The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-08 00:00:00

• thought it ,would be but candour on the part of the
Right Hon, Gentleman to'omit the names to which
he alltideo.
No reply was made, and the motion was agreed 'to
without a division.
Mr. LITTLETON gave . notice 'that he would to-
inOrrOW move for copies- of certain Papers in pos-
session of his Majesty's.Advocate.General respect-
ing the case Captairr Foskett.. He also gave notice
that on Thtirsday se'enight lie would move the
House to .take into conside:ration C-iptaitt Fosketes
Petition. The object othis motion on the latter sub-
ject. would be to propose a resolution of censure on
ths Commander in Chief for pot. enforcing the 26th
article of war, &c. and an address to Majesty,.t hat
he would require,the Comniaeder in Chief•to Make a
'report to him on. Captain Foskett's case.
LIVERY OF LoNDaisr.
Mr. Alderman Comss prefaced the motion of
which he had given notice, by
,observing that the
right of petitioning was one of the chief bulwarks
: of a free. Constitution, and that no impediment
should- be thrown in the way to prevent the
petitions of the people from reaching the hands of
~ the Sovereign. After having described the four
distinct branches of which the Corporarion :of the
City of London was formed, viz. the Lord Mayor
and • Conti' of Aldermen; the Court of Common
Councilmen, the 'Court of L eutenantcy, and the
Livery; usual!), termed the Common Hall;, he oh-
served that it, was the rights of the last named _body
that had' suffered -on-the: occasion Which he-'was
about to subtroi to the consideration of the TiOuse;!
The Livery: of Loiidon Imo long- laid claim to the
right of presenting their petitions to his Majeqy
sitting on the thkone, .Of _late_ year's that right had
b-ien denied. To prove the existence of the right,
he entered into a iohg ois;oric:ti account-of :the pre-
cedents on the subject. .lo 1'770,in 1771, in 1773,
and in 1775, his Majesty received petitions from the
Livery of London sitting on the throne; but after
having se received.their petition in 1775, Lord Her--
turd wrote a letter to- .the Lord Mayoe, informing
him, that fur -the futUre his Majesty would not re-
ceive any eetitioes on the throne hut from tie Boy
Oa-prate. At the next Common Hall several , re-.
solutioes were passed, declaratory of the right of the.
Livery on the subjeet ; and in 'June 1775, another
'Address to his Majesty was agreed to,,with a parti-
cular injunction to tile Lord Mayor not tO , present
it except to his Majesty smiting on the Augur. The
Sheriffi having waited on his Majesty to know when
he would be pleased to receive the Address,- were
answered, that his Majesty would receive it at the
next Levee. To a trpreseination that the Lord
Mayor and Sheriffs were enjoined not to pry sent the
Address except to his Majesty-sitting on the throne,
his Majesty's- reply was, that he was dwars ready
to receive the vetitions of his subjeds; bin he add-
ed, that he must be,' the best judge how he would
receive them, and thu he wont ereceive the Ad-tress'
from tile Livery at toe next Levee. That A idress
was_ consA deafly onpresented- In 178 t, in 1797,
and in Ilion, similar fate attended different peti-
tions of the. Livery of London, and th 'e .petitions
also •remaini-d: onpresented; -in the' last case, the
Con-non Hall adopting resoiutions it eilar to those
of the year 1775. lie' now cattle to the case
'which he vAa-i anxiols to bung under discussion.
In the latter end of y ar, Common Hall
agreed to adihyss h:s Niaji:sty, stating-the grievances
unaer whic6 t- cy ian,;red ; oppryssed as rtt.,y•were
with taxes to an nuniense aiiiount —an Oppression
which was r. ielered inure galling ay the mal-adini-•
nistration of :he Pohlie Re• enue„-- b. the want of
confi fence in. the individuals who were at the head
of his Majesty's Government. 1.. eonsi,ieration,
however, of the state of his Majesty's 'leant), it was
resolved to wave the right of the Livery to present
that Address to his Majesty on the throne (to- which
right they still maintain their claim); and to-content
themselves wiih presenting it at the Levee. On
December 14, 1809, the Sheriffs, on applying to
know when his Majesty would be phased to receive
the Address of the Livery, were told that his
testy would nut even receive it at the :Levee, but
that it must be put into the hands of the Secietary
of State. This answer the Sheriffs reported, to the
Livery, who in consequence came ,to a resolution,
that their Address Should be delivered only to his
Majesty's own baud,. 00 the 20th of D'eci-tuber,
the Sheriffs mode anothrr application, but tii.ere an-
s .vered by the. Secretary of State, that. his Majesty
had already coinnomic iced his pleasure on that sub.
