§ Lord Erskinesaid, he held in his hand a petition from the burgh of Banff, in Scotland, praying that parliament would oppose the institution of any further proceedings against the queen, and endeavour to procure the restoration of her majesty to all her rights. He observed, that he could pledge himself for the petition being properly and respectfully worded. The noble and learned lord also presented petitions to the same effect from the incorporated trades of Dumfries, the incorporated trades of Arbroath, the town of Montrose, the burgh of Selkirk, the city of Aberdeen, New Deer, in the county of Aberdeen, and from some other places in Scotland; and, finally, the petition of the Lord Mayor and Common Council of the city of London in Common Council assembled.
The Earl of Darnleyrose, to present the petition of the county of Kent. His lordship made some observations on the manner in which sheriffs of counties were selected, and on the way in which they took upon themselves to refuse their assent to public meetings. In the present in- 105 stance, the sheriff had refused, not only to attend the meeting, but to call it. How far it was legally competent for the Sheriff of a county thus to obstruct the inhabitants in the exercise of one of their most important rights, he should not then discuss. He thought, however, that it was a fit subject for the consideration of parliament.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the sheriffs were appointed, if he might use the expression, in so judicial away, that the influence of the Crown had nothing to do with it. In the first place, three gentlemen for each county were returned by the judges, upon their oaths, to the privy council sitting in the court of Exchequer, and afterwards, on the appointment, the first name of the three was invariably taken, unless sufficient reasons were alleged on behalf of the party to alter that course of nomination. There was, therefore, no ground for imputing that the sheriffs of counties were in any respect influenced by the Crown in the exercise of that discretion, with regard to calling county meetings, which undoubtedly belonged to them.
The Earl of Darnley,in explanation, said, that he did not mean to impute that the influence of the Crown was exercised in the appointment of sheriffs, but merely to observe, that, under other circumstances, they might be made the instruments of the Crown to obstruct, very materially, the right of petitioning.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, that, as the late conduct of sheriffs was before the House, he wished to say a few words on a most trifling instance of their partiality. He alluded to the conduct of that officer at the late meeting of the county of Chester, at which the sheriff took upon himself to determine in what terms an address from the county should be framed. An address called a loyal address was moved. He (lord G.)who attended as an humble individual, moved an amendment to that address, containing similar expressions of loyalty and attachment to the throne, but accompanied with expressions of disapprobation of ministers. The sheriff refused to receive the amendment. He decided that it was not relevant to the object of the meeting, and declared that he would not put it. The sheriff did not stop here; but afterwards took upon himself to assert, that the original address was carried; and refused, though repeatedly pressed, to grant the only means of 106 determining the point, namely, a division. In consequence of this refusal, the meeting broke up without coming to any regular decision. By this conduct of the she-riff, the great majority of the freeholders were deprived of the right of petitioning. The sheriff was purely a ministerial officer, and ought not to assume to himself the right of determining whether the particular words in which an amendment was framed were relevant or not. In this instance, he contended, that the sheriff of Chester had been guilty of a gross transgression of duty, and of a violation of the rights of the subject. But he was determined that such conduct should not pass without the strictest inquiry in a court of law or in parliament, if possible. The proceedings of the sheriffs in several counties had been very extraordinary, but the case of Chester was the most monstrous of all.
