The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-05-03 00:00:00

...r..7,T

%

him, however,
.to signify, that although he should
second the motion of his Hon. Colleague, he did
rot feel himself bound to support the Petition. '
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
inured that the Petition be again read by the Clerk.
It was read accordingly.
The CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER
again rose, and said;• be was sure, that, from the
conduct he had observed on a former day, when a
etition was presented to that House (from the
Electors of Westminster), containing expressions
•so strong and so reprehensible, the House would
rot consider him as indisposed to entertain a peti-
tion coming from any individual or class of his
Majesty's subje,cts, _if conched in terms at all
consistent with the respect due to the House.
however convinced he was that the petition upon
that :occaslcr contained some expressions • that
ought to have been oMitted, he did not object to
klit lie on the•table. lie trusted the House would
see ,fities that . instance, his. almost wish to re-
commend to them every possible forbearance, conp.
sistent with the maintenance of their own dignfti, ;
but when. he coniiditred thelanguage of the pre-
sent Petition, he conceivedit impossible to cowl:
der it in any othetlighethan that of a deliberate
and unparalleleijsnsult to the House. He did not
conceive that the object prayed by this Petition
was of .itself a sufficient cause to its 're-
jection. But he would appeal to the House upon
this pliin question, whether there was any Mem.
ber eh° heard this Petition read, that did not con.
celve it to be rather an experiment to try how far
the forbearance of the House would go in the
sufferance of language such as it contained; or
whether it could have any other object than to
insult, when it went to a direct and a declaratory
censure, from the mere authority of the Peti-
tioners, upon the conduct of that House, in ex-
ercising its authority towards the person named
in the Petition, by committing him to confine-
ment fur a violation of its privileges. Upon that
part of the' Petition which commented upon the
manner in which the Officer had proceeded in
executing the Order of the House, he should at
present forbear to say any thing, as any error or
irregularity on the part of that Officer in executing
the warrant committed to him, might be a question
for the future consideration of the House. But
the Petition, in other respects, was totally dif-
ferent from the style and language d Petitions
presented to Parliament. It did not appeal re-
weectfully to the authority of the House. It
slid not ask for any revision or reconsideration of
the circumstances of which it complained ; but
the Petitioners protest against such an exercise of
the privileges of the House, and charge it with
assuming and exercising powers contrary to law.
The measure which the petitioners urged might
take place at some time, if the wisdom of Parlia-
ment should deem it fitting. But was the lan-
guage of a Petition, from any class of sukjects,
to charge that House with assuming illegal privi.
hes, or to dictate to them how they should act
In the exercise of their rights and privileges ?
There was nothing in the Petition which ap.
proacl4,l in soy degree to the character of a re-
spectful appeal to the autherity of Parliament.
t did appear to him, therefore, that considering
the language in which a former Petition was
couched, considering the latigusge held• out of
doors to depreciate the character and authority of
that House, and seeing in the language of this Pe,
lion a proof that the forbearance of the House
from time to time served but to encourage new in-
sult, it was high time that a line should be drawn
somewhere, and the present was a fit occasion for
that purpose, He therefore submitted to the dis-
'eretiou of the noose, whether the present Peti-
tion, for the causes ho lied stated, taught not to
be rejected.
Mr. Alderman COMRE said, he understood
the 'Petition was unanimously voted by a very
numerous and respectable body of Freeholders ;
and as he did not know to what consequences its re-
jection might lead, he should vote for its reception.
Mr. CAI/CRAFT hoped, as it was his inten-
tion to vote for the reception of this Petition, he
might be permitted to state the grounds for that
mote. Tho lion. Member who had just spoke,
Jiad.said the Petition was unanimously voted by a
very numerous and respectable Meeting of Free.
hiolders ; but it did not therefore follow that the
Douse should receive a Petition couched in ins-
proper .and offensive language; and such lan-
guage would determine him to oppose the recep-
tion of such a Petition, however numerously,
unanimously, or respectably it might have been
•oted. He did not, however, view the present
Petition in the very objectionable light stated' by
the Right Hots. Gentleman, and should therefore
vote for its reception. The Right Hon. Gentle.
man had professed his own unwillingness to adopt
any step that might have the appearance of im.
petleg the right of petitioning that House ; and
lie instanced his forbearance in the case of the
"•**, 7Westtniustee Petition, in which he stated that there
,sere many expressions highly objectionable, and
4hich ought to have been omitted ; but fur his
part, he. thought that Petition was couched in
such terms as the House of Commons ought not to
reject. The present Petition, though not couched
precisely in the same words, was pretty much in
the sante manner, and in his mind ought not to
. be rejected • for the sake ef a coarse word or
phrase hastily adopted. He thought it the duty of
• the House of Commons to throw open a wide door
• . • for peettione,* instead of evincing a disposition to
ivject them upon time mere ground. of a vulgar or
• eptSjeetlonable word. When he considered how,
the House of Commons was composed, and the
*pinion generally entertained by the country' of
the state of the representation, if something was
rot done to reform that representation, the House.,
must espial to find the language of petitions net
very flattering. The present petition he did not
think such sie one as ought to be rejected. There
were several petitions received before by the
House, containing.expeessiotis full as strong, and
. • . yerthey were not rejected upon thateccount ; and
do long as these abominations were suffered to ex-
ist, sof which this people complained, in the pre-
; lit state of the representation, so long woeld it be
impossible fur that Mese to cummand respect
from the people. •