The Statesman. — London, England, 1810-05-03 00:00:00

...r .. 7 , T % him, however, .to signify, that although he should second the motion of his Hon. Colleague, he did rot feel himself bound to support the Petition. ' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER inured that the Petition be again read by the Clerk. It was read accordingly. The CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER again rose, and said; • be was sure, that, from the conduct he had observed on a former day, when a etition was presented to that House (from the Electors of Westminster), containing expressions •so strong and so reprehensible, the House would rot consider him as indisposed to entertain a peti tion coming from any individual or class of his Majesty's subje,cts, _if conched in terms at all consistent with the respect due to the House. however convinced he was that the petition upon that :occaslcr contained some expressions • that ought to have been oMitted, he did not object to klit lie on the•table. lie trusted the House would see ,fities that . instance, his . almost wish to re commend to them every possible forbearance, conp. sistent with the maintenance of their own dignfti , ; but when. he coniiditred thelanguage of the pre sent Petition, he conceivedit impossible to cowl: der it in any othetlighethan that of a deliberate and unparalleleijsnsult to the House. He did not conceive that the object prayed by this Petition was of .itself a sufficient cause to its 're jection. But he would appeal to the House upon this pliin question, whether there was any Mem. ber eh° heard this Petition read, that did not con. celve it to be rather an experiment to try how far the forbearance of the House would go in the sufferance of language such as it contained; or whether it could have any other object than to insult, when it went to a direct and a declaratory censure, from the mere authority of the Peti tioners, upon the conduct of that House, in ex ercising its authority towards the person named in the Petition, by committing him to confine ment fur a violation of its privileges. Upon that part of the' Petition which commented upon the manner in which the Officer had proceeded in executing the Order of the House, he should at present forbear to say any thing, as any error or irregularity on the part of that Officer in executing the warrant committed to him, might be a question for the future consideration of the House. But the Petition, in other respects, was totally dif ferent from the style and language d Petitions presented to Parliament. It did not appeal re weectfully to the authority of the House. It slid not ask for any revision or reconsideration of the circumstances of which it complained ; but the Petitioners protest against such an exercise of the privileges of the House, and charge it with assuming and exercising powers contrary to law. The measure which the petitioners urged might take place at some time, if the wisdom of Parlia ment should deem it fitting. But was the lan guage of a Petition, from any class of sukjects, to charge that House with assuming illegal privi. hes, or to dictate to them how they should act In the exercise of their rights and privileges ? There was nothing in the Petition which ap. proacl4,l in soy degree to the character of a re spectful appeal to the autherity of Parliament. t did appear to him, therefore, that considering the language in which a former Petition was couched, considering the latigusge held• out of doors to depreciate the character and authority of that House, and seeing in the language of this Pe, lion a proof that the forbearance of the House from time to time served but to encourage new in sult, it was high time that a line should be drawn somewhere, and the present was a fit occasion for that purpose, He therefore submitted to the dis 'eretiou of the noose, whether the present Peti tion, for the causes ho lied stated, taught not to be rejected. Mr. Alderman COMRE said, he understood the 'Petition was unanimously voted by a very numerous and respectable body of Freeholders ; and as he did not know to what consequences its re jection might lead, he should vote for its reception. Mr. CAI / CRAFT hoped, as it was his inten tion to vote for the reception of this Petition, he might be permitted to state the grounds for that mote. Tho lion. Member who had just spoke, Jiad.said the Petition was unanimously voted by a very numerous and respectable Meeting of Free. hiolders ; but it did not therefore follow that the Douse should receive a Petition couched in ins proper .and offensive language; and such lan guage would determine him to oppose the recep tion of such a Petition, however numerously, unanimously, or respectably it might have been •oted. He did not, however, view the present Petition in the very objectionable light stated' by the Right Hots. Gentleman, and should therefore vote for its reception. The Right Hon. Gentle. man had professed his own unwillingness to adopt any s t e p that might have the appearance of im. petleg the right of petitioning that House ; and lie instanced his forbearance in the case of the "•**, 7Westtniustee Petition, in which he stated that there ,sere many expressions highly objectionable, and 4hich ought to have been omitted ; but fur his part, he. thought that Petition was couched in such terms as the House of Commons ought not to reject. The present Petition, though not couched precisely in the same words, was pretty much in the sante manner, and in his mind ought not to . be rejected • for the sake ef a coarse word or phrase hastily adopted. He thought it the duty of • the House of Commons to throw open a wide door • . • for peettione, * instead of evincing a disposition to ivject them upon time mere ground. of a vulgar or • e ptSjeetlonable word. When he considered how, the House of Commons was composed, and the *pinion generally entertained by the country' of the state of the representation, if something was rot done to reform that representation, the House ., must espial to find the language of petitions net very flattering. The present petition he did not think such sie one as ought to be rejected. There were several petitions received before by the House, containing . expeessiotis full as strong, and . • . yerthey were not rejected upon thateccount ; and do long as these abominations were suffered to ex ist, s o f which this people complained, in the pre ; lit state of the representation, so long woeld it be impossible fur that Mese to cummand respect from the people. • ~. ~~_ ~:. " ~' Mr. DAVIES GIDDY did not intend when he came into the House to have said a word on 'this lubject. Ile agreed that the doors of the House ught to be opened widely to receive the Petitions of all who chose to apply to them in a regular and proper manlier. All the argument on this head, however, must fall to the ground, the moment .it appeared that any application of the kind was not really a Petition, but a Paper by which it was sought, in a covert manner, to:insult the House. — The Petitioners, in this case, had dressed up as a Petition, a Paper, not by n hich they expected any redress of grievances, but by which they pre stoned to dictite to the House what they chose to thiuk right. As to any Reform, or rather to an alteration in the constitution of that House, a representation to a delegation, he had no hesita tion in declaring his opinion, that it would not tend t% the *drainage of the people. He objected, therefore, to Gentlemen taking that for granted which had not been proved, and was not con cededlo them. As to the words of the Petition, they were disrespectful in the 'highest degree. It did not contain such a prayer as the Petitioners could, by possibility, expect to be granted;. and to allow it to lie on the table would only lead to the presenting of others still more offensive. The House must make a stand against, such a practice at some time or other, and it was better to do 89 now than at any after period. It had been said to be a respectable meeting, but Gentlemen saw enough of what was to be expected from such meetings in the neighbourhood of poptifous towns, awl the - spirit of thiS meeting might be judged of from their refusing to hear a Gentleman of the highest respectability, a Member of that House (Mi. Mellish), on his attempting to deliver his sentiments on the subject. This circumstance did not add much to the argument derived from the unanimity 'of the meeting. Mr. HAWKINS' BROWNE thought the words of the Petition sheaved that it was not the object of the Petition to procure the liberation of Sir F. Burdett, a Reform in Parliament, or any other specific object. • The Petition was only made the vehicle of conveying a gross insult to the House, and a dogmatical denial of its privileges. The Petition from Westminster was capable of re. ceiving a more favourable interpretation. The present was pot. It was becoming in that House to be moderate ; but when moderation produced Only insult, then it became the House to assert its dignity. He thought the House might on a former occasion have adopted the more moderate course; but now it was necessary for them to support their proceedings. Mr. lIII3BERT said, that the moment was of critical importance, on which he strongly felt he erust speak. The Petitioners were not, like the majority of that House, convinced of the consti tutional authority of its privileges. They, on the contrary, denied that authority, and more parti cularly, questioned the legality of those acts in which it had recently been asserted. Allowance was to be made for men warm with such a subject —but he should be sorry if the warmth which might have found its way into some expressions of their Petition should be caught by the House in commenting upon those expressions. The passage which had been so much objected to, would be found at last to be no more than the most brief, abrupt, and somewhat coarse decla. ration of the opinion of the Petitioners, which they must either have indulged, or have no ground for . petitioning at all. There was another considera tion, and he begged to address it to the feelings of thu House. This question of privilege of Parlia. went was, it seemed, one,• which could not be easily submitted to any other tribunal than that of Parliament itself.