The Earl of Darnleywished to call their lordships' attention to that part of the petition which prayed for the restoration of her majesty to all her rights. The House of Commons had already declared, that the proceedings against her majesty were derogatory from the dignity of the crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country. He hoped they would follow up this resolution in the only way in which it could be effectually followed up; by taking such measures as would tend to restore her majesty to all her rights, and, in the first place, would take steps to reverse that measure by which it was attempted to deprive her of them, namely, the erasure of her name from the Liturgy. The House might remember that, on a former occasion, he had declared his opinion that the erasure of her majesty's name from the Liturgy was the foundation of all the ulterior proceedings against the queen. He had witnessed with much satisfaction that men of all parties, forgetting private partialities in their love for their country, had condemned those proceedings. He would make one effort more to restore tranquillity to the country.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he had a petition to present from the county of Wilts. The meeting was convened by the sheriff on a requisition most respectably signed by persons of every class in the county. The petition strongly stated the loyalty of the petitioners, and their attachment to the constitution. These sentiments were also accompanied with a strong opinion on what had taken place 107 with respect to her majesty. The petition, however, did not complain of any of those blasphemous and seditious publications I which had made so prominent a part in addresses of a different stamp, and which would have been most readily condemned by the petitioners had the state of things in the county been such as to require any censure of that kind. He had taken some pains to know the state of the county in which he resided, and he could confidently say, that at no time had the conduct of the inhabitants been more orderly and religious.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that some of the petitioners appeared to petition in ignorance of the real nature of the question respecting which they prayed the House. There was no question now about restoration of rights. The object of the bill of Pains and Penalties was to deprive her majesty of all those privileges immunities and exemptions which appertained to her as queen consort; and that bill being thrown out, of course her majesty's rights remained as they were before, untouched and undiminished.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the noble lord might have made up his mind upon the question as to the right of the queen to have her name inserted in the Liturgy, that no such right existed, but undoubtedly there were men high in the law and eminent in station, who were of opinion, that the queen had a legal right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy. It was, therefore, quite natural that the people, seeing that her majesty's name was excluded from the Liturgy, and witnessing besides, that her majesty was refused was palace, and that no establishment had hitherto been given to her, should petition for the interference of that House, to have her majesty restored to those rights which appertained to her as queen consort, and which had been enjoyed by all preceding queen consorts.
Lord Ellenboroughadmitted, that the question respecting the insertion of the queen's name in the Liturgy was liable I to very considerable doubt and difficulty, and though he might have formed an opinion upon it, he was well aware that it was a question of great delicacy and difficulty. All he meant to say was, that the queen's rights as queen consort were not all affected.
The Earl of Carnarvonrose to present the petition of the county of Hants. The meeting at which this petition was voted 108 had been called, after attempts of a very extraordinary kind had been made to prevent the county from assembling. Among those who had endeavoured to obstruct this constitutional expression of the opinion of the county, were persons holding official situations under government and members of that House. They had put forth a counter-requisition, and stated that they had already sent an address to the king which rendered any further expression of the sentiments of the county unnecessary. Notwithstanding this attempt to prevent it, the meeting was held, and a more numerous and respectable assemblage of freeholders never was seen in the county. The petition—which he held in his hand—was adopted at that meeting, and the signatures amounted to several thousands. No names more respectable, either for property or character, could be found in the county then those which were appended to this petition. The number was not less than from seven to eight thousand; and, the petition might therefore be held to represent the general sentiments of the inhabitants of Hampshire. The petitioners prayed, that their lordships would not, under any shape or form, re-enter on proceedings against her majesty, and that they would take measures to procure the insertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy. He trusted, his majesty's ministers would not act so madly as to oppose the wishes of the petitioners, and the general opinion of the country, on the question.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsupposed, that the noble earl had alluded to him, as one of those who had signed the counter-requisition. Now, he did not sign that counter-requisition, and the reason of his refusal to sign it was, that being lord-lieutenant of the county, and besides, a member of the government, he thought his signature, under these circumstances, would have been improper. He must say, however, that he entirely concurred with those who signed the counter-requisition, as to the impropriety of assembling the county. As an address had already been presented to his majesty, signed by 9,000 names, he considered the opinion of the county already expressed, and that it was not necessary to go through the farce of a county meeting. At the meeting which took place, only one side was allowed to be heard. The member for the county, whose view was different from the requisitionists, attended, and 109 wished to state his sentiments, but could not procure a hearing.
