The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

COMBINATION LAWS-PRIVILEGE OF THE
HOUSE.

Mr. HUME had to present a petition from the Seamen of Stock-
ton-on-Tees, in the county of Durham, against the Combination
Laws, and complaining of charges which had been thought against I
them in the course of the debates of the House. The Hon.
Member was aware that an objection might be taken to the peti-
tion, on the ground that they could not be aware of what passed in
that House. and had no right to animadvert on its proceedings.
However, lion. Members must know. that what passed in the
House did find its way to the public, and that being the case,
petitioners had come forward to say they felt aggrieved at charges
being made against them, for crimes of which they were not guilty.
On the motion that the petition be laid on the table,
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE WAS aware that there existed a mode by
which the proceedings of that House came before the public, but
thought that circumstance no justification of the present petition.
Ile collected from what had fallen from the Hon. Member who
held the petition in his hand (3lr. Hume), that it contained neither
more nor less than arguments and observations upon sentiments
which had fallen from Honourable Members in the discharge of
their Parliamentary duties in that House. He considered that •
breach of the privilege of Parliament, and would oppose the bring-
ing up the petition. if such a course were to be permitted there
would be no cm' of petitions, and every proceeding of the House
would be liable to similar animadversions. Ile trusted the House
would consider the tendency of such a course of proceeding, before
they gave it the sanction of precedent in the present case.
Mr. A. BARING expressed his concurrence in what bad fallen
front the Honourable Baronet who spoke last. Ile thought there
was a great deal of justice in his remarks.
Mr. IVY NN would prefer not entering into the consideration of
what was or wu not the rule of the House at the present moment.
It would be much the better course if the Honourable Member fur
Monttose (Mr. Hume) would concept to withdraw the petition.
Mr. Il LIME did not consider this a petition upon a trilling or or-
dinary subject : it appeared to allude to measures likely to involve
the comfort and happiness of a numerous class of individuals. As
to the petition itself, he bad often before presented petitions of the
same kind and similarly wooled ; and as to the objection with re-
Rpm to the mode in which the knowledge of the proceedings of the
House got abroad, that was too slight an objection to require any
attention. The mode wu perfectly well known. Ile held in his
hand another petition to the same effect, from 7 or 1100 individuals
ia Sunderland, who were exactly in the same situation as the Stock-
ton petitioners, and approached the House in the same manner.
However, as an objection had been raised, and rather than have the
petition rejected, he would consent to withdraw it, and give the in-
dividuals concerned an opportunity to amend it.
The petition was accordingly withdrawn.

