HC Deb 11 February 1817 vol 35 cc312-21
Lord Folkestone

presented the petition voted at the Spafields meeting on the 10th instant. Being totally unacquainted with any of the parties who signed the petition, and inimical as he was to some parts of its prayer, the noble lord professed his surprise that he was the member selected for presenting it, and could not account for its coming into his hands. As, however, the language in which it was couched was respectful, and as he was anxious that, in the present season of suffering and distress, no obstruction should be offered to the petitions of the people which made it known, he willingly undertook the duty of laying it before parliament. Parliamentary reform was only one of its prayers, and as it besides prayed for relief from the pressure of taxation, for retrenchment of expenditure, and an abolition of sinecures, he would have said a few words on the subject of economy, had he seen his majesty's ministers in their place; but as a note had been circulated, stating that they could not attend, he would for the present abstain.

The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Lord Cochrane

presented a petition of the people of Hampshire, in general meeting assembled on Portsdown-hill. The meeting, the noble lord said, was numerously and respectably attended, notwithstanding the intimidation employed by the agents of government to prevent it, and the obstructions thrown in the way of a great attendance. Though there was a great assemblage, there was no disturbance: not only were the people quiet, as regarded others, but there appeared the utmost harmony and unanimity among themselves. Such, it would seem, was not what was wished for or expected; for, either from motives of prudence, or others not so defensible, the cavalry were called out, ball cartridges were dealt to them, the guns of the garrison were loaded, and the garrison itself wore the appearance of a besieged fortress. Whether the object of the authorities was to adopt precautionary measures to keep the peace, or an intimidating attitude to prevent the meeting, he could not guess; but he might say, that these measures for the former object were useless, however the latter might be attained to a certain extent. No riot, no commotion, no disturbance, no tendency to tumult or disorder was manifested. The business of the meeting was conducted with regularity and decorum, and numbers signed the petition on the spot, all of whom heard it read, and concurred in its sentiments. There were many symptoms of displeasure on the part of government, and several acts of interference that tended to diminish the numbers who would otherwise have attended. Handbills were posted up at the turnpikes, and in other situations leading to the place of assembling, of the most threatening and alarming nature, commanding all who valued their safety to keep away, and alluding to scenes of blood and murder which had happened in consequence of meetings convened for similar purposes in other parts of the country. Had such means as these not been resorted to, the noble lord was confident, that not only 20,000 but 100,000 individuals would have been assembled. Adverting to an observation made by an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), that no member should express his opinion of the language of a petition till he was questioned by the authority of the House, he would say, that he was not disposed to adhere even to that rule; but would declare that, if after the house had laid down a principle, defining what petitions should be received or rejected, he saw any thing that appeared contrary to this expressed principle, he would mention it, without fear of what might be said within the House or without. This petition appeared to him to be liable to no objection in point of language. It prayed for annual parliaments and universal suffrage—that was, for the right of every man who had attained the age of 21 to vote. The noble lord moved that it should be brought up.

Mr. Chute

stated, that the petition did not come from a county meeting, but from one called by gentlemen principally resident in London. He read the advertisement alluded to by the noble lord; it was circulated by the acting magistrates in the vicinity of Portsdown, and admonished those who disapproved of the meeting, or those actuated solely by curiosity, not to attend, while it recommended to the meeting peace and good order.

The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Lord Cochrane

presented a petition from the Journeymen Tailors of London, setting forth, "That the petitioners have never, at any former period, interfered with political concerns, but for years past have, by uniting together for mutual sup- port, borne up against all the difficulties with which they were surrounded, with unexampled patience; but, from the present unprecedented pressure of the times, their resources are totally exhausted, and are no longer able to meet the exigencies of the times, and nothing but starvation must be their fate, unless some means be devised to alleviate the general distress now existing; that the facility with which the nobility and gentry were enabled to reside in foreign countries, in order to avoid excessive taxation at home, is one of the many causes of the great privation the petitioners labour under; that the exorbitant taxation disables their employers to contract for foreign orders, as they can undersell us in every article in foreign markets; that the lapse of time having depopulated places possessing original franchise is a subject, the petitioners most humbly submit, merits the immediate attention of the House; and they also submit, that all who are the subject of direct taxation ought to be represented in the House, in order to consent to the formation and application of all taxes; that the cities of London and Westminster, and the county of Middlesex, are not represented commensurate with their population; and the petitioners pray, that the House will take into consideration the best and speediest means to restore to the people that reform in parliament, whereby the people may look with confidence for a redress of their insupportable grievances."—The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

