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

Mr. DAVIES GIDDY did not intend when he
came into the House to have said a word on 'this
lubject. Ile agreed that the doors of the House
ught to be opened widely to receive the Petitions
of all who chose to apply to them in a regular and
proper manlier. All the argument on this head,
however, must fall to the ground, the moment .it
appeared that any application of the kind was not
really a Petition, but a Paper by which it was
sought, in a covert manner, to:insult the House.—
The Petitioners, in this case, had dressed up as a
Petition, a Paper, not by n hich they expected
any redress of grievances, but by which they pre-
stoned to dictite to the House what they chose to
thiuk right. As to any Reform, or rather to an
alteration in the constitution of that House, a
representation to a delegation, he had no hesita-
tion in declaring his opinion, that it would not
tend t% the *drainage of the people. He objected,
therefore, to Gentlemen taking that for granted
which had not been proved, and was not con-
cededlo them. As to the words of the Petition,
they were disrespectful in the 'highest degree. It
did not contain such a prayer as the Petitioners
could, by possibility, expect to be granted;. and
to allow it to lie on the table would only lead to
the presenting of others still more offensive. The
House must make a stand against, such a practice
at some time or other, and it was better to do 89
now than at any after period. It had been said
to be a respectable meeting, but Gentlemen saw
enough of what was to be expected from such
meetings in the neighbourhood of poptifous towns,
awl the-spirit of thiS meeting might be judged of
from their refusing to hear a Gentleman of the
highest respectability, a Member of that House
(Mi. Mellish), on his attempting to deliver his
sentiments on the subject. This circumstance did
not add much to the argument derived from the
unanimity 'of the meeting.
Mr. HAWKINS' BROWNE thought the
words of the Petition sheaved that it was not the
object of the Petition to procure the liberation of
Sir F. Burdett, a Reform in Parliament, or any
other specific object. • The Petition was only made
the vehicle of conveying a gross insult to the
House, and a dogmatical denial of its privileges.
The Petition from Westminster was capable of re.
ceiving a more favourable interpretation. The
present was pot. It was becoming in that House
to be moderate ; but when moderation produced
Only insult, then it became the House to assert its
dignity. He thought the House might on a former
occasion have adopted the more moderate course;
but now it was necessary for them to support their
proceedings.
Mr. lIII3BERT said, that the moment was of
critical importance, on which he strongly felt he
erust speak. The Petitioners were not, like the
majority of that House, convinced of the consti-
tutional authority of its privileges. They, on the
contrary, denied that authority, and more parti-
cularly, questioned the legality of those acts in
which it had recently been asserted. Allowance
was to be made for men warm with such a subject
—but he should be sorry if the warmth which
might have found its way into some expressions
of their Petition should be caught by the House
in commenting upon those expressions. The
passage which had been so much objected to,
would be found at last to be no more than the
most brief, abrupt, and somewhat coarse decla.
ration of the opinion of the Petitioners, which they
must either have indulged, or have no ground for.
petitioning at all. There was another considera-
tion, and he begged to address it to the feelings of
thu House. This question of privilege of Parlia.
went was, it seemed, one,• which could not be
easily submitted to any other tribunal than that of
Parliament itself.- In 'proportion then as the sub-
jects of theßealin found the means of its legal dis-
cussion narrowed, in .that proportion should Par-
liainent open the doors to any appeal made to
itself upon the subject, and not too scrupulously
weigh the terms in which such an appeal was made.
For these reasons he should vote for receiving the
Petition.
Mr. BARHAM wished, as the present was a
question of very great importance, that time
should be given for consideration., and that there
should be a fuller attendance of the House than
there was at that moment. • If such a discus.
sion hail been expected, he was satisfied the at.
tendallee would have been fuller. He should
therefore move that the debate be adjourned till
to-morrow. If pressed for an immediate opinion,
ho must say that he was against receiving the
Petition. An lion. Alderman was against re..
fusing the Petition, from not knowing where the
matter would end. He thought the present Peti.
tion, instead of being worded carelessly. ,was
worded most carefully; and receiving it would
only bring on another more aggravated than the
present. Wherever the HOMO did feel itself called
on to stop, if it did not adopt that course at pre-
sent, it would be with something worse than the
petition now under consideration. He Millen,
however, that a decision would be come to with
more effect and weight when there was a fuller at-
tendance, and greater leisure had been given for
deliberation. Ile also thought that the rejection
of the petition ought .to be followed up with
soine Resolutions, expressive of the grounds on
which the House had proceeded. Ile concluded
by .moving, that the debate .be adjourned till to.
morrow.
Mr. GRENFELL seconded the motion of ad.
journment,
'Mr. IL SUMNER. conceived the paper now
under consideration had nothing in it of a. peti-
tion hut the name. Such a practice ought to be
checked in liming ;.and ho saw no occasion for
delaying till to-morrow what they ought to do to.
day. A Worthy Alderman (Combo) was afraid
.of the consequences of refusing such petition.
For his own part he had no fear of the kind;
Mr. A Idernati COMRK explained.
Mr. LAME was of-opinion, the house had
already gone too far to talk of stopping in lintisze.
They had already received a Petition, which was
at least sufficiently strong. He could not in his
own mind conceive any thing stronger than the
Petition by the Inhabitants of Westminster,. who
had told the Hesse that they •had offered a gross
indignity to them. lie thought the House had

