Commons Sitting of 31 January 1817

CONFERENCES WITH THE LORDS.
Mr. Wynn, alluding to the late conference with the Lords on the subject of the outrage committed on the Prince Regent, and the deviation that had then taken place from the usual forms of such a proceeding, informed the House that he had prepared a motion on that subject in conformity with their desire. The accommodation that had formerly been prepared for the managers on the part of the Commons had been withheld, and there had been a general deviation from the forms that had for 150 years been established, and inserted in the Journals of the House. No notice had been taken of the circumstance during the last conference, on account of the peculiar circumstance that had occasioned it, and the importance of which had absorbed every other feeling. He concluded by moving the following resolution: "That a message be sent to the Lords, to inform their lordships that this House, taking notice, that in the manner of holding the last conference, there was some departure from the ancient and accustomed forms, and that the usual accommodation was not provided for the managers for the Commons, do desire that these matters may not be drawn into precedent, and that their lordships will give directions that the place of meeting be restored to its former state."
The resolution was agreed to, and Mr. Wynn was ordered to carry the said message to the Lords.

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c
Sir W. Lemon, in rising to present a Petition from the freeholders and inhabi-
144
tants of Cornwall regularly convened and signed by the sheriff, stated, that the petitioners prayed for retrenchment and economy, and a general reduction in all the departments of the public expenditure. The petitioners referring also to the inadequate representation of the people in that House, prayed that that important subject should be taken into immediate consideration, with a view to remedy the evils complained of, and to alleviate the public distress, which was mainly attributable to the deficient state of the popular representation. This petition, the hon. baronet observed, was totally free from any of those wild theories or rash experiments which unfortunately emanated from other assemblies professing to have reform in view. His constituents had, he had the satisfaction to say, no concern whatever in such transactions. Having stated their opinions in a proper and respectful manner, they left the subject of reform to be considered by the superior wisdom and sound discretion of that House. With their views, therefore, he cordially concurred, and he should support the principles of reform, as he had done throughout his life, from the time that important measure was brought forward by sir George Savile. He hoped and trusted that a committee would be appointed to consider the subject of this petition, or that the House itself would resolve into a committee, for the purpose of fully considering its merits. The hon. baronet concluded with stating, that he had two petitions from Cornwall upon the same subject, the one having 300 and the other 5,000 signatures.
The first petition was read. It stated, that until the people were adequately represented in that House, there could be no hope of public economy, no security for popular freedom. The petitioners urged further, that if the people had been faithfully represented, no such measures would have been adopted as had so materially violated their rights, injured their interests, and augmented the public taxes, especially within the last twenty-five years. That if a proper system of representation had existed, the public debt, which at the close of the reign of king William did not exceed 17 millions, would not have been raised to the enormous amount of 1,100 millions. That the standing army, which at the conclusion of the treaty of Ryswick was reduced to 7,000 men, would not upon

145
the present peace establishment have amounted to 150,000 men. That the odious property-tax would never have been imposed. That the free people of England would never have been involved in an unjust and unnecessary war against the freedom of France. That laws so hostile to liberty as had been passed in the course of that war would never have been agreed to. That our fellow subjects of Ireland would not have been condemned to suffer the horrid infliction of torture, while the authors and abettors of that barbarous practice were allowed to enjoy not merely impunity, but reward and advancement. Such were the consequences which the petitioners ascribed to a system of representation under which the whole of that House was elected by little more than 15,000 persons, while a decided majority were appointed by peers and other individuals, while by a distinct resolution of that House, peers were forbidden to interfere in the election of any member of that House. Therefore, the petitioners urged that the great mass of the people were excluded from any substantial influence in the election of the House, and that an oligarchical faction had actually usurped the sovereignty of the country to the equal danger of King, Lords, and Commons. They therefore prayed the House to take into their immediate and serious consideration the grievances of which the petitioners complained, and to give them such relief in the premises as to the House should seem fit; they wished for nothing more than that constitution which was their birthright; they prayed only to be substantially and adequately represented, in full, frequent, and new parliaments: this would satisfy the wishes and appease the discontents of the nation: it would give them indemnity for the past and security for the future; it would restore and preserve the lost balance of the constitution, and establish a happy union and good agreement between king and people.—On the motion that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Brandrose to second the motion, and in so doing he felt, he said, peculiar gratification, as well from a solicitude for the object which the petition had in view, and the tone in which it was expressed, as from just deference for the invitation with which he had been honoured by the meeting, from which this petition emanated. To the character of that invitation he could not be insensible, and he cer-
146
tainly should endeavour to justify it, by giving all the support in his power to promote the success of that important object which the petitioners sought to attain. Those who had heard, or who had had an opportunity of reading the discussions which took place at the meeting from which this petition emanated, could not fail highly to estimate the eloquence, the talents, the learning and the argument by which it was distinguished, and the title of such a meeting, to the attention of parliament. It were anxiously to be wished that all the meetings which had taken place upon the subject of reform, had been influenced by the wise example upon which this petition proceeded; that the same spirit of moderation, firmness, and good sense had universally prevailed. The existence and pressure of the public distress alluded to by the petitioners, could not be denied; but it might be said that the remedy which they proposed was doubtful. He, however, was fully convinced that a parliamentary reform would be the most safe and efficacious remedy that could be devised to relieve and to satisfy the country. But in stating this opinion he begged to be distinctly understood as in no degree concurring with, those vague, dangerous, and impracticable doctrines, which some persons had the temerity, the wildness, and he would say, the audacity to promulgate. These doctrines were, indeed, net only rash and dangerous, but totally novel, for notwithstanding the confidence with which they were advanced, it was an indisputable fact, that such doctrines had no foundation whatever in the history of our constitution or country. For his own part, he had no hesitation in stating his conviction, that the repeal of the septennial law would serve to restore the best practice of the constitution. As for the proposition of universal suffrage, he decidedly disapproved of it. He should, indeed, feel it his bounden duty to oppose the adoption of that principle, convinced that it would tend not only to produce universal confusion, but lead to the total destruction of the popular part of the constitution, But to return to the petition before the House, he had the more satisfaction in supporting it, as it presented a striking contrast to that farrago of absurdities under the name of petitions, which had been lately introduced. This petition contained a temperate statement of undeniable grievances, and solicited constitu-

