The Sun.
London, England, 1830-12-11 00:00:00

PROCESSION OF THE TRADES.

Mr. GROVE PRICE had a question of grave and con-
stitutional importance to put to the Noble Lord (Ahhorp),
and he was sure that it would be fully appreciated by the
House when he stated that it involved in it a violation of
an Act of Parliament. The question which he wished to
put was, whether the Government, of which the Noble
Lord was a Member, hail been acquainted with the in-
tention of certain individuals to proceed in laree numbers.
to present a petition to his Majesty?— (Laughter, and
loud and continued coughing.)—Whether that Govern-
ment had given its deliberate sanction to such a ►tep, or,
if not, whether it had, at least, given its tacit acquiescence?
The first objection to such a proceeding was, that it was
in direct violation of the Statute Law of the country;
and yet they had hi and from a high quarter that it was
not an illegal act. He would take the liberty of leading
to them an extract from that Act of Parliament.

A blemisee rose to order, and begged to put it to the
Hon. Gentleman, whether in rising to put a question of a
very simple nature—(Loud laughter, and cries of hear)—
to his Majesty's Government, it would not he wiser to put
the question at once without further detail?
The SPEAKER thought that the Hon. Gentleman
who was proposing the question way not out of order.
Mr. GROVE PRICE thought so too.—(Great laugh-
ter. )—The clause to which be bud been referring when he
was interrupted, was to the effect, that no per son or persons
wire to repair to his Majesty, or to either or both Houses
of Parliament, on the pretence of presenting any petition
or remonstrance, accompanied by any number of persons
above ten, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment.
With this Act of Parliament on Ws side, it was no answer
to him to say, that the procession hail paired off seHrout
tumult, and with perfect order and propriety. The first
dangerous example had been set—that of breaking the
law; and be was arguing this question on the ground of
principle alone. But, as if to mark the case still more
strongly, this procession, which was gist up under the
pretense of loyal devotion, and a desire to pay a mark of
love and respect to the Sovereign, hail, among its banners,
that symbol which was now the symbel of crime, insur-
rection, and rebellion in Europe—(A loud hear, hear, hear,
in several parts of the House)--a banner under which
mom crime (and he cared not for the cheers of gentlemen,
for he appealed to history, which was more lasting than
their cheers), more bloodshed, more tyranny, and more
breach of the natural rights of man had been committed
than under any symbol that had ever existed.—(Loud cries
of " Question, question," amid which the Hon. Gentleman
sat down.) •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that the best answer which he could make to the- question
of the lion. Gentleman was, by stating what were the
circumstances that came to the knowledge of the Govern-
ment.. Within a day or two after his Noble Friend's tak-
ing office as Secretary of State for the Home Department,
a Deputation from the City waited upon him, and stated
that great disappointment had been felt by the trades at
the royal visit having been postponed, and that in conse-
quence they wished to present a loyal address to his. Ma-
jesty. His Noble Friend in reply had said that of course
there could be no objection to such a proCeeding. But it
was net till the day previous to the presenting of the ad-
dreol that it came to his knowledge that a large assembly
of persons was to accompany that address. As soon as
this was learned, his Noble Friend consulted the proper
police authorities, and they had been of opinion that any
attempt to prevent the procession taking place then would
only lie the means of producing a great riot, while on the
other band they were sure that with proper precautions
the assemblage would not give rise to any disturbance.
Under these circumstances, his Noble Friend had thought
that he was not justified in interfering...-(Loud cheers.)
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed that the
Hon. Gentleman was right in his law, and that according
to the Act quoted an offence hail been committed ; hut
though that was the case, it was naturally a question with
the Government whether they ought in any individual in-
stance to proceed on the penalty; and he was sure that the
most imprudent, rash, and ill-advised step any Government
could hive pursued would have been to prosecute any
part of the people of .England for acting in a manner that
had entitled them to credit.---(Near, bear,)—.With re-
spect to the Act that had been quoted, he believed that
the letter of it had frequently been broken; fur if be was
right in his recollection, no Address from either University
was presented with so few aS ten individuals accompany-
ing it.—(Hear, and a laugh.)--He admitted, then, that
a breach of the law:had taken place, but he could not ad-
mit that it would have been right for Government to have
interfered, and still less fur it (now that it was over) to
prosecute any parties in consequence.—(Hear, hear.)—
The lion. Gentleman bad also alluded to the different
banners that bad been displayed, and had appealed to the
tri.coloured flag as a disgrace to the procession; but he
for one must say, that the tricoloured flag had a very
different aspect now to what it had formerly..—(Cheers.)
Nor could he think that it was a disgrace to any as em-
blematical of the recent events in France, by which that
great country bad in the most noble and gallant manner
defended her rights against the tyranny that had at-
tempted to subdue them.—(Great cheering. ).-This fact
alone, then, should he no reason with the Government to
induce it to prosecute any individuals; for this flag, be
conceived, had not been carried in remembrance of colorer
outrage*, but as an interesting memento to the country of
the events that bad recently taken place.—(Cheers.)
Mr. LONG WELLESLEY said that if the Govern-
ment had allowed this procession to take place without
due inquiry, be should have said that they had acted with-
out due wisdom ; but after the explanation that the Noble
Lord had affinded to the House, and the explanation
which lie hail heard in another place, he thought that the
(loverninent had acted with that wisdom and moderation
which must add to the high sense that the country already
entertained of their proceedings+. The lion. Gentleman
hiel talked of the tri-coloured flag; but did he suppose
that there was a gentleman in that House who did not
hold in execration, as deeply as himself, the crimes that
had formerly beta committed uniyr that symbol ? He,
fur one, did most heattily ; but buying recently witnessed
the change that hail taken place there, he would say that
former crimes had been expiated by the valour recently
displayed under it, and that the tricolour of France was
no longer the sante f1ag....4 Hear, hear.)—He also begged
to rerniod the Hon. Gentleman that when he spoke 'of the
tii-coloured flag he spoke of the insignia of a monarch
end monarchy which were acknowledged by our own
sovereign, and with which he trusted we shou'd long con-
tinue to be on terms of amity and friendship.—(Cheers,)
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that it was right it
should be understood that the law distinctly prohibited
. tumultuous assemblies. Not only was this in accordance
with the Jew, but with sound reason aloe. Though such
assemblies might be quite consistent with a loyalty of feel=
ing, yet they all knew that assemblies of thousands of per-
sons might lead to disturbances contrary to the wishes of
those who had assembled them ; its was the case in Lord
G. Gordon's riots, when this Act was particularly insisted
upon. It ought therefore to be understuod that this ease, I
WI stilted by the Government, was au exception to the I
general rule, for he was sure that it mum be the feeling of
the House, that if a general practice of besieging the King I
with crowds persona, on all occ,olions of petitions being I
presented, was to preveile it would he attended with very
untlirralant soil even miechievous consequentes.—.<Hear.)
inwithstauding whet had been said by the Noble Lord
apposite, it was with regret end surprise that he had heard
of an exhibition of the kind taking place. Justbeforo hb
bed quitted office, he had seen the depatation, awl the a,
Wence be had received from those gentlemen had been at
total vae;aeese with such an exhibition. Three persons
had waited upon Mee, flud acquainted him that the trades
of London hail been at great eepenee in preparing the, in..
tignie of their various callings, and thaet consequently,
the pottponement of the Royal visit was a mouree of dig.
eppnintment to them. lie was quite ready to admit
ae the emblem of
that this present national flag ef Pricaniocigs,
of
fr
tobfisanoyouoottlriey:
address, the national flag of
country, was not to be considered
crime--(Hear, hear,)—hut still he could not help re-
, gritting; that in approaching the
as if our own national
emblems) were not aufticiaet ler the purl:emcee.,
iraylay otherteTru /ten liaielteaerla used,
kliear.)
it was fur this reason he &preluded she introduction
of
the tri-coloured flag, as last year ha would have dem-
ceted the introduction of the white flag on a like occasion.
rill, however, trusted that there might 4e
a mistake on this point, end he was sure that if any such
wee exhibited, it must haste been centtery to the wishes of
thoe who hail organised the otelriblage,
Mr. CALDWELL (as we understood) wait in Peeensati ~
I on the day in quest:en, and sow the Whole proesadoo pass.H e could not tell why, but there hail been an impreesion
I in his mind while the procession Will passing, that he
should see the tri-coleured flag among the banners ; but it
, was not there ; be could take upon himself to say that

