HC Deb 02 February 1821 vol 4 cc324-38
Sir Robert Wilson

presented a petition from the Coopers of London, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It was signed, he said, by 1,300 persons. They prayed also, that inquiry might be made into the Milan commission, and that ministers might be dismissed. With respect to the Milan commission, he looked upon it as an illegal establishment, a sort of agency-board for carrying on the business of a conspiracy against her majesty. This appeared evident from the the witnesses they procured, who were utterly unworthy of credit, and whose evidence was improbable, or rather impossible. They appeared never to have made any inquiry as to the credibility of the witnesses, or the truth of their statements, but shewed the utmost remissness in this and every other respect. Their only object seemed to have been to collect what evidence they could against her majesty, whether true or false. He had it upon the honour of the Austrian ambassador to the court of Naples, that every thing stated by the witnesses respecting her majesty's conduct at the court of Naples was wholly false. If there was no charge against the commissioners, it would be only fair, on the part of ministers, to give them an opportunity of defending themselves, by allowing some inquiry to be gone into. He condemned, in severe terms, the manner in which her majesty was treated by many hon. gentlemen in that House, who used such language as left her no alternative but to demand another trial, for the purpose of vindicating herself against those aspersions.

Lord Sefton

presented a similar petition from Liverpool. It was signed, he said, by 10,000 inhabitants. He could vouch for the respectability of many of the names. They prayed, that the question concerning the Queen should be agitated no longer, that she might be restored to all her rights and dignities, that inquiry should be made into the outrages at Manchester, the taxes diminished, and the people admitted to a larger share in the legislature than they at present enjoyed.

Mr. Creevey

said, that he was ready-to give his support to every part of the petition. The first thing the petitioners prayed for was, that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy. Upon a former occasion, before the inquiry had been gone into, he supported, upon grounds of justice and policy, the propriety of restoring her majesty's name. If it was important then, it was much more important now, when the exclusion amounted in fact to punishment, for a crime of which she had been acquitted, livery man was interested in opposing the species of law laid down by the noble lord opposite, who maintained, that as the bill of Pains and Penalties had undergone a third reading, and had then been only withdrawn, her majesty was in fact morally convicted, and only technically acquitted. This was a strange kind of law, which it was the interest and duty of every man in the country to oppose. If a third reading was sufficient to prove guilt, why should not a second, or even a first reading, have the same effect?—It would be much better not to carry it to a third reading; for then all the filth, the trouble, and expense of the evidence would have been spared. This new law of the noble lord's was the old story of "Acquitted Felons," a phrase of which he believed his late friend Mr. Windham was the author. The conduct pursued towards the Queen was worse. "Acquitted felons" supposed a trial; but her majesty's name was erased from the Liturgy without trial or inquiry; and though acquitted, they still heard, night after night, the most gross aspersions thrown upon her in that House. This would be unfair and unjust, even towards a female of the lowest class in society, who had been once acquitted. This country knew of no such law as that of the noble lord. The law here was, guilty or not guilty—by the finding of a jury. Her majesty was attacked for refusing to accept any provision till her name was restored to the Liturgy. How was it possible, that she could agree to accept it under such circumstances? She acted in this as became a person determined to support her honour, and character. He trusted, that in this generous; nation there would be found spirit enough to protect the unfortunate and illustrious lady, if she should persist in her refusal, from suffering the pain and degradation of indigence. If ministers should continue in their resolu- tion of not restoring her name to the Liturgy, he felt confident, that the country, which had hitherto supported her majesty, would protect her against the distresses of pecuniary embarrassment.—Some inquiry into the outrages at Manchester was the second object of the petitioners. Though it was long since that disgraceful event took place, it was quite natural, on the part of his townsmen of Liverpool to wish, that it should be inquired into. That man must have a mind singularly constructed indeed, who, when a defenceless crowd of men, women, and children had been broken-in upon, trampled down and butchered by the military, when those magistrates by whose direction it was done had received the grateful thanks of the Crown, upon their own exparte statement of the facts; his mind must be singularly constructed, who thought, that such an outrage could be forgotten. Even now, though late, every inquiry should be made into that memorable and shocking event—The third prayer of the petitioners was, that the taxes might be reduced. It gave him much pleasure, that the people of Liverpool were the first to petition on this subject. He hoped soon to see similar petitions poured in from all parts of the country. It was quite a mockery to hold out expectation of relief, until such time as many of the existing tuxes were taken off. This might be done, if the House performed its duty zealously, by inquiry into all the sources of expenditure, and introducing economy into every branch of it. By taking a view of circumstances in the year 1792, when corn was at the same price as now, by comparing the amount of taxes then with that of the present day, it would appear utterly impossible that they could be borne.—The last prayer of the petition was, that some reform might be introduced in the present system of representation in that House. He felt certain, notwithstanding what the most stubborn anti-reformer might think, that the present system never received such a shock as it did by the vote of Friday last, which, he contended, was completely in opposition to the sense of the people, and even to the opinions of many who voted against the motion. There was a peculiar circumstance in the case of the petitioners, that justified them in their application for some reform. There were 100,000 inhabitants in Liverpool and only 2,500 or 2,600 voters. The representation was by no means a popular one. The right of freedom could be acquired only by apprenticeship, so that any person coming to reside there, however great his wealth or respectability might be, had no franchise. Besides, the influence of the corporation, who had the control and direction of 60,000l. or 70,000l. a-year, was all powerful over the freemen. They could command, out of the whole number, 700 or 800 votes. It was needless to mention how great the influence of the Crown must be in a town where there were so many profitable places to be disposed of. If the representation was more popular, the influence of the Crown and corporation would not, of course, be so dangerous as at present.