147
tional redress. It was, indeed, throughout so unexceptionable in its character, that he heartily hoped that its example would be universally imitated by all those who really sought for parliamentary reform; for to support such petitions, he should ever be forward and active.
Mr. Elliotsaid, that he always felt a certain degree of pain in adverting to what was called parliamentary reform, because upon that subject he decidedly differed from many persons for whom he entertained the highest respect, and with whom he generally concurred upon important points of public policy. The sentiments which he had expressed on former occasions had indeed undergone no change whatever, but had derived additional confirmation from the manner in which the constitution which the reformers sought to alter, or as they said, to amend, had carried this country through a series of unparalleled difficulties, and would, he had no doubt, enable us to surmount all the obstacles which we had yet to encounter. He therefore hoped that the House would excuse his anxiety to urge that it should pause, particularly at present, when so much vague and dangerous theory was afloat, before it consented to touch the great and complicated frame of the constitution—before it entertained any proposition to innovate upon such a system. He begged that gentlemen of all parties friendly to the main principles of the constitution, would look to the quarters from which the new theories emanated. The views and conduct of many of the actors in this great drama were perfectly well known; indeed, they could not be misunderstood, and he trusted that that House, including the moderate reformers, would not agree to throw open the constitution of this country to the speculations of those state architects. The doctrines which were open promulgated, the publications which were so actively diffused, could leave no doubt as to what these persons had in view, but he confided in the firmness of that House, and the good sense of the country, to preserve our invaluable constitution entire and unimpaired.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sir Francis Burdettrose to present a petition upon the subject of parliamentary reform, from the inhabitants of Halifax and its vicinity. He had several others from the same part of the country, upon the same subject, and he took that oppor-
148
tunity of protesting against a doctrine, with respect to presenting petitions, which had recently been urged. He considered it as throwing an unfair onus upon the shoulders of members of that House, who, in the exercise of their duty, received petitions from the people, and presented them there; it formed likewise an impediment to the exercise of that right of petitioning which every Englishman possessed. He begged leave distinctly to state, that he had not thought it his duty to read the petition he then held in his hand. He had merely looked to what was its prayer, and its general purport he had not examined whether the language was such as the House might deem offensive; nor, indeed, did he think he should be acting fairly, if he presumed to intercept, by any exercise of his private judgment and discretion, the right of the petitioners to appeal to that House in whatever way they thought the most likely to obtain their end. It was the duty of members to present petitions when their fellow subjects requested it, and to leave it to the House to determine whether they should be received or not. At the same time, however, he must observe, that he thought the right of rejecting a petition, as exercised by that House, a very questionable privilege. With respect to the petition, he now had to present, he did not consider himself answerable for what it contained, nor bound to support any of its principles or opinions. His conduct upon the great question of parliamentary reform would not be regulated by any or all of the petitions that had been, or might be, presented on the subject. He felt himself at perfect liberty to take his own course; and though he might entertain different notions from some, he was no less anxious for the attainment of the common, end—a constitutional reform of that House. The time had now arrived, when he was persuaded it would be impossible to defer that most important subject much longer; and if it was fairly and candidly examined, he was sure the great bulk of the people would be satisfied. But if their petitions were not attended to, the safety and tranquillity of the country would be endangered. By a calm, a sincere, and a deliberate consideration of the subject, the people might still be united with that House in the support and defence of the crown; and that union was moft devoutly to be wished for. He should conclude by moving that the petition be brought up.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should call upon the Chair to state, whether his conception of the duty that belonged to a member of parliament in presenting a petition, was correct or not. According to that conception, any member presenting a petition, was bound to state the substance of it, and in stating it, was equally bound to answer whether it contained any thing objectionable or offensive. If such was not to be the duty of members, the table of that House might be covered, and their journals filled with the most atrocious libels against the constitution of the country. He would therefore ask the hon. baronet whether he had read the present petition.
The Speakerobserved, that from the time when there was any memorial existing of the proceedings or parliament, two points were indubitably clear, first, that it was the duty of every member, when be presented a petition, to state its substance; and the House would judge how far a member could do that without reading it: secondly, it was a duty equally incumbent on a member to take care, that whatever might be the allegations of a petition, they should be couched in proper and respectful language. Unless parliament, therefore, were disposed to depart from all its ancient usages in that respect, it would continue to enforce those duties. He had never heard or read any thing contrary to what he then laid down, and the House would abide by its accustomed forms, if it did not wish to introduce a new rule.
Sir F. Burdettreplied, that he could only say, he had perused an abstract of the petition, and knew its purport; but he could not say, whether the language was sufficiently gentle and polite to enter a lady's ear, or the equally delicate and diseased ear of the House of Commons. It struck him, indeed, that it would be peculiarly difficult to find expressions so nice as to give no offence. How were the people to complain of that House, but in the language of reproach? That language might be very true, and yet very unpleasant to themselves. With respect to the petition, he had stated that in substance it complained of a defective representation of the people in that House, and he was not aware, nor did he believe, that it contained any offensive language.
The Speaker.The hon. baronet has stated all that the House requires. In his judgment, there is nothing, in the lan-
150
guage of the petition, offensive to the honour and dignity of this House.
Sir F. Burdett.There is another thing I wish to mention. I have received a great number of petitions, and I declare I would not undertake to read them all, for any consideration. It would occupy me the whole time of the session.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that though the hon. baronet had not read, nor meant to read, all his petitions, yet the House was expected to undergo that operation; and unless the wholesome rule laid down by the Chair was adopted, what would be the consequence? That House would have to perform the painful duty of listening to petitions, which, from their intemperate and insulting language, it would afterwards be compelled to reject. He knew there was great delicacy and difficulty in speaking upon such a subject, and he, for one, should be disposed to follow the advice that had been given by the highest authority in that House, that their doors should be opened as wide as possible for the reception of petitions. But there was a line to be drawn; nor did he conceive that it was the absolute duty of a member to present whatever petitions might be offered to him. A petition, in fact, had been put into his own hands that very day, but he felt it his duty to object to it; not because it contained any thing offensive to the dignity of parliament, but because he had no knowledge of the facts which it alleged. He understood the cheer of the hon. gentleman opposite, but he must still venture to think that his motive was correct. Had he presented the petition, he should have considered himself as an instrument, in laying upon the table of that House severe charges against an individual who was named in it. He might have stated, and truly, the prayer of the petition, and that the language was inoffensive; but having read it from the beginning to the end, he was satisfied that he ought not to present it.
Mr. Broughamsaid, his hon. and learned friend had carried the rule now contended for, with respect to petitions, a step further. It was not enough that a member must ascertain whether the language was unobjectionable; but he must also see whether the subject itself was fit to be laid before parliament: a previous inquiry into facts was to be instituted, and he supposed the parties were to be called to verify their statements. He implored his hon. and learned friend, in his

