Mr. Ashton Smithrose to present a Petition to the house from several respectable Freeholders of the county of Hampshire, complaining of the improper interference of persons in office for the purpose of influencing the last election for the county of Hampshire.
§ Mr. Tierneywished the hon. gent. would state more explicitly the nature and object of the petition he was about to present.
Mr. C. Wynnecould not vote for the admission of a paper, of which he was, as yet, entirely ignorant.
§ The Speakeracquainted the hon. gent. that in presenting a petition he was bound to open the matter thereof to the house, and also to state the prayer of the petitioners. If the petition contained a prayer, it undoubtedly was entitled to the attention of the house; but, if not, the house could not receive any statements the petitioners might think proper to make, as a petition claiming its consideration.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the petition contained a statement of a grievance, complained of by the subjects, and as such, was entitled to the consideration of parliament.
Mr. Broderickintimated, that the petition complained of a breach of the privileges of that house, and contended, that it ought to be received.
Mr. A. Smithstated, that the petition would not be found defective in any of the usual forms, and took upon himself to affirm, that it did contain a prayer: an alledged grievance was complained against, and it was prayed that that house would interfere to remedy or to remove it. The Petition was then read, and was as follows:—'That the petitioners think it their duty to represent to the house, that, previously to the late election of knights to serve in parliament for the said county, measures of the most unconstitutional nature were resorted to by persons in situations of high trust and authority in different departments of the executive government, for promoting the success of Thomas Thistlethwayte, esq. and the hon. W. Herbert, two of the candidates, whose pretentions were favoured by his majesty's ministers, in violation of the dearest rights of the petitioners, and as they humbly apprehend, of the privileges of the house; that, among other instances of such interference, they think it 685 right to state more particularly that W. H. Fremantle, esq. one of the secretaries of the treasury, a gentleman who, they believe, has no property in the county, applied distinctly to the Barrack Master General, recommending the above candidates to his favourable influence and support, and desiring him, as a very particular favour, to mention the same subject, with the same view, to the other gentlemen in the Barrack Department; in pursuance of which requisition, the most active exertions were used in that department, under the specious pretence of carrying on his Majesty's service, to influence unduly various freeholders, and to controul the exercise of the elective franchise: these allegations the petitioners are prepared to prove at the bar of the House, in the humble hope that such measures may be taken, as to the wisdom of the house may appear most effectual, to prevent a recurrence of such unconstitutional practices, practices which, with all due deference to the superior wisdom of the house, the petitioners venture to describe as calculated to bring into discredit the government of the country, and to shake the confidence of the people in the honour and independence of the house of commons; the petitioners have therefore felt it their bounden duty, not only to themselves and fellow subjects, but especially to the house, to bring under their notice these outrages, as they deem them, against the liberties of the country; and they have been cneouraged the more to do so, by the Resolution which stands recorded in the Journals of the house, which declares, that it is highly criminal in any minister or ministers, or any servant under the crown, directly or indirectly, to use the powers of office in the election of representatives to serve in parliment, and declares, that an attempt at such influence will at all times be resented by the house, as aimed at its own honour, dignity, and independence, as an infringement of the dearest rights of every subject throughout the empire, and tending to sap the basis of this free and happy constitution."
Mr. Ashton Smiththen moved, that the petition do lie on the table, and at the same time gave notice that he should submit a motion to the house on the subject, on this day se'nnight.
Lord Templegave his full and unqualified consent to the motion that this petition 686 should lie upon the table. But, whilst he concurred in this motion, he begged to recall to the recollection of the house that, he would not say this particular petition, but a petition of a similar nature, had been determined upon by the petitioners to be presented to that house, previously to the meeting of parliament. As the allegations of the petition involved a question respecting the privileges of that house, it ought to have been brought forward on the earliest opportunity; and it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that the hon. gent. had kept it back till the present moment.
Mr. Canningapprehended that when any petitioners resolved on presenting a petition to that house, complaining of a specific grievance, they had a right, as well as the hon. member who was to present it, to choose the time that might appear to them to be most convenient or favourable for that purpose.
§ Mr. Tierneycertainly thought that, if the petition was intended as a party question, it might have been desirable for the framers of it to have public opinion for some time previously directed to the subject. But if the petition was really intended to bring the fact of a breach of the privileges of that house under the consideration of parliament, no time should have been lost in presenting it. These gentlemen. who knew of such transactions as amounted to a breach of the privileges of that house, should not have suffered those unworthy ministers of the crown to remain so long exempt from the exposure which their conduct merited. The house, however, would hereafter be able to judge of the motives of the petitioners in keeping back the petition, and also of the motives of those gentlemen who might since have been persuaded to give their support to this proceeding.
§ Mr. Percevalsaid, he should not impute to the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, any party motive for the observations he had made (a laugh); but he was clearly of opinion, that the persons who had signed the petition, and the gent. who had undertaken to present it, had a right to chuse the time that appeared best to them. The right hon. gent. no doubt, would have been better pleased if the petition had been presented on the first day of the session, because then it would have been liable to an objection, if it had been proposed to take it into consideration previously to the last day for presenting Elec- 687 tion petitions. But the allegations of the petition were of so grave and serious a nature, that if any one of them even could be proved, it would be of small comparative importance whether the petition were presented a day, or a month, earlier or later.