The Earl of Carnarvonadmitted the propriety of the noble duke's reasons for not signing the counter requisition, but I he confessed, that he heard, with some dismay, a declaration by a member of the government, that a county meeting called for the purpose of addressing the king and petitioning parliament, was considered as a farce. He was afraid that it was a part of that system which ministers had long pursued, and which would tend to persuade the people, that it was in vain to expect from them a substitution of conciliation for threats and restraints. The noble duke might think that the loyalty of the county was sufficiently expressed by the first address; but was it not strange to say, because a loyal address had been secretly circulated and signed, that therefore there was to be no public county meeting? The declaration expressed the attachment of those who signed it to the constitution. The noble duke approved of that declaration; but he would be glad to know how far he conceived himself pledged to support that constitution; because if any thing was more essential than another to the preservation of the constitution, it was, that county meetings should be free and open. But it seemed that it was not this popular part of the constitution which it was the object of ministers and their friends to support. What sort of loyalty was that which was displayed in the declaration? and how was it got up? A sort of pastoral letter had been sent to every clergyman in the county, requesting that body to use their utmost exertions to obtain signatures. This was not the first time (but he hoped it would be the last) that men who ought to keep aloof from political contests had been thus employed. The deputy sheriff of the county signed the letters as secretary to the Pitt club; so that when the Pitt club had made their collection of signatures, their lordships were to be told, that to hold a county meeting was a farce. The noble duke had also stated, that the member for the county could not obtain a hearing. This assertion was not correct. There was nothing extraordinary in certain tokens of disapprobation being expressed on the address of a speaker in any assembly. It was what occurred in the other House of parliament, and even in this; and such expressions of feeling 110 the noble duke himself must often have observed. The member of a county, as well as any other person, would meet with that sort of disapprobation, when, what he said did not accord with the feelings of those whom he addressed, or when they thought their time unnecessarily occupied.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he subscribed most cordially to every word which had fallen from his noble friend. The noble duke had stated, that the counter-requisitionists conceived there was no necessity for calling the county together again. The complaint on the part of the inhabitants of the county, however, was, that they had not been called together at all. Who was it that set up the opinion, that the loyal declaration expressed entirely the sentiments of the county? It might be the counter-requisitionists, but he trusted not the noble duke. A certain declaration was privately circulated, of which no person who signed it had power to alter or modify a single syllable, any more than the clergyman who circulated it had power to alter any of the thirty-nine articles which they subscribed. Yet, according to the explanation of the counter-requisitionists, the sense of the county had been sufficiently taken in this private manner. For this reason, and because one of the members for the county had been prevented from being heard, the constitutional meeting of the county had been stigmatized as a farce. It was with astonishment that he heard this term of reproach applied to the exercise of one of the most valuable rights of the subject—the more valuable because it was exercised in the face of day, and gave every individual in the county the opportunity of canvassing freely and independently the state of public affairs. This right had not only been long exercised in tins country, but, was a right, the exercise of which was encouraged when the sentiments expected to be I expressed were agreeable to those in power. That kind of assembly, which was now called a farce was, a year ago, the only regular and constitutional mode through which the throne had been approached with addresses of congratulation. Did any of his majesty's ministers, then, call these meetings a farce? Such meetings would never be so stigmatized, when their proceedings accorded with their opinions and wishes.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had not stated that the county had been called before, but had given it as his 111 opinion that its sentiments had been sufficiently expressed in an address which had been publicly circulated and signed. With repect to the word "farce," he did not use it out of disrespect to county meetings generally. He certainly did not view them with any disapprobation, when so conducted, that all sides could be heard; but when they were called by one party only, and when every man who wished to say any thing in opposition to the opinions of that party, had to ask the protection of some noble lord or some other person, in order to obtain a hearing, he did not conceive that such a meeting expressed the sentiments of the county. He was willing to allow that county meetings, if properly regulated, were a fair constitutional mode of taking the sense of the county; but this could not happen when they were attended by a mob for the express purpose of supporting one side. The fact was, that the county member had not been heard at this meeting.