...

THE STATESMAN.

~.----

. _

better agree to the proposition of his Hon. Friend
(Mi. Barham), that they might deliberately con-
sider how far they would allow that power to be
stretched, which certain persons had. instilled
It into the minds of the misguided "cople
.ilvey had a right to carry ,to any length, by
Oiling them with wild and absurd ideas of
,their rights. Though he was a friend to pe-
titioning, this was a petition at which he was
inclined to think it ought to be viewed with more
than usual strictness. • There was a disposition
to deny that the House, as it was at present.
constituted, afforded a legal representation of the
people. Against such a doctrine lie protested,
and contended that it was equal tb the discharge
of those duties which it owed to the country in
the consideration of its affairs both abroad and at
home.. _He felt ininitely more disposed, on
a question of thii kind, to coalesce with these who
entertain this opinion, than with those who
thought the Representative System entirely coe:
rept, and that it should be destroyed. He
agreed that the terms in which the Petition
was conceived were extremely offensive ; but they
might be found, at the acme time, to be only a
repetition of what had found its way into so
many other Petitions. Ile thought it better,
therefore, to assent to the proposition of his Hon.
Friend, that the debate should be adjourned.
Mr. WAR.DLE could' not agree that any in-
sult was meant to be offered to the House by the
present Petition. The Petition which had been
received from Westminster contained no prayer ;
the present 'contained not only a prayer, but an
earnest request that the House would comply with,
the object of the Petition.—lie had used the
freedom in that Houso to go the full length'
the Petitioners now did, in expressing their
opinion. These sentiments he still, with sub.
mission to. the House, entertained. He had pre-
sumed to deny that Parliament had the right which
it had assumed and exercised. Ile had been allow-
ed to express that opinion ; and he submitted that
the Freeholders of Middlesex had the same right
to express their opinion on the subject. It was
quite possible by strong Resolutions to insult the
House in the grossest manner, while, at the same
time, the Petition to be presented to them should
be conceived in a way which might escape notice.
The Petitioners here had only candidly declared their
opinions, as subjects of this country were entitled
to do. To his (Mr. Wardle's) mind; these senti-
ments were true throughout. He trusted, there.
fore, that the Petition would be received.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE was of opinion the pe.
tition ought to be received, because he did not
think the words were such a departure from the
respect to the House as should warrant them in re.
jetting it. If the petitioners were of opinion
that the House had acted illegally, he did not see
in what other terms they could have expressed
themselves, than by declaring that such was their
opinion. If the house had acted thus ille.
gaily, it would be a grievance which it was
the duty of the people of England to come
forward and complain of in the most deter.
mined, though becoming language. ---Great au.
thorities had their doubts on this subject, though ,
he confessed he had none. He was for receiving
the present Petition, however, because he thought
it was not so offensive as the Petition from the In.
habitants of Westminster, which had been re-
eeived. He wished, at all events, that the House
should have an opportunity of looking into the,
language of other Petitions. It would be unfor:
tunate, if, at such a period as the present, they,
Should treat the Petitioners coming before them
frith greater severity than their predecessors WI
been accustomed to do.
Mr. STEPHEN thought the words of the Pe.
tition conveyed a studied insult to the House. It
would he strange if this Ilouse, the Majesty or
the People, was the only Body in the kingdom
which could be libelled with impunity .1, nayd.
which receiving Petitions insulting to themselrea„,
must be compelled to become the seriite instru-
ments of their own degradation and disgrace. IF
the House were insulted by Resolutions, an Ho.
sourable Gentleman (Wardle) had supposed,
liven thus! who denied their right to be judges in
their own case, must admit that they might go into'
a Court of Law, and there obtain justice ; but if
they once received on their own table a Peti.
Lion, in which they were insulted, no such re-.
!dress could he obtained. He agreed, however,
with his Learned Friend, who• spoke last, in
thinking that the right of petitioning should nut be
broken in upon till every Gentleman had an op.
portunity of reading over the Petition and com-
„paring the objectionable paragraphs with the con-
text. He recommended to the House therefore to
accede to the motion for adjourning the debate till
to-morrow. So delicate a question as the right of
petitioning should be discussed with every degree
of deliberation, and in as full a House as possible.
It appeared to him that Gentlemen should not
*present petitions in which they saw any thing very
objectionable. Why should they be bound to
comply with the wishes of their constituents in
what was wrong, more than an advocate should
in a Court of Justice, in favour of his client ? lie
did not conceive that a Gentleman should continue
a member of a body which he despised. If there
were any Gentlemen in that House who thought
them so constituted as some persons represented,
he was surprised they did not resign their seats.
So long, however, as they continued in the House,
they ought not to suffer themselves to be made the
means of insulting it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
seeing those who agreed with him in principle
thought a delay necessary, though he himself was
not a convert to that opinion, could have no ob-
jection to acceding to it. Now he was on his legs,
he begged to explain the difference between the
two Petitions, and thew that the Honourable Gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Lambe) was not correct in,
the deduction he had made. The grotind on sehirli
the. former Petition was received was rep/Rielly
slated in the debate, and wad preciseily, this—that
as the sentence 'containing the aeculati& of
gross insult fieing offered, might apply ;tb the
officer executing the Speaker's Warrant,(ht was
but fair to put the .most favourable construC
Lion upon a -
Petition hem the subject,•---


