The Sun. — London, England, 1804-02-03 00:00:00

Lion did not ; and therefore this Petitinn-ought now to he reje6.led. If that was so, he could not help thinking there would be a great hardship on the Pe titioners, and that by the course which had been taken to bring forward this motion ; and it would look very odd if, on the very day before the Peti tion was to come on, and a Committee to be ballotted to try the merits of it, a Gentleman could get up in the House of Commons and persuade the House that the Petition, on account of its informality, could not be heard at all. Besides this, if the order for taking _this Petition into consideration was dis charged, it would appear strange upon the Journals, for the informality of the Petition would not appear on the Journals; all that would appear there would be, that the Petition bad been presented in one Ses a sion of Parliament, and ordered to be taken into cons sideration on a given day, that the same Petition was renewed in another Session, according - to the rules of the House, and that on the day before it was to have been taken into consideration it had been rejected--no reason for its rejeaion would ap pear at all. Nothing would be seen to govern the future proceedings of the House by wiry of prece dent, but merely that the House bad received a Pe tition in one Session, made an order for taking it into consideration on a given day in another Session, and had on the day before the time for taking it into consideration rejected that Petition ; a prece dent which he thought would he dangerous. As to the wording of the Aa of Parliament, if the Aft of Parliament had set down the precise words to be used in such a Petition, and, they had not been in serted, the argument would have been invincible ; but the Aft of Parliament did not so provide, and the Hon. Gentleman did not say so, he only insisted that the Petitioners must state themselves in such a way, as to spew that they bad, or claimed to have, a right to vote at the eleaion of which they complained. 'lhere being no form of words pointed our by the Aft, what were the Petitioners to do ? They na turally thought they should do that which others did before them.—He could not conceive what could he the use of a precedent, if a poor ignorant man was not to be guided by it in drawing his Pe tition in such a case as this—and inure especially if that was a precedent received and adopted by the House immediately after the passing of the Bill— and-followed up by several others, without any oh jetlion, for thirteen years together—and these pre cedents not objetted to by the very mover of the last Bill, (Mr. T. GR ENV 1 LL o—Now as to the Substance of the Petition, it appeared to him to. be sufficient. The Petitioners called themselves 4 , Freeholders of the County," from that the obvious inference was, that as such - they claim ed the right of voting at the Eletlion of which they complained. Would it not then, on a mere dry technical ohjeaion, be hard to shut the door against them? By rejeaing this Petition now there would be great and manifest injustice. By receiving it, there would be no injustice what ever to any one human being ; for all that could be done by the Haruse,a by entertaining this Petition would be, to giVe Ai a - fiefiring. His mind was satisfied that the substance of , this Ad of Parlia. ment had been complied with in this Petition. As to that part of the object of the MI which was stated ay e ds• 1-La Gentleman- namely, that of prevent. ing strangers from presenting Petitions against the Eledions of Members - of Parliament,- he thought that the best remedy to that was the provision of the Ati which made them pay costs. They stated themselves not to he strangers, hut that they were Freeholders of the County of Middlesex, upon which the only doubt that could be entertained was, whe ther they were not persons who had not become Free holders since ? That was matter for the inquiry of a Committee. The general current of Petitions was, that the Petitioners were Eledors, and it might be said that they were 'Moors then, but that they had become Elettors since ; but that would be matter for the investigation of the Committee. But he should have thought, that the Hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion would -have said, that be suspected the persons who had signed this Petition *tee not Freeholders, but on the contrary, he had 'stated that he had no doubt they were Freeholders; and the Aa of the House had decided it thought they were, by receiving the Petition; he was indeed, confident, that the Hon. Gentleman who made this Notion would be desirous, if he succeeded in it, to have some Legislative provision, for the purpose of allowing these Petitioners a hearing, for really if this Petition was informal, it was the fault of the House that the parties could not be heard upon it, f o r t ire retitionershad stated it in the common form the House had been accustomed to receive it, that they were Freeholders of Middlesex, and whatever difficulty there was in receiving the Petition under the authority of the Ad of Parliament, theliouse did not tell them of it while it was in their power to corral :Abe error. Now, he _asked for no Legislative pro vision for the purpose of hearing these Petitioners, for he had not the least hesitation in giving his ne native to the Motion of the Hon. Gentleman, and in so doing