Lord Hollandobserved, that the noble duke had expressed, in the address, his attachment to the constitution; but what he had said in that House explained what he meant by his attachment to it. There was a distinction in the mode in which he wished the constitutional opinion of the people to be expressed. An address secretly got up and privately circulated, was a grave and commendable mode; but attachment to the constitution expressed at a public meeting was a farce. What displeased the noble duke was, that persons on one side could not obtain a hearing. But his noble friend had explained this. The meeting was public, and all parties might have come to it. It semed, however, that every thing was fair when the parties were secured by lock and key, and when no one who disapproved of their proceedings could get near them; but when public discussion was invited, and the doors thrown open to all persons both friendly and adverse, then the meeting was a farce. The declaration mentioned by the noble duke purported to express the opinion of the county; but as it was only the opinion of individuals, he could not admit it to be what the noble duke described it, but considered it a fraudulent attempt to misrepresent the opinion of the county. He did not say that county meetings were entirely without defects. There was nothing in the constitution of this or of any other country that might not be liable to objection. 112 But this he would say, that that arrangement by which an opportunity was given to both sides to come forward and express their sentiments was not one of its defects. The noble duke had said, that it was necessary for persons who opposed the object of the meeting to appeal to some noble lord for protection. If by this he alluded to meetings at which he (lord Holland) had been present, it was certainly true that he had always endeavoured to obtain a patient hearing to every person; but if he meant, that there was a decided unwillingness to hear persons state sentiments of the kind alluded to, such was not the fact. He declared that both at the meeting of the county of Oxford and of Bedford, a fair hearing was given to persons who spoke in away calculated to excite irritation. The noble duke had used the word "farce," in application to that which was a part of the constitution. He sincerely believed that this expression was used in haste, and candour required that the same excuse should be extended to all who wrote or spoke on constitutional subjects. Let not their lordships, when they had heard the popular part of the constitution called a farce, be too severe on the language of others respecting its other branches. With regard to the explanation given by the noble duke, he did not see that it amounted to any thing, except that all county meetings must be a farce, unless they were favourable to ministers, It never occurred, that opposite parties joined in calling meetings. It was sufficient that they were open to all. As far as his information went, a more shameful attempt to put forth a false opinion as the sentiments of the county was never made than that which proceeded from the counter-requisitionists.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that his noble friend had been misunderstood. He never meant to treat with contempt county meetings, which he knew were a part of the ancient constitution of the country. What he objected to was, that when they were so assembled and so controlled by a mob, their proceedings must necessarily be a farce; such meetings were not meetings of freeholders. Undoubtedly, county meetings, if they could be conducted in practice according to their theoretic object, must be most useful. In that sense, he admitted, that no part of the constitution was more valuable; but they were liable to great abuse, and when not held in county hall, but in the open air, 113 they were no longer meetings of any legal description of persons known to the constitution. He did not know that the Hampshire meeting was to be considered an exception. When the noble lords talked of sending round the declaration to be signed, he should like to know how the petition of the Hampshire meeting had been signed? Were the 7,000 or 8,000 signatures all collected at the meeting? The declaration had 9,000 signatures; and it was, after all, to the signatures that they must look for the expression of the opinion of the county—he meant to the number and respectability of the signatures considered together. It certainly was not his intention, or that of his noble friend, to stigmatize county meetings; all that was meant was, that those meetings in which clamour and confusion prevailed, to the exclusion of fair discussion, did not convey a correct expression of public opinion.
§ Earl Greydid not expect, after what had passed in that House, last session, on the subject of public meetings, to have heard any reflection cast on county meetings, especially as, when the measures for abridging the liberties of the people were under discussion, the noble lord contended, that county meetings called under the authority of the sheriff, would henceforth have greater weight. But, notwithstanding all that the noble earl had then said in support of county meetings, and the advantage of holding them under the authority of the sheriffs, some of those sheriffs refused to call meetings, and others conducted themselves with the grossest partiality when they were called. The noble earl had explained the manner in which sheriffs were appointed; but he was surprised to find, that he had not attempted to say any thing satisfactory on the discretion they assumed of refusing to call meetings. He should be sorry to attribute to a person of the noble duke's character a wish to depreciate any part of the constitution, though his words certainly had that tendency. The noble duke did not object to meetings which both parties called, and where there were opportunities for discussion. But was not the meeting in question legally called? Was not the requisition respectably signed? and was not the object legal? His noble friend had described the meeting as most respectable. The objection of the noble duke applied to a circumstance which was unavoidable. County meetings often did wrong in not patiently hearing 114 persons who addressed them; but this was the case in every assembly in which conflicting opinions were stated. Did not something similar often occur in parliament? If the doctrine of the noble duke was to be adopted, county meetings would never be called, except on occasions when there could be no difference of opinion—such as those which occurred last year, when the object was, to express to the throne, sentiments of compliment and congratulation. His noble friend (lord Grosvenor) had described some very extraordinary conduct on the part of the sheriff at the Cheshire meeting. Did the noble duke and the noble lord mean to call that meeting a farce? But their lordships had had at instance of the same kind at their own doors. Yesterday a meeting of merchants and bankers was called in the city of London. Who were the persons who endeavoured to prevent fair discussion, and to provoke a dissolution of the meeting? Precisely those who had before got up a secret declaration. The private declaration alluded to by the noble duke did not express the opinion of the county of Hants. It was said it had 9,000 signatures; but, whatever the number was, they were procured, not by any fair discussion at a public meeting, but by influence and the active canvass of clergymen. How could it, then, be asserted, that in this way the sense of the county had been sufficiently expressed? He hoped that the noble duke did not mean to reflect on county meetings generally; but his language had been such as to give great reason to suspect that the feeling with which ministers regarded popular rights was very unfavourable. Those rights, however, were not less a part of the constitution than the prerogatives and privileges of the Crown.
