Star. — London, England, 1804-02-03 00:00:00

its rs. of Dfc ly of .)n. ng, ay. icd '2C lad )Tt. enth pro. "ion :lion IC4I 1.. 111.411 c! r f•. v...•niJ rtztty h.tv.: t.:.....•ei zr of !I a w L. ..:1 b% t ' • 1 .. t .. tit it IA 441 :tll . t;:r i;: 1 .11 tLi. ut lt.at kctitivo ivu2t confederation, and decided on by the Houfe. The fira was that of the 3d of December, !no, prefented by freeholders of the county of Stirling ; the fecond, that of the Bth of December, in the fame year, pre tented by freeholders of the flewartries of Orkney and Shetland; and the third. that of the 14th, in the fame year, prefented by the freeholders of the county of Radnor. There was alfo another from Worceller, precifely of a fimilar nature, prefented the zoth of Oftober. 1796. It farther appeared, that there were two cafes of the fame kind which had occurred dur ing the prefent Parliament. The &ft was the peti tion of freeholders of the county of Carmarthen, on 'the to of September. tflos ; and the fecond related to the freeholders of Stirling. It thould not be for gotten, in the Committee to which they had been re . , a quefiion was Ratted, fi milar to the :4 fea r thatie l ning by the Hon. Gentleman, . not nand g the difeufficins arifing from the ueltion. eCo ittees proceeded, and the peti• inns we nor only taken into confideration, but That from the fratholders of Stirling was renewed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded with 'obferving, that hecould cite many 'other cafes in .3790, and 1796.1:: nature precifcly the fame as thofe which Isa4read, but he felt it his duty I not to trouble the Houfe with any precedents in addition to chore mentioned, which, he trotted, would [prove fatisfadory and decifive. Mr. T. GRENVILLE laid, that in the remarks be bad to offer, be fhould confine himfelt as much as palible to the grounds upon which the two Aas of Parliament, tbofe nf the loth and zBth of the King, were framed. He apprehended that every diredion and precaution ufed by the author of the fira Bill, was a fircng proof of the jealoufy entertained relative to the difcretsonary power of the Houfe. Accor ding to the rules and orders of Parliament, pre vious to the pang of the AQ of the loth, the Houle was called upon to confider petitions in cafes of conceited elections, as coming from thole pot cuing a right to vote, or having an intereft in the elec.' lion of Members of Parliament. With taped to 1 the alteration which followed on the lubjed of the claim, it was made in order to mark as dillindly as poffible, the necellity of limiting the difcretion which the.Houfe was in the habit of exercifing, and thus it continued until the Ad of the 28t1i. By that Bill it appeared, that the former Ad had been produdive of many material benefits. Yet it Asould not be 'aired over unnoticed, that the mover of the At of the zBth was of opinion, thayhe claims let up by petitioners ought to be the fame as before the Bill of the Rah, and it was no left evident that the 28th, on which fo mach ['refs was laid, had for its objet to bring back the Houle to its former fyfictn, which pre• wailed previoully to the Bill of the loth. Generally and equitably (peaking, it appeared to him to h.ve been :he with of the Houfe to enact what in reality had been the rule of conduft followed in cafes of con. tetied elefhons at the period to which he alluded.— Therefore he had little difficulty in maintaining that the equity of the cafe required the Houfe to confider the petition as fit to be received; for in that point of +view he was borne out by the rule of conclud ob ferved before the enaciment of the toth, and by the decifion which, after an experience of 18 years, had reftored the fyflem which had previoully tallied.— Having thus confidered the queßion in an equitable view, lie was perfedly aware that the adual manda tory words of the claufe went directly againa the inference which he drew. Yet thefe teems, impera• Live as they were. found a counterbalance in the practice of the Houfe. He was free to confefs, he had no doubt as to the clear fenfe of the mandatory words ; and he certainly would have been better pleated, if the petitioners hid complied with the terms of the Ad of Parliament. It would hare given him a fuperior degree of gratification. But the Houfe -were bound to confider that they were fitting in that place to interpret a doubtful matter ; and they found to guide them in their inveitigation what the former coacm had been, and what the practice of