Star. — London, England, 1810-05-09 00:00:00

SIR FR ANCIS BURDETT. The SPEAKER intimated to the blouse that the Serjeaut at Arms had informed him, that notice of process, at the instance of Sir Francis Burdett, had been served upon him. Mr. PERCEVAL proposed that the notice should be referred to the Committee appointed to consider the subject. Mr. TIERNEY said, this could not regularly be done, till the notice was in some regular manner before the I - louse. The No tice to the Speaker had been entered on the Journals. The SPEAKER then called for the Serjeant, who was not In the way, and the su:ject drnln. Sir WILLI.^.M CURTIS rose and stated, that he held in his hand a Petition from the Lord Mayor,' Aldermen, and Livery of the City of London, in Common•hall assembled, which he was desired to present to the House. The Petitioners, among other things, he observed, expressed their sorrow and regret at certain proceedings of this House, and stated grievances for which they desired a remedy; that it, had been declared in this House, that the doors of Parliament should be open wide to Petitions, and therefore they came for relief. The Honourable Baronet said, it was but fair he should mention to the House, that the Petition was not exactly the petition of the whole Body of the Livery ; because, though the Half was rather full, yct there %rem many thou sands not present. At the same time he must dc dare, that the Meeting was constitutionally con vened by the Lord Mayor, and the seatimen:s of the Petition were those of the Livery so assembled. The Petitioners, observed the Honourable Baronet, after stating certain grievances of which they complain,. be- , this House to reconsider the measures lately adopted with reference to the committal of Mr. Jones and Sir Francis Burdett, to retrace your steps and to expunge from the Journals the resolutions come to on that Occasion. Now these sentiments though coming from the Livery, it is my duty to convey to the House, as one of the Representatives of the City of . London, yet I must declare that they are very far from bting.tny own (Hear, Lar:) The Petition was then brought up and read by the Clerk at the table. PETITION OE"fIIE LIVERY OF LONDON. Sig• W. CURTIS then moved that it do lie on the table. Mr. Secretary RYDER rose to oppose the motion. I The Right Hun. Secretary declared that in rising to do so, he was discharging his duty as an independent Menthe:. of Parliament, and he should feel less objec tion to state his men sentiments, because the worthy Baronet had stated that the Meeting of the Livery was constitutionally convened, yet the Petition wa s not the sense of a very great body of his constituents. (Hear, Hear.) At the same time he was bound to give his opinion, that though the Petition %contained tbe sentiments of the pet sons assembled, it (nigh! not to he on the table. He cottld not consent to ht,a , Petition, -certainly drawn up with great art and ad dress in order to avoid objection to its reception, be. laid on the tab:e. The Petitioners having seen that another petition had been rejected, had recourse to all the art they possessed to prevent a similar fate to the present petition, b•t it was impossible that the Howe could shut its eyes to the wording of this pe. wilich conveyed the most marked insult to the House, and calculated to degrade it in the eyes of the country. (Hear, leer.) Some parts of the peti tion he could not pass over without .observation.— They asked, " Where is your justice and your dig nity, when you did so and so i" Was not that an insult ? and if a petition of this nature was admitted on the table:, the House would deserve to be degrad ed, and to be the Mockery and insult of the constitu ents of the realm. For these reasons he should move " That the petition be rejected." Mr. Alderman COMBE was sorry that the Right Honourable Gentleman should object to - the reception of the petition ; rind heswas surprised that he should do so alter his worthy colleague, - the Hon. Baronet, had-stated that the meeting was constitutionally con vened. The petition was in fact that of the Majority of .the Hall: It was impossible that the whole of the Livery could be assembled, as the pan would not contain them. Of those who were assembled, there were not above fifty svho held up their hands against it. It that was not the criterion of the semi/mots of a bod 3• of pen, be did not know what was. .The . Honourable Alderman ,observed that he saw by the pipers, for :le did not know the fact in any other way, that a teusitet-rneeting had been held, and among the names subscribed* at that meeting . to the resolutions and declaration, he saw eight or ten who were at the Common Hall, and held ap their hands against the petition. To be sure every body knew that at a popular meeting the adverse party were not allowed to speak. .