Lord Cochrane presented a petition from the people of Lymington, in the county of Southampton, setting forth, "That the petitioners, who have long beheld with the utmost sorrow the alarming state of the people of this kingdom, are now fully satisfied, that our existing and multiplied grievances have arisen from long protracted and unnecessary wars, in support of despotism, generally, but particularly, in the assistance afforded the faithless fanatical and perfidious House of Bourbon, the wasteful and extravagant expenditure of the people's money, useless places, pensions, sinecures and establishments, particularly a standing army of one hundred and fifty thousand men in time of peace, all having their source and origin in the corrupt and degenerate state of the representation, whereby all salutary and constitutional control over ministers is lost, and parliaments instead of being a control for, have become a control upon the people, as deaf to their complaints, they meet for little else than to lay additional burthens upon the people; that, as the only means of preventing a recurrence of the before-mentioned abuses, the petitioners humbly beseech the House immediately to adopt such measures as will ensure to every man, paying indirect as well as direct taxes, the right of voting for members of parliament, to be elected by ballot, and to limit all future parliaments to sit no longer than one year each, as the petitioners are fully convinced, by past experience, that without a legislature chosen by the great body of the people, and kept in check by the people, they can have no real or lasting security for either civil liberty, or the little property which the present rapacious system of finance has left in their possession."

Mr. Lockhart

begged to have the passage in the petition, stating, that the House of Commons, instead of being a control for, had become a control on the people, read. He thought such language from petitioners highly disrespectful and objectionable.

Lord Castlereagh

expressed his coincidence in the opinion of the disrespectful tenor of the petition, and contended that it ought not to be received.

Lord A. Hamilton

thought, that as it was not intentionally disrespectful, and contained no direct or studied insult, it should be received.

The House then divided:

For receiving the Petition 43
Against it 72
Majority —29

List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Lamb, hon. W.
Babington, Thos. Lambton, J. G.
Barnett, James Langton, W. G.
Brougham, Henry Latouche, Robt.
Burdett, sir F. Macdonald, James
Colthurst, sir N. Martin, John
Calcraft, John Monck, sir C.
Curwen, J. C. Morpeth, visc.
Duncannon, visc. Moore, Peter
Fazakerley, N. Methuen, Paul
Fergusson, sir R. C. North, Dudley
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Ossulston, lord
Folkestone, visc. Philips, George
Fremantle, Wm. Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Grenfell, Pascoe Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Guise, sir Wm. Ridley, sir M. W.
Hammersley, H. Russell, lord J.
Heron, sir R. Sharp, Richard
Howorth, H. Sefton, earl of
Hurst, Robert Smyth, J. H.
Tierney, rt. hon. G. TELLERS.
Webb, Edward Hamilton, lord A.
Wilkins, Walter Cochrane, lord.

While strangers were excluded upon the above division, three members were found by the tellers in the passage behind the Speaker's chair, and were, according to the invariable practice in such cases, conducted into the House to vote. The Speaker repeated the question to them, and desired them to say, in succession upon, which side they voted. Mr. Samuel Thornton was the first to whom the question was put. He answered instantly, without any hesitation, that he voted for rejecting the petition. A suspicion having arisen that he had not heard the petition read (the ground of rejection being the language in which it was couched), the Speaker was requested to ask him whether or not he had heard it? Mr. Thornton said, that he was an old member of parliament, and did not see what right any one had to ask him such a question; but the Speaker declared that it must be answered, and put it to him accordingly. Whereupon Mr. Thornton said, that he had not heard the petition read; it was then read to him, and he persisted in his vote for rejecting it. On our re-admission to the gallery we found