Patna nicht was at that moment. Another motive had a fill greater weight with him, and made a much deeper impreaion on his mind. If ally Gentleman could not ftate any inconvenience to either party from fending the cafe to immediate trial, he could not fee the leall ground for refuting to take the yeti- Sion into confederation. He was, therefore, fatisfied, that the motion of the I lonourable Gentleman Ihould be negatived. Mr. JEKYL had not the honour to be a Member of the Committee on the Carmarthen Eleftion, but he believed the eireumlianees with refpell to the pe tition alluded to were, that a hen the objelion was railed as to the legality of the form of the petition. it was . decided, that however that might have been :I n objeEtion in the Flaife to receiving the petition, or refuting it to the Committee, the petition having been retitled, the evanrninee was bound to proceed en it. 11, ...inridereJ, that to contlitute legal pre ited:nr--, r;.ere ihould hare bean doubts an.f quellions des idc:t ail .1 arguments upon the e ilniiiits ; hilt a number if ))))) re occorrencts, aiiiered to pals humbly on, were not legal piece:haat. it fea/ro 8/174 was net to b: fanis:ioned by any number of pre ecilents, no. any length of praftice. Proof of this w is fic•ri:ialv given in the cafes of illegal power ati-iin:d he 'Corpora:ions ; there illegal powers . . — _ b• — •e. I•t,t entrto, when trto;ii,ht into thz Court it:nelt, hi writ uf ;•:7 all/writ^, fi,m•ain:c i ai:zt an e•,.crcife iii fifty ye. r!. In the prefent in• inte the !Inure was bounJ by the AA. and it it sallen ittto an CITOCCOUS it 1110Uld COIN. Lent A RCHIBALD H.:MILTON thongin it •-• rn Volk only to the.l.tt of Parliarmnt.— n r. C of the litipting put:es deviated le vr., the •• • • pr• fctilic.l. he th , oight the other patty 1.4,1 • i t., I , A itfclt of thy r : Ir.TIE Li NIX thin9tht th.tt tlivihtc was tight to incline in livi.or Of the petition I Ic w.,. lun:, that if the d • , •r nas thrown open for t:ic reception will entertaint:-.lit ut the petiti• n. it would gratify the teelin.tv of the Hon. Gentleman m• le the ni.ith . 1 r. w I.;t-cote the Hnufe. That e.m h nitut have viiilate.J. if t liori 4 wart of mere 1 %.t'. 41.01ALd nut.• Noe/sing he was Pure would lave induced the Honourable Genileman to bring forward the mo• lion, but a perfuafion that the words of the Aft were imperative. The aft, however, prefented no precife form of words to the petitioners, and they had no oneans of collei%ng the proper form, but from what appeared in the fequel or the journals of the Houfe. If the law was really as the Honourable Gentleman Itated it, the prefent cafe would jullify a Legilla• tive interference. The Houfe woulst impofe a dread ful hardfbip, by giving no opportunity of amend men►, and by 'blowing out the petition, when the petitioners were bound over to proceed, and when., they had gone to filch expence in preparation. He had no hefitation in giving his decided negative to the motion. Mr. Serjeant BEST raid, that the Houfe was bound to confider, although it was then fitting in its judicial capacity, it was as fubjeft to the law of the land as the loweft tribunal. He could not, after an attentive view of the quellion, entertain any doubt of the affirmative of the queflion. He felt, in com mon with other Gentlemen, for the great hardfhipa under which the petitioners laboured, yet however' great there hardfhips were, he was alto bound to maintain, that the general courfe of the law of the land ought not to be interrupted, or turned out of its proper channel. The Aft by which the petitioners were to regulate their conduft was plain, and fhould be conflrued fltiftly. lie could not content to allow any equitable conftration to be introduced, when the letter of the Aft of Parliament was fo clear and decifive. It had been well laid by a Right Honourable Gentleman, who was not then in his place, that what had been done by Parliament could not be undone but by Parliament, and in that fenfe the Houfe could not, in its judicial capacity, deftroy the AR of the whole Legiflature. With refpeft to the equitable conftruftion of the chore, he fhould ray, that when equity was brought forward as the ground of any proceeding, it was extremely difficult to afcertain the exalt limits beyond which the Houfe ought not to lien; and it was no left dangerous to recognize a principle indefinite in its meaning and extent, which might totally annihilate the letter and fpirit of an AR of Parliament. That