(A laugh, and bear, hear.) Gen tlemen might laugh, but the fact was so ; but, though they even could not be heard, they held up their han.!t. (clear, hear 4 He should vote for the peti i•tion to be laid on the table. _ _ . _ Sir W. cuturis, i explanation, stated that he liad not said the majority were not in favour of the - - petition. Sir CHARLES PRICE had the honour of attend ing the meeting as one of the Representatives, and he conceived it his duty to call the attention of the House to the manner in which it was conducted.— The House he was satisfied had never assumed power or privilege but for the people's protection, and there fore he was ready to maintain them. At the meeting he had offered himself to their notice to deliver his sentiments, but was not permitted, for general cla mour was the order of the day. (Mar, hear.) Any one who was known to be of a contrary opinion was insulted, and many wished to speak on that side, but were not allowed. The Honourable Baronet asserted that the majority of the Livery did not entertain the doctrines which the petition contained, and lie should be unfit to represent that city if he did not state so much. effear, hear.) He was satisfied from the de claration issued at the counter-meeting, that the re spectable part of the Livery were of different senti ments. He must therefore maintain the sentiments of the declaration, and could not subscribe to the general opinions of the petition, nor lend a hand to support it, but vote for the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Sir JAMES SHAW observed, that• the Worthy Baronet bad very properly stated that the Meeting was legally convened. With respect to its being nu merously attended, there might be a few thousands. The description of them was of a general nature ; there certainly were many very respectable Livery. men present. When he delivered his sentiments in the Hall, he had stated that the language of the pe tition was not the language nor sentiments of the great body of the Livery. There had been another meeting s►nce ; and to the declaration issued at that meeting be understood there were fourteen hundred names subscribed: he could state, that there were not, in his opinion, 1.1(X) Liverymen at the Common-hall : he felt it however to be his duty to give support to the petition. Mr. WHITBREA D expressed" his surprise at the conduct of the Right Hon. Secretary in objecting to the petition, and his conduct in applauding the senti ments of the two Hon. Baronets after the statement of the other Hon. Baronet who presented the peti tion. With respect to the smallness or largeness of the majority in favour of the petition, his surprise was excited that the Right Hon. Gentleman, who, in concert with his colleagues, persuaded a majority of 38 only to send Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower, that he should contend tha . the small number pre sent was not the decision of the whole body, thongh the metting was nearly unanimous, was too much. The Right Honourable Gentleman had objected to the expression in the petition of " Where is the dig. nity and justice of the House ?" As well might they have said, Wh-re was the common sense of the House when they threw a shield over the Right Ho nourable Gentleman, and the Noble Lord when 'char.: ged with having abetted corruption P' The House might talk of preserving its dignity, but might not the people after such a proceeding advise them, if they wished to preserve their dignity, to begin by re tracing their steps, and expunging the resolutions complained of, which were a di grace to the House ? Had not the House promulgated the doctrine that seats were bought and sold, and yet when the people retorted on their own declarations they must n't be received. What was the language of the people ? why that the construction of the House was bAd Let the House look to their own Journals to be sa tisfied that theltssiAtion was t• tie. Did not a Right Honourable Gentleman, Mr. Yorke, shut the doors of the House while another Right Honourable Gen tleman shtit the ears of the S wereign ; and did not the first Right Honourable Gentleman, after obtain, ing a Tellership of the Exchequer for his services, go down to Cambridge, where he was beloved as a pri vate gentleman, to be returned ; but the electors were so dissatisfied with his public col:duct, that they re. jected him : and what was the consequence ? Why, after being appointed to a situation of high official trust, he was obliged to be returned for a b-rough In