he should give a conscientious vote for sending this matter to a Committees, in order that the merits of it may-be tried. ./kie. rj*ant BEST' said, he felt himself bound to vote for the affirmative of the question now be fore the House ; and it did appear to bins to be a ouestion of infinite importance, and much.beyond she point of the merits of the case. The House was now sitting in its judicial, and not in its le gislative charader. That House, although a Su. prcme Court of Judicature, was as much bound by the Law of the Land, as the meanest Court in the land, and indeed it was more dangerous for such an high Court to do any thing contrary to Law, than o':any, other CoUrt, on account of the example of it. considering this question as a Lawyer, he could not say there was much doubt upon . it. He was ot e iorry, indeed, that the objedion had occurred, for it might deprive the Freeholders of the County of • dlesex of redress in this case ; but whatever rights they might ha ve„and however they might be infring - eel 17 .W:with impunity, it,was better-to suffer that inconvenience . and adhere to the .'general. rules of L a w, - whatever might be the elf of such •rules in oa particular • iostance, than to bend. such rules. to suit the rule to any motion, teal, or imaginary,. of the substantial. justice of any particular case. A great : deal hsch been said ors the equitable construdion which ought to be put upon this Statute. Ile uid not assent to this doarine, for he ectleeivel that all Ads of Parliament should be construed with strid. ness by that Court which was to judge of its own power ,as it was derived under such Ads. He had heard it said that nothing which was done 'by Par liament could he undone by any power but that of Parliament, and Parliament might be induced to do something in this very case if the Petition should be rejected---but that had nothing to do with the present question—and as to an equitable construction of 'an At of Parliament, especially when proposed to that House in judging, of its own power under it, he. objected to the principle altogether, because equitable constructions were very vague in their nature, and what appeared equitable to one man might appear quite unjust to another, and therefore it would be extremely dangerous to construe Ads of Parliament upon the vague notions of equitable con. strudion on the determinations of the House upon questions relating to the extent of its own power. As to what had been said on the sebjed of Prece dents he did not assent to it, for they appeared only to have been in force more than sixteen years, nor were they uniform, for there might be twenty instances even in that time of Petitions being different from those which had been quoted. He had looked in. to many upon this subjed lately, and the result of hia research entitled him to say this upon the cur. rent of precedents upon this subjed. He agreed it was not necessary that the Petition should state, in express terms, that they had or claimed the right of vo%ng at the Elettion of which they complained; but then he insisted on it, that it must he collected from the Petition somewhere, that the Petitioners either had, or claimed to have, a right to vote at the Eledion of which they complained, otherwise mere Strangers might complain as well as Elec tors, a grievance which the Legislature intend. ed to prevent. Precedents were well enough to be resorted to, if the Aft of Parliament was dark or obscure, in such a case is would he well enough to look to former decisions ; but if the Act of Parliament was clear, whatever number of prece cents there might be, they could be of no force against the meaning of such an Act, for that would be to set up the judicial authority of that House against the authority of an At of Parliament, that was allowing one branch of the Legislative power to annul the solemn ad of the whole.—Now, he said, it was impossible to look at this Ad of Parliament without seeing that there was but one construdian .to be put upon it. The Ad of Parliament gave the House directions to de cide whether. a Petition complaining of an undue Eledion or Return should be committed or not, and it stated what such a Petition shall contain, and without which the Petition should not be sent to a Committee, for it said that no proceed. ing shall be had on a Petition—not that it shall not he decided upon, but that no proceed. ing can be had on it unless there be said therein, that the persons who complained were persons who claimed a right to vote at the EleCtion : and it was impossible to set up the pradace of the House against an At of Parliament. Looking at the Preamble of the Bill which gsverned this case, it was easy to see what was the inconvenience which the At stated it to be the objeCt of the AEt to avoid. It stated, that frivolous Petitions kv . ere presented by those who had no right, &c. ; and to prevent that praEtice it was enacted, That no Petition should be pro. ceeded upon, unless the person presenting it has an interest in the event of the Eledion : it there. fore appeared to him to be quite impossible to en tertain a Petition, which did not state that inter est in the Petitioners at the time ..1 the E ettion. It was said that he House had drawn the party into this difficulty by receiving the Petition in the last Session. He did not feel the force of that ob servation ; as well might it be said