Star.
London, England, 1810-05-08 00:00:00

.~,-: .
~- .

Sir W. CURTIS secooded.the motion. The Pe-

.11*
, present
attended an Address voted , 1781, and
neat subsequent Address in 1797. lithe year 1800
another Address .was voted to be {treated to the
King on the Throne and, in consquence of an in-
struction to that elect, the Sheriff* baited on his Ma-
jegy at Weymouth, to know when beWottitt be gra-
ciously pleased to receive it on his throne. The She-,
riffs obtained his Majesty's permissioln ice the Clam -
berlain to read to him their instruct:4s t but manila
the same answer as in 1775, that hip Majesty, ever
ready to receive the Addresses of his subjects, was
the best judge where. Upon the representation of these
,circumstances bythe Sheriffs to the Common Hall, cer-
tain Resolutions were agreed to, which were commu-
nicated to the King at Windsor by the Sheriffs.'Thete I
were all the cases that had occurred daring the pre-
sent reign until the latter end of last year, Wheir-thel
. Pickens of London, had to complain of the -eldif-
maks of the jimes, and, the Livery of Louden at
;steroid. to address his Majesty on the grivrahosa
, with which the nation was oppressed. This wooden.'
:; a time when the public, and the Citizens of lacer-4'
don in particular, were borne down by the burthen:
of taxes, but more especially one grinding tax, row
ti red doubly oppressive by the measures resorted to
h r rendering it productive. It was the more neces-
s: ry for them to carry up their complaints of griev-
ances to the Throne, because they saw the measures
resorted to in that House for their redress unavailing.
Disgusted, therefore, with the losses .that had been
sustained, provoked by the expences incurred, whilst
no means were taken to bring public defaulters to '
• : stice ; mortified at the rebuke which his Majesty
,c 1 been advised unseasonably to give to the City of
ondon ; disgusted at all these circumstances of no.
tienal calamity and disgrace, the Livery of London
required the Lord Mayor to call a Common Hall..
That. Hall was called, and a more numerous and re-
, spectable Meeting never. assembled in London. An!
Address was voted to his Majesty, and the Lord
. Mayor and Sheriffs directed to present it to his Majes-
ty, at a levee, waving their right to have it presented
on the throne, in consequence of the state of his Ma-
jesty's health. On the 14th of December, they applied
to the Secretary of State, and were informed by him
they would aot be allowed to present it at a Levee,
and on the 20th of the same month; when waiting on
his Majesty with another Address, they were refused
permission to present this Address at the same
• time. The consequence was, that the Livery had
. come to Resolutions similar to those voted in 1775.
What he complained of was, not that the Address of
the Livery hid not been received on the Throne, be-
. cause, as his fellow-citizens had waved their right on
that head, he was not bound there to insist upon that
for which they did not instruct him to contend for ;
what he had to complain of was the obstruction given
to presenting the pet.tion to his Majesty at his levee.
. Having stated the case, he should conclude by moving
" Thst the obstruction made by his Majesty's Minhters to the
Addresses of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council,and
• ,Livery of London, on the 14th of December last, Is an infringe-
'6l Went of the subject•to petition the Sovereign on all lawful oc-
Onsions?' - • ,

*ion and Address in question had been agreed to at
a Common-hall legally assembled; *and though there
were things in it with which he could not concur, he
thought his Majesty's Ministers acted improperly in
not allowing it to be presented in the usual way. He
• had great pleasure in seconding the-motion.
. Sir CHASLE4 PRICE likewisesaid, that the Pe- I
tition had been agreed to at a .Coinmen-hall legally •
convened. What would have been: its fate if a fair
hearing had been allowed to. all, fie would not pre-
tend to say—bit it had been carried through, and
• therefore ought to have gone to the Throne with the
usual facility. While he agreed, with his Honourable
Colleague (Combe) so far, he could not concur in
the censure which he bad passed on the conduct of
Ministers. He,thougbt they deserved a great deal of
praise for the,manner in which they had conducted
their expedition.-.(Near, hear.)—They also deserved
great deal of pram for the manner in which they
had preserved the peace of the metropolis on a late
occasion. He remembered the riots in 1780, and
Moped he should. never - see any such
He

again . exhihition.
hoped the Ministers would act with the same
energy on other occasions.
Sir JAMES SHAW observed, that it would chew
but bad taste in Mm to go over the seine ground with
iris colleagues, as they had so ably spoken to the sub-
ject. As a friend to the general right of the subjects
to petition, he would support the motion. The meet-
ing was legally contenedr.there was a very numerous
Ifali—many of the!? Liverymen, and the claim of
presenting theirststsous on the Throne hating been
waved, he ha IY conceived that Ministers ought
not to have refused to the Livery the opportunity of
presenting the Petitior a ;hp j.evow.
Mr. Sectetity oxprerneil sonut unitize
that his Hon. Friends bad readily green their pen-
cur• re..:e m this mono n, they were
_Lue
ft* !!!! Plr! ?IVO Of One' Thc

