HC Deb 23 January 1807 vol 8 cc526-9
Lord George Cavendish

proposed to pre–sent a petition to the house from a very considerable number of the freemen of Lancaster. It had been put into his hands as he came into the house, and he thought it his duty to present it. But in doing this he would not pledge himself to any opinion upon the case. As he had been a member of the court mar–tial whose sentence had been alluded to, he should abstain from taking any share in those discussions. Of the contents of the petition he was ignorant, but if the house would consent to receive it, they would be enabled to judge of its contents when it should be read at the table.—The petition was then ordered to be brought up and read. It stated, "that the petitioners have been informed, that some measure, not being a petition from any party inter–ested, is depending before the house, having for its object to prevent, them from being represented in parliament by John Fenton Cawthorne, esq., one of the members chosen at the last general election to represent the borough of Lancaster in parliament: That the petitioners submit, that, according to the uniform practice in such cases, the legality of any election of a member of the house cannot be questioned, unless the same is made the sub–ject of a petition presented to the house within 14 days from the first meeting of parliament after such election; and that any attempt to invalidate such election, by any other means than such as are spe–cified in the several statutes in such case made and provided, must be contrary to law, and ought to be discouraged by the house: but, if it is not intended to bring into question the legality of the election of the said J. F. Cawthorne, and the same is admitted to be a legal election, then the petitioners humbly submit, that the house has no jurisdiction to exclude from the privilege of sitting and voting as a mem–ber of parliament any person who has be–come a member of the house by a lawful election, except for some matter arising subsequent to such election to disqualify such member from sitting and voting: That the petitioners having elected the said J. F. Cawthorne, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances which they are informed are now to be made the grounds of his expulsion, submit, with the greatest confidence, that unless such circumstances amounted to a legal disability to sit in the house of commons (in which case the pe–titioners submit that the question ought to be tried upon a petition, and before a select committee,) the exercise of a power by the house of commons, to defeat such election would be subversive of the rights of elec–tors in general, and highly injurious to the petitioners, who insist they have a right to return to the house any person as their representative not previously disqualified by any known rule of law: and therefore praying, that no such measures may be adopted by the house, and that they may be heard against any such measure, by themselves, or their counsel, at the bar of the house." On the motion that the petition do lie on the table,

Captain Herbert

asked the noble lord who presented it, whether it was really the petition of the freemen of Lancaster? If it was, it appeared to him not to be in the light of a petition, but as a dictatorial and insolent attempt to controul parliament. The last paragraph appeared most reprehensible, where they acknowledged that they were acquainted with all the infamy that was the object of the motion. This admission would almost justify the house in disfranchising the borough. (A loud cry of no! no!) There certainly could be no doubt that a person declared incapable of serving his majesty in any capacity, was not fit for any trust.

Lord G. Cavendish

replied, that it had been put into his hands by persons of re–spectability, and was signed also by per- sons of character. He could only say, like most members who presented petitions, that he believed it to have been subscribed by those whose names appeared to it.

Mr. Cawthorne

observed, that the hon. gent. had taken up the question very warmly, but appeared to be totally unacquainted with the circumstances of the case. He could shew him an alphabetical list of the subscribers to the petition, which had been taken from the list of the freemen of Lancaster, and transmitted to him. Amongst them were the names of the chairman and magistrates of the quarter ses–sions, and many land-owners in the hun–dreds about the town. It was not by any personal considerations that he was influ–enced on this occasion, but by a regard to the rights of the gentlemen who had sent him to that house.

Mr. Spencer Stanhope

observed, that this was a petition against a motion made, though no proceeding had taken place on the subject to which it alluded, till a few minutes ago. This was strange conduct, for which he did not think there was any precedent.

Lord Stanley

was of opinion, that this petition was of a nature so dictatorial, that it ought not to be suffered to remain upon the table of the house; but he would not agree, that it would justify a disfranchisement of the borough, because that would confound the innocent with the guilty. The petition was in the hands of the noble lord before any motion was made on the subject, or the petitioners could know whether their rights would be affected thereby. The petition was dictatorial, and presumed to lay down the law, and there–fore ought not to be laid on the table.

Mr. S. Bourne

entered his protest against the doctrines that had been laid down by the noble lord, and by the hon. gent. who had contended, that the language of the petition was so improper, as to justify the disfranchisement of the borough. The pe–titioners had a right to petition, if they apprehended, no matter upon what ground, that their rights were danger of being invaded. The language of the petition was the same with the language recorded upon the Journals of the house, that an attempt to invalidate a return, where the person was not legally disqualified, was subversive of the rights of electors. Had not the petitioners a right to use the same language as the house? He had risen only to protest against such novel and uncon- stitutional doctrines, in order that it might not be supposed, if they were suffered to pass unnoticed, that they were assented to in that house.

Mr. S. Stanhope

appealed to the speaker, whether it was consistent with the forms and practice of the house to receive a petition against any proceeding not im–mediately under consideration of the house.

, The Speaker

as he had been appealed to, felt himself bound to declare, that he had always understood, and had collected from the proceeding of that house, that they opened their doors wide for receiving the petitions of all his majesty's subjects, whether with respect to grievances, real or apprehended, and that the only indispensable requisite in a petition, to intitle it to the consideration of that house was, that it should be couch–ed in language not offensive.

Lord Howick

agreed in the sentiments of the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. S. Bourne), and entirely concurred in the doctrine, laid down by the chair, that a petition from the subject was entitled to the atten–tion of that house, provided it was not couched in offensive language. The language of this petition seemed not to be of that description, for the petitioners humbly submitted that the apprehended proceed–ing would be subversive of the rights of electors. They should not construe too technically the letter of the petition.—The petition was ordered to lie on the table.