Mr. Gladstone

said, that the freemen of Liverpool were more numerous than the hon. gentleman represented. They exceeded 5000, and no such influence as that alluded to existed in the corporation. Their influence was pretty much the same us that of other gentlemen in the town of wealth and respectability. The corporation, he believed, discharged their duties most conscientiously. All the business under their direction was done by contract; which must have the effect of lessening their influence at elections, if they should be disposed to employ it. He was not personally acquainted with many of those whose names were signed to the petition. He was not inclined to dispute the character and respectability of some; but then he must say that he had opportunities of knowing the sentiments entertained by many gentlemen and merchants of Liverpool of great wealth mid character who did not approve of this petition, but approved of the measures of government. Much was said of the hole-and-corner addresses agreed upon by some gentlemen; but, under the circumstances there was perhaps no other way of expressing their opinion. The party from whom this petition proceeded, applied to the principal magistrate to call a meeting, which was accordingly done. A proposition was made for an address of loyalty to the Crown, but those who were willing to support it, were put down by clamour.

Mr. Creevey

said, that in 1812, when he was a candidate for Liverpool, not more than 2,400 had polled. If the circumstances attending the meeting were properly represented to him, the hon. gentleman and his friends attended there for the purpose of defeating its object and for that purpose filled the hall with their partisans. The mayor considered them as having acted with great violence, and therefore another meeting was called by him in a larger place; but the hon. gentleman and his friends did not dare to go there.

Mr. Gladstone

said, it was a mistake to say, that the late meeting was called by the mayor, it was brought about by a number of individuals, who assembled for the purpose, and placed a Mr. Fletcher in the chair. The persons with whom he (Mr. G.) acted, withdrew when they saw with whom the measure originated.