Wilkes, who was then Mayor, that they would not
be again received in the same manner. The time,
wee similar to the resent. The City was in a fee•
meat. Wilkes was in the zenith of his popularity..
He had not, as he afterwards said, "got the dews
evaporated into ,a snug sinecure." He was not then
" a volcano extinct," but in the fidl fore, of eruption.
It was then found necessary to repress the demi-
kitgss ohfadthraetce'iveyd tashewleelitteraseethose not
the Ilththoeflrt;47l7.
and he did not think it of sufficient importance to call
a Hall till the 24th of June following. They then
passed Resolutions similar to those which had been
paned
n December last, with instructions tb their
Representatives to make 'formidable motions against
Ministers. Yet not one word on that occasion was
said in the Mouse by Wilkes, Sawbridge, and Oliver,
the bouteenx (incendiaries) of that 'day; upon the
rright of the Livery to present to the King 'out the
`Throne. The fact eas of itself decisive. He defied
bat Ministers acted from any disrespect to the Unary
—who, when not under the controulbf artful
lddhi-
duals, always deserved great respect. He theitriad
a passage from Hatsell's Precedents, to shew that the
House of Commons received the Petitions of the Li-
very' exactly as those of (alter persons in ordinary
cases. He stated, that no Petition, he believedi had
come en his office that had not been forwarded to his
Majesty. They had refused the claims of the City of
London, because a similar indulgence could not, if
they had been gratified, be refused to others. He
pledged himself, that all Petitions coming to his office
should be forwarded. He oppoted the motion.
Lord FOLKESTONE'said, that the Honourable
Alderman had not contended for the right of peti-
tioning on the Throne, to which the whole of the Se-
cretary's observations applied, but complained that
the Livery had been denied that access to his Ma-
jesty's person which the law held to he the inherent
right of English subjects. This, he contended, was
a general subject of complaint ; and lie adverted to a
meeting of the County of Berks, where this obstruc-
tion was seriously complained of. Any subject bad,
even at the commencement of the present reign, the
right to gi* a petition into his Majesty's hand. In
consequence of the unfortunate case of Margaret Ni-
cholson, a regulation was adopted, that petitions
should only be presented at the Levee. Now this
was done away, and nothing remained but transmis-
sion through the Office of the Secretary of State.—
This was rather unsatisfactory, considering that the
grievance most seriously complained of would often',
be the retaining of the person in office who was to
transmit the petition. The Honourable Secretary
said, he believed that the petitions sent to his Office
had been transmitted. This belief of his was a coin.
fortable assurance to those whose rights to petition
his Majesty im person were considered as inherent...-.
This mode affbrded them an admirable security
for the transmission of their grievances to. the Royal
ear ! There were, however, stories afloat about peo
titions having been found in the pigeon holes of the
Secretary of State's Office, unopened and unpresente
ed. Another suspicious circumstance was thaz all Pe-
titions to the King were not published in the Gazette,
though the complimentary Addresses in praise
Ministers, &c. were sure to be there, with a comment
that they had been most graciously received. But
'who saw there any petitions complaining of fruitless
and ridiculous Expeditions, &c. ? He bad seen a let-
ter from the Right Honourable Secretary himself (to
Major Cartwright probably), denying that he was'
under any obligation to read such petitions to his M 4;
jesty ; and thus were the people debarred from that
access to the Sovereign which the law called theirin-
herein right. The Honourable Secretary bad com-
pared the present times with those of 1775. He
(Lord Folkstone) had no doubt that posterity would
regard the claims of the present day against the exer-
cise of undue power by the House, in the same light
as the claims of these days were regarded by the peo-
ple of the present day. The resistance then made to
the undue exercise of power has been sanctioned by
the approbation of the present day, and so would the
present resistance be sanctioned by the approbation
Of posterity.
Mr. Secretary DUNDAS said, that the objection
to the mode of transmitting petitions through the
Office of the Secretary of State seemed to be, that the
Secretary was under no obligation to read them to
the King. But supposing. they were presented at the
Levee, what security could there be that they
would be read They were in both cases given to
his Majesty with other public papers to he peruseil
at the time most convenient for him. The letter to
which the Noble Lord alluded was addressed to Ma-
ki?' cartwright, who had requested an audience of his
Majesty to state his opinions on public affairs—and
this being reused, be reqnired wane security of the
Secretary of hate that he wield teed his Address to
the King. This was imposeible—the Secretary could
eply send them with other papers. It never bad been
Pie cPstoP4 19 NIA* 114 addreisnen au4 Petitions in