jest. On this the Common H elf adopted resolutioni
similar to 'hose they had adopted on -two former oc-
casions. Coeviticed that his'Majesty's advisers had
failed in • their duty, when they advised hiS Majesty
to refuse to rrceice the Address if the-Liverymen in
the way in which his Maj. sty ciao tieretofore ex-
pressed his willingness to nceive ettem, and trusting
that be had impressed ilia convilion on\the House.,
he would-not trouble them any further, but content
himself with moving a resolution to the following,
effe&:
" That the obstru6uion given 'by his Majesty!s
Ministers to the reception by hisMiiiesty on the 14th
of December, 1809, of the 'Address of the Lord
Mayor,- Aldermen, and,Livery, in Common Hall
assembled, is an' infiiigement on the right of the
subject to petition the Sovereign on alb lawful:Qua,
'stuns."

• „,
of h;S atjesty',s Ministeii et least to alvise his
Majesty todsave Teeeived the Peeision:in person. •
Mr. SeeretaryDeli was satisfied that his Hon.
Friends near liter 'would not have put the construc-
tion which they had done on the aEtual question,
had it not been for a kind of sympathy t hich led
thein as tray from a due consideration of thecase before
the House. The proposed Resolution involved no less
than a:direct charge against his Majesty's Aflinisters
of having infringed the rights of the shhjed. If there
were.any foundation fer•this charge, the motion of
the worthy .41dermsti, harsh as it might, seem, did
not go farenough. If his Majesty's Ministers had
been guilty of obstructing one of the Most valuable
and important rights of the -.subjedtlie right of
petition ing—he. had no difficulty in s lyink,Ahat they
deserved net only the implied' :censure wesich the
Resolution conveyed, but the direct and. positive
-anitnadversion'of the House of Commons... He was
convinced, 'however, that he should be able in a
very few words tetsatisfy the Hebse (and he almost
• _hoped to satisfy the worthy - Alderman) that there
was no ground for the. present motion. The first
• queeeion to be considered was, whether the Livery
at London had any
,distinet and exclusive right with
fespeer to the mode of petitioning his Majesty supe!
rior to.fhat of any other dais of his Majesty's sub-
. jeds ; for it was not prete.•kisei by the Honourable
Moeer that his .Majeay's Ministers had attempted. to
obstruct the Petioon 'of the Livery train r aeeine-
' the
_King. The eoMpleint ;se-Tis net th At is M s y's
itiliiiisters had atterepleaeto ele. Klee the nee:
the Livery 'enjoyed in common with the rest of I'is
Majesty's subjeets ; but 'that they had aeviseu Ins
Majesty not to alleW the Livery to exerrese a right.
seperior. to tleit'of the rest of the subj( ets of ibe
realm. There were three modes in which the Pe-
.eitions or Addre.sses.of the people were conveyed to
ehis•Majestys . The first was, when his Majesty re-
ceived them'on the. throne ; in which case (and in
winch case oniy) his Majesty 'returned an answer.
•By long usage his mode of leaving Petitions received
was enjoyed by tie two Universities ,and by the
. Corporation Of the City of London. Tile rum mode
was, by, presenting them to his Majesty at the,
Lesee ; on
_which oc'ca,:io:a his Majesty delivered
ihqm to the Lord in I,\T Ling. The third and last.
mode Was that whicir was adapted since the unior-
tuuate state.of itisMajeSty's sight had induced bias
to discoreinue holding Levee, namely, by trans-
ruittiee sect) Addresses or Petitions to the:Secretory
of Stare for the Home Department. This last was
. the mode submitted for, receiving -them at the
Levee, and whiCh the Livery of I,:rodou'were at
liberty to adopt if trier, thohght proper. Ever Siece
1 the unfortunate event to which he had alluded, it'
been uniforedy adoieed without an hveanee of coin
plaint, except in the solitary case beiole the house.