that a Court of Justice had drawn a suitor in a difficulty, by per mitting his suit to be cat ried on perhaps for a twelvemonth, and finally decide, after objection taken and argument upon the question, that the case did not come within the jurisdiction of the Court. There were individual sacrifices that were indeed to be lamented when they happened, but they must be made for the preservation of the consistency of the Law. But it appeared to him that these parties were not without redress,-in this case (if they were, an Ad of Parliament might be passed to relieve them), for there was no Att of Parliament which limit ed the time of presenting an Eledion Petition ; there was only a Resolution of the House to that effed. It was easy for the House to get rid of that Resolution, as it applied to this case, and to say, that the parties shall have leave now to present another Petition, which might be done immediately, conformably to the provisions of the At of Parlta. ment. There was no difficulty for the House to dispense with its own Resolution in this particular, and so do away at once the hardship of the case—a thing which had been done vely often in order to avoid an extreme hardship in other cases, And the House had a right to make its own Rules subservient tc Justice at any time.—That would be removing all doubt upon the subject—but it the House had no jurisdiction in this case to entertain this Petition, as he conceived it had not, then it would be in vain to send the Petition to a Committee, because the Committee, which was but an emanation of the House, could not have any authority deleg a ted f r om the House more than the House possessed, and there. fore the decision oldie Committee could not be bind. ing. This would be the necessary consequence of following the course proposed by those who wished to send this Petition to a Committee. He said that this was not a case within the Act of Parliament, and therefore that all the House did upon it must in Law be null and void; The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that per haps the extremeliardship of- this case might have had some influence...opon his , judgment, for most un. questionable it was;: that -Manifest injury. would be done to the Petitioners, if the Petition should now be rejedei. If the argument upon which the Mo tion was founded was wrong, the reason which was proposed by that Hon. Gentleman who moved it would be worse, even than adopting the_ Petition, supposing.his objeEtions to it to be well-founded, because it would be trespassing mare upon the mt of Parliament, than even a wrong adoption of this Petition, which he .maintained they were not ; it would be open for the Committee. to consider the merits of the Petition, If they w4e wrong in re. :he Pi t of C•OM ceiving t. 'etition, the judgrnen the unit. tee would corred them, whereas if they were wrong in rejeding the Petition, the question would be shut for ever. He thought, therefore, that in a question where there was a considerable degree of doubt, the House would do well to send it to a Committee, rather than decide for themselves.; for, in the one case, the error might be correfted, and in the other, it was impossible. From the year 1788 down to the present time, the praftice of the House upon this question did not create any doubt whatever; for, Petitions similar to the present had been frequently en't'ertained, and it might be called an interpretation of the Law by that House, and by receiving such Petitions, they may be said to have pronounced ,judgment upon this Statute. The case was not such as`hiS Hon. and Learned Friend over the way (Mr. JEKYLL) . stated it ; for he had compared this case with the decisions of Courts of Justice upon cases of Quo Warranto, &c. Between the proceedings of Courts of Justice in such cases, and the decisions of the House upon questions of Petitions, he perceived no analogy; for Courts of Justice, in cases of Quo Warrants, had frequently decided that individuals were wrong, in the appre hension of their own own rights, but, in this case, it. was the praftice of the House which had decided upon the forms of Petitions that were presented to it ; besides, if the praftice of the House for so many years was inconsistent with the true spirit of the Aft of Parliament, he was of opinion, that the best mode would be to pass another Aft, spe cifying the very words which such Petitions should contain, rather than now, by a single Vote overturn that pradice—because in that case the House could not be said to be legislating for itself; for they must have the concurrence of another House of Parliament, as well as the Royal Assent, before such Vote could have the force of Law. As to the preamble of the Aft, the grievance to be avoided was, that persons should not be al lowed to petition, who did not at least claim a right of eleaion—that nobody should be allowed to call in question the Merits of an Eleflion, but those who claimed the right to vote at it. Now this was not all which Eleftors were obliged to do upon presenting a Petition, they were not only ob. liged to state an apparent Right of EleEtion, but before they: could succeed in the objeft of their Petition, they were bound to prove it. The Com mittee could go into the question as it related to both these questions—namely, whether the State ment in the Petition was such as the Aft required, so as to entitle