which had been called precedent, might be a regular re ties of pleadings in a Court of Law, though even no decifion had taken place upon them. But, as to the precedents adduced in fupport of the petition, by the eleftion cafes which had been read, they cer tainly did not apply. Precedents were, he was ready to admit, very valuable, when there appeared no, other mode of acquiring information or eßablifhing a rule of conduit ; but, when the Aft of Parliament WAS fo very clear, they could be of no ufe ; and- to allow their weight and importance, would be to let up the judicial power againft the Legiflature of the' country. The Houle, under every impreffion, was, in his opinion, bound to decide in the affirmative ; but, if any doubt exifted, with refpeft to the mean ing of the Aft, he begged to refer Gentlemen to the preamble of the Bill. A Right Hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Tierney) had laid, that the Houfe brought the petitions into the dilemma in which they were placed. That was by no means a convincing mode of argument ; for, if the Houfe had afted wrongly, they could not too fpeedily coerce their millakes. It alto appeared to him, that the peti tioners were not altogether without the means of redrers ; for as no Aft exifted to limit the period of prefenting petitions, but merely a rerolution of the Houfe to that effea, the Houfe might get rid of that refolution, which would, in every rerped, be more confiftent with the proceedings of Parliament, and more advantageous to the parties, than any new Le giflative provifion, as alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The ATTORNEY GENERAL replied to the ar guments urged by Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Serjeant Bell ; and, having confidered the'impolicy of the motion, with the hardthips to which it would neceffatily fub• jeft the petitioners, who merely wifhcd for that fair and contiitutional enquiry and decifion to which all perfons in their fituation were entitled, he concluded by giving his decided negative to the motion. Mr. FONBLANQUE laid. that the qtreilion was, whether the Houk were to ufe their own difcretion in the face of an AR of Parliament ; and whether they were entitled ro throw on a Committee a duty clearly devulvcd on thcmfelves ? As to the precedents al luded to, he could not pay any attention to them, if inconfillent with the enalments of the flatute. He might lament that Inch proceedings had taken place, but it was now time to reßify any usiftakes into which the Hottfc might have fallen. Mr. JARVIS Paid, that the objea of the Legilla. lure WAS not, as had been Rated, to prevent proceed. ings in Petitions labouring under any defeat fimilar to the ptefent, but to prevent fuch Petitions from being at all prefented. The Petition had not only been prefented, but tome proceedings had been had in it. He therefore apprehended that it was not ccm. pctent now to (late the objeftion, which ought to have been made at its original prefentment. Mr. DALLAS laid, that the Al pointed out no precife form of expreffion in which the allegation be made. It wrs confeeptently fuflicient for the purpofee of the An, if the allegation was neeef farily in:plied, which he argued it was, becaufe the claim ot redrefis implied that they were aggrieved, and that they could nut have been without having a ri,tht to vete at the ele.lion. Mr. StiERIDAN laid that it ever there was a cafe, upon which the language of an AR of Parlia ment was more clear, expl:ett, intelligible, and poll tire. than no any other, the prefent was that cafe If GentleroLn would be at the trouble . is adverting to Mr. Grenville 's Al. they would there find it clearly and p-fitively Lod dov a in Inch a way, as it was impioliule to mirconfirue or mirunderfland, that all Petitions to he relented to that Houle. cnmplaining of undue Elation, mull Rate in word, that the parties fuhretibing Inch Petitions, were thcmfeivcs entitled to Voee a: inch Ele.4iun, or to base been duly qualified to (land as Candidates thereat. In a fubfequcnt clrufe, i; requires that the • rs , .rfluis cubic, iuing loch ithin four. teen day, from the Jay of pmctit.tiog the fame, cn ;,.r i..to re.-.gnizances by them:cisea, etad their u:.:• ties. to toarw up the laid Petition, al.d be alliNtr ', lb ' : tOt the expences thereby inc.:et:o, hr trllto t •f Kett . - ; arch rerogt.i.talm., to be hotig .e.l 'liti. the :-:,lker, within the fait' term of 1:4..i;;;:n S.