Star.
London, England, 1817-02-22 00:00:00

ease was one in which he thought they ought to hear
the petitioner; for with all his respect for the Com-
mittee, he must observe, that they proceeded Open,
ex-tarte evidence. A love of the Constitution was
best manifested in shering it to he just and there
were some cases in which' individuals had no way for
redress bet in appealing to the justice of Parliament.
Earl GROSVENOR observed, that what he then
proposed' was for the Petition lying upon the table.
The only thing which he thought remained was to
consider whether there was any thing in the situation
of. the country, or the present aspect of public af-
fairs, that should induce the Hottse not to entertain
the petition ? He thought the present state of the
business the preferable time for hearing the petitioner.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE thought there
was no adequate ground for the House not receiving
the petition. Petitions, and even counter petitions,
were often received on occasions nearly similar. He
thought the case of the Irish Canonical Propositions
nearly similar. There numerous petitions were en-
tertained upon the Report of a Committee, and be-
fore any legislative measure conk place upon it.
The Duke of ATHOL adverted to a part of the
petitioner's language, which he thought was suffi-
cient to authorize its rejection.
Lord ERSKINE stated, theft unwilling as he was
to give any vexatious opposition to his Majesty's Go-
vernment, be had no' during the last Session of Par-
liament attended in his place. Whatever might be
his opinion as to the late war, he still oronsiilered his j
Majesty's Government entitled to credit for the man-1
ner in which it was concluded. He thought that
last Session before the House could come to the re-
ductions of a peace establishment (what it must now
come to) it should wait for facts. That which he
was then willing to afford time to Ministers to pro-
duce, he that night asked in turn from Ministers, in
favour of the people, viz. the facts on which a full
and comprehensive decision could alone be founded.
Never was any man more surprized than he was,
when he Slit learned the nature of the late Commit-
tee, and the Message on which it was appointed.
He was then in a distant pert of the country, and had li
little thought that measures of such importance to
the great interests of the nation were so near as those
now ascertained to be in contemplation. When the
atrocious attempt on the illustrious pet sonage at the
head of the Government transpired, there never was
a more universal effusion of loyalty than was ilia:trated in every part of the country. With respect
to the immediate point before their Lordships, with-
out discussing the forms of the House, he would
merely ask the plain question—if this petition be now
rejected, can any petition adverting to the Report of
the Committee, be at any future time received ? If
the time, however, be the only objection, in 'what
stage after the precedent of rejection can they be per-
mitted ? He had on a former evening presented pe-
titions from the City of Glasgow and its vicinity,
signed by 25,000 individuals, in favour of a Reform
in the State of the Representation. He now found
from the Report of the Committee of Secrecy, that
a charge was made against those petitioners for re-
form, of no less a nature than involving them in a
conspiracy to subvert the laws and institutions of the
conatry.. -He begged to read the passage, as it was
important in its bearing on those numerous classes of
subjects s " Others of these Societies are called Union
Clubs, professing the same object of Parliamentary
Reform, but under these words understanding Uni-
versal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments, projects
which evidently involve not any qualified or partial
change, but a total subversion of the British Consti-
tution." There was no man more decidedly averse
than he was to the doctrine of universal suffrage and
annual Parliaments. It was a doctrine contrary to
the spirit and practice of the British Constitution,
and au he trusted it would continue ever to be. But
he must ask, whether persons feeling a different con-
viction on that subject, had not a right to Petition
either House of Parliament ? When
_their motives
and intentions were aspersed, had they not a justifia-
ble reason to approach that House for the purpose of
redeeming their own characters and informing Par-
liament of the misrepresentation ? In the case allu-
ded to that night, namely, that of Mr. Tooke, the
proceeding did not originate on a report of the Le-
gislature, it was grounded on newspaper publication,
and the language of the Court was, that it-could not
take cognizance, the whole proceedings of Parlia-
ment being before the public. The case of the pre-
sent Petitioner could not be distinguished from one
where a a grievance had been committed and injury
felt, on which the interposition of that House was
prayed.
Earl DARNLEY begged their Lordships to pause
befere they rejected a Petition respectfully addressed
to their consideration. Was any man prepared in the
fallibility of human judgment to contend that the
Committee might not be imposed upon by false evi-
dente ? It such a conclusion could not be supported,
surely the House could not proceed with too much
caution before it shut its doors against an aggrieved
individual (Hear, hear,) complaining of misrepresen-
tation, and expressing his readiness to afford satisfac-
, ter, evidence of the allegations his Petition contained.
Unless the House was an the fullest possession of the
positive truth of the facts oa which that Report was
founded, they ought not to reject the prayer of the
Petitioner. Should it, however, act otherwise, he
would confidently assert, it would not do justice to
the country; and feeling as he did, that it as the
interest of that House to stand well with the country,
it would not, in that event, de justice to themselves.
Earl FITZWILLIAM,-=-As I had the honour of
being a Member of that Committee of Secrecy, whose
Report has been presented to this House, I feel SOU
CiLOUS to give my opinion on the subject of this Peti-
tion. 'Co that Report I assented, from the nature of
the evidence that was before the Committee. That
evidence etas been contradicted by the Petition, b rib
in point of tact and time ; and therefore I woual be
exceedingly aotry that a Petition containing such alle-
gations should not be received. At all events, I feel
it a duty
most seriously.to press upon the considera-
tion of the House the propriety of adopting the
Amendment of my Nobte Friend (Earl Grey).—
(Haar, Isar.)
The House divided on the Amendment, when the
numbers were—. Contents, 18—Not-Contents, 64.
Majority against the Amendment, 46.
The motion for laying the Petition on the Table
was afterwards negatived without a division.
When strange' were withdrawn, Lord Houdin)
presented to the House of Lords a Petition kom