Star. — London, England, 1810-05-04 00:00:00

the cis F .l.t 1 1 3 use 111 r...! tie do Sta t 1 ne 15 to to (la ti Pe ii Cn ha it: 0": b: 1 1 1 1 - a tv tI 1 .1 11 I • , • P' ar• a h ei ti. 1p ac ii. t t• pis pert he had not seem theta so statesi b any ntws r Whet he had said he belie v ed w as this , th at N ite. t ought it rather a . curious moment for the Gen. t ,, 2fe s el of the Opposition to spew that they rejoiced t h e co mmitment is of Sir Francis Burdett. He said t- tt he had heard i t stated b y one Gentleman " anlonco s them, that the occasion required them to ernment, and from that sentiment r ally round th e Gov b r e ez been c heered particularly by the Members on ti r ptosj tron Benches, he was justified in assuming • I eeneral. It bad been stated by one H o nour - e e • • , a bl e Ge!ttl eman. that even if his Majesty's Ministers I va to have hereditary offices in the Government, the House ought to rally round them on such an oc casion. As that Honourable Member Was in his l ii.ncs he would correct him if he was w r on g ; b ut s, I s e impression upon his mind was that he had made u se of the expression ; but as to his having said that all the persons in that House were not honest, but the i e v who concurred in opinions with himself, he mild se recollect his having used any such expression, and e e was sure he had not, becense he had never thought s e ; but in or out of that House, he should always state flee!) . what he thought, though he could assure else. Itheat Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby) ne w with offence towards him personally. In stat ing his sentiments, however, as to the conduct of public men, he should never conceal the opinions which he c onscientirmsls, and at the meeting, alluded to . He had doetenothing but what he had a right to and what he should always do as an elector of l'.'semiester. Having said so much as to the attack ve:ch had been made upon him, he had only one word to add and the subject of the Petition under con ,eicsstion. He misted that _the Right Honourable f eereleman oppe ite (the Chancellor of the Excite gate) would pursue the same course with respect to this as he had done with respect to the Weetmioster Petition. In that case the Right Honourable Gen tleman had crenented to receive the Petition, as con oinieee the sentiments of the Electors of Westminster. L'h e should put a similar construction upon the pre ore, which was the construction upon which it ought to be received, he was sure the Right Honourable Gentleman would have no difficulty in acceding to rte motion that it he laid upon the table. Mr. PONSONBY, in, explanation, stated that he had not intended any attack upon the Hon. Gentle:. wan. What he had said was directed against the itaements in the newspapers, purporting to be re. pots of the Hon. Gentlemen's speech. As he had lose celled upon to state where he had seen thee re roes, he should inform the Hon. Gentleman, in the .11. min; C;:r.^Lide and the Time: newspapers ; and also h :whet., the name of which he did not recollect ; bet all the accounts were nearly similar. What the Hen. Gentleman had just stated, corroborated his assertion that the Hon. Member had never made use bf eenres-ions stated to have beta used by him. Mr. WARDLE bad never seen the statements sileded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and what he had said at the meeting he had already stated in reply in the Right Hon. Gentleman. Sir rliN ANSTRUTHER, as the Hon. Mem ber seemed to have alluded particularly to him, trusted lie should be ieduleed in making a few esvervatione. When that Hon. Gentleman imputed to the Members ea the opposition side of the House, that they had sejeiced at the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett, 'he was of opinion that he should have looked rather to their vows than to their cheers for evidence of tieir sentiments. For himself, he was one of those who thought the House had not exceeded its just and constitutional privileges in that instance. How far it Viight be desirable to exercise these privileges on any particeiler occasion was quite another question. But such privileges the House not only had, but ought to have ; and without them it must soon cease to exist as an integral branch of the legislature. The Hon. lilenber, hi quoting the particular expression which heivertently fell from him in the former debate, 4 old have sleeted it correctly. When he had stated err observma}sas respecting hereditary Ministers, he did it for the purpose of decl trine, that, if it was a Ou between the continuance of the present ilhiotes in office, and the existe'ice of the Consti tstion itself, he cellist have no doubt in preferring even them as the Government, rather