The Duke of Leinstersaid, he believed his majesty's ministers were extremely fond of coups de tháatre; but the farce at Dublin, to use the noble duke's phrase, where the military were called in from the county gaol, and the meeting dispersed, vi et armis, had nearly terminated in a tragedy. He should shortly have occasion to call the attention of the House to this subject.
The Earl of Blesintonsaid, that the noble earl opposite had no objection to county meetings, where an opportunity was afforded, of hearing the arguments which might be urged on both sides, and I entering into a calm, fair and impartial 115 discussion of public questions. But, what was the conduct of the sheriff in the county of Dublin? Did he allow gentlemen to address the meeting on both sides of the question, or did he permit any person to offer his sentiments who was opposed to the requisition? No; he chose rather to dissolve the meeting than to hear any opinions opposed to his own; he proceeded to call in the military, without applying to the civil power, and actually handed lord Cloncurry out of the chair, whose good humour and discretion on that occasion, prevented this farce from terminating in a tragedy.
The Earl of Carnarvonstrongly reprobated the attempt which had been made to cast a reproach upon one of the most respectable meetings he had ever attended. He hoped the noble duke would learn to appreciate better the character of English meetings in general; and that he would not, without better information, attempt to degrade a respectable public meeting of an English county by designating it as a clamorous mob.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he had heard with regret the expression which the noble duke had made use of, because he was sure it would be taken advantage of on of doors. He, however, did not understand that expression in the sense in which it had been taken by other noble lords, or he would have agreed with them in the censure they had bestowed on it. In his opinion, the expression was not meant to apply to all county meetings, but only to those at which it was impossible any rational discussion could take place. It was with deep regret he felt himself compelled to say, that the county meetings which had lately been held deserved all that the noble duke had said of them. This was occasioned, not by the persons who attended those meetings, but by those who absented themselves from them. If the 9,000 persons who had signed the counter-declaration had attended the meeting, they would have had a majority, or at least they would have given a different complexion to the meeting. If the ancient practice were restored, county meetings would be very different from what they were at present. Addresses would then have greater weight than they have now, when they are agreed to after—and not at the meetings.
§ The Duke of Bedfordpresented a petition from the county of Bedford, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name 116 to the Liturgy, and the restitution of all her rights and dignities; and also for a complete change in the system of government. In presenting this petition to the House, he wished to say a few words in explanation of what was meant by a complete change in the system of government. They wished for a system of rigid economy and retrenchment, instead of a system of prodigality and corruption, for a reform of the various abuses which had crept into the government, and for a system of justice, kindness, and conciliation towards all classes of his majesty's subjects. The meeting was one of the most numerous which had ever been held in the county, and the petition was carried with only two dissentient voices. Two most respectable individuals had entered their protest against it, and they were heard with that respect and attention which their manly conduct deserved.
§ Viscount Ansonpresented a similar petition from the city of Litchfield. He had received a protest against it, which had been framed at a secret meeting: and he could not but express his regret at observing the names of nine clergymen, at the head of whom was the dean of Litchfield, subscribed to a protest, of which, the object was, to exclude her majesty from the prayers of the people. He was sorry to be compelled to say, that the conduct of the clergy throughout the country had exposed that body to merited reprobation. He had no hesitation in declaring, that the petition contained the real sentiments, and almost unanimous opinions of the inhabitants of the city of Litchfield.
§ The said petitions were ordered to lie on the table.