Mr. John Smith

said, he held in his hand a petition, to which he begged to call the most serious attention of the House. It was the petition of the merchants, bankers and traders of the city of London, and was signed by 5,000 persons. He did not mean to say, that the petitioners were, from the accident of possessing property, entitled to more consideration than persons who were poor. But, inasmuch as property gave an opportunity of education and the exercise of talent, he felt himself authorised to say, that there never had been presented, at any period, a petition from a class of persons superior to those by whom that petition had been voted. The first prayer of the petitioners was one to which the House must most readily lend its ears. They prayed, that parliament would, in its wisdom, adopt the necessary measures to allay the agitation which prevailed in the public mind. There were three or four points in this petition, upon which he would offer a few observations. The petitioners said, and said truly, that they entertained the strongest feelings of attachment to the Crown and to the constitution; and further, that even at this period of distress and agitation, they knew the great body of the people to be actuated by the strongest feelings of loyalty. They felt also, that no violence or disaffection existed, against which the present laws did not provide a sufficient remedy. They, at the same time, expressed their regret, that the late proceedings against the Queen had been instituted; proceedings which the House itself had declared to be derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country. He fully concurred in the reasons urged by the petitioners against those proceedings. They felt, that her majesty had been prosecuted without any adequate political necessity; that the charge brought against her had been supported, or attempted to be supported, by evidence of the most horrible, disgusting, and detestable nature that had ever been brought into a court of justice. If the succession of the Crown had been endangered, then the people would have been content to pay the penalty of enduring the evils of such a measure, in order to secure the future peace of the country. The proceedings against her majesty, as had been well observed by an hon. relative of his (Mr. Wilberforce), were calculated to injure the morals of the country. Ministers had many great and arduous duties to perform; but he knew of no greater duty which devolved on them, than that of preserving the morals of the country. Many complaints had been made by ministers of immorality in a certain quarter, but they themselves were the greater sinners. He was aware, that some loyal and independent gentlemen, men of high character, bad, without any public notice, met in a tavern for the purpose of presenting a loyal address to the throne. To that address he had no objection to offer. He would have willingly signed it; but he felt, in common with the petitioners, that the present state of the country required something more to be said. Of the loyalty of the petitioners, no man could doubt; nor did he mean to cast any imputation upon the loyalty of the gentlemen who got up the loyal address. The petitioners felt it their duty, in consequence, to call a meeting of the merchants, bankers, and traders of London, which, by the kindness of the Lord Mayor, took place in a large hall in the Mansion-house. At that meeting, he (Mr. Smith) had the honour to move certain resolutions, on which the petition was founded. Although anxious not to increase irritation or ill-blood on that occasion, he was bound to speak the truth. The meeting was composed of the largest assembly of well-dressed persons that perhaps ever were brought together in London. The proceedings commenced quietly enough; but when it came to his lot to move the third resolution, a clamour arose such as he had never before heard; and which, for the time, put an end to all discussion. He was compelled to say, that he had reason to believe, that this clamour was alto- gether preconcerted, and that the individuals by whom it was so preconcerted, were determined to prevent any discussion. Having contended, that public meetings were productive only of confusion, they created confusion for the purpose of proving their own argument. He begged to be distinctly understood however, as not meaning to apply this observation to the larger part of the more respectable portion of the class of individuals to whom he alluded. He was the more disposed to consider the tumult intentional, because it began the moment her majesty's name was mentioned. Now, though there might be shades of difference of opinion on the subject, there was not a man in the city of London who did not deplore the introduction of it as a national calamity, and who was not of opinion, that the prosecution was most inexpedient, because he well knew, that whatever might be the case elsewhere, there could not be the most distant hope, that in that House, under all the circumstances of the case, and without the power of administering an oath, a subject so large and complicated could ever be brought to a successful issue. The inhabitants of the city of London therefore thought, that the proceeding which had taken place was calculated merely to throw an unfair imputation on the unfortunate and illustrious lady in question. As that was the universal sentiment of the city of London, he must think, that the clamour which took place, was occasioned only by the wish to prevent discussion. In vain did the chief magistrate of the city exert himself in every possible way to keep order. He (Mr. S.) had heard of a protest in the papers signed by a gentleman whom he did not know, declaring, that it was not understood that the resolutions were put, and that if that had been understood, a great majority would have shown itself against them. As that protest was signed only by an individual, and as the hon. baronet opposite allowed, that there was a majority in favour of the resolutions, he did not think it would be considered as entitled to great weight. The hon. baronet, with his usual good humour, admitted, that the question was carried against him. So much, then, for this part of the subject; but he must solicit the indulgence of the House whilst he offered a few words on the subject of the disturbance. It had given him considerable pain, because it bore the aspect of an approach to that sort of intolerance which must produce ill effects when introduced into political discussion. In that House, the most marked diversity of opinion created no sentiment of malevolence, but, on the contrary, was often found to be compatible with perfect friendship. When, therefore, he saw people of education, evincing a spirit of this kind, he could not help viewing it as a prelude to something worse. He hoped, however, that two good consequences would result from this occurrence; first, that there would be no more clandestine meetings, and, secondly, that if there should be large and public meetings, they would be conducted with order and propriety.