than see the Constitution overturned. That was what be had sail, and should still say. He should never inwever ceasa to use all constitutional reieans to procure their dhnihsal from office, and to induce his Majesty to place his Governmsnt in other and abler hands. But desirahle as he considered such a change, if it wits to lie effected only by the destruction of the Govern ment itself, and of the Constitution, there he was dc tanned t.) make his stand, as he looked upon it as much better to take the Government ever. as it is, than to hazard the overthrow of all Government. It sets in the recollection of the House that this was the tentimeat contained in the expression adverted to by the Han. Gentleman, who, in quoting it, should have, in fainoss, quoted it correctly. Mr. W. SMITH had never felt more difficulty even any. subject then upon the eery important gins ton under consideration. It enter, happened that men' of tl!t boa intentions differed in opinion tot/ ese/s upon teits el this description ; and in proof of this he could rot lelp adverting to the speech of his Honourable Trite) (Mr. Ward). That Honourable Member had voted against receiving the Westminster Petition, and yet thought the House was in consistency bound s)receive this. Now in both th ese o pini o ni he must e•ter from his Honourable Friend. He hod not only !heed 10 - receiving, but contended that the House was halr.d to receive the former petition ; not because it t easthe petition of the Electors of Westminster, but i sciuse it referred to the conduct of their Officer, and Ilet to the cendeet of the House. But sorry as he yeas r di _r fr om hi s Right Ilenourable Friend, he enst say th a t h e thonght this petition infinitely more heathy; than the fornher—and in forming this °pi le io he could not avoid entertaining the supposition t•et its was intended to be so. Opinions ought to be red gat broad distinctions, and as he considered the esestion respecting Sir Francis Burdett to he as yet ease, 146s', at least in the opinion of the parties, though n !m • eet never come to be decided in any other tribu tmi but that Honse, they who were patties ought to take care to state their opinions simply upin a ques t:" at issue, and net authoritatively. He was of opinion that there was throughout this petition an en d• •hour to try bow far that House - would bear the offensive Language made use of. He had not felt it woe, , ••• y o• eeliev , • that it was so with the Westmin- Iter l' e t i ti° ll ; bgt e4ertaining such lief ou &J)is oc- 'easion, he had no alternative Gut to reject the 1,0.1 tion. He would not allow that thus to reject the pe tition would be to restrain the right of petitioning— the assertion was unjust and untrue. During nearly 26 years lie had sat in that House as a Representative of the people of England, and in. the - whole of that period, he might have taken the unpopular, but never had the unconstitutional side of any question—never .had he suffered his judgment to be biassed upon any question ley an improper bias, so as to vote contrary to the popular opinion. He trusted therefore that after so long a period no such bias could be now urged against him. He had ever been, and was still, a rfriend to the right of petition in the trite roper constitutional mode—but the licentiousness of peti tioning, no less than the licentiousness of publish ing, ought, in his opinion, to be restrained. The line he was pursuing ow this occasion was the most useful, though not the 'most popular ; nor, it any popular tumults were apprehended, the safest ; as they who appeared neutral were always sere, in case of a conflict, to be trampled upon and crushed by both parties. He trusted his character would se cure him from misrepresentation, as to the vote he should give upon this question, and that k would not be supposed that he gave that vote because of any opinion that might be entertained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Right Honourable Gentle man had hitherto little to do, and was not likely hereafter to have more to do, with controulinl his vote. But here he must be allowed to remark, that the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. NVardle), was not correct in representing the Members of the Opposition as having rejoiced at the commitment of Sir Francis Burdett. On the contrary, they had voted against that measure, and on the division there appeared no less than 1.3'2 against the• commitment. How they then could be stated to have rejoiced at the commit ment of that Honourable Baronet, was a paradox, or rather a mistake not to be easily reconciled with any strength of memory. As the present Petition differed so materially from the last, they ought to reject it.