Lord Cochrane

presenting a petition for reform from the township of Quick, and at the same time animadverting with much warmth on what he characterised as the scandalous conduct of an hon. member, who had voted against receiving the last petition without having heard a word of its contents [Loud cries of Hear, hear!]. If any one circumstance more than another furnished one of the strongest arguments for parliamentary reform, it was this—that an hon. member should go to the question, and divide against the petition, without having heard it. He trusted the House would hear again of no such lamentable example of disregard to the prayers of the people, and of neglect of the chief duties of a member of parliament, "otherwise, I hope," said the noble lord, addressing himself to the Speaker, "it will be marked and reprobated by you, Sir." [Loud shouts of Hear, hear!]. He should wish indeed to call for a vote of the House in reprobation of such conduct; and if he found the motion not contrary to the rules of the House, he should certainly endeavour to call forth their sentiments upon it.

Sir F. Burdett

agreed with what had fallen from the noble lord, respecting the conduct of the hon. director of the bank, who, without knowing one syllable of the petition, had at once decided against it. If any doubt were entertained by any member, he ought to have decided in favour of the sacred right of petition. Was that an equal representation of the people, in which, when a minister had once declared his wish, votes were given without hearing a single reason in its support? If, according to the old saying, that one may judge of the whole statue by one of its fingers, one were to take the hon. director as a specimen of this House, falsely denominating itself the Commons House of Parliament——

The Speaker

spoke to order. It was unparliamentary to say that this House was not the Commons House of Parliament. Such language was not to be endured from any gentleman.

Sir F. Burdett

resumed. Whether it was language which the House would or would not endure, he could not say: "but at any rate," addressing himself to the Speaker, "I may be permitted to add, that after what you yourself once said, as to what would be the feelings and language of our ancestors with regard to practices which had been proved to exist in the mode of procuring seats in that House—after a noble lord opposite had been himself detected in one most nefarious and disgraceful practice, that of bartering a public office for a seat in that House, we may surely be permitted to drop a little our pretensions to unsullied purity of character. Unless the people complain specifically of that abominable traffic in which the noble lord was detected, unless they may venture to complain in words as decent as the act itself was vile and indecent, I know not how the question of parliamentary reform can be brought under the consideration of the House or of the public. But now, it seems, the House were not to hear any thing like the truth; nothing but an adulatory sort of language was to be addressed to it; and if so, why was there not a new office created for the purpose of remodelling petitions, and clothing them in language that might render them acceptable to fastidious ears?" It appeared to him, from all he had lately observed, that great obstructions were thrown in the way of petitioning, both within and without those walls. He did not mean to dispute that magistrates were justified, when notice was given that a public meeting was about to be held, in issuing warnings and taking all proper precautions against the occurrence of riot and mischief; but when in these warnings, such as that which had been read to the House that evening, they threw out calumnious statements against these meetings, as being scenes of riot and bloodshed, statements totally unwarranted by the fact, what was this but doing all they could to obstruct petitioning out of doors? [Hear, hear!] He would assert, that none of these meetings for petitioning had been attended with riot and bloodshed; that in one or two places where riots had occurred, there had been no petitions at all, and that in the metropolis, the rioters were not among the petitioners. In fact, nothing had tended more to keep the people in good humour and tranquillity, than the public exercise of this right of addressing the constituted authorities of the country; and nothing could tend more to turbulence and disaffection than to abridge its exercise by parliamentary enactments or any other obstructions. And here he could not avoid complaining of the solemn mockery and impiety of a prayer which had been ordered to be read in all the churches—a prayer by which all England was made to utter a falsehood in their most solemn approaches to the Deity [Hear, hear!] He could not believe that such a mockery could have received the sanction of the Prince Regent, without his royal ear having been mischievously preoccupied by a party who pretended that they alone took an-interest in his honour and welfare—a party who pretended that an outrageous and traitorous attack had been made on his royal person. [Cries of Hear, hear! from the Ministerial benches.] He would call it, indeed, an atrocious insult, rather than an outrageous attack; and he was confident, that had the Prince Regent been left to the magnanimous dictates of his own heart, it never would have been insinuated in a solemn address to the Deity, that the whole people of England were "seized with madness." Whatever might be the report of the secret committee, now so anxiously looked for from day to day, he should say, that there was a dissatisfaction prevailing in the minds of the people, founded on just and reasonable grounds, which, if not listened to and soothed by a corresponding disposition in parliament to reform abuses, would break forth into scenes of turbulence and bloodshed, such as the noble lord opposite had witnessed in a neighbouring country with so much reported coolness, but such as the boldest heart in this country could not look forward to without horror and dismay [Hear, hear].