;4
there was no tn- coloured flag, and he should be ready even
to depose fo that fact in a Court of Justice.
Sir R. PEEL—Even supposing that the tri-colouree
flag was introduced by some one into the procession, it
was not fair to impute it to the getting up of the as-
semblage ; for in so great a body of people it was impos-
sible for them to answer for what was taking place in
every part of the line.
LordJOHN RUSSELL said, that as the Right Hon.
Baronet appeared to admit that the Noble Secretary of
State for the Home Department was not to blame in
what had token place, he (Lord J. Russell) would
agreee with him that it would be bad to draw such a cir-
cumstance into a precedent. Such crowds, however
loyal in their sentiments, might be productive of mis-
chief if permitted to continue. At the same time it
was worth remarking, that the petiion in question was
of the most harmless description, being merely a, loyal
Address, without any political object whatever ; and
even though the tri-coloured flag might have been
introduced, at all events it was not introduced in
opposition to the flog; of this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL was certainly altogether against
any prosecutions now taking place on the subject; and
with respect to allowing it to take place, he was disposed
to snake every allowance for the suddenness and shortness
of the notice which the Noble Lord had received. Under
these circumstances he was not prepared to condemn the
determination of the Noble Lord, though he could not
help regretting that an earlier notice had not been given
him, as he was persuaded, that had that been the ease, he
would not have permitted the procession to take place.
Mr. G. LAMB said that no intimation had been given
to the Noble Lord by the deputation that waited upon him,
and the only notice he had had was one that was received
at the Home Office by chance, on the day previous to the
procession taking place. Considering the shortness of this
notice, he thought that it would have been the height of
madness to attempt to interfere.; and for his own part, lie
thought that it was a subject for congratulation that all,
this numerous train of persons had been gratified with ac-
companying their own Address to the Palace. With re-
spect to the law, that was always being violated, for ac-
cording to the Act of Parliament, no petition praying tor,
change in church and state, could be presented to Parlia-
ment signed by more than twenty persons, unless coming
from she Mayor and corporation, or other potentates of
that description.—The subject then dropped.