the Crown Office the people were told that Mr. Yorke was nominated to a seat en the House of Corn. mons by a Peer of the realm ; could the House, after this, complain if the people talked or the construction of the House of Commons, and complained of it ? The Hon. Gentleman saw no objection to the peti tion on account of its language. The Middlesex pe tition was rejected, yet that petition was not so strongly worded as the Westminster petition, which was received. Then conies the City of London, end that was to be rejected because the petitioners had been studious to avoid giving offence. Whatdid Ministers want ? Did they desire that the subject should pe tition according to the form u:iich they should pre scribe ? And was it intended, in case they should remain long enough in office, to tell the people that unless they did so, they should not petition at all.— Mr. Whitbread then adverted to the opinions deli. vered by the Right Honourable Secretal y on the pre ceding,night, .with respect to the case of Mr. Wilkes ; and, he observed, that to the struggles of that patriot, assisted by the legal opinions of Lords Camden and Chatham, on the subject of General Warrants, the people were mainly indebted for the preservation of their remaining liberties. He then noticed the refusal of the Right Honourable 3entleman to allow the Li very to approach the Throne ; and observed, that the name of the Sovereign had been indecorously used to sanction Ministers in their ref usal. He contended, that the Levee, from 17'7.5, to the year 1809, was the proper place to present Addresses ; that until the Right Honourable Gentleman refused to allow them to see the ling, they had never been denied ; that the obstructions which they had met with were truly stated by Mr. Cartwright, and was proceeding in his observations on the former discussion, when The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER .1.1 - ,rose to preer. Th e H on . G ent l eman, he ee.n„. was clearly disorderly in r ef err i ng to a to m . ? dthae." . 1 Mr. WHITBitEAD ad m i tte d t h at he Was ; l i e, 'order. He then proceeded to comment on the out duct of my Lord Hawkesbury, when S e -;. cre:i (It State, who, he understood, never presented ore ;:a. drcss. In what situation then, he observed, did t e subject stand ? After some further observation s (4 1 these topics, the Honourable G ent l eman cot:tended, that the House would be dep art i ng more and tr,(l, ' from its dignity if it refused to receive the peti t ;,... and would be committing an a ct o f i n j ustice to ::',.. pimple. Mr. WILBERFORCE rose io to suggest the N e. priety of adjourning the debate, in orde,ormtougliilc•ehtirt: for mature deliberation. When he considered tl-e extreme responsibility of the b o dy it ,fresent petition emanated, he could not bin elc ct ,i. tingly wish that the final deci s i on upon t h e recept,ol, or rejection of it should be after full censideration. It was due to the Livery, after the calm manner i s which the two former petitions had ken considce(l, that they should experience similar attenti,: n . 1:., Would' rather that the result of the deliberatio n s i iol ,, i be after the. petition had been attentively read, and not that the House should come to a vote upon the casual reading of it at the table. Sure he WAS that Iu r resp e ctltomt:, by so doing the House would be sheenwtiny the first city in the world, and to the peopl e of Eng. land. He could not conceive any injury could corns from adjourning the debate for m and therefore should move " that the debate be ad. journed till to-morrow " Mr. W. SMITH had read the Petition nth care, and was prepared to vote immediately. He thouel:t the opinions of the Right Honourable Secretary vot of all time and place, and if acted upon likely is lead to eniless disputes. It had been agreed on ail hands, that the meeting of the Livery was legal, tlvir 1 the majority were in favour of the Petition, bet 11, ;7 . 1 it was objected that the sentiments were such as could not be received. Why, it was not likely the re:i. tioners would petition against what they did not l;k2, and therefore the Petition must in some degree k eh. jectionable. With respect to the two former Peti.l tions, he had objected to the Middlesex Petition, k cause it contained offensive expression. The present Petition did not contain aoy thing of that nature, bet merely asserted matters cf fact, which in their kliet they stated to exist. On this ground therAnr, of thc Petition stating facts, he should vote for its lying ca the table. Mr. BARHAM thought there was no ground to induce the House to refuse the Petition. He had read it attentively, and could not see