the Petitioners to inquiry ; and secondly, they could examine the proofs. But the House could go only into one of them, viz. whe_ ther the Statement was sufficient to satisfy the spirit of the Ad. All that could be stated to the House was mere matter of form in such cases, for the House could not inquire into the merits of the subjeft. This House could not inquire, whether the Peti. tioners had a right to petition or not. It could only inquire whether they had regularly stated and claimed that right, and in that view, he was of opinion, that in the present case it was sufficiently stated, and he thought that question a very im portant one. When he said that the spirit of the Aft was complied with, he meant, that in sub. stance , the Petition did contain an allegation of the Petitioners having a right to vote, and it was manifest to them, that a single dash of the pen, oliget have answered all the objeftions of the Hon. Gentleman himself ; the Petition would have been perfectly correa—the objeft was, that none but those who claimed a right to vote, should be per mitted to petition. Now, he was of opinion, that the Petitioners, by stating themselves to be Free. holders of the County, had in substance told the House they claimed the Right to vote. By enter taining this Petition, it only said, that this subjeft should be inquired of by the Committee, and as to the praftice of the House, which the Honourable G ent l e man seemed to expeft, in presenting Peti tions, was pretty cle ar t h a t a reference to the r the Petitioners to vote at Eleftions, ieht of f t ex isting in them at the time of the Eleftion, was very seldom stated in the Petitions. It was a course seldom followed by any of the Petitions since the passing of the last Bill ; but now he collefted from thee lion. Gentleman (who whispered across the Table) that, therefore, all such Petitions were in themselves wrong---if it was not, he entreated of. the House to look at the injustice of rejefting this Petition now, for it would be a great hardship in. deed, to alter the course of proceeding at this moment, and to tell these Petitioners at once, for . the first time, that their Petition could not be re ceived just on the eve of their trial, without any notice whatever, and without any intimation what ever, to the People of this country that such Peti tions were wrong; the People of this Country had a right to expeft that the House of Commons would not he in the habit of receiving Petitions inadvert ently and improperly, had a right to take it for granted, that all the Petitions the House of Com mons had received for the last thirteen years:had been regularly received, and they had a right to complain that they had been very improperly treated and deluded by that House, it by its vote it should now tell them that this Petition must be rejefled. The inconvenience of it would be indescribable, for all other Petitions of a similar nature must share the fate of this Petition ; there were perhaps twenty of them remaining, and none of them could be received if this was rejeCted. Such he believed to be the case of perhaps one halt of the Petitions now remaining— of Durham, Aylesbury, Hereford, Stirling, and various other places. It perhaps might appear that not one of them contained the allegation required by the Hun. Gentleman of the right to vote at the .EEeftion, besides, he said, that in his opinion the present Petition did in fad satisfy the objeft of the Aft of Parliament, but if it did not, it was at most but a detlbeful case, and if so, there was every reason for sending it to a Commit tee. He thought, that upon the principle of the Gren. ville Aft, the House ought to send this Petition to a Committee. If the Party stated in his Petition that which on the face of it shewed that he had no claim to vote at the Eledion, the House would at once say it should not go to a Committee, because, in that case, there would be nothing to try ; but if lie did, state a colourable title to vote, then the !;!Arise would not decide the question, but send it to a Committee to. be tried.: Here in common sense common [anguage, IC II 0 its IS ;c they claimed the right to vote, for they told the House they were Freeholders of the County, and they complained of the Elenion—they considered it a grievance and they asked relief—they stated them selves therefore to be in a situation in which they had a tight to vote at the Election of which they corn plained, and therefore he said their case came within the sense of the Mt of Parliament, and therefore that the Petition should be received. He then quoted the - case of the Eleetion for the County of Carmarthen, which he said was precisely in point; this very ob• jedion was taken, but it was over-ruled by the Com mittee, and that decision of the Committee had never been questioned by the House.