The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-06-17 00:00:00

ciived sad laid en the table. Os the crity. he
thought it would be highly useful tbalthls Mu** of
the county of Kent should rentals en the eyesight Ors!.
liniment, to wars other coastlines/Mast being betrayed
ions the avowal of principles so disgraceful to them-
selves, and so calculated to bring ruin on the cosetry.
It was sot with any surprise that be bad heard the Noble
Lord opposite (Lord J, Ransil) dieclaim a cloturing is
unjust, so flagitious, and so pregnant with ruin sod sle-
I gradation to the country, as that avowed in this Peti-
tion; but the Noble Lord must forgive him for 'tastiest,
that lie had beard part of his observations with gnat
pain. The Noble Lord said that he could never coosent
to such a measure, except in a case of overwhelming ne-
cessity. By what process of.reasoning, he would ask.
could the Noble Lord couple the word consent with
I overwhelming necessity? When such a state of things
as the Noble Lord contemplated, had thrown all the
barriers of restraint, and dissolved all the ties of mora-
lity, what room was there for consent.—(Hear, hear)?
He protested against this mode of expression, because it
was calculated to give too moth countenance to the no-
tion of that convenient sort of necessity, which might
tecoptOentlenwin to give their consentto the spoliationof
property which belonged as justly to the public creditor,
as the lands of the house of Bedford did to the Noble
Lord's family. He (Lord L) considered the right of the
public creditor to the get tof the debt as sacred as
I that of the Duke of Bedford to the manors to whicirlse
was legally entitled. He hoped the word consent would
again be mixed up with a transaction, whieb could,
only be one of pure violence. With tepid to Parlia-
mentary Reform, he bad no wish to twelve that ques-
tion. The Noble Lord would, of course, continue to en-
tertain his own opinions on that subject, and ledeultted
not, that whenever he again introduced it, he would die-,
cuss the question-la the sense temperate aid enlightened
planner which had always marked his Parliamentary
forts; he hoped, however, that the language of this Pe-
tition would operate as a caution to him and other Par-
liamentary Reformers, and induce them to pause before
they attempted to break dowa the existing forms of the
representation of the country, and place it in a state in
which meetings, like that of the county of Kent, might
send mandates to that House so inconsistent with all
the principles ofjnatice and sound policy.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his surprise that the
Noble Lord (Londonderry) should have so misunder-
stood his meaning, especially as he bad studiously qua.
lified his expressions, by stating that be meant net a
gratuitous necessity, but such a necessity as would be
felt alike by all parties in that House. He meant to put
the strongest possible case of necessity, such a case for
instance, as when we were unable to pay the interest of
the debt, or when the presence of a foreign enemy at
our gates rendered the independence and safety of the
country paramount to every other consideration.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY said be was hap-
py to hear the anxiety of the Noble Lord to explain his
expressions, bat the case put by the Noble Lord could
only justify the nation in postponing the performance
of its engagements, and not in consenting to the
don of them. He again lamented that the men of rank
in the county of Kent, for the sake of their own station
io the country, bad not rescued themselves from the
stain of this clause in the petition, by showing that
manly reprobation of it at the time of its proposal,
which the Members of the county bad now exhibited
upon reflection.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, he was ready to retract the
word " consent," if the Noble Lord wished it, but he
really was not aware that the Noble Lord was such a
critic about language—(a laugh). He (Lord J. R.)
thought that the Whigs hid been carried away by the
feeling of the whole meeting, which feeling bad been
mainly produced by the uieasures of the Noble Lord op-
posite.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that es a freeholder of the
county of Kent, be wished to take the liberty of
laying. a few words. He vonlil not concur in the last
s a_

had enforced the sentiments which they had
that night at the meeting, the obnoxious p
would never have been carried. Ho was persu tut
it was only from want of a proper explanation of this
nature and object of the Resolution that the freebe*
era of the county bad been induced to adopt it. it Wok
the duty of the Members of the county to have staid
the meeting combating such a proposition to the pr
moment, rather than to have consulted to it. He mil
satisfied, that bad not be (Mr. C.) been engaged in de-
ties which be conceived to be more important in that
House. eves so bumble an individual as himself could
have successfully exposed the weakness and fallacy,of
the proposition brought forward Is? Mr. Cobbett, aid
have induced the Meeting to reject it. It was said that
Gentlemen were taken by surprise, but when nue under-
took to manage public meetings, they ought to be pre-
pared for emergencies of this sort. lie bad reason to
knew that the individual who proposed this resolution
was not certain of haying it seconded, and that be had
not the slightest expectation of seeing it adopted.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, in explanation, that If
his lion. Colleague had joined him in opposing ;he pro-
position, Mr. Cobbett and his Amendment Would have
been consigned to merited disgrace.
Mr. J. SMITH ex reseed his conviction that the great
body of the freeholders of the county were incapable of
supporting so unjust and flagitious a proposition. It
was &severe 'mortification to him to find that the county
of Kent was the first to come forward for the purpose of
petitioning Parliament to violate the public faith.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that two objects seemed to
be in the view of the Noble Lord opposite, and _the
worthy Baronet.the Member for Kent; one, to cast
blame on the leaders of the Whig aristocracy—(Sir E.
Knatchbull said " Nu" across the table.)—He was sur-
prised to bear the worthy Baronet deny that such was
his intention (Sir E. Knatchball said he bad merely
expressed his regret at the conduct of the Whig leaders.)
Well, then, be would suppose the worthy Baronet to
have expressed his regret ; and surely there was no more
cutting away of casting blame, than by expressipg a
Brest ankt very tender regret at the conduct of ',Wks,
for without giving up one iota as to the propriew of
motives, men contrived by this form of casting blanie't
throw an imputation at the same time upon the eider
standing of those of whose conduct they disapproved.—;
Bet besides the object of attacking the leaders of the
Whig Aristocracy, there was another object is the view
of Members on the other side of the House, apt panics-
larly of the Noble Lord, that of attacking public County
Meetings in general through the sides of the Kent
Meeting. And well they might come to this cootie-
aim', if there were soy foundation for their premises, foi
no doubt if the county of Kent was liable to all this
blame—if the freeholders of Kent were not to be trusted
either as to the parity of their motives, or the sagacity
of their views—be knew not where in all England a
amity was to be found in whose probity or intelligence
they could rely. He now rose. therefore, for the per
of vindicating both these parties, on the shening of
the assailants themselves. for the two attacks could not
possibly stand together. or be reconciled with each other.
If the Meeting were to blame, then the Whig leaders
must be exen'pated ; If the Whig leaders were to
blame, then it was impossible to cast any Imre-
,tation on the Meeting. Ihis was a dilemma from which
it was impossible for Hon. Gentlemen opposite to extri-
cate themselves, and be would skew the House why he
'had a right to call upon them, either, In the first place,
,to acquit one or *thee of these parties s• or, in the se-
coed place, to do what be contended they were boned
in fairness to do, namely, to acquit them both. The