— The House was bound to maintain its dignity and privileges; •but at the same time he must say, that he believed that House had lost a great part of its weight with the public ; and he feared he should add justly, by many of its own acts. But notw•ithstand• ing it had lost much of its weight, it was not the less bound to•keep up its dignity and privileges. He was of opinion that it would not retrieve the confidence of the public till it should be reformed, yet still was it necessary to keep up its dimity. If they Were to give up their privileges, whilst the House was in its present state, they would not be able to re trieve them when it should come to be reformed, as he was sure it w•)uld, and must in time. It the House of Commons ' should not transmit its pri vileges unimpaired to its successors, it would not i perform its duty to the count! v at large, for whose benefit these privileges were given. They had been chosen in theory, as he trusted they soon would in practice, the Representatives of the People, invest ed with privileges for their good. The Constitetion of that House, therefore, they could no surrender without betraying their trust. As to the reform of that House, he had himself signed retitions, praying for that object, and should not hesitate to sign a Pe tition again of the same description. It would ever be his pride to support every coesiit itional proposi tion for a Reform in Parliitmear. ; but he should ne ver be a participator wite those whose object was to degrade that House in the eyes of the puluic. He considered that House as the Representatives of thel People, and could not approve of any means taken to lower it in the estimation of the people. Here he must say, thet he could notheip thinking the vow! of ' the other nigh: vilest unfortimate, because to tit:a was to be ascribed a great part of the inconvenieneies which laa.! since been felt. If the House could have been persuelel on that occasion to adopt the mode rate course, he was of oFinion that all the subsequent inconeeivieneies would hare been avoided. Ilid the II use on many former occenions, when applied to for that purpose, acceded to any measure of Re form, thci would have had the country with them is all their measures ; because no doubt would exist as to their motives ; being, as they would have been, the true and legitimate representatives of the people. It was hecaiase they were not considered in that light, as the real aid legal, end cceetittutionel representa tives of the nation, that so se ash ill blood existed . amongst the people against them. He was aware,.' that in what he had said, he might perhaps give of- 1 !seise t both parties ; bnt he was :onscious that he had no such intention, and should trust to their care d •ur to acquit him of it. After what he had said, l he should vote liar rejecting the Petition. Mr. MAURICE FITZGERALD thought that the House should be slow in rejecting the petitions of the people, and that it would be a most dangerous impression fur the public to conceive that all petitions would be rejected, the terms of which would he dis pleasing to the Administration of the day. Ile was anxious to support the privileges of the House, but he did not consider that they were involved in the present question. He thought that it was rather in consistent with the dignity of that Huse to have committed themselves, as they had done, against an individual. He did not deny the power of this House to commit ; but he thought that power had not been a wisely exercised on a late occasion. He did not think Ithat it would be consulting their true dignity to re , ject the petitios of the County or Middlesex on the I present occasion ; and he thought that if they did so, nothing more would remain for them to do, except to declare at once that they would receive no more peti tious from any roe Lieu of the people. It could not be said that it Wit', a jaCnbill langirtee, to say the peo ple had most undeniably a constitutional right to pe tition any branch of the legislature; and he tfionght the House had no right to check or interfere with the right cf the people, unless the lerguage of the peti- 1 tion was most evidently :pros: and insulting. There should be nothing like an i:nprin afar set upon the esti)• jects' right of petitioning. It appeared to him as if Ministers had adopte4a system which would go alto- 'thee to undermine the tight of the subject to petition —whereas he thought . that nothing but the public voice, strongly and unaluivocelly expreseed in the way of petition, could put it in the power of any set of men in that House to save the country. — He could perceive no other means by which the min try could be saved. He must cootess, that he could not see any