151
new situation of presenting petitions from the people complaining of their grievances, to revise the rule which he had laid down for himself. His hon. and learned friend had totally and entirely misconceived the duty of a member of parliament (which was, indeed, often painful and disagreeable), upon the subject of presenting petitions. He had often felt the evil, but it was a necessary one; and when a petition was brought forward, containing matter of charge against another individual, the only remedy was to let the other party put in his answer: but it was most irregular to obstruct the subject's right of petitioning by the interposition of their own private judgment.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he had only sent back the petition, that it might be revised; and that was one advantage of reading petitions before they were presented.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that if it was the duty of a member of parliament to present petitions, it was no less a duty to read them first. He could not conceive how any person could bring forward a petition, and at the same time declare he had not perused it. That House had no other protection against insult, than in the confidence which it reposed in its own members. With respect to the duty of every member of parliament to present whatever petitions may be offered to him, he could not go so far as some hon. gentlemen seemed inclined to do. If a member had reason to believe that the allegations of a petition was false, he was bound to refuse presenting it. When, also, a petition contained serious charges against an individual, and that individual was not previously aware that such a petition was about to be brought forward, he conceived a member should refuse it. Of course he excepted charges against a governor of a distant colony, and similar cases; but if the party against whom the petition might be directed was in the country, he thought every man would only do his duty in not presenting such a petition, unless notice of it was given to the party accused; for no one ought to be exposed to the hazard of an unfounded calumny through that House. A petition, containing not one particle of truth, might otherwise be laid upon their table, printed in their votes, and circulated throughout the country, and when all the mischief was done, another petition might come forward, disproving all that the former had alleged.
Mr. Abercrombiecontended, that the House was departing widely from the question really before it. The Speaker had declared that the hon. baronet had complied with the forms which the House required, by asserting that the petition contained nothing offensive or derogatory to their dignity and honour.
The Speakerhere interrupted the hon. member, by observing, that with respect to the last point, it could only be a matter of the hon. baronet's own judgment: but he begged to be distinctly understood, that as no member, out of doors, was compellable to accept a petition, so no member in that House was entitled to present one of which he could not aver that he knew the nature.
Mr. Abercrombie,in continuation, said, that the policy which the House now seemed disposed to adopt, as well as the time selected for that policy, were extremely exceptionable. He would go as far as any one, in receiving petitions, and give all possible latitude even to those which complained of the want of a due representation of the people in that House. To be sure, it was extremely unpleasant to the House to be told of corruption and undue influence, which might or might not be true; but if it appeared to the House that more was said than was at all necessary to the statement of grievances, and if there appeared a voluntary and deliberate offence against the character and dignity of the House, then it would be the duty of the House to reject the petition: But the policy of the present objections was very questionable. They should decide not on circumstances merely, but on the strict usage of parliament. An attempt was now made to oppose an additional barrier against the reception of petitions, by a strict examination of every member presenting them, and by interrogating him as to whether he had read them, and if he happened not to have read them throughout, to move for their rejection. The hon. baronet had said, that he had read the prayer and an abstract of the contents: but the question was simply, whether an individual member's opinion on the subject of offensive matter was to be taken. The hon baronet had said, that he had so many to present that he had not time to read them all. It was his duty to know the substance, and it appeared that he did so, though he had not read the petition literatim. The principle contended for would