Mr. Thornton

said, that on the question being put, he felt it his duty, from the manner in which many other petitions had been worded, and from the opinion he entertained of the hon. member's judgment with whom he had divided, to vote against the petition, particularly as he was not aware it was his privilege to have the potion again read, to form a judgment thereupon. But as to the reflection cast on his conduct by either the noble lord or the hon. baronet, he was altogether indifferent to their praise or censure.

Lord Castlereagh

complained pf the efforts just made to mislead the country as to the disposition of the House respecting the petitions of the people.

Lord Cochrane

called the noble lord to order. He had no right to fix imputations of any kind on an individual within the walls of that House.

Lord Castlereagh

was proceeding to explain that he was not out of order, when he was again called to order.

The Speaker.

If the noble lord wishes to explain on what grounds he conceives that he is not out of order, he has a right to be heard out.

Lord Castlereagh

then proceeded to show, that the petition, the reception of which he had opposed, attributed to the House an unconstitutional use of its functions, when he was a third time called to order.

The Speaker.

The noble lord has been called to order by another noble lord. The noble lord must confine himself to answer that noble lord as to the point of order.

Lord Castlereagh

then vindicated the right which he had to complain of the conduct of the hon. baronet, who would have conveyed a gross insult to the House himself, if the chair had not made him feel, in a dignified manner, the impropriety of his language. But this was not the first time that the hon. baronet had gone so far. He seemed to have come to atone for the sins which he had committed, by his non-appearance in another place, and by putting a studied insult upon the House, to redeem himself from the reproaches which had elsewhere been cast upon him. His attack was on the House, and not on so humble an individual as himself (lord C.) But the chair had made him feel the † gross impropriety of his conduct, and as far as he himself was personally concerned, he was perfectly satisfied.

Mr. Fremantle

said, that he had voted for the reception of the last petition, because, though not approving of all its language, he did not conceive its general tenour to be more offensive than that of others which had passed without notice. But if he could suppose that such a vote involved him in any approbation of the opinions expressed by the hon. baronet, he should not have supported the petition. In opposition to the language of the hon. baronet, he did think that the general conduct of the House demanded the applause and not the reprobation of the people. He would venture to say, that there had been no general expression of opinion on the part of the people, which had not been listened to with due attention; and that therefore he acted properly in supporting, on every occasion, as far as lay in his power, the character of the House.

The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Peter Moore

presented a petition from the city of Coventry, praying for a reform and a reduction of the public burthens. This petition had been agreed to at a very numerous meeting, at which the most perfect order and unanimity had prevailed. He regretted to state, that such had been the increase of the poor-rates in that town, and so severely was their pressure felt, that there was hardly a house in which a distress had not been levied for their collection.

Mr. Butterworth

likewise bore testimony to the enormous and almost intolerable burthen of the poor rates in Coventry. He was happy, however, not to have witnessed any symptoms of discontent, and confidently looked forward notwithstanding its present depression, to the speedy revival of trade and manufacturing industry in that populous city.

Mr. Lockhart

could not help availing himself of this opportunity to express his conviction, that unless that branch of taxation which immediately affected the necessaries of life were greatly diminished, or funded property made, as it ought in justice to be made, equally contributory to the poor rates, they could not long continue to be paid. Their payment was, however, intimately connected with the whole system of public credit, and the stock-holder might be assured with the due discharge of the interest of the national debt. There could not be a stronger example of the extreme pressure of the poor-rates than this complaint of their burthensome operations in the city of Coventry, one of the most richly endowed in the kingdom, and in which, there was a fund of 12,000l. per annum applicable to parochial relief. Unless something substantial was done, and the present system entirely altered, it was clear that we must proceed from bad to worse, and that the most, alarming consequences would ensue.

The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.