Mr. C. Wynnecontended, that it had never been insinuated from his side of the house, that the charges in the petition were of a slight or unimportant nature. He appealed to the recollection of the house whether they had not, in every instance, been admitted to be of the last importance to have brought forward. The charges contained in the petition would be highly important if proved; they would also be important if not proved, as he trusted would be the case, because they would then fall back upon the heads of those who had given birth to them.
§ Mr. Hurstdid not think it of the smallest moment whether the petitioners were influenced by a sense of duty, or by sinister motives; they took upon them to bring against certain persons certain charges, and he rejoiced that it would be now soon decided how far the charges were warranted by proofs, from the rumours that had been so industriously circulated, not alone through the county concerned, but through the country. He was glad that the petition had found its way into that house, and that those rumours would be for ever silenced by the paramount decision of the people's representatives, for he had no hesitation in saying that he anticipated with confidence an issue honourable to the parties so calumniated.
Mr. Rosewas not willing to question the impartiality of the hon. member who spoke last, but as it had been urged as an objection to the petition, the time of its being presented, he would beg leave to set gentlemen right upon that head. Parliament had met this session at a very unusual time, when few country gentlemen were able to attend. It was desirable to have as full an attendance of that description of members as possible on the discussion of this subject, and it was not till the present period that many of them had attended in the house. As to the motive for bringing forward the petition, he was sure the hon. gent. opposite could not impute any to the hon. member, who had presented it, that he could not fully justify.
§ Mr. Sturges Bournehighly approved of the candid and honourable manner in 688 which the petition was brought forward. The matter to which it related was acknowledged on all sides to be of the utmost importance, involving no less considerations than those of the dearest rights of the subject, and the privileges of that house. He insisted that it would have been trifling with either to hurry on the discussion before there had been a sufficient attendance to give it adequate consideration. He repeated his sense of the candid and honourable way in which it had been submitted to the house.
Mr. Fremantleadverted to the state of the house, and asked whether it could be considered such an attendance as the hon. member had thought desirable? As to the petition, he was extremely gratified that it had been produced, and gave his full assent to the motion, that it should be laid upon the table. He was confident that he should be able to shew, that the circumstances of the case had not the bearing represented in the petition, when the question should come to be discussed. He had only one word to add respecting the manner in which this proceeding had been conducted. He had always understood it to be the practice in that house, when any charge was to be brought forward against a member, that some intimation of the proceeding was communicated to the individual concerned. In this case, not a word had been expressed to him on the subject, and though rumours might have reached him respecting the allegation of the petition, it was not till he came down to the house this day, and the hon. member had proposed to present the petition, that he had any certain information upon the subject.
§ Mr. Sturges Bourne,in explanation, said, that in speaking of the necessity of a full attendance, he did not mean any allusion to the numbers then in the house. The petition was not then to undergo consideration, but now that the members in general had come up to their parliamentary duty there was a certainty of a full meeting whenever this petition was to come before the house.
Lord Howickthought, that as the charges alledged in the petition were of the most weighty kind, so did they exact from that house the strictest scrutiny, and the most mature consideration. They went to question the honour of that house, and the freedom of the country; for that house could not be honourable, if constituted by the undue influence of power and corruption; 689 nor could the country itself be free if robbed of its elective franchise. Thinking then, as he did, of the importance of the petition, he could not conceal his surprise that it had not long before that period been presented to the house. When it was considered that it was the practice of that house to postpone all other kinds of considerations to the paramount one of its privileges; when it was considered that the hon. member who presented this petition must have known the serious nature of the charges it contained; when it was considered that every member, having charges to adduce, involving the privileges of that house, had felt dispatch to be his first duty in submitting such charges to that house, it would be difficult to reconcile a strict sense of parliamentary duty with the alledged necessity for delay. The hon. member who spoke last panegyrized the candid and honourable manner in which, there had been a plain statement of strong charges explicitly laid before the house. He for his part, should hesitate to term a charge candid, merely because it was a gross one, but should rather feel it his duty to look for evidence in some degree proportionate to the character of the accusation; but however candid or honourable it might be to bring such charges, he was sure that it was not either candid or honourable to circulate industriously through the country rumours calculated to hurry the unthinking into inconsiderate prejudices against those persons whom their accusers had so long delayed to charge before the proper and recognized tribunal. Did the hon. gent. think it very candid to present to that house a paper reflecting in the most serious manner upon a member of that house, without giving that member the slightst[...] intimation of such a proceeding, though such a notice was warranted, or rather required by all the usages of parliament? He should be anxious until the petition was decided upon, and hoped that if the charges therein contained were found, upon due examination, to be slight and frivolous, the house Would feel it due to their own dignity, and to the aspersed honour of one of its members, to make the persons who advanced them, feel the consequence of wanton accusation—The petition was then ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday se'nnight.