153
throw great difficulty in the way of petitions. The language of a petition might receive a great variety of constructions from different persons. The learned attorney-general had said, that he had refused to present a petition because it contained charges against individuals: there was nothing to find fault with in that. He should wish to follow the example of the late Mr. Whitbread, who occasionally offered petitions which he candidly stated he was not prepared to support. That eminent man had said, that the House ought to be accessible to the complaints and prayers of petitioners; that he would go to the extent of presenting a petition; but that the petitioner had no right to expect any thing more from him. He believed, were Mr. Whitbread fortunately now a member of that House, he would have opposed firmly the sort of examination which the learned attorney-general appeared desirous to introduce, with the professed view of finding whether a petition contained any thing disrespectful.
Mr. Canningsaid, that as to any exercise of discretion which a member might think necessary in governing his conduct, that was wholly foreign to the subject then before them. One thing the Chair had distinctly laid down, which, till over-ruled by higher authority, if higher could be found, that House was bound to observe. They had a right so exact from every member who presented a petition, that he should first read that petition. With regard to what the hon. member who spoke last had attempted to engraft upon the question, about examinations and cross-examinations, he should get rid of them at once; for upon every petition presented by the hon. baronet, it would be enough to ask the simple question, have you read it? If answered in the negative, the House was bound to refuse its being brought up.
Sir Gilbert Heathcoteobserved, that the last right hon. gentleman had already made his declaration against all reform; and he might therefore think a petition praying for it quite indecorous. But how could it appear so to those who were friends to reform, and must therefore think such a petition constitutional? The question about presenting petitions must, therefore, in his mind, be resolved into merely a matter of individual judgment as to its exercise.
Mr. Canningsaid, that the hon. baronet had certainly misunderstood him. He
154
had not said, whether a member ought to use his own judgment or not; but that, by the rule of the House, he ought to read a petition before he presented it. That was matter of fact, and not of opinion.
On the motion, that the petition be brought up,
Mr. Canningrequested to know whether the hon. baronet had read it.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, it was extremely possible to imagine that a member of parliament could not read writing. There certainly was a time when many members who sat in that House could not; and if the present doctrine was to be enforced, it would be necessary to make reading one of the qualifications for a seat in parliament. All he should say to the right hon. gentleman was, that he would not answer any question he might put to him. He stood there to represent the grievances of the country; grievances so enormous that they could no longer be borne. He spoke the language, not of himself, but of half a million of Englishmen; and was the House prepared to say it would not listen to that voice? Was it to be endured, in such a moment, when the nation was complaining of its wrongs from one end to the other, that lawyers should get up and cross-examine any member who, in the exercise of his duty, laid before them the petitions of the people? Were they to be told, one day, that the names of petitioners must appear upon the parchment, and another day, that members, must read every petition they present, or it would be rejected? Were such formalities to stand between the people and their representatives; and if not complied with, were the former to be dismissed without a hearing? Was that a time to erect such a barrier? He had already said, that he had perused extracts from the petition, and that he knew its purport; but he was sure, if either himself or the House must read every word contained in the petitions he had to present, it would occupy the greater part of the session. He should say nothing more than merely move that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Canning—In order to explain clearly the nature of the present question, and that the House may distinctly understand my motives, in the course I mean to pursue, I request you, Sir, to lay down again, the practice of parliament upon these occasions.
The Speaker—I am at all times ready

155
to obey the wish of the House. I do undoubtedly conceive it to be the bounden duty of every member who presents a petition to this House previously to read it, that he may know its contents.
Mr. Canning—Then upon that ground, Sir, and from a complete conviction that we must abide by our rules, that we must uphold your authority, if we would not compromise our own dignity and honour, as well as the safety of the constitution, I most unwillingly, but forced to it by the hon. baronet himself, object to the bringing up of this unread petition.
Mr. Broughamexpressed the most sincere respect and deference for the opinion of the Chair, but yet he implored the House, as it valued the safety of the constitution, as it valued the safety of the whole kingdom, to pause a little before it entered upon that course into which the zeal, and he would say, the presumption of the right hon. gentleman was about to precipitate it. The right hon. gentleman talked about certain rules and practices of that House, as if they were tangible things, as if they could be found upon their journals and records, while in fact he was only appealing to a dictum, highly venerable indeed, but still deficient, because not put into their votes, nor sanctioned by their deliberate authority: and he had engrafted upon that opinion, the character of which no man was less disposed to undervalue than himself, an assumption of power, which he believed was then asserted for the first time since parliaments had been known. He would now show that right hon. gentleman, that he did not know where he was proceeding with his threats. The right hon. gentleman had thought proper to warn the members of that House, whose duty it might be to present the thousand petitions backed by half a million of their fellow subjects, that as often as they came forward with those petitions, he would put a question to them which they must answer. Must! [Hear, hear!] He, however, would beg leave to tell that right hon. gentleman that no individual member of that House had a right to put any question to another member. He might move the Chair to put such question, but the Chair itself could not proceed to put them without the permission of the House, which was the depository of its own privileges. It was for the House, and not for the right hon. gentleman, or any of his various colleagues, to decide what questions should be proposed.
156
There was another question connected with the present subject that should not be forgotten. Members who had petitions to present, and having duly read those petitions (a greater innovation he believed was never attempted), were then to be asked, whether, according to the best of their judgments, they appeared to be couched in proper and respectful language? Would such things be tolerated? He should make no further comment upon this novel and extraordinary doctrine, introduced at a moment when all England was sending petitions for a redress of grievances. He would only once more conjure the House to pause, before it rashly and in the heat of the moment sanctioned a new practice, of which no vestige was to be found amongst its standing orders or regulations.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, had treated the question in a very extraordinary way, and had entirely departed from the original question, which was simply "that the petition be brought up." It was said, that a question to a member was to be put by the order of the House from the Chair. In strict formality this was certainly true. But was it absolutely necessary? Was it not one of those forms which might, without the slightest loss of dignity, and with much convenience, be dispensed with? Was it any novelty to dispense with it? The novelty was, that any gentleman presenting a petition, should make it a part of his speech on the occasion to say, positively "I have not read this petition." This was really the only novelty. An hon. gentleman had alluded to the opinion of the late Mr. Whitbread, that in presenting petitions a member did not make himself answerable for their contents. For his own part he could only say, that he never had heard Mr. Whitbread express such an opinion; but he was very confident that he had often heard him say, on presenting a petition to that House, that he had looked it over, and found nothing offensive in it. And the same thing was always expressed or implied by any member who presented a petition to the House. But it was said, forsooth, that there was no written law for this. Was it necessary that every rule or regulation should be written? Were those laws only to be conformed to which were written laws? Where was the written law to be found that the eldest son should inherit real property? and yet upon the

