Sir Francis Burdettsaid, he held in his hand a Petition from the inhabitants of the city of Westminster, which had been agreed upon the other day at a very numerous meeting held for the purpose. The Petition, though concise, stated some very considerable grievances felt by the country; but it was not his intention to occupy the time of the House, and he should therefore move that it be brought up and read at the table.
§ The Speaker.What is the prayer of the Petition?
Sir F. Burdett.That peace may be preserved is the main prayer of it, but it also prays for a reform in the Commons House of Parliament.
§ The Petition was then brought up, and read as follows:
- To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
- The Petition of the Inhabitant Householders of the City and Liberties of Westminster;
Showeth—That, should England wage a new war against France, on the grounds recommended by his Majesty's Ministers, of interfering in the French choice of a Sovereign, such war, on the part of England, would be flagrantly unjust.
That a determined rejection of peace, by the insult of refusing to negociate with the Sovereign on the throne of France, will not lessen the injustice of such war.
That cruelly oppressed as the English people already are, by taxes, to the utmost extent of human endurance—taxes which are daily adding to the immense number of our paupers—to plunge our country, under such circumstances, into a new war, both unjust and unnecessary, would have less the appearance of an ordinary deficiency in wisdom than it would resemble desperation or insanity.
That, as respects the welfare of our country, your petitioners could not account for a policy so much resembling madness, did they not recollect that the domestic enemies, who have deprived the nation of its rightful representation in the Legislature, have a perpetual interest in stirring up foreign war, whereby they may farther deprive the people of their 392 property, and in time wholly subvert the constitution.
That evil counsellors, alert in the adoption of unjust means to an unjust end, have already, by corrupt influence, obtained an unqualified re-enactment of the Property-tax, which raising articles of consumption in price, and diminishing the means of payment, is a cause of cruel privations.
That such evil counsellors and their abettors, not only act on the iniquitous principle of taxation without representation, but they in preference adopt, as an instrument of terror in upholding their unconstitutional power, that detested inquisitorial system, in reprobation of which, the universal indignation of our much-injured country was to your honourable House so lately made known.
That if any minister or ministers of the Crown have advised, or shall advise, an unjust and needless war against France; or if any such minister or ministers, by unjustifiable measures, or by insulting the French Government, have caused or shall cause the overwhelming calamity of such a war to become inevitable, such minister or ministers ought to be impeached.
Wherefore your petitioners pray, that your hon. House will not only take into its most serious consideration the foregoing arguments, but that it will likewise afford, the nation a perfect shield, and the only possible shield against any such wrongs in future, by resorting to a radical reform, which shall completely identify taxation with representation, and restore to us parliaments of a duration not exceeding one year, it being most manifest that deprived or these rights, the people have no liberty, no security for their property, no protection against being needlessly involved in foreign wars, or exposed to domestic persecution and oppression.
§ The paragraph having been read accordingly:
Lord Castlereaghsaid there was no person in that House who felt more deeply than he did the importance of that undoubted privilege which the people of these realms possessed, of petitioning the Legislature against any grievances which they sustained; nor was there any one who would more anxiously guard the rightful and legitimate exercise of that 393 privilege; but when it was employed for the sole purpose of offering an insult to the House, he thought they would be guilty of a dereliction of their duty, if they abstained from marking their sense of such a proceeding, by refusing that the Petition should lie on the table. He considered, indeed, that this Petition was studiously framed to secure its own rejection; and as he apprehended the House would not feel inclined to receive a petition which reflected so grossly on themselves, hoping that the principle upon which he acted would not be misunderstood, he should oppose the honourable baronet's motion.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, he had never heard any person get up in that House to oppose the reception of a petition, who did not begin by stating that he was most anxious to preserve the right of petitioning free from violation. Such had been the conduct of the noble lord; but he should be glad if the noble lord would inform the House what particular part of the paragraph it was which would justify them, in his opinion, in refusing the present Petition. For himself, he did not observe any insulting words as applicable to the House of Commons collectively; and they certainly would not be justified in rejecting it merely because it happened to contain expressions offensive to persons in other capacities than as members of that House.