.- .

"---,7•"•11

l
He agreiti- that they Petitions
must receive
against their siets, bat, at the same time,
wowooledtate •in‘• what language they were
e-
couched. They woukttake care that they were
itioit'inTiVorpaPotlrto dictate to the House
a +They might ask a r.°
lion of the judgment of Om Legislature; but they
wire not, as in the p, sent case, to set up a pi,_
lititieeles authority sew the authority of the
flotis6ravid. call-Imperiously for a change, not fur
pe ual insu
a re.cosilideeit4iii. While he, therefore, acceded
to the adjournment, he would be ready either
now, or at any other lime, to contend that this
petition, from its language, scope, and design
admitw
was such,to llie
ason
htheyir
table,nei h r a
sc onupl de ,r
nor
t
oughtlt,tt:
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said he
was of Opi_
nion that the debate should be adjourned• lie
thought the prayer of the Petition obviated any
objection to the first clauses of it. He only stai
ed this, that all parts of it should be taken into
consideration together. lie would not contend,
but that there were strong and wrong expression;
in the outset of this Petition ; but when all parts
were compared together, lie could not see an 01)_
jection to its being laid on the table ; but, as some
Gentlemen might wish for further time for roust.
deration, he would give his vote for the adjourn.
ment of the debate.
Mr. I3YNG stated, that he was at a loss to
know how his constituents could express their
opinions better than they had done. They con.
ceived the House had assumed a power which they
thought was not vested in them. His constituents
were more strongly urged to this idea, from the
conduct of it, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, where
they expunged their former Resolutions, knowing
them to be illegal, from their Journals.
Mr. CALCRAFT explained.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, he would vote for
the adjournment of the debate. He thought the
Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Perceval) was completely
in error. He thought this was a question that
formes] part of a measure, which had not been
yet decided on, and must remain for a decision,
until a Jury of the country had formed an opi.
nion. It was not his wish to enter into the merits
of the point, as it would, in another place, un.
dergo a more able discussion. He hoped it was
the intention of the House to meet the question
fairly. He could not see the objection to a peti.
tion whielt went to the purpose of bringing for.
ward a most justifiable regulation. If he thought
it was the intention, of the people to enforce
it by violence, he would be one of the first
to' oppose them ; Wt.:A when they legally
pistitioned, he would he the first to support theta.
—6He wished to know in whet statute it was
held out to petitioners, how they should word their
Petition. He knew there was a certain mode of
heading and ending it, and with this the present
applicants had complied. The paragraph whisk
the outcry ofetheAight bore against, did not de.
servo it, for it bad been assumed by the House, and
acknowledged by Hon. Gentlemen in their places.
He cautioned them not to reject the petition • for