Mr. Alderman THOAIPSON said, he held in his hand a peti.
tion from theichabitants of the cities of London and Westminster
and the borough of Southwark, preying that no farther concessions
be granted to the Roman Catholics. This petition did not proceed
from a public meeting :—thirty or forty individuals had assembled
and agreed upon the draft of the petition, which was signed by
3,000 persons of great respectability. The address of every sub-
scriber was attached to his name.
Mr. J. MARTIN would not take up the attention of the House
long, but was desirous of stating two eirciimstances connected
with the petition about to be presented by the Worthy Alderman
(Thompson.) Theme were facts that had come within his own
knowledge, and be could, therefore, state them with confidence.
On Saturday last, a friend called upon liim,,(Mr. Martin) and in-
formed him, that as he was passing the door of the London Tavern.
he observed a boy, in the dress of a charity school, stationed before
it. who invited him in to sign the petition against the Catholies.
His friend felt some degree of curiosity, and rent in to see the
nature of the proceeding. Four sheets of parchment were lying
on a table. to which some signatures were attached. His friend
inquired if he could see the petition or a copy of it ; but was
answered that there were neither to be seen. Ile next inquired of
the waiter if any public meeting had taken place, at whiat the
petition was agreed on : the answer was, " there were 20 er 30
gentlemen here yesterday." lie was then urged to sign the
petition, and told he might if he liked leave (h. or /01. towards
defraying the expenses of the petition. (A laugh.) He (Mr.
Martin) felt Interested in the ststetnent, and west ii asensutay *ids
his friend to the Lontricn Tavern. There they found the same
charity boy and the four sheets of parchniert on the table. On en-
tering, a pen was put into his hand. and he was requested to sign.
His answer was, that it was not ctistomary with hint to sign papers'
without previous examination, and a knowledge of their contents.
He asked for a sight of the petition, but as before there was no pe-
tition to be seen. (Hear.) Having stated those simple facts, he
would leave it to the House to judge how far that petition, signed
by 3,000 names, was the petition of the Cities of London, West.
rummer, and the Borough of Southwark. or how far It was even the
petition of the subscribers. lie felt a strong conviction that many
anti-Catholic petitions were got up in the sante way, and be was
the more confirmed in that opinion from the fact that there had been
few or no public meetirga called to take the subject into consider.
ation, a thing that could not have happened if the public mind was
not known to be favourable to the claims of the Catholics.
Mr. JOHN SMITH could confirm the statement of his Ho-
nourable Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Martin). No
petition lay for inspection at the London Tavern ; he had put the
question repeatedly, and could get no other answer. There
was no such thing. Under those circumstances no doubt but
many signatures were procured by soliciting passengers in that
populous part, some of whom might have that moment en.
tered London as strangers. If there was any part of the
kingdom where liberal opinions prevailed upon the subject of
Catholic redress. it was in the cities of London and Westminster.
If this had not been the case, and were not that circumstance well
known to the propagators of the" No Pope'," cry, public meet.
ings would have been called for the purpose of petitioning; but
the parties whu were desiruue of doing so well knew they would
have experienced a defeat. In his opinion very unworthy proceed-
ings had been resorted to for the purpose of getting up those peti-
tions. Alarming representations had been made, lie did rot doubt,
in obscure parts of the country, to individuals who laboured to
procure their bread, and were not the best judges of such a subject.
They had been told their religion was in danger their), and that
apprehensions of violent proceedings on the part of the Catholics
were entertained. (Hear.) Persons capable of such conduct
were either extremely ignorant, or something else, which he was un-
willingto say. Every honourable man was bound, in the pursuit
of political objects, to adopt a candid anti fair coutse of proceeding.
It was not his intention to Cast any general stigma on the Clergy,
whom he believed, generally speaking, to he a fair and liberal
body of men, but he feared there were individuals to be found
among them prepared to use all sorts of eft:iris to effect their pur-
pose. If general meetings had been called he had no hesitation in
saying immense majoritiss would have appeared in favour of the
measure.

Mr. Alderman WOOD said every step had been taken to get np
public meetings in vain. The fact was. the people of London
were not now to be scared by talk of Smithfield burnings. That
the measure ought to be carried was the opinion of the majority
of the Citizens of London. lle would shortly have to appear
before his fellow-citizens in another capacity, but. he would rather
forfeit his seat than oppose the present Dill fur the relief of the
Roman Catholics.