157
principles of the hon. and learned gentleman, this was an innovation, because it was not a written law. Where were we to look for laws but in the immemorial usage, the experience, and the wisdom of our ancestors? In common parlance it might with perfect correctness be said, that a question was put by one member to another, although in point of strict, though in common cases unobserved, formality, it was supposed to be put by the House through the Chair, at the suggestion of the member; and this might be correctly said in the same way that a member would, "I will not have a division," and so on. When it became the practice for members to get bundles of petitions wholesale, which, when they come to present to the House, they say they have not read, by such a confession they not only showed disrespect towards the petitioners, but also towards the House. It was highly proper that before receiving a petition the House should have the sanction of at least one of its members, that it contained no improper matter. He did not object to receiving these petitions, though he thought that some which had been received were objectionable. Petitions might sometimes be offered by those who would be glad to find them rejected. He meant to impute nothing of this kind to the hon. baronet. It was too much now to go against the experience of ages. He thought it unworthy of the hon. baronet to suppose the possibility of a member of parliament not being able to read. The rule was no impediment to a member's privilege, but was useful to the whole House. He would stand upon the practice of the House, which was not thus to begot rid of, though it was unpleasant to reject a petition. If it was rejected, the fault rested with the hon. mover, who would not comply with the practice of the House.
Sir Samuel Romilly,before the question went to the vote, declared his anxiety to state the ground of his decision. He would in the first place contend, that it was the duty of a member to read, previously to its being presented to the House, any petition that he introduced. Whilst, however he considered such the duty of the member, he must still vote for the reception of the present petition, because, from circumstances, the rule should not be invariable. There might be cases, where petitions on subjects of pressing importance were very numerous, where great inconvenience would ensue from
158
reading every sentence as was declared by the hon. baronet in the present, in which the rule might be relaxed with reasonable indulgence. Besides, the hon. baronet had also apprized the House that he had looked over the petition generally, and that he believed it was inoffensive in manner and substance. This assurance he must feel, under all circumstances to be sufficient; and he begged to put it to the House, when it considered the agitated state of the country, and the severe pressure under which all classes of society suffered, and none in a more aggravated degree than the petitioners whose prayer was before them—when it was recollected how strong an anxiety was expressed, in the discussion of a former evening, for that House to diffuse and encourage a good temper amongst the people, whether they ought now to go out of their way on disputable points, particularly when aware that such conduct would be represented abroad in the worst possible way, and would thus widen the breach between parliament and the people, if any such breach now existed.
Lord Lascellessaid, that as the present petition proceeded from a part of the county which he had the honour to represent, he wished to offer to the House a few observations. He could not help thinking from the language and conduct of the hon. baronet, that he was placed in a situation by the petitioners and his sense of duty, which he had not himself sought, and which might even be considered as a hardship. Numerous petitions were sent him to present, of all the contents of which it was laborious to attain a knowledge, and of all the principles of which he might not entirely approve. Many of them came from the county which he (lord L.) represented, though the petitioners had rather chosen to communicate through the hon. baronet than through him. The hon. baronet had truly stated, that he felt it a great task to read them all, and a rule which imposed this task might be considered as a demand with which he could not comply consistently with presenting the great mass of them which was entrusted to his care. The House, on the other hand, required of every member who brought forward petitions, that he should have read them, and that they should have the security of his judgment and discretion against any offensive or insulting language in which their framers might be pleased to couch them. Here was the point of form:

