ENGLISH EXTRACTS.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 19, 4 October 1842, Page 3

ENGLISH EXTRACTS.

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE. (From the Standard).

The Chartist petition occupied the attention of both houses of parliament on 3d May. the House of Lords it was treated pretty much as it deserved—that is, with extreme coldness —even Lord Brougham, who had the honour of presenting it, saying but a very few words in apology, and not one word in support of the appeal with which he was charged. In the House of Commons, however, Mr. Thomas Buncombe made a long speech, urging the propriety of hearing the petitioners at the bar of the house, in support of the several allegations of the petition, and in< recommendation of the changes which they propose. A slight .glance at the petition will show the reasonableness of this request. First, the petition proposes a new scheme parliamentary reform, based upon the principle of universal suffrage. Secondly, the petition proposes to cancel the national debt.

Thirdly, the petition proposes to repeal the New Poor Law.

Fourthly, the petition proposes an equalisation of property, taking, as it would appear, an average between the Civil List appointments of the Queen and threepence-halfpenny a-day, supposed, to be the lowest rate of wages. How the averge is to be struck the petitioners do not condescend to say—plainly, they cannot mean a middle term between threepence-halfpenny a-day fpr that would. amount to nearly half the Civil List; and if the average were taken by throwing all the wealth of the country into a common fund, or as the lawyers say, ". into hotchpot,” and distributing it equally per capita, it may be

dofibted whether the general fate of incomes would be much augmented, while it is certain that the industry of the country would be extinguished for ever. The apology for the proposition, however, is, that it is unmixed nonsense. . r

Fifthly, the petitioners assert the right oftfce people to meet;' the petition' itself is a proof that such an assertion of the right, which is in no danger of being impeached at present, is, to say the least, impertinent. * : f Sixthly, the petitioners impeach the integrity and the impartiality of the courts of justice, and intimate that these courts of justice ought to be reformed.

Seventhly, the petitioners complain of the rural police. Eighthly, the petitioners demand that the whole military force of the empire be forthwith disbanded, upon the ground that so many soldiers are employed in Affghfinistan and China, in the West and East Indies, in North America, the Mediterranean, &c., with no other purpose than “ to repress opinion”; in the “three Kingdoms” (wherever they are);:and likewise to “intimidate the millions in the due exercise of those rights and privileges which ought to belong to them.” Ninthly, the petitioners complain that the hours of labour in factories are not limited.

Tenthly, the petitioners complain that the wages of agricultural labourers are too low —and consistently in the next sentence — Eleventhly, they complain of the corn-laws. . Twelfthly, the petitioners, who represent themselves as suffering the extreme of poverty, complain that they, the petitioners, pay nine millions of pounds sterling ! per annum to a Church of which they, the petitioners, are not members. Thirteenthly, the petitioners eomplain that they are subject to irresponsible law-makers—-i. e., .the House of Lords.

Fourteenthly, the petitioners demand that a property qualification be no longer required from English and Irish members of the House of Commons.

Fifteenthly, they call for annual parliaments. Sixteenthly, they call for the ballot. Seventeenthly, they call for the repeal of the union with Ireland.

Mr. Duncombe’s long speech gave to Mr. Macaulay the opportunity of a holiday display, for which he is always on the watch. It was “ fine galloping ground” to expose the absurdities of the petition and of the presenter’s speech; and, besides, the learned member for Edinburgh had previously “ aired and exercised” all his arguments in the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Roebuck, spoke with much spirit, and with considerable force, as well as truth, though now and then wildly, he treated the petition with all the contempt it merits, and said he knew the author of it —a cowardly demagogue. Who is he ? We have heard more than once a public statement that the Charter was drawn up by one whom the character fits very exactly—fits, indeed, more exactly than it can be said to fit any other living man. Is this the author of the petition ? If such is the case, one can be at no loss to account for the un-English tone of the production. Mr. Joseph Hume, who, from having been so long the bore, has now 1 become the jest, of the house, excited a great deal of mirth by his blunders. The honorable member had a fling at the Standard, of which presently. After Lord John Russell had spoken against the motion, Sir Robert Peel disposed of the debate by a bold and eloquent speech, in which, treating the petition with much more respect than it deserves, he showed the utter impossibility of conceding its prayer, which involved the real insult of affecting to consider that prayer, with a view to concession. The proposition to hear the petitioners at the bar was rejected by a majority of 287 to 49 —Mr. T. Duncombe threatening never to present another petition of the kind —a threat which, we doubt not, he will religiously observe. But now for our old friend—Mr. Joseph Hume. That respectable person is represented by the Morning Chronicle to have spoken thus: — “ Mr. Hume said, that he regretted the violent language which had been used at certain public meetings quite as much as the honorable member for Lambeth, could; hut surely it was not justice to blame the whole bpdy of these petitioners, and" the people at large, because a few rash men had made use of improper language. As well migh he (Mr. Hume) bring a wholesale charge against the opposite benches, because one of their leading, organs had made use of such language as this; that ‘ England would be as great and powerful, and all useful Englishmen would be as rich as they were now, if ruin were to'engulph the whole of the manufacturers lof the country.’ “ Sir R. Peel, we believe,, said he never, saw such a passage. “ Mr. Hume said it appeared in th e Standard, and was copied into most of the other papers-”