Sir W. Curtis

expressed his full concurrence with the hon. gentleman in many of his observations, and agreed also in the correctness of some parts of the statement which he had made, relative to what took place at the meeting from which this petition proceeded. The meeting had been very properly called on a requisition most honourably signed, containing the names of men of the highest character, as well as of the greatest property. He was, however, compelled to differ from his hon. friend in one respect. His honourable friend had said, that the declaration agreed to at the London Tavern could only be regarded as that of the individuals by whom it was subscribed, and that it did not record the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London. Now, although he was disposed to allow the respectability and opulence of those who called the public meeting, he would assert, that the declaration was signed by persons of as much property and honour, to the fullest extent. He did not know why, because one party thought fit to hold a public meeting, it should quarrel with another, that adopted a different mode of declaring its opinions. The declaration of the latter was certainly mild and moderate enough; no loyal man could dissent from it; it was indeed but a-milk and-water kind of production. No other mode, however, was presented of testifying his attachment to the throne, and be thought, it was a time, when that attachment, and a determination to support the throne, ought to be declared. He denied, that he ever did any thing in a hole or corner: whatever he did, he wished the world to know. The declaration originated in a peaceable and quiet meeting, and he for one, thought it might serve to cheer up his majesty, if at such a time they passed a resolution approving of the conduct of his ministers. He did not think his hon. friend was quite correct in his account of what happened at the Mansion-house. His hon. friend was extremely well heard for a considerable time, although symptoms of disapprobation at last broke out. This was not surprising, where the subject was one with regard to which as much difference of opinion prevailed out of the house as within it, and as to which he believed a still greater majority of thinking people out of the House than in it were of an opinion different from that of his hon. friend. He certainly lamented the late inquiry; he wished it could have been wisely avoided; and he wished now, that the subject could be forgotten. To come back, however, to the meeting—his hon. friend had obtained as good a hearing as he could have expected, and the first resolution was put and carried. As several others remained, he (Sir W. Curtis) offered himself to the attention of the assembly, which was certainly composed of an immense number of well-dressed and good-looking people. A large party immediately opposed him, and would not hear a single word that he had to offer. But what did all this prove. That it was impossible in a populous city, where the minds of men were much agitated and at variance on any subject, to draw any conclusion from the proceedings of such a meeting. It required great strength to be able to maintain a place in such a meeting. He knew several hale young men who had been present, and who declared, that they would never go to such a meeting again. He was surprised to find the name of an hon. member on the opposite side, who had himself been a party not two years ago to a private meeting such as that from which the late declaration emanated, to the requisition for the meeting at the Mansion-house. This appeared to him to be somewhat inconsistent. As to the way in which the question had been put, as he had retired from his place at the time, he could not speak to it; but he believed it was generally understood, that the motion on which the show of hands took place was, that the question should not be put.

Mr. Astell

begged to defend himself from the charge of inconsistency. When a-year and; a-half ago he had assisted at a private meeting of the merchants and bankers of London, the country was then in a different state. If new lights had since that time broken in upon him, why was he not to attend a public meeting1? The object of that private meeting was, to consider the expediency of certain bills which had been brought into parliament, and which he had unequivocally upheld. The very circumstance of the passing of those bills rendered private meetings less necessary; because, at present, no improper persons could break ill upon a public meeting of the merchants and bankers of London, ft was his decided opinion, that there would have been no tumult in the Egyptian Hall, but for the hon. baronet's friends. The declaration of the merchants who met at the City of London Tavern, was put forth as the declaration of the merchants of the City of London, which it was not; nor had the persons who signed that petition any claim to exclusive loyalty. That those who signed the petition, were as loyal and as well disposed to preserve the public peace, and to maintain the constitution, would be evident to any one who looked at their names, and their property and rank in life. It was, however, their duty to tell the House of Commons what their opinion was; and he hoped and trusted, that the good sense contained in their petition, and the general feeling of the country, would succeed in effecting the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, from which it had been illegally removed.

