HC Deb 04 February 1817 vol 35 cc211-4
Mr. Brougham

said, he held in his hand a petition from a number of the inhabitants of Warrington, in the county palatine of Lancaster, complaining of a gross violation of the subject's best privilege—the right of petition. If the facts alleged in the petition were borne out, and in their support he had two affidavits, he sincerely hoped, that whilst documents, probably of an opposite tendency, were about to be referred to a committee soon to be appointed, the subject's complaint of grievances would also be entertained and examined. It was the indubitable duty of the king's government to preserve the public peace, and of that House to support the executive in the constitutional manner of conserving the national tranquillity; but, on the other hand, it was no less the indubitable obligation of that House to see that the people's grievances were redressed, before they were driven to those acts of violence which the disregard of protection might alone originate. If that, as he took it, was the first duty of the representative, it was particularly imperative in its application when the nation was suffering in the most afflicting extent, when at least no obstruction should be given to the bare consolation of expressing in a legal, peaceable, and constitutional manner, their complaints. The House would best guard against public outrage, as it would best fulfil its natural duty, by listening to popular grievances; by throwing open its doors widely to the claims of general misery; but, above all, by marking with its determined indignation any effort to stifle or impede it. The case to which the petition referred appeared to be one where a most serious obstruction was given to the right of petitioning. A petition had been signed by some hundreds of the inhabitants praying for retrenchment and reform. Its language was guarded and cautious; it broached no violent doctrines. Yet the petition was forcibly seized in the streets, as it was handing from house to house for signatures, by a man named Richard Burrows; was given by him to Edward Coates, and afterwards was forwarded to Mr. Thomas Lyon, the nephew of the acting magistrate, in whose house Mr. Lyon resided. Application was made for it by letter, stating the outrage, but the petitioners were unable to recover it. A second petition was then drawn out, but from an informality in the signatures it was unfit to be presented. The subjects right was thus obstructed by the unjustifiable outrage. The petition he held in his hand complained of that outrage, and he had therefore to move to have it brought up.

The petition was then read, setting forth, "That the petitioners, together with a considerable number of the inhabitants of Warrington and the neighbourhood, signed a petition to the House; and that, on the evening of Wednesday the 22nd day of January 1817, the said petition was forcibly seized in the street by Richard Burrows, carried by him to the house of Mr. Edward Coates, and conveyed from thence to Thomas Lyon, junior, esquire, from whom the petitioners have not been able to recover it; that, in addition to the petition seized by the said Richard Burrows, which contained about three hundred and fifty signatures, there are other parchments, with copies of the said petition affixed, having five hundred and six signatures to them; that, after the seizure of the aforesaid petition was known, no more signatures to the said petition were received, otherwise the number of persons subscribing it would have been considerably increased; that the petitioners humbly conceive the outrage of which they complain to be not only a gross attack on the right of the people to petition; but also a high breach of the privileges of the House, as it is prejudging the question, and not leaving its decision to the wisdom of the House, who alone have the right to determine whether the said petition should be received, and whether its prayer should be granted; and the petitioners humbly pray that the House will take into their most serious consideration this attempt by lawless violence to prevent the petitioners from submitting their wishes to the House, and that they will take such measures as may appear to the House the best calculated to prevent a recurrence of such outrageous, illegal, and unconstitutional proceedings, and that they will thereby secure to the petitioners that right of petitioning which is the birthright of every Briton."

Mr. Brougham

said, at present he should merely move that the petition do lie on the table, in order to give every opportunity to the parties complained against of vindicating themselves, and to put the House in possession of every fact. If this opportunity was not embraced, he should in eight or ten days, feel it his duty to take some further measures.

Mr. Bootle Wilbraham

approved the course that the hon. and learned gentleman had taken in letting it lie on the table, and he thought it probable that no further steps would be taken, as though lie knew nothing of the transaction, he was convinced, on explanation, it would prove to be no serious intention of obstructing the right of petition, but a mere coarse joke, such as he knew to be common among the lower classes of the manufacturing districts. That it appeared to him a new petition might easily have been prepared and signed in the course of a few ours; the persons who signed the former one and the parchment being at hand; and that he ventured to think it would not be found a subject worthy of the serious attention of the House.

Mr. Ponsonby

could not suffer this matter to pass without making one or two remarks. And, first, he must express the extreme satisfaction which he felt at the temperate and moderate language in which his hon. and learned friend had stated this most extraordinary occurrence to the House. The hon. member opposite had been pleased to call it only a coarse joke; but to him it appeared one of the most gross and flagrant violations of the privileges of the people, and of that House, that had ever occurred. In the present situation of the country nothing could be more dangerous than to give the people an opportunity of stating, that their petitions: were not suffered to reach that House. The distresses of all classes of the community were unparalleled in the history of the country; and they should be permitted, at least, to state their grievances, in order that the House might adopt the most effectual means of administering relief. His hon. and learned friend had very properly suggested, that other information might be afforded on the facts of this petition; but if that information was not presented to the House, he hoped nothing would prevent his hon. and learned friend from showing to the people, that their sacred and indubitable right of petitioning would be preserved, at least by the faithful representatives of the country.

Mr. Wynn

concurred in the praise due to the temperate and proper mode in which the petition was introduced, and he regretted that such a subject had for a moment been treated with levity. It was a duty paramount to all others for the House to show the people that it would protect the humblest individual in the land from any obstruction to his right of petition—a right solemnly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and the fair exercise of which could not for a moment be trenched upon. The House, when such an allegation as this petition contained was made, should trace the matter to its source, and show that they would not allow such an outrage to be for a moment endured.

Mr. B. Wilbraham

denied that he had treated the subject with levity. He really believed that, on inquiry, it would prove as he had said.

Ordered to lie on the table.