,

•

•
was,
.ttstablished atgalpss
ahewa that they had deviated
codld not believe that
were.disoontentecl with the
• petitions through the me-
, when they considered
, owing.
know whether it was drat
understand the question, or put.-
.. unable to answer. The
from the Treasury referred
petitioning on the Throne,
Friend had expressly waved.
had wandered from the
volcanos, and had even
language for invective. This
vital importance in itself,
the manner in which it
d*elt upon the highly
improper manner in which
to defend themselves by
infirmities oftheirSovereign.
House to believe that his
perfectly competent to the
important of duties, the giving
• complaints of his subjects.
I be the duty of the House
But they knew that this
therefore reprobate the
Ministers resorted,

founded upon what for
had bc. considered as the most
ights Englishmen, which would be
nugatory without access to his Majesty's person. Even
in the worst times—those of Charles the Second, &c.
this access had not been refused. The most corrupt
Ministers had no idea that it could be refused. How
complete would have been their triumph if they had
discovered the practice which had of late prevailed !
Tt was the right of the Livery of London, as it was
of all other British. subjects, to have access to the
Royal person, and it seas the refusal which was com-
`plameci of. -Petitions ought certainly always to be
respectful arid decorous—whether to the Crown or

Parhament (Hear, hear.) He understood that cheer,
and in answer to it said, that he thought some late
petitions were exactly the reverse of what the idea of
a petition implied. There was in the tenor and even
in the expression something that warranted the belief
that other objects were in the contemplation of the
framers than a mere complaint of grievances. But,
on the other hand, the obstruction of petitions, pro-
perly so called, was a subversion of the fundamental
law of the land.

Upon a division the numbers were—For the motion
52—Against it 138—Majority 86.

DUKE OF

On the re-admission of strangers into the gallery,
Mr. WHITBREAD was on his legs, speaking on
the resolution for a grant of £7OOO per annum to the
Duke of Brunswick, on the Consolidated Fund. It
appeared to him that there were other funds upon
which a suitable provision for this Prince might better
be charged. He instanced the Droits of the Admi-
ralty, and the Ciyil List Pension.
Mr. TIEREY did not see why it might not have
been charged in the first instance, on the 4.1 per cent.
duties, as the pension of £9OOO per annum to the
Duke of Gloucester had been. He should like to
know what could be spared from the Civil List, or
what might be spared from the Droits of the Admi-
ralty to purchase such an annuity, without incum-
bering the Consolidated Fund ? He had also heard
that the military. appointments of his Highness were
from 3 to £5OOO a-year : he wished to know whether
this report was correct?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
replied, that his military appointments did not ex-
ceed £l5OO or iftl6oo a-year. As to the Droits of
Admiralty, it was a floating fund, t poll which u per-
manent grant could not attach.
Mr. TIERNEY explained.

Mr. PONSONBY said, that when it was consider-
ed that the Duchess of Brunswick had already a pen-
sion of £lO,OOO a year charged on the Consolidated
Fund, he thought that £7OOO annually was rather
, too great a sum to vote the Duke. It appeared to
him that, all circumstances being considered, £5OOO
per annum would have been quite sufficient. He
wished to know the situation of the amount of the
Droits of Admiralty, and what could be spared from it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
.said, that it was certainly by no means an exhausted
fund, but he could not take upon himself to say what
sums entild be spared from it.

The ResolutiOn Was then put and agreed to.

Mr. TIERNEY expressed a wish, that before the
second reading of the Bill to be founded on this reso-
lution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be
prepared to answer the questions which had been put
to him.

