Star.
London, England, 1817-03-05 00:00:00

Pin TIONL &C.

Lord COCHRANE said, he held in his hand a
Petitiim from the incorporated Trades of the Borough
of Rutherglen, praying for Parliamentary Reform.
Seeing the Learned Lord Advocate of Scotland in
his place, he wished to ask him, whether the infor-
'station which he had formerly stated was correct or
not, namely, that the Schoolmaster and another in.
dividoal at Glasgow, who were taken up and con-
fined two nights and two days in a dirty place, with
a damp unwholesome fluor, had been discharged.
there brine no foundation for any charge against them?
The LORD ADVOCATE said, he could have
no difficulty whatever in stating, that the persons
taken• up at Glasgow had not been taken up for
having convened mother for the purpose of conside-
fing as to the mode in which parochial relief might
be obtained. They had been taken up on a charge of
treasonably conspiring against the Government. It
would be improper in him to state to the House what
discoveries had been made against any at the indivi-
duals arrested—it would be improper towards ttic in-
dividuals themselves. as it might create an impression
Against them in the public mind, and it would be im-.
groper with reference to the public business of the
dountry.. With respect to a question put to him the
other night, whether the oath read by him to the
'.Honse was one of the papers which was round on the
persons so arrested ? he could not give an answer to
it without prejudging the cause of these individuals,
and doing that which was contrary to the principles
of British justice ; fur if the parer had actually been
found in this manlier, and it lie were to say so, it
might create an impression against the individuals ar-
tested. The Magistrates were in possession of evi-
dence which proved that the object of parochial re.
lid was one which never had been agitated in any of
the Meetings.
Lord COCHRANE said, that the Noble and
Learned Lord had returned no answer to his question.
"The LORD ADVOCATE stated, that he had
received no information whatever, whethel all or any
of the persons take!' up, on the charge of a treason.
itble conspiracy, were liberated or not. But he knew
the Magistr aces would not detain one moment any per-
son against vs born there was no foundation of a charge.
But he had received no informatiOn onahe subject.
Mr. BROUGHAM could not help thinking that
the Learned Lord had not understood the question
put to him by the Noble Lord. Tlx Noble and
•Learned Lord had very properly deprecated all pre-.
judging the question of the individuals taken up, and
stated that an answer to the question, whether the
oath was one of the papers found on these indivi•
duals would be prejudging their case. But in the
gestation of the Noble Lord there was nothing about
any papers or oath, but whether it was true, or not,
that the persons arrested bad been in tact discharged,
and were no longer in custody ?
The LORD ADVOCATE stated, that he had
received no information whatever to enable him to'
answer the quest on of the Noble Lord.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT read some extracts
from a letter from Glasgow. It stated. that a spy
of Government had uttered seditious words in in
assemblage with a view of decoying others into mak-
ing use of improper expressiOns, but that the attempt
bad failed ; and on the spy being conducted before
a Magistrate, the latter refuse) to commit him as
being a loyal man. To be a loyal man was the slay'
of escaping prosecutions under the existing laws, sod
it was the loyalty of Linibrick, the police officer,
which excused his conduct to a poor boy whom he
seized for pulling down handbills which the Police
had caused to be posted on the walls of the Metro-
olis. The buy had indeed been told, that be might
have redress by suing in feriae tutufteris, but he did
iiot seem to be a whit nearer, having- to snake a stand
against• loyalty, which seemed to cover as many sins
as thistits.—The Petition was then read, and ordered
to lie on the table.
Lord COCHRANE presented a Petition from
Greenock, in favour of Parliamentary Reform, and
one of the same description from Cathcart, in Ren-
freasiiire.

Lord COCHRANE wished to know whether he
might present at once a number of Petitions whieb
he held in his band ?
The SPEAKER said, that the indulgence which
it was the practice of. the House to grant withiegard
to the presentation of many Petition* at a was
very indefinite. If the Member who presented ahem
could take on him to state that they were all precisely,
in the same terms, it had been sometimes the cestom
to receive seven or eight at 'nee; but if there were
any variations in them, it was the safer and the better
course to preiefit ascii one by one.
Lord COCHRANE said he would plusent them
separately. He accordingly presented a Petition hem
Tarbolton, and one from Brady, in the Isle of Wight,
both in favour of Parliamentary Reform.
Lord COCHRANE then presented a Petition
from Groby, which, he observed, was nearly in the
forin of others which bad been rejected by the House,
but the words which had been deemed .meet objec-
tionable had been left out.

The Petition was read. It stated, among other
things, that. the Hume. did not in any way canstitu-
tionally sepresent the country, and prayed for Mil-
:versa) Suffrage and Annual Parliaments.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he did not know
hat words had been left out of the Petition ; but he
magined there could not be any more objectionable
likit-thbse which remained, •iz, the sentence which,
!aid that the House did not eonstitt*tionally tepre-
nettle People. -
Sir F. BURDETT said, it would be more lads-
factory if on the rejection tit a petition it were under-
stood what were the words really objected to. In the
present instance, the Petitioners, asserted that the
Hattie did not **present the tintntry, which was the
grievance they' comp Lined uf, and without asserting
which it aims in vain ler thab to approach the House.
The ground *on :111Phiati lb* Houle rejected petitions in
general• was, that it the petikfonen, initead of stating
their grimness plainly) weal out of disk' Web *id,