to what pa!! any reasonable ground of objection could be statei!,' unless it was to that part which alledged that mitr:ltr bad been committed, when, in point vf fact, thAt allegation had not been proved. He agre:%lll 4 6 Honourable Gentleman, (Mr. Whitbread) that, :Is to matter, the first petition was the strougor ti.e second less strong, and this least of all. Bat he rr. iected the second, not on account of the terms, bat because it was not a peti.ion at all. Of the. przscet, he did not know to` what pai t to object. To that part which asked, « where is your justice and dignity ?" he saw no objection, but on the contrary snbscvi:,A to the opinion as referable to the case alluded, a, k deed he did to many of the assertions in the Lord A. HAMJLTON conceived that no alarm could be excited so gf....at as that in which a miniv:y succeeded in dragging along with them this Here, in their objection to the subjects' Petitions. M..: parts of the petition now under cinsideration had :!•i sanction of the House, for they were expressions vsel and adopted by the House, and caught by the I'a:- timers, who infused them into the petition. As to the dignity of the House being affected, he must r ies- to the resolutions of last year on the su!ject (,f die charges against two of his M.►jesty's Ministers, which resolutions did not increase the dignity of tlie House. Such being his opinion, he should on sonic future dosi , move to have them expunged. If the House ex;wctc.l respect and a proper attention to dignity, they limit begin to practice it, and not be content with mere de., clarations. Mr. C. ADAMS thought the petition was rather of a mandatory nature. The Hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between the assertions in it, which thought made all the difference, and Jiewed that th! petitioners, though guarded in their language, nic.int to convey a strong. sense of induect insult. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIE( . 2":'. desired the House to look at the substance 'of the paper, and then to say what it was, • 7 or not it was meant as an insult. Were they to sul- the Journals to see what was (.:- what was not .' insult ? They were to consider whether the Ptipct which had just b. - en read was an insult . , uithoutcon sulting forms and precedents. He desired the House ,to attend to what the l'et;tion stated, and then pro. matinee whether it was cous:stent with the dignity of the House to receive it ? They said that the yn ina of the House of Commons, in imp: t"° of their iellow.sobjects, was not only a pinstlaw,but that no House of Commons, no King, no Parliament, Legislature upon earth could' make it legal. Then they said, that the construction of the House Pre vented their feeling surprise at this conduct ; and in addition to this, they expressed their indignation disgust at a vote of the House of Commons! Cony any one doubt, then, that it was intended to instill the House, under the mask of a pretended It might, perhaps, be said, that the vote at %%114h they had expressed their indignation and disgust was one in which he Was particularly concerned, and that this was a ground of objection with him to the recer tion of this petition. He had evidence to chew that he would not have objected merely on that ground. —A former petition, which condemned the irate is question, had been received, and with his concur rence, because he thought that the House ought ta put the best construction possible upon petitions. — But when they came week after week, and day after day, manifestly with a disposition to insult the House, it was high time that the House should look to i:s own dignity. In their attempts to vilify and ilegia.le the House, he was sorry to say that persons nitliin it seemed to follow Otero, nay, to set the example the insulting language which they employed = an.: the Honourable Gentleman opposite seemed to ta.;-t the lead against the House—(Hear, heir.) If otx petition of this kind should be received, then the ar gument would be that none of the mine deseriptit'-ti should be refaced. He hoped, however, the H 4 t;c• wotet never glow this great principle to be or,: $ yield to them, He was tilling to modify the Bill in " That the pet compliance with the suggestions of his Noble and Mr, Aldan Learned Friend ( Lord lllenbnrougli ), and he trusted Honour.