159
this was the matter at issue between the hon. baronet and the House, it was a matter of feeling or convenience with the hon. baronet, and he confided in the good sense of the hon. baronet, that he would not bring parliament into a contest with the country, or array the petitioners, whose prayers he presented, against the assembly to which they applied, on a mere point of personal feeling or accommodation. He was convinced, that the hon. baronet, on calm and mature reflection, would see the propriety of not pressing the House to a division in a case so unimportant to him, while its conduct, if forced to reject the petition, would be liable to so much misrepresentation. He himself, coming from that part of the country where the petitioners resided, and being well acquainted with their temper and situation, not only from personal knowledge, but from the information of others, might take it upon him to tell the House, that if their language was violent and intemperate there were many apologies to be made for it, and that it was not always a true expression of their deliberate sentiments, or the real state of their minds. In his opinion, a wide distinction was to be made between the designs and disposition of the petitioners and the reprehensible terms to which the House had objected. The people were in great distress, without employment, or the prospect of returning prosperity. In the extremity of their trouble they looked about for an alleviation of their sufferings, or a remedy for their grievances; and in this state they were told, that by subscribing their names to a petition for parliamentary reform they might obtain a relief from their burthens, through political changes, and secure themselves against the recurrence of similar evils. Men in distress were not disposed to examine very scrupulously into the truth or propriety of any measure that held out the hope or prospect of a beneficial change. The petitioners, though they thus subscribed violent petitions, were not violent men, and ought not to be judged of according to the strict import of expressions which many of them did not weigh, and which some of them did not understand. The intemperate resolutions to which they came at public meetings were no index of the real, deliberate, and matured opinions of those who voted them by acclamation. Although he had not been applied to for the purpose of presenting the petitions which were put
160
into the hands of the hon. baronet, he would tell the House the connexion he had with some of the petitioners, and the answer he returned to their inquiries. He had been asked his opinion concerning the propriety of a member presenting petitions which, from his political sentiments, he could not support; and whether he himself would present petitions for parliamentary reform. His reply was, that he would consider it as a matter of duty to carry to the House any petition for reform, however far its prayer extended, if it was couched in decent and respectful language, and contained no matter menacing or insulting to the House. He told them, moreover, that he did not agree with them in the necessity of reform, or the scheme of reformation they proposed, and that if they thought their petition would have more weight when presented by one whose opinions came nearer to their own, he would recommend them to apply to another. The petitioners had taken his recommendation. Such had been his answer, and such was his conduct. He would be sorry that, by any perseverance on the part of the hon. baronet, the House should be driven to appear regardless of the applications of such men as he had described, or be placed in conflict with the misguided, led astray by those who took advantage of their sufferings to inflame their minds. He would regret this circumstance the more, because a refusal of their petitions would answer the very purpose of those who were the chief instruments in forwarding them, and who infused violence and extravagance into them, with the design of securing their rejection. This was a matter, however, for the House to decide upon; and it might not be disposed to allow itself to be approached in disrespectful language, whatever were the motives of the applicants. If the House could reconcile itself to receive them, or if the hon. baronet surrendered his stand on the point of form, he would be gratified in the present instance, because he believed the real dignity of parliament was not involved in the question. If he were of a contrary opinion, and conceived that the privileges, or the dignity of parliament would be comprised by consenting to receive the present petition, he would be the last man to yield an atom, or to retire from his ground an inch, though the House were surrounded by half a million of men, or all the petitioners whose applications the hon. baronet stated would be laid on
†

161
the table; because he was convinced, that the surrender of one privilege from menace or intimidation would only invite farther attacks. Under all the circumstances, he trusted the hon. baronet would not, and he used the phrase in no invidious sense, press the point with any pertinacity [Hear, hear!].
Sir F. Burdettexpressed a desire, after the candid statement of the noble lord, to set him right as to the expression used by him in an early part of the debate. He did not disclaim any identity of his opinions with the petitioners; he only wished to be understood as not being bound to support the prayer of petitions, which he still thought it his duty to present. He meant to steer a moderate rational course, and to endeavour to unite all classes in an understanding of the wishes of the great body of the petitioners, on the subject of reform. He would be sorry to bring the House into any contest with the country, on a mere point of form, or personal convenience; and he had made the stand that he did against the rule laid down, not from pertinacity, but because he thought the right of petitioning involved in the question. Some of the petitions which he held in his hand he had read since he came into the House, and would move that they be brought up. He moved, therefore, that a petition from certain inhabitants of Halifax be brought up.
Lord Cochraneobjected to the rule that had been laid down, imposing upon a member the necessity of reading petitions before he presented them. Cases might occur, in which a member might receive so many, or have so little time, that he could not peruse them all, and thus the subject might suffer because the representatives of the people could not learn then-grievances. He could not see any propriety in objecting to petitions for reform, on the ground that the Commons House, as at present constituted, did not represent the nation, because such allegation could alone justify a call for reform. That the House, which was filled with sinecurists and pensioners, should dislike accusations of venality and corruption was natural; but it was their duty to hear what their constituents had to say against them. He hoped the day was not far distant when such accusations would not be brought against parliament, because such reproaches would be removed. He hoped he should succeed in the motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of
162
places and pensions held by members of the House. If ministers consulted their own credit, they should be beforehand with him, and accomplish those objects which he had in view, before they were compelled either by a vote of the House or the voice of the country.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sir F. Burdettpresented three other petitions from inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of Halifax, two of them praying for universal suffrage and annual parliaments, and one for annual parliaments and suffrage co-extensive with direct taxation. They were all read and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that after hearing these three petitions, and many others that were offered to the House with the same prayer, he could not help making a few remarks to counteract the absurd and pernicious doctrines that they contained, and to call the attention of parliament and the country to one of the ridiculous blunders, or wilful misrepresentations, on which they all proceeded. He had the greatest respect for some of the petitioners; he gave them credit for the best intentions, and he could find apologies for all their errors; but he was sure they had never read or considered the petitions which they subscribed; they had never weighed the principles which they contained, or the consequences to which they would lead. They were goaded on by distress; they felt all those sufferings and embarrassments so feelingly described by the noble lord opposite; and when they looked for a remedy, they were told by those who were too well informed and too artful to be themselves deceived, that they could only obtain relief by annual parliaments and universal suffrage. He had no objection that those subjects should be discussed, that they should be entertained as political questions, that applications should be made to the House to support them; but what excited his displeasure was, that those who must have read the history of their country, who were not ignorant men, who had reflected long on what they were doing, urged the uninstructed and illiterate to demand universal suffrage as their birthright, to place it in the same rank with personal liberty or security of property, to declare it the ancient imprescriptible right of Englishmen; and told those whose opinions they directed, as a matter of history, that it