-----.-.. ..... .
Mr. BROUGHAM rose for the purpose of returning his warmest
thanks to the worthyAldortnan, who had just distinguished himself
by the expression of his bold, manly. and honest opinion. It did
him (Alderman Wood) infinite credit, and if every Honourable
Member who might have experienced threats tor giving an un-
biassed and honest opinion on this most vitally important question
were to act the gallant part adopted by the Honourable and Worthy
Member for London, lie would discharge his duty, and eventually
have nothing to fear. He (Mr. B.) repeated, there was little dan-
ger of a Member's being able to meet his constituents on good and
favourable terms, provided lie did his duty, however it might be
the interest of certain individuals to represent to the contrary.—
Their constituents would have to thank the Members who acted
like the Worthy Alderman, and gave a conscientious expression of
their public sentiments and opinions on so momentous a question.
Mr. Alderman T11031PS()N said, the petition had been pub-
licly advertised in the newspapers. As to the circumstance alluded
to by the Hon. 31embers (Messrs. Smith and Martin), it must have
occurred during the time when, froin some unsuspected cause, the
person who had the petition in charge was absent.--(A laugh.)—
Subsequently every person had a copy of the petition put into his
hands. He (Alderman T.) was not aware of any attempt to get up
a public meeting.
Mr. T. WILSON preferred petitioning to public meetings.
31r. CALCRA FT said, public meetings would have been un-
doubtedly called, if majorities could have been procured against
the Catholic Bill. In 1813, when a different feeling was abroad,
there was abundance of public and county meetings. He did not
dispute the respectability of the signatures attached to this petition,
but three thousand signatures, for London, Westminster, and
Soilthwark, constituted no adequate expression of the public voice.
It had been said advertisements were put in the newspapers ; did
the charity boy examine those whom he solicited as to whether they
had f.:en those advertisements ? (Hear.)
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON explained.
Sir E. KNATCHBUI.I.--If they summoned public in letings
they were accused of an attempt to agitate the public mini and
raise the "No Popery" cry.--(llear.)--If they petitioned. they
were accused of clandestine conduct.—(Hear.)--A II he should say
was, if they did exert themselves in consequence of such rematches,
and the " No Popery" cry were raised, and die public mind
agitated, on the heads of their opponents be the blame (hear), nut
on them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. BARING shought it necessary to see bow petitions
were got up ; and therefore it was that there did undoubtedly pre-
vail an interest to know the history of that presented this evening
from !Westminster, London, and Southwark. Far be it from him
to question the right of petitoning ; but when a petition was
brought forward, coming from a district containing tens of thou.
sands of inhabitants, and aigued by only three thousand, it was
material that it should not be passed off as a petition of the whole.
Putting altogether the paucity of numbers out of the question, he
must say that it appeared from the statement of his Honourable
Friend that the manner of getting it up was very discreditable.
(Hear, hesr.) He had listened with great attention to the petitions
presented to the House against the Catholic claims, and found that
• pretty considerable portion of them came front the Clergy.
(Hear, and a laugh.) They all seemed anxious, too, after reciting
that the peti.ion Caine from " the Archdeacon, and Clergy"—to
put in—" and others ;" by which an attempt was made to confer
additional respectability on it. There was one thing worthy of re-
mark—it was, that no considerable town was fairly convened.
(Hear, hear.) No means were afforded of ascertaining the general
voice of the people ; this lie would contend for, that no matter
where petitions were got up. whether in public or in private,
there was an evident alteration in the feeling of the country on the
Catholic question. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. MARTIN wished to come at a knowledge of Mt public
opinion. Ile thmiglii that could be best aseertaioed by public
discussion. As a friend to the Catholics and their cause. he would
submit it to public discussion. (Hear, hear.) Now was the best
time for that. There were now in London gentlemen from Ireland
fully able to tell their story at any public meeting. (Great
laughter, and cries of " Order.") He would supplicate even the'
llonourable Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) to commit it now to dis-
cussion, as the best test of the accuracy of this statement ; here
we have people competent to talk on the part of Ireland.—
(Laughter.) They were not, to be sure, Members of that (lone;
but there were many other places at which they were qualified to
speak. An Hommrable Member, as we understood, said they
were not qualified.] Well. if they were not qualified, they had
the power and means of qualifying themselves. (Laughter.)

ADERCRO3IBIi did not complain of the appealing
fairly to the feelings of the public ; that was not his complaint,
but that surely was not a fair appeal that was addressed to tLe pm.
indices and worst passions of the people. That was what he would
ever denominate and denounce as the "No Popery" cry. He
complained that the question wan not fairly stated to the people.
No man could think more highly of the right of priponing. tle
questioned not the exercise of that right ; but when the passions,
and not the sound judgment, were appealed to, then there were
most unquestionably grounds for complaint. It would appear
from a communication made to him, in which it was stated that
the people were told at a public meeting by a Her. Clergyman, that
there was danger of the Protestants being burned by the Catholics.
lie did not know of his own knowledge that the Gentleman said so.
Ile mentioned the eircnmsuince to the House as it was represented
to him. When persons tame forward armed with the sanction of
religious authority, and all the influence of high otticiil situations,
urging persons to petition, no candid man could say otherwise than
that the petitions coming from them were, if nut the result of
endue influenee, to he attributed to their prejudices and passions.