inserted words which rnight be offensive to thosie who I
heard' them. Such an objection could not be taken
to the petition Wm% them, for the words of it Were
as•inoffensive as 'night be, but merely stating the ;
grievance they had In complain of, and praying that
that grievance might be remedied by a constitutional
representation of the people.
Lord BINNING said, he did not pretend .accu- ,
rattly to recollect the words of the petitions formerly
rejected, but as far as his memory went, the ground
on which they were rejected WAS, the assertion that
the House did not represent in any constitutional
manner the people of England.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that the Petitions which•
had been rejected contained the words what this
contained, but also others. The former Petitions
stated, not only that. the House did not represent the
people in any constitutional, bnt in any rational dr
legal way. All the Petitions stated, that the House
did not represent in any " constitutional" manner the
people. He had thought at the time, that these
words—" in a constitutional manner"—were to be
considered as a qoalification of the assertion, that the
House did not represent the people. If that assertion
had been made absolutely, it might have been con-
strued into a denial of the power of the Home to act
as a branch of the Legislature. But, qualified as it.
was, in this and former Petitions, by the words, " in
a constitutional manner," it was °thy an argumenta-
tive way of stating a proposition in which all Refor-
mers agreed.—[Why not state it so? from Lord
Binning]. He agreed that it would have been better
it the Petitions had been thus worded ; and if learned
persons had the framing of those Petitions, instead of
the plain and simple men whose prayers they ex-
pressed, they would no doubt have been so worded.
l'he:ngh the Petition before the House was drawn up
in a more careless and more exceptionable manner,
yet, when it was considered that there • appeared no
wilful htention to insult the House, but th?t the Pe-
titioners had taken a short way of expressing the opi-
nions of all Reformers, it was not inconsistent with
the rules of the House to receive it. He once more
entreated the House to consider, whether it was not
better to open the door, than to shut it against Peti-
tions; whether it was not better to receive untechni-
cal, and even faulty petitions, than to debar sire people
from exercising their right of approaching the House ?
Lord BINNING said, the statement of the Ho-
[mumble and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham)
was correct; but the word constitutional was before
peculiarly objected to.
.Mr. B. BATHURST agreed that it was proper
at all times to open a aid! door to petitioners, and
especially to those who prayed for a Reform in that
House ; he agreed also that the House should not
seek too nicely for insults. It was in their recollec-
tion that the House had suffered itself to be charged
with corrupfon over and over again, Which shewed
no particular scrupulousness on that score. But the
present petition did not contain merely an insult, but
disputed the competency of the' House itself ; for
- what rational distinction could be drawn between
aonstitinional and legal ? Some of the other petitions
had ghee on to found inferences upon their assertion.
They stated that taxation without representation was
slavery. It was not, therefore, any sense of irritabi-
lity which dictated the rejection of petitions.; but the
impossibility of admitting an assertion. which im-
plied that the House bad no right to exercise its
functions, and especially the function of taxation.
Lord COCHRANE observed. that sin the former
petition other words had been objected to, besides
those now alluded to—especially a sentence speaking
of the " long-protracted andidisgusting debates" of
. the House.

Mr. J. W. WARD said; that if it were once re-
ceived and acknowledged that the House did not, in
any constitutional manner, represent .04 peopie it
must also be allowed that it existed in conts.tdiction
to the law. What might be inferred hum this was
pretty plain, ;rad, it sl •ed, the inference was actually
made by some ref the kt:tinners. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) had said
that considerable allowance Was to be made for un-
learned men and simple persons: • Now, if they looked
at the uniformity of those petitions, and the manner
in which they were drawn up, they might judge
whether or no they were really the productions of
simple and unlearned men. , - . ..•
_ _

Mr. CA LC RAF r thought the Petition eoeldessiy.
be considered as an expression of the opinions &abet
Petitioners as to the state of the Representation. That
the House virtually represented the People, the Peti-
tioners acknowledged, by applying to the House for
the change in the Representation which they desired.
He thought the Petition, therefore, should be received
as an expression, perhaps foolish, perhaps absurd, bet
net dishonest, of the Petitioo:rs' opinions.
Mr. W YNN observed, that the Petition before them
called the debates of the House protracted and use-
less, though the word disgusting was omitted.
Mr. LAMBTON read a part of the Petition which
had been presented from Bristol, on the first et.iy of
the Session, and received by the House. That Peti-
tion, which had been read at length, while less noire
prevailed than usually attended the reading of such
Petitions—stated, that the House represented no
Constitutional or rational sense the People of Eng.
land—that the Constitution was subverted, and th.-i
taxation without Representation was slavery." It
also stated, that the debates of the House were a
mockery. and rely served to weary the public pa.
tiencc. Another Petition from Wick, which had
been received, said, “ if the House had been really
the Representatives of the People, instead of being
the tools of a grasping oligarchy of Borough-mon-
gers," he. As the House had received Petitions
containing suet) words as these, it could hardly with
any appearance of consistency 'reject a Petition sn
much less offensive as that on the Table.

Mr. V. FITZGERALD said, that the statement
of the Honourable Member (Mr. Latabton)wzasune
of the best arguments for the rejection of the 'piesent
petition• as it 'hewed the eaten' to.which inslats in•
the• House wunld be carried, if once admitted:An
them. If there were precedents fur the admission of
such petitions, there were also precedents for their
reject►on, and the House would judge isliether it
was nut wiser to assert its own dignity, than to stab=
alit to reiterated Minim?

The, .. •
he Petition was rejected.
Lord COCHKNNE(. presented smother Petition
froth The Weh Riding tot Yikk;but wilhdreevitm—as
it wis foitlid tb bb Venitir to thelrrresout one; -•-
Lord titaLtELL'ES iireSented Ve,ition

form from-the West Riding of tort, teitich was
read and laid upon the Table.
General FER.GUSOIst presented a petico.► from
Strohmlgln, in Fife, praying for univerial s iffr.tee
and annual Parliaments. Ordered to lie on the tab it.