. •

. . . . --- . -
. ~.., /
•
ANA lit ' f A
MAI - 2. ' r ''. ii • ...
. • 144441111 WAS
,flitil
*am, . , . .
~ ; At ,4* ...ist4;_... ". .''- - • , ° .'' 161•.' • • ' ihaitr4At ...' .''
,-IPit *:'''."
. ' 4,14 be she" tl
, i
. •frove ,
•' we Jo,
4.1‘,- •r• .1.. • , •41 s' i -Li .;;IL 1 .'.• . • Mkt" ll°
I
tZrillirbi re" *rm. - ' '"4. -51" -1 . 00100004..tw !gang" : , riling, Country. were
=roe =Pr. '. . -
......c ' A.' , ' : of "adder), it. act-a& go far. '. • '4'4' :- * t Mode of presenting peat
difived. tho ' "no *Pe ' that case d conduct deserved, not an . '.l • ' .. Of the. &craw,' of Sty.
osier so wafer* so 'do im - ' sisosis,, awe only), but a direct and positive hailsaifeite 'Causes to which this was ov
ail V.,. ...4.te'l Ili 41104 .„„._.‘ . 4'.'r v. , . uen. Beebe would •show, in a few Weeds; Oat. • Ift.,llbitNEß did not knot
MI
aid miens, ; asotllide • -- ' neehted • ' Isere was. no ground whatever .for lbe asotiou.. the Ministers did not nuclei:sum
no Ma ingT Isoprow , ,:'-• soothes; A Vie gessoes(' was, whethe!.the. Livery of London 'otiosely avoided it, from being ui
dress._eases wa,a re .411 D thit -- Ili MS two Ad- had nigh &striven wboada noebeleh to other *Kick of the first Speaker from
..
weaves had Virial.;„ is Aril:hick had chums of the etannainity ? for it was not pretended solely -to the claim of petitior
al
' 'Stu ' . . '
been received his - . els his ' - i'_noother that btialstershad refused tothem what they grimed which MS Honourable Friend
is Janet which sem was gilionsed.., 14 this hyper to others. no acknowledged that Ministers did ad- The Honourable Secretary hac
Mtge the Chassbarlein we .folostsd. .14 letter from -vim his Majesty Act to grant the Livery more than real question to talk of his vol
Lord Hertford.** it was ffti Millestjes pleasure not was allowed to his other subjects. The Honourable resorted to a, foreign language
to receive any Address ppois his throw froos.thicity .1114erntan had correctly stated, that there were di -question was of the most vital
of Londonbso in its COrpOrle• .Chal*Cilf. This SOW' anodes of presenting petitions, Ist, to the sing upon and still more important from ti
inunicadOn was than submitted to a Dominos Haft, the Throne, when alone an seem was returned ; bad been received. He then d
at *high certain Tesoll3dollll Illeft:ntelle thdaraterY 2d, At the Levee, whin the 'lion was given to indecorous, indelicate, and imp
of the tight of the city of London to their pe- ,his Majesty,. who i 'handed it to the the Ministers endeavoured to I
titions, or addresses, to the Leg on des and. Lied in W. - ; then the public Levees htvint drawing the veil from the infirm
to have as answer to diem - Asettheressolotio; was been di ' * - mein to th e defect of his Majei; It was impossible for the How
also pawed, containing atteaprees Ns' nction to the ti's sight, the-8d Modelllellijkit of tremositting pe. Majesty was not in a state perfe
Sic sot to present the Adiresf.isst to tho. Fog .tatiens throokh the Mai the Secretary: or State. discharge of that most importar
as hie Theme.. The Sheri& . . wailed upon This *tightens of -41Waii had an opportunity of a proper attention to the corn/
. :ft Ma' on a Levee day, sosse that skin in coseatos wft tis Weer: caber subjects. If it were otherwise, it would be
AM 4.
_4. voculd be received at 1(1404 I but -:This was smedin first time the Livery had made to order an investigation. Bu
sip darter t . ow, his. hirjeiry informed. Pretensions to superior rights. 'At no ptriod ptaviouti was not necessary, and must t
cam thee, 4* be at all Oates ready to to the year 1770 were their *titian received oUtise anode of defence to which
Seceive eit petitions of his people, and . that he Throne. From 1770.161773, three of foss Petitions The claim of the Livery was fi
-' was the best judge where. No Address was, were thus received. In the hitter year this was found a century and 'a half had been I
therefore, presented on that occasion. ' The same so inconvenient, that the Chamberlain wrote to Mr. invaluable rights of Englishm
fate attended an Address voted iii 1781, and the Wilkes, who was then Mayor, that they would not euratory without access to his ii