:The worthy 'Alderman in his history of .thesuojed
had truly stated that although before that perieo his
Majesty bad not received the Petition's of the Li-
very on. the Throne, "yet that between the y ea, s
'l77o.and 1775, his Majesty b..a, in several ii.-
; stances so receieed theta. 1775, however,
Lord' Hertford (as lee worthy •Alderman hal in-
deed stated) address:d a letter to s Mr,. Willies,.
then Lord Mayor, informing him that his Ma-.
jesty :would:not. for the fur ore receive on the Throne
i any petitiOns hut those from time Body Corporate.
On this eirconi,tance he was inclined to lay much
more stress than. the worthy Alderman had done,
because he-thought the• House Would. see cl,arly by
it, not only that the Livery of Lo ieun had ne ac-
tual right to the privilege white. [11(4 had in some
few cases enjoyed, that the luau 1.1,,i.114 of:that
day, wno were .the Most likely to ruseitaiti such
right; if it actually existed, were web satisfied t.,at
it really did nut exist.' The times CO A ;lice he_ au-:
verted were no ordinary times. Men> o those who
heard hire would recoiled, and ad w,,e ueera Iron
knew, that. they. were times not very ea similar to:
the present; that they 'were times Wilt/1 -a great.
popular ferment had been excited in tee L'e.y of
London.—At that periol Mr.Wrlkes was in tee en-
joyment of great popular rty. " The futn's of li-
berty e(to use iris own worth) had not evaporated in
his sineceree the volcano ;vas not extiatct, but in
the full blaze of its eruption." 'What was the con-
' chid of Mr. Wilkes on receiving Lord HA t'ord's
letter ? That letter was dated the II th of April.—
: 'Was it not natural to suppose, that had Me ss'ilkes
been convinced of the existence of sues aright in
the Livery of London, he would have immediately
summoned the 'Common Hall in lay the letter be-.
fore them ?. Would he' not' instantly have applied
to Parliament thr redress ? What was the case ?
On the second day of May (three weeks after' the
' receipt of the letter) Mr. Wilkes wrote an answer
to Lord Hertford ; but not until the 27th of May
' (six weeks after the, receipt of the letter) did he
make any application to Parliament, nor until the
24th of June (ten weeks after
.the receipt of the
letter) did he summon a Common Hall on thesubs
jed. He (Mr. Ryder) was the more
,anxious to
impress these fads upon the House, because he be-
lieved that the occurrences of those times were by
many deenied the best precedents to follow at 'pre-
sent. On the 24th of June the Livery passed gee
veral ResOlutions, almost precisely similar to the
Resolutions passed in the first week of January last—
violent
‘censure of the Ministers by whose advice his
,Majesty had been induoed to ad : and instrute ions

Sir W. CURTIS seconded the motion, which, in to their Representatives in Parliament, to endeavour
his opinion, was so proper, that he did n,,t wiped t to obtain the punishment of those who were then
any opposition would be made to it. ,Although he termed the authors of that which they termed an
did not approve of the sentiments, contained in the infringement of.their rights. But although these
Address of the Cominon Hall alluded
,to, he was instructions were given to all the boulefeus of that
persuaditdthat the Livery of London had a right to day—to Mr. Wilkes, and Mr. Sziwbridge, and Mr.