- In 'proportion then as the sub jects of theßealin found the means of its legal dis cussion narrowed, in .that proportion should Par liainent open the doors to any appeal made to itself upon the subject, and not too scrupulously weigh the terms in which such an appeal was made. For these reasons he should vote for receiving the Petition. Mr. BARHAM wished, as the present was a question of very great importance, that time should be given for consideration . , and that there should be a fuller attendance of the House than there was at that moment. • If such a discus. sion hail been expected, he was satisfied the at. tendallee would have been fuller. He should therefore move that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow. If pressed for an immediate opinion, ho must say that he was against receiving the Petition. An lion. Alderman was against re.. fusing the Petition, from not knowing where the matter would end. He thought the present Peti. tion, instead of being worded carelessly. ,was worded most carefully; and receiving it would only bring on another more aggravated than the present. Wherever the HOMO did feel itself called on to stop, if it did not adopt that course at pre sent, it would be with something worse than the petition now under consideration. He Millen, however, that a decision would be come to with more effect and weight when there was a fuller at tendance, and greater leisure had been given for deliberation. Ile also thought that the rejection of the petition ought .to be followed up with soine Resolutions, expressive of the grounds on which the House had proceeded. Ile concluded by .moving, that the debate .be adjourned till to. morrow. Mr. GRENFELL seconded the motion of ad. journment, 'Mr. IL SUMNER. conceived the paper now under consideration had nothing in it of a . peti tion hut the name. Such a practice ought to be checked in liming ;.and ho saw no occasion for delaying till to-morrow what they ought to do to. day. A Worthy Alderman (Combo) was afraid .of the consequences of refusing such petition. For his own part he had no fear of the kind; Mr. A Idernati COMRK explained. Mr. LAME was of-opinion, the house had already gone too far to talk of stopping in lintisze. They had already received a Petition, which was at least sufficiently strong. He could not in his own mind conceive any thing stronger than the Petition by the Inhabitants of Westminster,. who had told the Hesse that they •had offered a gross indignity to them. lie thought the House had ... THE STATESMAN. ~.---- . _ better agree to the proposition of his Hon. Friend (Mi. Barham), that they might deliberately con sider how far they would allow that power to be stretched, which certain persons had. instilled It into the minds of the misguided "cople .ilvey had a right to carry ,to any length, by Oiling them with wild and absurd ideas of ,their rights. Though he was a friend to pe titioning, this was a petition at which he was inclined to think it ought to be viewed with more than usual strictness. • There was a disposition to deny that the House, as it was at present. constituted, afforded a legal representation of the people. Against such a doctrine lie protested, and contended that it was equal tb the discharge of those duties which it owed to the country in the consideration of its affairs both abroad and at home.. _ He felt ininitely more disposed, on a question of thii kind, to coalesce with these who entertain this opinion, than with those who thought the Representative System entirely coe: rept, and that it should be destroyed. He agreed that the terms in which the Petition was conceived were extremely offensive ; but they might be found, at the acme time, to be only a repetition of what had found its way into so many other Petitions. Ile thought it better, therefore, to assent to the proposition of his Hon. Friend, that the debate should be adjourned. Mr. WAR.DLE could' not agree that any in sult was meant to be offered to the House by the present Petition. The Petition which had been received from Westminster contained no prayer ; the present 'contained not only a prayer, but an earnest request that the House would comply with, the object of the Petition.—lie had used the freedom in that Houso to go the full length' the Petitioners now did, in expressing their opinion. These sentiments he still, with sub. mission to. the House, entertained. He had pre sumed to deny that Parliament had the right which it had assumed and exercised. Ile had been allow ed to express that opinion ; and he submitted that the Freeholders of Middlesex had the same right to express their opinion on the subject. It was quite possible by strong Resolutions to insult the House in the grossest manner, while, at the same time, the Petition to be presented to them should be conceived in a way which might escape notice. The Petitioners here had only candidly declared their opinions, as subjects of this country were entitled to do. To his (Mr. Wardle's) mind; these senti ments were true throughout. He trusted, there. fore, that the Petition would be received. Mr. ABERCROMBIE was of opinion the pe. tition ought to be received, because he did not think the words were such a departure from the respect to the House as should warrant