— It wculj 1.1;.1 th: LIA th..n pre,cLetis t 7) c Uiail Sol 4;114 1.1.1 Lat . , L' :4.-1 tli.t i; tl.e . . their title or right, to Elea, or be Elated, or fhall not have fo entered into recognitances within the time prescribed, then upon the Speaker's re-! porting the fame to the Hoofis. loch Petition (hail not be proceeded upon, hut the Order, if any, for taking the fame into conlideration, (hall be dif charged. It was impoffible to exprefs the meaning and purple of an Aft of Parliament in words more clear, pofitiie, or mandatory. No room whatever was left to the Houle for exercifing any difctetion, beyond the mere enquiry, whether the fubferibin.4 petitioners had or had not ftrialy complied with the injunflious fo clearly exotelied ? and, in cafe of non-compliance, the Houl, had no alternative but to rile& the Petition. Gentlemen had talkeo much of precedents, and (hated, that this Houle had aged fur fixteen years without taking fimilar excep tions ; but he contended, that no length of continu ance in ignorance, error, and inadvertency, was an argument to juflify a pertinence in that error, after it was once difcovered, much lets could it warrant the wanton and flagitious violation of a poG;ive of Parliament, by which the Houle in its witchon had bound kali to one rigid and fpecific line of afiing, and forfeited all claims whatever to exercile any If cretion upon the point, contrary to the exprefs let- , ter, and clearly obvious intention of the aft. This, was a cafe not to be confid.red merely as the cafe of an individual ; nor had the Houfe any thing to do with the confideration of what inconvenience the indivh dual might coffer in consequence of hit own infor mality, in not conforming to the clear and pofitive injuoaions of the very Aft of Parliament under which be profelfed to leek redrefs. But having fo neglected to comply with the neceffary forme, it was out of the power of that Houk to give him any re dref.. If the Hoof,: felt there wis any thing berth or abrupt in rejefling the petition by the mode pro poled in the motion of his Honourable Friend, ano ther perhaps lefs °Nation -able might be foggefted, to which he doubted not his Honourable Friend would have no objeftion to accede, in preference to his pre fent motion ; the mode he, Mr. Sheridan, would recommend, was by three i•folutions ; the fir& fpe cifying the forms required by the Ael of Parliament; the fecond, that the petition now before the Hoofe was deficient of compliance with thofe forms; and the third, refolving„ for thole reafons, that the peti tion he rejefted. He trutied his Honourable Friend would agree with him in adopting thofe rthlutions fur his motion, in place of that now before the Houfe. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Paid a few words in explanation. Sir WILLIAM PULTENEY laid, he agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who fpoke lan, that that would be the fair way of ftating the queltion, and if, it were fo put, he Iltould have no difficulty in laying, , that the petition did fubilantially ccmply with the Aft, and upon that ground he Ihoulti give his vote againft the motion. With regard to whether the Committee had a right to &alai this point or not, he flu-mid not enter intro that confideration at preterit, but fhould give •his vote upon the ground he bad al ready hated. Mr. FOX es preffed his furprife at the extraordinary nature of the arguments adduced on the other fide. He was concerned to fee fo much indifference prevail on a queftion of fo much importance, and that Gen tlemen had fo completely loft fight of the queftion before them. Is was not what was juftice to this or that party which they were called on to determine, but, what was the duty incumbent, in fuch a cafe on that Houk. An Hon. Relation of his (Mr. Grenville) had Paid, that the intention of the Aft was to tame to the Houle the rights which it pollard previous to the (Write of the loth of the King: Whatever might have been the intention of the Legiflature in this re. fpea, he maintained, however, that Inch intention it had not carried into effect. The Legiflature had there clearly and explicitly preferibred and laid down to the Houle, how trey were to act, and had invefled them with no difcretionary powers whatever. Another Hon. And Lest ned Gentleman had admitted the necetlity of fume tlatement, limilar to that pointed out in the Aft, being contained inthe Petition,but how didhe get quit of this ? By laying, let it go to the Committee, and be there decided. The Legiflature, however, had