present the adoress to his Majesty in person, and j Oliver, not one word, was uttered by them in Par-
they ought to nave been admitted into his Majesty's. - liament on the assumed infraction of right, and nor
presence tor that purpose. a word on the subject Was contained in the resolu-
Sir C. Nick also supported the motion of his . tions Moved by. Mr. Sawbridge. The fact was; that
worthy colleague,. although. he differed very much • they felt that his Majesty's Ministers, in .put ieg the
from him in his opinion of the, conduct of his Ma- Livery of London on the same tooting-with the rest
jesty's Ministers in other respeets; He particularly 'of his Majesty's snbjetis, bad only done justice to
thought that the country was much indebted to Mi- the latter. , .19 making this remark, he begged not
nisters for the way in which they had recently re- 1 to be understood as meaning any slight to that body,
stor-d peace to the Metropolis. for which, when not under the enntrour of certain
Sir J. SHAW, after the able. manner in which his i individuals, he enterraiiied a high respedt. Tire
worthy colleague had stated . the subject to • the i worthy Alderman, he believed; Wai noi aware that he
House, was satisfied that it• would evince a very bad I might have directed his Motion with as much pro-
taste were be to go over the same grounds. He felt Pn.etY against the. House of Commons' as against
it his bou,,clen duty to support the motion. The his
.Alljes!y's Ministers. He was not aware of" a
Cc., non) Itill, from Whom the Address procei-dect, paisige which he might fit d 'in Hafsell'sPieeedents.
[The Right Hon. (..;..litiernan, nere 'read the :,assage
Ilan been -legally convened.; and having waved their ,
claim to be receive; hy,.cii,e King on the 'Throne, in to \s`l""ii be alleded.j7-Af:ei-
.having' observed,
that a P.. ttican from. fire Lied Mc, or rind the Body
consequence of the state of ills INlaje.ty's. health, be'
humbly conceived that it would have b4eu the duty i Corporate uf London tni,glit tie vlesented to the

House of
_Pqmmons by the Sheri but that it-:;::13er
tition.,,frota the Livery must be, rresented by at
IVl4ber:ana not by the Sheriff, the writer p:ocs:e
'ea to menti-In a
.case, in winch a Conin;on
baiing diretted their Petition to be, pre-enied to :he
House of Comm ns by the Sheriti, the seakvr,
before theadliission of the Sheriff to the B try sent
to him to inform him, that he must not pre,ent the
Petition, but that it must be.ptesented b; a Mem-
ber; and that 'the -P.,!thion was consequently pre,
sented by Sir'W. Lewes. Thus it apptared that .the.
House of Commons proceeded precisely on the-
same grounds as his Majesty's Ministers had done.
For himself, he could clistinelly'deciate, that since
he had entered upon the otfice he had the honour
tn hold, be did not believe that a shgle Petition had.
hen :transmitted to h;rn which' had not ma( hest his
Majesty., He bad licitly omitted to state, that
when the circumstance occurred on which the pro-
posed .resolution w,is founded, the Sheriffs of Loa-
don had anoth,:r Petition from the Body Corporate,
which they piesented to his, Majesty. If it were
said that it would have been ,easy so allow tI em to
present to 4isMaiesty at the same time the Petition
from the Livery, .he would reply, that if once a
point of that kind were relinquished, subsequent
resistance was rendered Much snore difficult, for the
dek ration would be pleaded as a precedent for future
coadutl. The-Right Hon. Gentleman concluded
by, reading •his an,w..r to she Sheriff's, in reply to the
application made by them tor ihe purpose of ascer-
taii,ing when his Majes:y would teceive the Address
of the .Livery. answer (which has already
been Rblisited) contained the reasons which in-
auced his Majesty ,not to dedart from the course
which ise•pursued--towards' the other classes of his
subjects.

• Lord FOLLESTONE contended alai al! his Majesty's
-subjetts had a right to d‘. liver their Pstitions into
the'hands of his Majesty himself; and. that the shs-
Viation of late pais from that oramice had occasiOn-
ed great complaint and rankling. The Bill of Itiethts
declared that the right of Petition was inheteet in
the. subject. At the co•nmencernent of the present
reign it was the nusiorn for his Majesty to receive
the Petitions ef his subjsets at all -tines. In conse-
Ap.e.nce however or the attsme, o; Nitegaret Nichol.