— But if that had not been so decided, theie would have remained about this case, at least a sufficient degree of doubt to in. duce the House to send it to a Committee, because., otherwise the question would be closed, and the party could never be heard, which would he a case of infinite hardship and injustice—so much so, that the Hon. Gentleman himself, who made the Motion, would, he was confident, regret the success of his own Motion. He asked, what the Public would have thought of this case, if it were the case of his Right Hon. Friend, the CHANCELLOR of the Ex.. CHEQUER, if such a Petition as.this had been pre. sented against him, and he were to suffer it to be received,. suffered a day to be app o i n ted f or i ts di s . cussion, and then on the very day before it was to be taken into consideration, he was to start up, and tell the House that many of the Petitions which 11(1 been received by the House on the subieß of Eleaions, while he was in the Chair, were impro perly received ; that now for the first time he must tell the House so, and that he must insist upon the law which prohibited the House from proceeding on such a Petition; he apprehended that such condua in a person conneaed•with Government, would sur..' prize both.the House arid the Public, and yet s uc h was the nature of the present Motion—for these reasons he should vote against the present Motion.. Mr. FONBLANQUE regarded the question as a matter of great importance.---He was clearly- of opinion the House had no power by Law to pro , . ceed upon this Petition, because it did not state the Petitioners to claim a right of voting at the Elec tion of which it complained, and that to send to 0, Committee for decision, a question over which the House had no power, would be to give to a Coat• mittee an appellant jurisdiction over the detertninP non of the House. Mr. JARVIS thought that if this 'objeaion to the Petition -had been started when the Petition was presented, his opinion was, that the ohjeCtion would have been insurmountable ; but in his r niod, the receiving of the Petition, and making an - circlet uppri it, waved the objection. Mr. DALLAS thought this a case of much im' portance and that it ought to be seriously consider.' ed. He thought the question as it stood now, was very different from what it would have been if the objedion had been made when that Petition wa, s , presented ; for if the Hous e h a d re j e ft e d i t t h e n, i` would have been competent, and very easy for tlio party to have presented another Petition free fry objedion, but now that was become impossiblq and the injustice of the case would be enormotis,' the Petition was rejeCted now, fur there woula' a iri, no remedy left. If the reasoning of the ,: et t Gentleman who moved this que st i on . walLs aol l % by the House, it would. be telling the People c 'f England that the House by overlOoking an AB: 4 Parliament which tolel the House its duty, they b v deceived a number of Petitioners, but there was n o ' , . no help for it, for on a sudden they had seen th en error, and all petitioners who had beeo governed pi e their decisions upon this point could not have-thclo cases stated. He thought the House was not dris r4 o by imperious necessity to any such desperettl, —lt might have been desirable, that the Fe t tle tion had been more specifically worded ; but t, , Aft did not think, that the of Parliament I , reo eu ed the House from sending this Petition before st Committee, for which reason he should vote 30 ° the Motion. I '4 l Mr. DEVIRAL said a few words upon the sn . os, of precedent, and observed, there was not one 0. 4 ,1 ly like the present case. Mr. SHERIDAN said, that the question 0 1 which the House was called upon to decide was ° he ' of the most simple that cculd be 'stated. Upo° t i ;t words of the Aft it was impossible to raise a don e ; and it was equally clear that the PetitiOn state that which the Aft of Parliament requLtiet It had been suggested that this was a point is t he to be decided upon in the Committee than House, but it seemed clear to him that the 1. 41 ', 0 0 lature meant that this point should he decided Z s t, by the House. The Aft required two things--74' be that the Petitioner should either stare himself t t q e t o a Candidate ' or else that he should claim a rig ° r a. vote at the Eleetion ; and secondly, that afterf il i, senting his Petition he should, within four t een oa co , e , enter into a recognizance to prosecute the s a And if either of these regulations were not plied with, then the Petition was not tai# the ceeded upon : it was therefore evident t hat House must decide upon .these points. It o ' 3 ' t h e possible to suggest any new argument up o , it / subjeft ; it was, really too plain to admit of ia 'Die simple question was, whether the ter°, that Petition did or did not comply with the ?ij visions of the Aft of Parliathent ? Urn till 0 0 was impossible to entertain a doubt. It Wa, 5 0 0 answer to say, that this Aft had already 'rely violated in many instances, because that st l , (0 could be no reason why they should .contio.o r 4 o o aft wrong. Every body who was really of oll o ce that the terms of the Petition were in Comp` vo te with the Aft of Parliament, would of course against the motion of his Hon.. Friend; ind ee IhC thought it would be better to alter the shape °' aid motion and state it thus, " That the Petifico it comply with the direftions of the Aft of f! o r t l a c ment," because that would bring it to a P'isiblef once, and he really could not conceive it Po t tot) upon examining the Aft and the Petition, t ha . t o . opinions could be entertained upon that questt.,,igift.l Sir WILLIAM' PULTEIvEY said, he agreed thet the Hononurable Gentleman who spoke la st e ' st ioOf that would be the fair way of stating the cla.rAediti and if it were so put, he should have no d in saying, that the Petition did substantiallY.hoplo ply - with the Aft, arid upon that ground. M. ""