Lord Milton

was sure, that the House had heard, with the greatest regret from the hon. baronet, that henceforth it would be in vain to expect to ascertain the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London, from any public meeting at which they were assembled. This was the more painful, as the sentiments of such a body were in themselves highly important; and as it was always of importance, that the House should have an opportunity of knowing the sentiments of their constituents. The hon. baronet had said, that he had signed the declaration, although he thought it did not go far enough, and because he thought, his majesty ought to be cheered up. When, however, the hon. baronet coupled with that sentiment an approbation of the measures of ministers, he expressed two opinions completely distinct from each other; because, if there was any one proposition more evident than another, it was, that the measures which had been adopted by his majesty's ministers were very far from being beneficial to the Crown.

Mr. Wells

observed, that he had signed the declaration, because he thought it a proper occasion for expressing Ins loyal and dutiful attachment to the Crown. He believed it would be seen, from the signatures attached to it, that this was the persuasion of many most respectable and honourable men. The declaration which had been so much commented on was fairly and openly agreed to, and was publicly signed. There was nothing in the character of the meeting at which the declaration was proposed, that could authorize the hon. member who presented the petition to call it a clandestine transaction. The declaration was intended to express the sentiments of the gentlemen whose names were affixed to it, and did not profess to speak the opinion of any others. The doors of the House in which the meeting was held were open to every one. No porter was stationed at them to challenge the entrance of any individual. With respect to the other meeting, it was called for twelve o'clock. He went to the place appointed before that hour, and found that it was impossible to get in. The lives of individuals appeared to him to be in danger; and, from his advanced age, he did not think it advisable to attempt to procure a situation in the body of the hall. Under these circumstances, he considered the last meeting as the truly exclusive meeting, and was convinced, that the petition did not express the sentiments and feelings of the merchants and bankers of London.

Mr. Alderman Wood

could assure the House, that the presence of the hon. baronet had been the only cause of the tumult in question. Half an hour before the business began, the hon. baronet took a foremost seat on the hustings, and showed himself off in great style, bowing to all his friends, and telling them he wa6 very glad to see them. In all city meetings there was a little noise; but the hon. baronet had himself allowed, that the resolutions had been carried by a majority of three to one. The petition was read by the Lord Mayor himself, and in putting the question he did all in his power to be heard in so large an assembly, by holding up the petition and calling out, "This is the petition." He would venture to assert, that the majority) in favour of the petition was five to one. The hon. member who had just sat down had talked of the great difficulty of getting on the hustings. He would ask that hon. gentleman, whether or not he was one of a body of two or three hundred persons who came to the hull with a view to take possession of the hustings? In the excellent dispositions of the Lord Mayor to accommodate both sides of the question, he allowed a party of those who had signed the declaration to be admitted into a parlour, into which were also admitted the requisitionists of the public meeting; and from which parlour there was easy access to the hustings. He appealed to the House, whether there could be a fairer proceeding. As to the tumult, it arose immediately after the speech of Mr. Bosanquet, who had been patiently heard throughout.