them in re. jetting it. If the petitioners were of opinion that the House had acted illegally, he did not see in what other terms they could have expressed themselves, than by declaring that such was their opinion. If the house had acted thus ille. gaily, it would be a grievance which it was the duty of the people of England to come forward and complain of in the most deter. mined, though becoming language. ---Great au. thorities had their doubts on this subject, though , he confessed he had none. He was for receiving the present Petition, however, because he thought it was not so offensive as the Petition from the In. habitants of Westminster, which had been re- eeived. He wished, at all events, that the House should have an opportunity of looking into the, language of other Petitions. It would be unfor: tunate, if, at such a period as the present, they , Should treat the Petitioners coming before them frith greater severity than their predecessors W I been accustomed to do. Mr. STEPHEN thought the words of the Pe. tition conveyed a studied insult to the House. It would he strange if this Ilouse, the Majesty or the People, was the only Body in the kingdom which could be libelled with impunity .1, nay d . which receiving Petitions insulting to themselrea„, must be compelled to become the seriite instru ments of their own degradation and disgrace. IF the House were insulted by Resolutions, an Ho. sourable Gentleman (Wardle) had supposed, liven thus! who denied their right to be judges in their own case, must admit that they might go into' a Court of Law, and there obtain justice ; but if they once received on their own table a Peti. Lion, in which they were insulted, no such re-. !dress could he obtained. He agreed, however, with his Learned Friend, who• spoke last, in thinking that the right of petitioning should nut be broken in upon till every Gentleman had an op. portunity of reading over the Petition and com „paring the objectionable paragraphs with the con text. He recommended to the House therefore to accede to the motion for adjourning the debate till to-morrow. So delicate a question as the right of petitioning should be discussed with every degree of deliberation, and in as full a House as possible. It appeared to him that Gentlemen should not *present petitions in which they saw any thing very objectionable. Why should they be bound to comply with the wishes of their constituents in what was wrong, more than an advocate should in a Court of Justice, in favour of his client ? lie did not conceive that a Gentleman should continue a member of a body which he despised. If there were any Gentlemen in that House who thought them so constituted as some persons represented, he was surprised they did not resign their seats. So long, however, as they continued in the House, they ought not to suffer themselves to be made the means of insulting it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, seeing those who agreed with him in principle thought a delay necessary, though he himself was not a convert to that opinion, could have no ob jection to acceding to it. Now he was on his legs, he begged to explain the difference between the two Petitions, and thew that the Honourable Gen tleman opposite (Mr. Lambe) was not correct in, the deduction he had made. The grotind on sehirli the. former Petition was received was rep/Rielly slated in the debate, and wad preciseily , this—that as the sentence 'containing the aeculati& of gross insult fieing offered, might apply ;tb the officer executing the Speaker's Warrant,(ht was but fair to put the .most favourable construC Lion upon a - Petition hem the subject,•--- .- . " --- ,7•"•11 l He agreiti - that they Petit ions must recei ve against their siets, bat, at the sam e tim e , wowooledtate •in‘• what language they were e couched. They woukttake care that they were itioit'inTiVorpaPotlrto dictate to the House a +They might as k a r.° lion of the judgment of Om Legislature ; but they wire not, as in the p, sent case, to set up a p i ,_ lititieeles authority sew the authority of th e flotis6 r avid . call-Imperiously for a chan ge , not fur pe ual insu a re.cosilideeit4iii. While he, therefore, acceded to the adjournment, he would be ready e i ther now, or at any other lime, to contend th at this petition, from its language, scope, and d es i gn admit w was such,to l l ie as on htheyir table,nei h r a s c o n u p l d e , r nor t ought lt, tt: Sir JOHN NEWPORT said he was of O pi_ nion that the debate should be adjourned• lie thought the prayer of the Petition obviated any objection to the first clauses of it. He only stai ed this, that all parts of it should be taken int o consideration together. lie would not contend, but that there were strong and wrong expres s i on; in the outset of this Petition ; but when all pa r t s were compared together, lie could not see an 0 1 ) _ jection to its being laid on the table ; but, as some Gentlemen might wish for further time for roust. deration, he would give his vote for the adjourn. ment of the debate. Mr. I3YNG stated, that he was at a loss to know how his constituents could express their opinions better than they had done. They con. ceived the House had assumed a power which they thought was not vested in them. His constituents were more strongly urged to this idea, from the conduct of it, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, where they expunged their former Resolutions, knowing them to be illegal, from their Journals. Mr. CALCRAFT explained. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, he would vo t e f or the adjournment of the debate. He thought the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Perceval) was completely in error. He thought this was a question that formes] part of a measure, which had not been yet decided on, and must remain for a decision, until a Jury of the country had formed an opi. nion. It was not his wish to enter into the merits of the point, as it would, in another place, un. dergo a more able discussion. He hoped it was the intention of the House to meet the question fairly. He could not see the objection to a peti. tion whielt went to the purpose of bringing for. ward a most justifiable regulation. If he thought it was the intention , of the people to enforce it by violence, he would be one of the first to' oppose them ; Wt.:A when they legally pistitioned, he would he the first to support theta. —6He wished to know in whet statute it was held out to petitioners, how they should word their Petition. He knew there was a certain mode of heading and ending it, and with this the present applicants had complied. The paragraph whisk the outcry ofetheAight bore against, did not de. servo it, for it bad been assumed by the House, and acknowledged by Hon. Gentlemen in their places. He cautioned them not to reject the petition • for he remembered an instance in the Irish Parlic. ment, in the year 1792, when a petition was pre. sented from the Roman Catholics of that country to the Muse of Commons • it was moved by a most respectable member, Mr. La Touche, that it should be rejected, which was carried. The Mi. nister of the day, on the following year, came fur. ward and granted them more than was asked in the former petitiota t _ He thought this was sufficient for thews() aiW ad betng put in the same situation. The question foreadjourning dm:debate was then put and agreed to. , tion LINENS. On the enlotion of,Nr. Rose, the Mouse resolved Cciminiitee'citV the Foreign Linen Act. ' 3 110:41.05E sheered, Lthot at the time when the Bill was brisagltrinto 11, lameot for imposing a .dtetron Foreign Lineasoit was intended to ex. empt from that duty the linen actually warehoused. It so Happened, however, that the,Bill passed with. dot sii ' q cta'ise to that effect, and it was to remedy errorlhatilotisow proposed to the Committee to instruct their Chairman to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repay, in certaiiscases, the duty that had b6en paid on certain Foreign Linens. After a few words from Mr. O'lLtus, who complained that the German Linen was enabled to come successfully into the market, in competition with the British and Irish manufacture, the resole. tion was agreed to, the Mouse was resumed, and the Chairman obtained leave to bring in the Bill. JUDGES' SALAAMS BILL. The LORD ADVOCATE of • SCOTLAND moved that the House should resolve- itself into a Committee on the Judges' Salaries Bill. Mr O'MARA wished that the salary of the Chief Justice of Prince Edward's Island should he increased, as well as the salaries of the Scotch and Irish Judges ; and was desirous to introduce a pro. vision to that effect in the pending Bill. The SPEAKER however observed, that such a proposition must originate in the specific resole. tion of a Committee of the whole House. After a conversation, in which Mr. Nadas, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Calcraft, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Lone participated, Mr. O'Hara gave no. tice that on Friday he would move that the [louse should resolve itself into a Committee on the • Judges' Salaries Aot, for the purpose of making the proposition to which he had just alluded. The Bill dem passed through the Committee, the report of which was ordered to be reccited to. morrow. MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES. The Estimates presented by Mr. Wharton on Monday and yesterday, having been ordered to bo referred to the Committee of Supply, the House resolved itself into the said Committee. On the 'ninffdll'Of Mr. %V lIAR,TON a number of filkadltitionsittitrailigreed to for granting to his Majesty Wit:mit agms..p f money for different mils cellikueous,services ; but .51,01 was the rapid end ißatitiible manner in wiiich 'these Reso lulions ,readCby tie Hotiou'ight6 Rover, and repeated by litothtirhble(lhaiamea, . that with the mint NO 3 illifiti'vptiewliola ow vat ,part, we wer e not etia, ,b1e4140 , gonad cbtra,irith • sedicient ate urer Y . warrant isiil9;iagthein before the pu blic.— is an 004 lite exiateftee of which w e are frecriii:Y were compel it tni regret The Mr. of Sul the A r An Blouse to the The times Mr. o f the was ag Tin consid Scotia Scv Iloutt dared Thl bath', it; hi the E °ousel any o "ustp WE lu Hull, --- rate $ per( S per 1 4 per! 5 per( Coeisol .....--- CYO , cec He wh or a pool will Wei debt ni C of AI