he remembered an instance in the Irish Parlic.
ment, in the year 1792, when a petition was pre.
sented from the Roman Catholics of that country
to the Muse of Commons • it was moved by a
most respectable member, Mr. La Touche, that it
should be rejected, which was carried. The Mi.
nister of the day, on the following year, came fur.
ward and granted them more than was asked in the
former petitiotat_ He thought this was sufficient
for thews() aiW ad betng put in the same situation.
The question foreadjourning dm:debate was then
put and agreed to.,
tion
LINENS.
On theenlotion of,Nr. Rose, the Mouse resolved
Cciminiitee'citV the Foreign Linen Act.
'3110:41.05E sheered, Lthot at the time when the
Bill was brisagltrinto 11, lameot for imposinga
.dtetron Foreign Lineasoit was intended to ex.
empt from that duty the linen actually warehoused.
It so Happened, however, that the,Bill passed with.
dot sii'q cta'ise to that effect, and it was to remedy
errorlhatilotisow proposed to the Committee
to instruct their Chairman to move for leave to
bring in a Bill to repay, in certaiiscases, the duty
that had b6en paid on certain Foreign Linens.
After a few words from Mr. O'lLtus, who
complained that the German Linen was enabled to
come successfully into the market, in competition
with the British and Irish manufacture, the resole.
tion was agreed to, the Mouse was resumed, and
the Chairman obtained leave to bring in the Bill.
JUDGES' SALAAMS BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE of • SCOTLAND
moved that the House should resolve- itself into a
Committee on the Judges' Salaries Bill.
Mr O'MARA wished that the salary of the
Chief Justice of Prince Edward's Island should he
increased, as well as the salaries of the Scotch and
Irish Judges ; and was desirous to introduce a pro.
vision to that effect in the pending Bill.
The SPEAKER however observed, that such a
proposition must originate in the specific resole.
tion of a Committee of the whole House.
After a conversation, in which Mr. Nadas,
Mr. Wharton, Mr. Calcraft, the Lord Advocate,
and Mr. Lone participated, Mr. O'Hara gave no.
tice that on Friday he would move that the [louse
should resolve itself into a Committee on the •
Judges' Salaries Aot, for the purpose of making
the proposition to which he had just alluded.
The Bill dem passed through the Committee,
the report of which was ordered to be reccited to.
morrow.

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.
The Estimates presented by Mr. Wharton on
Monday and yesterday, having been ordered to bo
referred to the Committee of Supply, the House
resolved itself into the said Committee.
On the 'ninffdll'Of Mr. %V lIAR,TON a number
of filkadltitionsittitrailigreed to for granting to his
Majesty Wit:mit agms..pf money for different mils-
cellikueous,services ; but .51,01 was the rapid end
ißatitiible manner in wiiich 'these Resolulions
,readCby tie Hotiou'ight6 Rover, and repeated by
litothtirhble(lhaiamea, . that with the mint
NO3illifiti'vptiewliola ow vat ,part, we were not etia,
,b1e4140, gonad cbtra,irith • sedicient ateurerY.
warrant isiil9;iagthein before the public.—
is an 004 lite exiateftee of which we are frecriii:Y
were