163
was for this right their ancestors fought and bled. The men who made these statements must know they were propagating delusion, and that truth and fact were against them. He was not unacquainted with the history of his country, but he had never read in any historian, or in any account of the constitution of England, that our ancestors fought and bled for universal suffrage; or that in the struggles between the crown and the people, on two very important occasions, when our rights and liberties were the subject of contention, in the time of king John and Charles 1st, this political doctrine was ever thought of by our brave and patriotic forefathers. In the former of these periods, so far were our ancestors from allowing universal suffrage, or every man who had attained the age of twenty-one to vote, that the great body of the people were not represented at all; or if represented, were represented in a way very different from that now contended for. They were, in fact, in the state of the most degrading villainage, and treated rather like beasts of buthren than as being capable of political right. Those who spread the delusive cry of universal suffrage could not be ignorant of these things, and must intend to mislead those over whom their influence extended. But though the people were misled, their opinions should be treated with gentleness, and their errors corrected with mildness. If, instead of shutting the doors of parliament to the petitions of public meetings, if instead of taking any severe methods of preventing these meetings from assembling to petition, an attempt were made to convince them by sound reasoning and rational argument, much would be done to conciliate their minds, and allay their irritation; much would be done for the cause of good order and constitutional liberty. [Hear, hear! from all parts of the House].

NUPTIALS OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in rising to submit a motion to the House, hoped that they would pardon him for so doing, without previous notice; but he was convinced that they were all so well acquainted with the high character and virtues of the illustrious personages who were the subject of it, that they would not hesitate to grant the congratulations usual on the marriage of any branches of the royal family. The right
164
hon. gentleman then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to offer the dutiful congratulations of this House to his Royal Highness, on the happy nuptials of her royal highness the Princess Mary, daughter of his Majesty, with his royal highness the duke of Gloucester; and to assure his Royal Highness of the sincere and heartfelt satisfaction which this House derives from a circumstance that must add so much domestic happiness to his Majesty's family."
Mr. Ponsonbyagreed in every sentiment expressed by the right hon gentleman, both as to the high character of the illustrious individuals, and the satisfaction that must be felt by the House in congratulating them on their marriage; but he hoped it would not be considered impertinent curiosity, if he should ask, why his majesty's ministers had deviated from the usual custom of noticing, in the Speech from the throne, the marriage of one of the royal family, celebrated during the recess? He did not mention this as a matter of reproach, though it certainly was one of very censurable negligence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that it had not been considered necessary to notice the marriage as a matter of information in the Speech, the House having been apprised of its intended solemnization during the last session.
The Address was agreed to nem. con. as were also Addresses of congratulation to the queen and to the royal couple.

ADDRESS ON THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION.
Lord Valletort appeared at the bar with the report of the Address. On the motion that it be brought up,
Sir Robert Heronsaid, that the arguments which had been advanced in support of the amendment, remained yet wholly unanswered. A right hon. gentleman opposite had, indeed, made a great flourish on the last night of this debate. At one moment he appeared so taken with the amendment, that every body thought it would have had the benefit of his support. He hinted at the resignation of his office, probably making a merit of necessity, and wishing to do, with some degree of éclat, that which he foresaw must have been the natural consequence of that amendment being carried. At length it appeared that the right hon. gentleman's arguments, if such they could be called, were as foreign