* ble it would not be attempted nova to throw out the Bill of the petition -when- the Lords were not surhaioned, and when an do so after his - oppoiatiOti was wholly unexpected, • had.stated the Lord HOLLAND vaiirmly panegyriied the me- veiled. The ; • gives which had 'induced his. Noble and Learned of.the Friend (Lord Erskine) to bring - in this fill, the ex- Livery could 1 galenite of his heart, the splendour of his talents, and Contain them. the services he had rendered to the brws of his coml. were not abuvd try—Much, however, us he lamented that he sh...ld it. It that we be compelled to differ with bit Noble and Learocd a body of ;nen . _ , PARLIAMENTART PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY S. In the Comouttee of Privileges on the R oxburgh Peerage Mr. Grimes 9/115 finally heard on behalf of General Ker, and Ur. IVANIYOCHIE in.reply for Lady Essex Ker. Further pro ceeding to-rnorrow. S•ince Locnl and Private Bil*were brought up by Lord MIL TCO4, Lord Came:As MANNERS, Mr. Low Noes, Mr. INGON, and other Members of the HOLise of Commons, and read'a first The Scots and Irish Judges'Salaries Augmentation Bill was read a second time aud committed for to-morrow. In the case of " 'Mane v. the Earl of Cassilis," judgment Was given, on the motion of the Loan CU A N cra.i.nß, dismissing the Appeal and in the case of " Douglas v. Wilson was s • armed. CRIMINAL LAW. Lord HOLLAND expressed a wish to more the second read ing of the. Criminal Law Amendment Bill on Titunday. Lord ELLENBOROUGH t.hserved, that the sullk!ct was one of great 'moment, and wished that furitur time might be Elven • Ibr its consideration. , Lord HOLLAND asoented, and Friday se'nnight was agreed upon, for which day the lands were ord.:red to be summoned. CRUELTY TA ANIMALS. The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill for more effectually preventing Malicious and Branton Cruelty to Animals. Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that upon further cons;Aering the expressions used in the Bill, be thought the words 46 cut" and 4;4 Wound" too inde finite. The word, 44 cut" might be applied to a cut with a whip, and might be cause - of much vexation to individuals, from charges bebig *made against them under the Bill. The word 44 wonnd" was also liable to objection, as not being sufficiently definite. He therefore proposed that the expression should be, kill, stab, or maim. _ Lord ERSKTNE was disposed to agree to the amendment which his Noble and Learned Friend. ap peared to think necessary to render the Bill sufficiently definite. He at the same tithe pressed upon their Lordships the necessity of addiiting some measure of this description, in order to prevent those acts of cruelty upon animals, which were unfortunately too frequently committed. He .-ssured their Lordships that neither the trunk nn the table, nor five trunks l:ke it, would hold all the letters he had received, stating instances of cruelty towards animals. His Lordship read a letter which hashad received the preceding day stating two instances of great cruelty, but in which the parties could not be convicted, because malice against the owner.s of the animals could not be proved. He was aware, that to render punishable cruelty committed with malice towards the animal, was com mencing a new mra in legislation, and therefore he wished to proceed cautiouslf There was a moral sense amongst mankind, which led them in general to use animals with kindness, and he, was persuaded that if the Bill passed, it would greatly tend to the im provement of morality. Lord ELLENBOROUGH could not help difTer kg in some degree with his Noble and Learned Friend. He had strong objections to making a new sera in legislation upon this point. He was of opinion that the moral sense of mankind was sufficient, as it hitherto had been, for the protection of animals ; and it was to be observed that in no country under the sun was there any system of legislation for the protection of animals, except so far as related to the interests of man. He was not therefore prepared to approve altogether of the principle of the Bill ; but at any rate it was incumbent upon the House to render its enactments so definite and certain, that it might not be rendered an instrument of vexation and op pression. It was with this view he had moved his *amendment ; and he must also object to the Bill being extended, as it was at present, to sheep and swine.— Those were animals very apt to trespass ; and the previsions of the Bill, if applied with respect.to them, might lead to great oppression. A pig might get into a cottage, and bed eating the cottager's potatoes ; the cottager might strike the pig with a shovel, and for thus wounding the pig Might, under the Bill, be imp: isoned for a-month. There were other cases of oppression - which might arise out-of such a Bill, and it was therefo're necessary that it should be very cau tiously and. definitrly worded. With respect to acts of cruelty committed publicly upon animals, these were earere lues law-es, and the parties committing them were liable to indictment. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in not oppos:ng the progress of the Bill in its pre.amt stage, wished it to be understood, that he might not thereby be consi dered as precluded from saying Content or Not Con tent, to the passing of the Bill, according to the shape in which it came out fern: the Committee. In looking at this Bill fort the protection of animak, he could not help :asking, why, as the ox w.ts mentioned, the bull was not also included ? The Earl of LAUDERDALE was decidedly hostile to the Bill, conceiving that the moral sense of mankind was amply sufficient .for the protection of animals, an] that nothing could be. more d;mgcrotis than attempting to eofor:e principles of morality or humanity by legislation. Lord RED ESDA LE olijected altogether to Irgis- Feting upon the principle now assumed. The however, was deiieiznt in the vcs y object which it sought, as it did not extend its- protection to aninials, which it might have been supposed v. ould have natu ral/4- come under its provisions. Thus, for instance, the bull was not mentioned, although it was well known that balls were cruelly used by being baited, whilst, at the same time, bull-baits were a great terror And annoyance to the ncighWurhood in which they took place. Lord ERSKINE lamented the ttirn which the disk eussion had taken, and which could not have been e pected after tae support his Bill had experienced in the last Session, or atter the manner in which the se cond reading had been agreed to only on the prece ding day. The omission of the boil might be called a bull in leg ; but there ha 4 been strom ; objec tions upon t his point, and he had thought it better to -Id thr Min— modify the Bill in - Noble and he trusted at the Bill aid when an t: • Friend, he Ovid hot ag r ee wit h hint as tell - tht ear • , . . dieney . ot introducing .this flSw priliciphi. the le- Olation 'of the country. - . The LORDCHANCELLOR proposed that Lord • Walsingham. shotrid _leave the Chair, :.nd that'the' l Committee should sit ag,tin on another day, and the Lords be sumtuoned. . . . This was agreed to, and Cie dininittee appointed for this day se'nnight. Adjourned till to-morrow (this day). • ---> HOUSE OF COMMONS. The Earl of Essex's Estate Bill went through a Committee. The House went into a Committee on the Act, relating to Herrings, which is near expiring.--,s resolution was agreed to for reviving the same. A Person from the Excise Office presented an Account of the Duties on Spirits, which was laid on the table. Mr. INTTLEFON postponed his motion which stood for this day respecting Captain Foskett till Thursday next, and the mo don on the sinne subject, which stood for Thursday, until that day se'nnight. The Irish Stage Coach Bill was postponed till Friday. 'the Stage Coach Eill went , through a Committee, and the Report was received, and ordered to be taken into further consi deration on Monday se'nnight. Th e Howse went into a Committee on the necessity of making compensation to S6atch Extractors.—The resolution to that effect was agreed to. , The Report of the Dill for abolishing Commissary and Inferior Courtsin Scotland was brought up and agreed to. Mr.'SHAW I.I.:VEVRE presented a Petition. from certain Inn-keepers, respecting the WU now before Parliament, for teir relief. The Honourable Gentleman stated, that he shoulfl nfove that this Petition, and some others on the same subject, should be referred to a Committee.—The Petition was then laid on the .; . A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships had agreed to several Private Bills. Mr. WHARTON brought up the Bill for enabling his Ma jesty to grant an annuity to the Duke of Brunswick. It was read a first time, and ordered to be read the second time to-morrow. He likewise brought in a Bill for granting additional annuities to discharge the Exchequer fund; and a Bin for bringinc the duties on Hawkers and Pedlars; under that of hackney-coachmen. They were both read a first time, and ordered for a second read ing to-morrow. He then brought up Papers relative and supplementary to the Navy Estimates, pursuant to an Order of the I louse. They were ordered to lie on the table. _ _ _ Mr. CIiOKER, pursuant to Order, brought up copies of Disratches between 1-Ord Hawkesbury and Mr. Villiers.—Or iered to ie on the table. Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON gave notice of a motion for expunging from the Journals the Resolution relative to laird Castlereagh's intended exchange of a Writcrship for a Seat in the House, on Friday, the lbth. Mr. CANNING moved for various Papers relative to Spain.— Ordered.