danger which Was to be apprehended in that House from popular encroachment. He !old net seen any effect preduce4 ewe from ytr4tr iplitwg:eir Whatever danger the House of Commons Were etc posed to from foreign influence, it certainly dii not appear that the influence of the peopie.w , Tild have mach weigh: there. He could not, hoverer, pass over in silence an observation of an Hon. G_sntleman BMr. Wardh), that the commitme n t of Sir Fra2c;s urdett to the Tower was a matter of hailial and ieioicing to those who sat on that, Si if. of the House. He perceived that those who sat on that aide were the most subject to the attacks of that Hon Mem ; but he would wish to know in what part of the House he would lash them to sit ? Would he have them go over and sit upon the tfoisterial Benches ? It a-P -pearedto him, that those Ministers who rebuked the City of London for presenting,t petition on the an tra Convention,"and who act4Zl in the game manner on the more infamous and wicked expedition to Wal- cheren, were most decided enemies to the Ogle. of pe. titianing. If there were any persons in the country actuated by feelings malignant to the Constitution, the way to disappoint ther malice would be to receive and coolly discuss the petitions presented to them.— He could not, however, see any of that sort of feeling in the proceedings of any of the public bodies. Mr. BARHAM (in explanation) declared, that he was not one of those who were described as cheering the committal of Sir Fr Inds Burdett. He felt the vote that he ~h ould give for the rejection of this Peti tion as a most painful d:ity, and he had expressed his feelings in the Resoltition whieh he had moved. Mr. WI LnE It FORC E said, that there was no per son more disposed than himself to treat with extreme tenderness the right of petitioning. He should he very unwilling to reject any Petition, merely from an inadverent expression which might appear disrespect ful ; but when he considered the entire language of this Petition, he felt himself, under all the circum- stances of the case, compelled to reject it. If they did not reject the, present Petition, he did not see how they could ever in future ;eject any Petition on the ground of its being concLed in disrespectful and of., fensive language. The shades of what was offensive in expression were infinitely varied ; but it did appear' to him that, in the present Petition, the object of the Petitioners was purposely stated iit most offensive lan gnace. The Petitioners miht have come forward and stated every elin7 which thee thought proper to state in language which would not have been offensive or insuking to the House. There was this cliff:fence between the Middlesex Petition and the Petition of Westminster which had been received The Mid- dlesex Potit;on stated broadly directly, that the 1 House of Common,: acted c3nlrary to the law ; and, 1 in the mannLr r.i exi)ressing it, appeared as if tho law was so cis' r and undeniable, tint no one could have misunderstood it ; but that in acting against the law, th,y hal acted against their own conviction. Now the Petition from Westminster did net go that length. It stator', that " in our opinion," and '6 we are convinced," and in o i naliti;tl expressions of that ture, that the law had v !en violated ; bit it did no state it Positively, as t! , :6 I\7iddlex Pet4:on did. It was true that the Middlesex Petition (ided in the technical manner with a prayer, which the Westminster Petition did not ; but he would comider much:more the eeneral spirit of the Petition, and whether it was meant to be insulting or not, that be would the mere technical form. And yet the Right Hen. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzgerald) who new e) .strenuously supported the present Petition, thought, on the question of the Westminster Petition, that it was a point extremely, eoubtful, and that the scale barely preponderated in 'favour of its reception. As this had been his opinion on that occasion, he did not see how he could now fairly charge his Majesty's Ministers with hing to destroy the right of petitioning, when they had con sented to receive the Westmins:er Petition, which was couched in sad' language as to have made the Right lion. Geotlemin himself doubt whether it ought to be received or not. Ile felt himself obliged to vote for the rejection of this Petition ; and he did so with the less reluctance, as there was nothing it it which mieitt net at a future time be stated to the House in plan totobjectionable terms. Mr. Et..I,ISOINI said, that if he really conceived Jett tile House was held in such contempt by the country as it was often seeited to be, he should feel ashamed to sit theme; but he was convinced that there was no