drawn a clear line of diftinaion between the duties of that Houle and of the Committee. To the Houle it had Paid, " You (ball not proceed on any Petition in which the Petitioners do not claim a right to vote at the Elation againft which they petition." To the Corn. mime it had laid, " You (ball decide on what (hall be fent to you by the Houfe." The Learned Gentle man (Attorney General) had charaaerifed the omif lion as one which might be corrected (ay a chilli of the pen. This however. was no enliven There were no omitlions or flaws which agreater or fmaller (lath of the pen might not on the fame principle (apply and ratify. The Aft clearly pointed out to the Houle what mutt he fisted to them, before they could proceed in fuch Petitions. Had the Petitioners in the prefent cafe ufed words to expels firth a meaning ? No. They had not even (hated that they were aggrieved. " Oh," but lays an Honourable Gentleman, " if they had not been aggrieved, upon what principle can we pre lime that they would have petitioned ?" The Aft. however, declared. that let their grievances be ever fn great, if not defcribed in a patticular war, they were not entitled to be heard un them in that I loure The decifion of the Carmarthen Committee had been referred to, but as he was not acquainted with the grounds of it, he thould not expros an opinion upon it. He would however afk, would that Committee have prefumed to find the petition ft ivolous and vets- Had they done In, what would hare been the anfwer of the Petitioners? " We never pretended to have any right to vote at this Elation. AVe felt nor (elves aggrieved indeed as F.nglithmen, as Electors of Middlefex, as Eleaors even of Carmarthen, though not at the time of the Elation, but we base never in our Petiti:en dated any claim to a title to vote at the Elation petitioned againtl." This clearly would be a fatistaaory anfwer. The Houle was unwarranted in entertaining tr e Petition, even for a moment. It bad been objeacd, that he had riot made his motion in iuilicient time. lie withed he had attended t t the • lsizeirsn at the time, and be would mod ocqueitico. ..I%:e have made it. The charge, hovseYer. equ.rily to every other Member 14 the Houk. 11% a gamin' of the Hon. tkritlern.ao 55 " You base r...did your time, an," cni,not now tal..e the matter i•st , , conlideration." Stith Lnr.t rge might .1. ca . t•crn,:: well among patties. Ci it %etc the burirefs I of tti basing Member to the obizatoo, this might 114%c been an e.tt.dt:•.Or Loud Aatu Cr. When • • * Made to Parliament; harreter, it was mares* 4- applicable. They were called on to con ider whe• ther they di (charged their duty, if they fet afide an ere of Parliament merely for the convenience of perfaist who had negletled to comply with its chaaments.— What elk were they doing in the precept indance P. He wo.ild defy the bell judges of the interpretation of the Englith language, to point oat words more clearly, snore imperative and cdinmandinip than tilife on which his motion was founded. An Hon. Gentleman had charged him with not having even that he did not believe that the Petitiotters were : Freeholders of lifiddlefez. He really thought lir: linnouraWc Gentleman not feu-ions, when be made this remark. What had the Hnufe to do with the fad, whether they were Freeholders or tot? They had no title to enquire into it. Had the Pe tition been figned by Sufan and Mary, and a num ber of names, not one of which, it was evident. * could be Freeholders br Eledor4, till they were bound to receive the Petition, if It defcribed the Petitioneri in tin. manner provided by the Ad.-- It had been fo found for him in a Petipon prefented by the Eleaors of Weffminfter. In Goo's name, what could be done under this AR, but difcharge the Petition ? The Petitioners had not even by in ue o inlinuated that they had a right to , vote. A rigon might prefent a Petitionfaying he was a hour:- Mier, a freeman, or any other term which he choir to adopt, but it muff be impoffible for the Houfe to k tow that fuch a title gave him a right to vote in any p articular place for a Member of Parliament. Uhl. hid dated himfelf to be an inhabitant, would that have been thought fufficient ? Would the Houfe have gone into a queffion of law, and heard evidence, for the purpofe of eflablifhing fuch a point ? The idea was ridiculous ; but it muff follow, if the enaament of the Ratute be not adhered to, which requires the Petitioners explicitly to defcribe themfelves as hay: inr, a