Lord Castlereaghconsidered the terms of the Petition as utterly incompatible with a proper respect to the House; and as illustrative of this opinion, he begged to refer the noble lord to these passages:—"That evil counsellors, alert in the adoption of unjust means to an unjust end, have already, by a corrupt influence, obtained an unqualified re-enactment of the Property-tax.—That such evil counsellors, and their abettors, not only act on the iniquitous principle of taxation without representation, but they in preference adopt, as an instrument of terror in upholding their unconstitutional power, that detested inquisitorial system, in reprobation of which the indignation of our much-injured country was to your honourable House so lately made known." If these allegations were true, continued the noble lord, and such as the House was willing to receive, it would follow that the particular tax in question, and indeed all taxes were imposed by an incompetent authority. He apprehended the House, 394 and the noble lord, would pause before they consented to receive a Petition so constructed.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, that the part of the Petition which the noble lord had read was not the same as he had before desired to be read by the clerk, and it was to the latter that his observations applied.
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that he wished the noble lord could have proved that the people of England were fairly represented, that the majorities in that House were not corruptly obtained, and that the opinion entertained out of doors was not a correct one. The opinion of the people, from the manner in which petitions were received in that House, was, that they might as well be thrown under the table, as laid upon it. He was not sorry, however, that the noble lord had made his remarks upon the petition; he was not sorry that he had drawn the attention of the House to it; nor should he be sorry to appeal from the judgment of that House to the opinion of the nation at large, as to the truth of its averments. It would be his duty at some future time to bring the question of parliamentary reform under the notice of the House; but be would not do it until the period arrived when he should be supported out of doors in the undertaking, in such a way as would induce the House to hear of its corruptions; to hear how seats were obtained in it, and to be told, that they were in fact any thing but the representatives of the people of England. In the year 1793 they did not refuse to receive a petition which completely dissected the House; which told who and what noble lords had the presentation of seats in it; to that petition was annexed a list, which proved that 17 individuals returned 74 members, and that one way or another, about 150 returned absolutely a majority of what was improperly called the House of Commons. With regard to petitions, however, he did not know of any right which the House could justly exercise as to receiving or rejecting them. Petitioners to that House were not bound to approach them cap in hand, on bended knees and with a beggar's prayer; their petitions were in the nature of a demand. He had no doubt, from the experience which he had had of the influence possessed over the House by any one who happened to sit on the bench where the noble lord sat, that if the noble lord requested them to refuse the Petition they would do so but he really saw no rea- 395 son for it either in the prayer or the language of the Petition. At the same time, he did not apprehend it was of any importance to the people of Westminster, or any other people, whether the Petition was received or not, from the way in which they were usually thrown aside.
Mr. Vezey Fitzgeraldsaid, he presumed the hon. baronet had presented the Petition merely for the sake of delivering such a speech as they had just heard; for he had professed an utter indifference whether the House received it or not. The hon. baronet professed to see nothing in the language of the Petition which was at all disrespectful to the House; he (Mr. Fitzgerald) was not surprised to hear him say so, because it was perfectly consistent with the new constitutional principles which he had avowed, that the petitions of the people were to be considered as demands, and not as requests made to the Legislature. With regard to the Petition of 1793 he did not pretend to know what might be the opinion of Parliament respecting it at the time; but the very statement of the hon. baronet, that it was received, proved that no petition would be rejected, whatever might be its sentiments as to the necessity of reform, provided it was couched in such language as was due to the character and dignity of the House. He thought the two passages which had been read from the Petition by his noble friend, were of a character which would amply justify the House in refusing to receive it, unless they were prepared to admit that they had been induced, by the corrupt influence of corrupt ministers, to re-enact the Property-tax.
§ Lord Miltonexplained.—He had referred only to that part of the Petition which had been first read; and could not say whether it might not contain other parts which even he might think objectionable.
The question being put, that the said Petition do lie upon the table, it passed in the negative.