foundation for the statement—(4 6 No, cer tainly not," from the Ministerial Benches). To whore were the country to look for any importaat advantages ? was it to the Honourable Baronet who was in the Tower, or any of his partizans ? It ap appeared to him that a party had sprung.up in the country which it was the duty of that House to crush. He objected to the Petition, as being in many parts false. It was not in the execution of the Siwaker's Warrant that innocent blood had been spilt ; but the • loss of some lives proceeded altogether from the neces sity of preserving the public peace, and the impossibi lity of V w'military bearing any longer the many indig. nities and attacks they had been exposed to. The mob, on the late cecasien, were in some respects more dangerous than that which assembled in the time of Lord 3 George Gordo t. The mob of :Lord George Gordon had not cow!, as the late mob had done, with pistols in their pockets, and did not, like them, fire upen the Military. Uni!:-r the recent cir cumstances, the candect of the military w.is most ex. cmplary. He should vote Lir rejecting the Petition, as being unfounded in truth. Mr. MORRIS didatot perceive any thing in t,he present petition which was so very offensive as that the House should refuse to receive it. The debate appeared to have taken a very different turn frorn what it had taken the preceding tight. On the last night the objection seemed to be merely that the power of commitment was denied ; bat on the pre sent oceasioa toe objection was generally that the language of the Petition was offensive. He did not think, that asserting that the nothe had acted crih vary to law in-a late instance, was denyng that they had a right of committing. They might have that right on other occasions from the necessity of the case, and yet it might happen that they hod it nut in the case of the libel, which WAS an cefence that - neigh: be punished in the due course of law. The people might well doubt that they had such a right ; and it it should turn out that they had it not, then it must be allowed that they had done arm illegal act. It was said, by one of his Majesty's Ministers, that the House must now make a st.wd, or that their table would be covered with similar Petitions. This how ever was not his opinion; nor did he expect that many other c unties would petition on this subject, whatever might be the (;tic: of the re l itiew for Mid- . . Miser- He thought the Honse would in tea &tees re . :ietre itself from hearing petitions similar in sub. . stance, by rejecting the present petition. On the contrary, the rejeceien of it would naturally le -el lea anothef County Meeting, and another Pet ..e ei.— This, however, should be no consideration, if the i'ei vileg..s of the House were s&-iutisly attaekect; .utif they were not seriously attacked, it wallet he -v girth considering whether any real advantage would be ob tained by rejecting the petitheni. Colonel WOOD felt himself under the necess!ty of rejecting the Petition, oa accnnnt of th • d:srespt ctful and eirensive terms in which itTves coached. He per fectly agreed with the Honceireble Gentleman who spoke tact in reie respect, in thinking that whetev, r might he the fate of the present Petitioe, there was no probab lity of many similar Petitions being precenwd from other ewieties. He was convinced that this Petition was by no means what it professed to he, a Petition from the Freeholders of Middleeex in full - county assemieled. He was convinced that not one third of the persons who attended that meeting were Freeholders. He himself .vas a Freeholder tit Mid dlescx, but staid away from the meeting, for the stem reasons that many cdter Freeholders did, upon the certain conviction that they could nit obtain a fait heering, and that many hundreds of persons would come to that meeting horn tit% metropolis, who were got Freeholder:, but who were determined tea drewn, by noise and alarm, the expressions of any sentiment bat whet they came to se 'pert. He wes sure that the real Freeholders of Middleeex would consider themselves disgraced by sech a Petition t and that if the County were to b.: palled, nine Freeholders out of ten would rote against it; He, therefore, in the name of the Freeholders of, Middlesex, protested against this Petition, as rot cOnteining their !sentiments. Lord ARCHI B ALll HAMILTON did nor think the language of the Petition so disrespectful as to make it necessary for the House to reject it. He had himself stood up for the right of commitment, but he thought it perfectly fair and allowable for any Petitioner to deny the right. The word' protest' had been objected to, as offensive to the dignity cf ./ that House ; but he did net perceive any thing in that word more thin a solemn denial of the right, the exercise of which they complained of. It appeered to him that there were other parts in the Petition which were more offensive, yet of which no notice had been taken. Ile did not like to hear asserted, thit all public men were comipt, and that they were 'ocuelit and sold. - The Middlesex Petition seemed to have introduced that doctrine rather unnecessarily. upon the present occarion. The Petitioners dwelt pointedly on the sale of seats in that House, and on the corrupt state of the representation. This topic, in troduced, as he thought, unnecessarily, appeared to him more disrespectful to the House, and conveying me-.