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 Sesa
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
aye 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,
for tire 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
oteiorry, 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
Law, - 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 delegated from
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
Gentleman seemed to expeft, in presenting Peti-
tions,
was pretty clear that a reference to the
r
the Petitioners to vote at Eleftions, ieht of
ft
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 Committee.
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