claim to the right of voting. He regretted that a Noble Lord who had been much engaged in Elation Committees was not in his place, that the Houle might have heard his opinion on the cub jet. If the Houfe negatived his motion he &mild feel it his duty to apply for a repeal of the Ad, that they might not have Petitions•flying in the face of it every day. As to the regret fo pathetically ex preffed by Gentlemen, that the Petitioners &mild foie the opportunity of vindicating their rights merely from an accid e ntal circurnltance, that had received a very fatisfadory aofwer from the Learn ed Serjeant under the Gallery, who had pointed out to them how frequently filch foreclofures occurred in a Court of Jullice. Notwithltanding the doubt which almoll e. cry Gentleman had eaprefed on the fuLjea, he nail again declare his conviaion, that not the moil Man: ocoace cf ambiguity was perceptible to him on the molt trinitte inveftigation of Vie A&. —As to the form, he hail no objeftion to have the quelbon put in the manner fuggeded by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Sheridan). The hardship which ag_ree• ling to the motion would throw on the people of Eng land, he could not conceive. He had been told that Iris motion did not deferve favour—it afked none.— ! Were Gentlemen to enter into the argument, they would am find, that, however bads the maxim, it would ftill prevail, that Ignarearia legit new exiaiat a yet it was a maxim in the law of every civilized country ; and indeed no law could fub fi ft without it . Therefore every argument upon the harifthip of tbit cafe could have no weight; though if any rational mode could be fuggefted for giving relief to thew Petitioners, he !honld not oppole it. With regard to the fuggellion of his Honourable Friend, of altering his motion, he had no objeCtion whatever to it; in deed he had at &ft an intention cf bringing it for-. ward in the Chaise of a fyllogirm, and to have moved, oft, That the 2t 3 th of the King bad mated that no Petition could be received, in which the Petitioners did not date that they had a right to vote at the Elation ; adly, That the Petition in qualms eon ! tained no fuch allegation : and idly, That the order Icy hearing the fold Petition fhould be dircharged.— He was very willing to (lupe his motion fo now. The SPEAKER laid, that the Motion before the Houfe muff firft be difpofed of. Mr. FOX laid, that it was of little confequence to him how the quettion was put. He expated, how ever, that Tome of the Gentlemen who had teemed to think that the Petition was not without the words of the Ad, would have had courage to defend that opi nion. Their condo& reminded him of a llory told of one of the Ptolemy's, who being defirous of grow ing learned without fubmitting to the drudgery ne cetfary in acquiring it, applied to Euclid, or tome loch furly perfonage. who informed him that them was not a royal toad to mathematics. The Gentle men confefed the premifes to be bad, and yet orifbed to abide by the foaclufion. The Houfe then divided—For Mr. Fox's motion, ta—Againft it, 96. On being re-admitted into the gal:ry, the Hoare was proceedine to tie ether Orders of the flay_ - __ _ _ CHAI‘ . CELLOR. of the EXL.:I-IE4SER moved that leave be given to bring in a Bill to in demnif; Bach rerfous as may have fulterc.l by the Ad prohibiting the exportstirn of Corn. As the Ee•mmittee arptiiitcd t.s fettle the Accounts between GI est Britain an..l ltelari op to the year t• c..nii.'eresi is diih.lve,i by the proeoration of l'..C.i.iment s th: Right H•mour+hic Gentleman that that Committee be te.arpcintld, and that it retame its proceeslings on Moods) , morn ing ne-.t. iL al.l-• m't•cd that a Se:eg Commi , tee be ap• pninted to Irquire inte the Hate I chit MAjcity'. Cavil The follow.r.g ate the name. .:£ the Cuautait: Cltanc -Oar of the Etrube- I ord G. Czratilli quer 1.,.rd G. I by one Sacrelry Yorks /Or Stork The see. tare at W • r A tr, it ht t o V;nt Pc' lqr NI% • ig s.c 11:r. rte At: irn, y.r.cnrral Flosi..r I'L fa I Fre d:r.c ?4*.r k .r Ci,ht J. 11. Adelritoo Sir W. riatTr.,ey Mr. Vanlittart. se W. W. Wyntis Mr. *aura It wac snowed. tLat ri;sl Committee have leave t, uotw thttandttig any . atiinnammeat of th e H on (/' ACJ rice MerilLeti h.: epwrum. He al!u m ced i r a Committee to confider of gi to AJiu:k the ditTr.ncea between the Canoe Ma al.faduiCK. and their Servants. AU which asoti.mas were rcfrc3ively agreed The "'her orders of t h e day Laing AKA gic Hoofs aJjousas4. _ _