• offence than the use of the word protest, which had been so much dwelt on. Neve - rthelcss those parts of the Petition which appeared to convey the greatest offence were passed over without any observation, while others of much less moment were urged as a ground for rejecting the Petition. He did not ap prove of the language of the Petition, but he could not firing himself to reject it. Mr. STEPHEN had voted on the night before for ail tiejournment of this question, in order to give Gen tlemen an opportunity of comparing the different parts of the Petition, and coming to a deiiberate de cision upon their tendency. By this delay they wer• enabled to judge, whether this Petition was presented fir the purpose of doinA away what might be fairl7 coneidered as a grievance, or whether it was intended as a studied insult on the House—as an attempt to make it the instrument of its own dishonour, the record of its own reproach. With respect to the question, whether that House was bound to receive every Petition, however couched, which came before it, there was bet one opinion, with the tole exception of a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. There was no doubt the right of p:titioning was vested in the roe ple, but there was as little doubt that the right of r jetting such Petition was vested in the House, provie ded it was conveyed in indeceet or insulting terms. Theo people had an equal right to petition the King; but surely no one could contend that their address ought tit be received, if it was not drawn up in the most rea• pectful manlier. The statute of Charles 11. which ell. the right to person, declared also that that ngblll .ought to be properly regulated. With respect to the present petition, lte was afraid the delay which haa taken place had not been employed as it might in its mature consideration. He was led to this opinion • ;from the assertion of an Honourable Member oppoe f site, who s.tid he did not think the Petition denied the power of the House to commit, and that if hip thought it did, he would vote for its rejection. Novk in neither part of this sentiment could he agree. II the people saw any objectionable power assumed by that House, or any obnoxious measure pass it, tint had an undeniable right to petition against such act or such assumption, with this restriction only, that they did it in respectful terms. The present petition, however, did distinctly declare, that in committing the Howe had usurped a power " unknown to the Law, andgot warranted by the Constitution." This was surely'a denial of the power assumed by tho House. But, lest there should be any doubt, the pe titinn weet farther, and not only reprobated the pnii ci ?le, but protested against -the practice. Their pro test, too, had every form of a protest ; and they ac tually declared that they presented it in order that it 1 might be entered on the Journals, as tb.e letter of . Sir Francis Burdett was not so entered, although the vote of the House which committed him was. Now that letter had been declared by the House a flagrant I violation of its privileges ; and if after such declare tion, counter approbation of that letter presented to the Holm was not to be considered an insult, it was hard to say bow far they might be carried bb their forbearance. Some Gentlemen opposite had I declared that they conceived themselves camera. 1 ted from all blame or responsibility on this sub ' ject. as it was the conduct of Ministers, and tu, nisters alone, which had excited, those Petitions.—. This was not true ; all parties in the House had agreed as to the libellous doctrines of the letter which had caused the committal of Sir Francis &mine, a n d it was in consequence of that committal that the law tieons had lova presented. *He warned ; üblic am how they now sought individual exoneration, manta aloof in the moment of fetch an attack ; it was io e le e 4 la reguler ss stematic .itetek—the result of a *este r s I deeply considered e dangerously organiaed, an d m op by every means to be widely diguscd mow tarn pep I