by ballot, the absence of a property qualification for Members:-and, though he could not support ánnual Parliaments, he would have them shortened. But to the essence of the Charter― universal suffrage, suffrage without any qualification at all, he was determinately opposed; and nothing short of that would have the smallest effect in diminishing the agitation which prevailed. Universal suffrage would be fatal to all the purposes for which Government exists, for which aristocracies exist; and it was incompatible with the very essence of civilization. Civilization rests on security of property without that, the finest soil in the world, or the moral or intellectual institutions of any country, would have no power to prevent its sinking into a state of barbarism; but on the other hand, while property is secure, it is impossible to prevent any country from advancing in prosperity; and he never could intrust the supreme government of the country to any class which would, tó a moral certainty, be induced to commit great and systematic inroads on the security of property. He assumed that that would be the result of the motion: and he drew his in

ference from the very words of the petition, which say "Your petitioners complain that they are enormously taxed to pay the interést of what is called the National Debt-a debt amounting at present to 800,000,000l.-being only a portion of the enormous amount expended in cruel and expensive wars for the suppression of all liberty, by men not authorized by the people, and who, consequently, had no right to tax posterity for the outrages committed by them upon mankind." If he was really to understand that as an indication of the opinion of the petitioners, it was an expression of an opinion that a national bankruptcy would be just and politic. He made no distinction in the right of the fundholder to his dividend and of the landowner to his rent, and the petitioners made none; but they lumped them together with all monopolies: they "respectfully mention the existing monopolies of the suffrage, of paper money, of machinery, of land, of the public press, of religion, of the means of travelling and transit, and a host of other evils too numerous to mention, all arising from class=" legislation." Could any thing be meant but a general confiscationof land, of the funds, of railways, and machinery?

He did not wonder at such views in uneducated men, impelled by distress to seek relief; but if education would mend those defects, would it not be well to wait till education had exerted its influence? But grant the power of so sweeping a confiscation of property, and what must be the effect? "No experience enables us to guess at it. All I can say is, that it seems to me to be something more horrid than can be imagined. A

great community of human beings a vast people would be called into existence in a new position; there would be a depression, if not an utter stoppage, of trade, and of all those vast engagements of the country by which our people are supported; and how is it possible to doubt that famine and pestilence would come before long to wind up the effects of such a system? The best thing which I can expect, and which I think every one must see as the result is, that in some of the desperate struggles which must take place in such a state of things, some strong military despot would arise, and give some sort of protection, some security to the property which may remain. But if you flatter yourselves that, after such an occurrence, you would ever see again those institutions under which you have lived, you deceive yourselves: you would never see them again, and you would never deserve to

see them."

Mr. Roebuck said, he had seen the substance of Mr. Macaulay's speech before, in an article in the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Macaulay denied the grounds on which the petitioners made their claim; but on what grounds was the House of Commons itself constituted? He was prepared to maintain that the same principle, if carried out, would bring together the whole body of the people to confer on public affairs in that place. There was a natural desire in every man to profit by another's labour: the object of Government was to prevent that desire from breaking out into action. In a state of nature, if a man was strong, he obtained that which he desired. As men advanced, they met together and formed societies. In this country

the people had hit upon the principle of deputation to a few to do that, which in former times was done in the market-place by the whole body of the people. The House of Commons then sat there to prevent the desire that each man has of profiting by another's labour from coming into action: they were put over the people to watch for them; but then, that being the case, who was to watch them-to watch the watchers? That could only be done with effect by making the House of Commons responsible to the people; and the charge against the House of Commons on the part of the people was, that it had delegated to a small section the power of enforcing this responsibility, and that that small section had joined with the House of Commons to oppress the remainder of the people; and that they did oppress the remainder of the people. The right honourable Gentleman, holding the petition in his hands, had said, that the petitioners made a demand for the establishment of a minimum of wages; if this were so, then he asked honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House whether they did not make a demand of exactly the same principle in the Corn-laws? It might be bad political economy to demand a fixed minimum of wages, but it was a political economy taught by the landlords, who sought a minimum of prices

What class was so interested in the security of property as the labouring class? though Mr. Macaulay feared that to concede political privileges to them would make the country one scene of anarchy, bloodshed, and rapine. He (Mr. Roebuck), however, would say, not judge of the people of England

"do