Mr. Baring

said, that having been present at this meeting, he felt himself called on to state to the House his impression of the facts as they occurred; and he must say, that a more unworthy combination never existed any where, for the purpose of preventing individuals from being heard, than he witnessed on that occasion—that combination, too, being formed by some of the most respectable persons in the city of London. The only way in which their conduct could be accounted for, had been let out by the hon. baronet in the course of his speech; namely, that public meetings were to be treated as a mere farce. He had learned from many persons, that the business of the meeting was obstructed by those very friends who, in the excess of their zeal, even prevented the hon. baronet himself from being heard. They had sent regular circulars to every part of the city, in order to collect together persons who would disturb the meeting; and every possible means was resorted to for the purpose of preventing the merchants and bankers from assembling publicly to speak their sentiments. He totally disagreed from the hon. baronet as to the general conduct that was observable at meetings of the merchants of London. No meetings were ever held, at which a greater degree of decorum prevailed. The hon. baronet might have seen some instances of a different kind, but they very rarely occurred. But for the combination, or conspiracy, to which he had adverted—this last meeting would like others, have passed off quietly and decorously. The hon. baronet asked, "what was the harm of this loyal decla- ration? why should it excite opposition or jealousy?" In the first place, it was called "The declaration of the merchants and bankers of the city of London," which it was not. He knew that the declaration itself purported to speak the sentiments of "the undersigned merchants and bankers," but the placards announcing it gave it a different designation. Until those who got up the declaration found, that this was considered a very important point, they had not changed the terms of the placard, but within these few days they had found it necessary to make an alteration. The hon. bait, said, "Why should not the merchants, bankers, and traders agree to a resolution of this kind?" He did not mean to say a word about the loyalty of the persons who signed the declaration. No person could doubt it; and the whole question was, whether the present was a proper occasion for putting forth such a declaration? The declaration also stated, that sedition and blasphemy abounded in the country; with a view of making an impression, that the agitation which the measures of his majesty's ministers had caused was occasioned by sedition and blasphemy. The petitioners thought otherwise; and they thought it their duty to state what in their opinion was the real cause of the present state of the country;—namely, the proceedings which had been instituted against her majesty. They preferred drawing out a petition to the House to framing any counter-address to the throne; because, they felt the propriety of avoiding, except on the occurrence of a great necessity, any step that might be considered personally offensive to his majesty. The loyal declaration had evidently been got up to serve as a kind of counterbalance to the numerous petitions which were pouring in from every part of the country. Like others of a similar character, it had originated at the Treasury; and was milk-and-water, because no one would venture to administer any thing stronger. There was no foundation for the assertion which it contained, of the prevalence of sedition and blasphemy. If any part of the empire could more than another effectually contradict the aspersion, that the great mass of the people were disaffected to the existing institutions, it was the city of London; for no one could have witnessed the meetings at Spa-fields and elsewhere, without feeling how contemptible, both in character and in numbers, were the persons who wore called radicals. He could not agree, therefore, that there was any want of loyalty in the country. The loyalty of Englishmen was a rational feeling, and was never in greater jeopardy than when ministers dragged his majesty and the royal family through the mud, as they had lately done; and then pretended to hold them up as objects of respect and admiration. It was no small matter, that ministers had brought his majesty into such a condition, that the hon. baronet should think he wanted a little "cheering up." He perfectly believed, that the hon. baronet was correct in supposing that such was the the case, when he saw, that his majesty could hardly change post horses in any town in England, where the conduct of his ministers had not created a feeling which rendered it difficult for him to pass through with decency. As to the question of loyalty, the feelings manifested by all classes of the people on the death of his late majesty, and on the death of the princess Charlotte, proved it to be the basest calumny to say, that the present feelings of the country were produced by any other cause than by the manner in which his majesty and. the royal family had been dragged through the dirt by the noble lord and his colleagues.

Mr. Wilson

could not exactly agree either with the hon. baronet or with the hon. member for Taunton. He denied the declaration of the former, that the hon. mover of the resolution was distinctly heard. He denied the assertion of the latter, that the tumult was the result of any combination or conspiracy. He did not believe one word of such a charge, and was convinced that it was utterly unfounded. The Declaration had not been put forth as the declaration of the merchants and bankers of the city of London, but only as the "undersigned" merchants, &c. He admitted, that in the earlier placards that distinction had by mistake not been made; but the error was unintentional, and was corrected as soon as it was discovered. He wondered, that those honourable gentlemen who had charged the individuals signing the declaration with being influenced by any but the most open and honourable motives, had not, on reading their names, felt a kind ness and respect which would have in- duced them to treat those individuals in a spirit of greater charity, and to believe, that they were as unlikely as themselves to do any such thing. The hustings were capable of containing 250 persons. Notwithstanding an application made the day before, only 20 of the gentlemen who had signed the declaration were permitted to go on the hustings. This he did not consider very liberal, especially when the crowded state of the body of the hall was considered.

Mr. G. Philips

declared, that he had never witnessed more disorderly and disgraceful conduct than on the occasion in question. The exclusive loyalists and lovers of order were shouting, hissing, and adopting every other means of creating a tumult. He heard the conversation of some of those who were near him, and it ran on the impossibility of deliberation at a public meeting, and on the probability that that would be the last public meeting of the kind in the metropolis, and on similar topics. There was every appearance of a combination to create disorder. The hon. baronet's appearance was a signal for disorder; and he was not heard himself, in consequence of the noise which his friends made. He was surprised to hear the hon. baronet express a doubt whether the resolutions were carried. He was quite satisfied, that they were carried, by a majority of three to two. Ordered to lie on the table to be printed.