- son, this usage had be-n cuitaied, and a regulation
was made, that f. r the future Petitions, should be
received by his Majesty only at the Levee. Now,
however, that was done away ;,and all that reniain-
ed to the subject was the power of transmitting his
Petition VS the Secretary of State, to be by him
handol to his Majssty. •This was a most unsatiss
factory mole of- 'petitioning. The P eition might
probably accuse- the. very indisidusl lie was to be
the chat-met of conveying it to the Crown. • The
Right Hon. Gentleman said that since lie came into
ofti-e, he believed not a single Petition that bad been
sent to him bad failed in reaching the King. Was
such a belief a sufficient security for the subjea ?--
Beside, be bad heard some stories of Petitions lying
man, months in the pigeon -holes of office, unopened
and unrepresented. One 'evidence. that these Ad-
d.esses did not in ali cases reach his Majesty, aps
peered to h:m to exist in, the mode itt winch they
wore paolislied in tee Gazettes. It they we!e
ta-
vourab,e; to his !Majesty's Ministers, they were acs-
competed by a comment (signed by the Right Ho-
noueible Gen Leman), setting ;forth the., gracicsis
mintier in which they had been received. If, hews
ever, they were adverse to Ministers, no such le--
cord was made ; and any acknowledgment of their
receipt proceeded from the Right HOnourable Gen- '
ileinari in It's coldest manner-possible. Was it to
'be believed, therefore, that all these Petitions and
Addresses reached his Majesty ?—WaS ti to be be.
lieved hat his M ,jesty would treat in a different
m eines persons quslly loyal and attached' to nits];
bectus- in the oiie case they *commended, and in
the o net ey coedernued an Administratioe ?
,He
bent .n its timid the copy of a letter from the Right
Hull. Gentleman to a very. respedable
who having been anxious CO present.a Petition to his
Majesty, was desired to send it to the Office of. the
Secretary of Suits. On replying that he presumed
the Seieetary of State would read his letter to. his
Atlejesty, the Right Honourable Gentleman r exs
pressea 'nsei! at a loss to understand. how the
victual to whom fie alludedecould suppose it possible
that he should hiinseil read his Petition to th&King;
and declared thatehe should not himself au-
thorised to de so, unless lie were to receive his Ma-
. jes'y'i comma.,ds to inat effed. The • Right Hon.
Gentlemati bad Compared chose whom,he termed
.the detuagoguss of the present time, with those
~.whom be termed the boutefeur of 30 or 40 years
ago. He had no doubt that posterity wouLd set the
same seal on them bo;h. He had no doubt that
posterity would sanetion with equal applause the
eflOrts of individuals of-the present day to resist the
unjust claims of that
_House, and the. efforts of
Wilkes and Oliver to, resist-the unjust power over
which they ultimately triumphed.
Mr. R. S. DUNDAs. replied to the Noble Lord
who bad taken so different a groutid from that of
,the worthy Alderman, and who had, supported the.
motion not on the merits of that individual case, but
on the general question- of the obstruction of the
sebjeCt in his right to petition. The Noble Lord
thought that Vere was such a difference between
presenting a Petition at the Levee to the Kings by
whom it was handed to the Lord in Waiting, and
transmitting it to the Secretary of State, as to create
an obstrudtion to the right of petitioning in the
latter CJS,', which did not exist in the fOrmer.' Sep-
posing -it possible that his Majesty would slight the
Petitions of any of his subjects, what greater, assur-
ance wassthere that they would be submitted-to his
Majesty's peru•al by the Lord in Waiting, ,than by
the Secretary. of State.; with respect to the Yeti."
don teem an individual, to which the-Noble Lord
had alluded, he would supply a deficiency in the
, Noble Lord's statement. The Petitioner Was Major
Cart wrignt, who Wished to present to the King's own
hand a Petition, comprising- his opinion on the sate
of public afiaits. His Majesty's Ministers,- how-
ever did not think thst Major Cartwright was in-
titled io a greater privilege than the Livery of Lou.
den, and the rest of hits Majesty's subjects. No-
• ttiing could be more absurd than to suppose it pos.
Bible the S.eretary of -State could read to his Ma-
jesty all the Petitions and Addresses which were,
transmitted to him: He did his duty if he for-
warded throe to his Mejesiy with, the lest of the
public documents, for his Majesty. 10 pertl,tt at
leisure.' Noble Lard thouceot proper n
that the cessation of the usage of presenting Peet-