165
to the subject matter of the address, as they were to the amendment. In the course of the right hon. gentleman's speech, he seemed for a time at a loss where to fix his points, until at last he struck upon the question of parliamentary reform. Then he was in his element—then he mounted upon his tripod, and agitated and filled by the inspiration of his muse, he launched into the ocean of his poetical fancy—he poured forth ensanguined clouds—orbs of day floated before his entranced vision until twilight momentarily obscured them—crowds of robbers and assassins peopled his fertile conception, and were associated with, and relieved by, reformers and hobgoblins. Of such materials was the right hon. gentleman's speech formed. In plain truth, it was evident that nothing could be urged against the strong grounds of the amendment. Its statement of grievances was not exaggerated, nor were its strong arguments refuted. Sir Robert said, he was not a man who wished to press despondency upon the people; but he could not refrain from expressing his belief, that if the government of the country persevered in the course they had of late years pursued, no man could be found so sanguine as to believe that the interest of the national debt could any longer be paid. The consequence, then, of a perseverance in this squandering system must be nothing less than a national bankruptcy. In such a state of things, what a just charge would not the people have against the House of Commons, if that House did not exercise and exhaust every possible resource that could be drawn from an extended system of economy, to avert such an evil as that to which he had alluded. An hon member (Mr. Bankes) on the former evening, had said, that neither the debt, nor the taxes which it occasioned, were the causes of the prevailing distress, and his argument for holding this opinion was in itself most extraordinary; it was this—that during the last year seventeen millions of taxes had been taken from the backs of the people. Now the hon. member happened to be wrong in his fact as well as his deduction. The House well knew, that ministers, finding it totally impossible to collect the amount of the property tax in the current account of last year's returns, allowed the half year's arrear to stand over until the present year. This was a sort of temporary accommodation to the people, and a necessary one; but it was any thing but an extinction of
166
the claim. If, however, instead of being a postponement of collection, it had been, as was insinuated, an abolition of the arrear, and that this abolition produced no relief, what would it prove but that the deterioration of the country had become, from the pressure of the times, more rapid in its effect than the operation of the relief which had been extended to counteract it?—His hon. friend (Mr. Curwen) had on the last night said one thing which reduced the effect of his otherwise excellent speech—he had said that which ought not to go abroad uncontradicted, namely, that the pecuniary benevolence of all ranks out of doors, in behalf of their fellow countrymen, did not amount to more than 200,000 l. Now he knew it to be infinitely greater, for people of every sentiment, and of all situations and descriptions had come forward, and exerted their best energies for the sufferers, indeed their philanthropic feeling was only bounded by their means. Besides the large sums publicly known, there were several private and local subscriptions, exclusive of those which consisted of distributing food, raiment, and the articles of life, to the poor, at reduced prices—together with the numerous employments afforded to the labouring classes in different parts of the country, more out of commiseration for their situation than of necessity for their work; all these most laudable efforts must have amounted to large and very extensive relief. Though this was not the time, in strict order of debate, to talk much on the subject of economy, yet he could not avoid saying a little on that point. He would first allude to the army. Now, though a reduction in this branch of the public service would throw out of employment a number of men who deserved well of their country, yet no reduction could take place without its partial accompaniment of hardship; but the fact was, that a reduction in the army could not be effected without giving up that system of foreign policy to which our ministers clung with fond affection. It could be only effected with an admission on the part of ministers, that the army was maintained for one of two purposes; either to contradict our solemn declaration, that we would not interfere in the internal policy of the nations of the continent, that we would not apply our military strength to maintain the new doctrine of legitimacy, or rather of despotism; that we would not make war against the people to keep down a spirit of freedom, and by our own acts

167
belie and subvert the stedfast principles of our own glorious revolution. Or, if it did not mean this, it must have been reinforced and upheld to keep down the rising indignation of the British nation, which was aroused by the enormous expenditure of that army, whose fine energies were so grossly misapplied. If the House meant to redress the bitter grievances of the people, the smallest military peace establishment that was ever maintained, would be amply sufficient for all domestic purposes; but if they did not mean to afford this redress, the largest war establishment that their hearts could wish, would in the end be found wholly and entirely insufficient to silence the voice of the country.—The next general head of retrenchment to which he would advert, was the abolition of sinecures, useless places, and pensions. Here again all the argument was on one side; for when you hinted the necessity of touching those delightful annuities, you were at once met by the bugbear of revolution. Did gentlemen, for a moment suppose, that those offices were conferred for real merit, or that they were any thing else than payments for past devotion, and retainers for future? The civil list was another branch of economy, to which he would direct the attention of the House. It had been well said, in the opening speech for the address, that the eyes of the people were now fixed on the proceedings of that House, and towards no proceeding were they more strongly directed than to those which animadverted upon the civil list, particularly to that part of it which related to the royal expenditure, than which there could be nothing more objectionable. The speech from the throne last session, pointedly pledged the government to a rigid adherence to economy and yet immediately after this pledge, to the disappointment and astonishment of the country, the civil list was found with an addition of 260,000 l. to its already enormous charges, and this accumulated expenditure was incurred for the support of an extended household, with duplicate offices attached to it, to an extent that never before existed. There was nothing which produced so much pain and indignation, as the fact, that at a period when every sovereign in Europe was advised to diminish his expenditure, the Prince Regent of England, who, least of all, required that extension of pageantry should have been advised to adopt it. Another point to which be would glance, was that unfortunate,
168
narrow, and selfish policy, of endeavouring to obtain a monopoly for our commerce. He was always of opinion that trade should be free and unshackled: if it had been so, the mercantile world would not have now to complain of the paralyzing effects of continental system of exclusion, which was, in fact, but the counterpart of the absurd policy that this country had been the first to act upon.—These were his opinions, and as an independent member of parliament he felt it to be his duty to express them, and to confess his melancholy impression as to the approaching condition of the country, if some immediate and radical alteration in the conduct of ministers, did not take place. It was in vain for them to say that the evil was transitory; there was nothing in the complexion of the times to show that it was of this temporary character, or, what was still more foreboding, that they had any serious intention of departing from their fatal rule of action. "When we," (continued sir Robert), "impress upon them the necessity of economy and retrenchment, the ministers answer, 'Oh! certainly, but leave it to us'." Well, it was left with them, and what was the result? Why, that they did any thing but fulfil the promise they had made. What confidence, then, could be placed in a set of men, who, with retrenchment in their mouths, commenced, as the very first thing, to make an increase of offices, and never departed from their course until compelled to turn round by a vote of that House? What further assurance was there now that they would keep their promises better than they had last year observed them? The only change that they had adopted was the accession to administration of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning), who was in his own person one of the most flagrant and shameful instances of the profligate and wasteful profusion of his majesty's ministers—he who accepted an enormous sinecure situation as ambassador to the kingdom of Portugal, to represent his sovereign in a court where there was no resident king—to figure away at Lisbon, although the king of Portugal was then, as he has been ever since, a resident in his Brazilian territory. Was such a place-making system in conformity with the pledge of retrenchment? was it not rather in open violation of any such intention.
The report of the address was then brought up and agreed to.