HASLEMERE—PETITION OF JOHN GREENAWAY. (Hansard, 11 June 1817)

Sir F. Burdett
said, that he had a Petition to present which gave a fresh instance of the destructive immorality of the borough-mongering system. It was from a person of the borough of Haslemere, who stated, that at the last general election certain property had been conveyed to him by lord Lonsdale, to enable him to give his vote in favour of the candidates proposed by his lordship. He came, in fact, under the denomination of what, in borough-mongering language, is called "a Faggot." By these means had two gentlemen been returned to that House. Now this person had a qualm of conscience as to delivering again to lord Lonsdale the property which had been conveyed to him to suit the occasion. He thought it would be improper not to keep that which he had sworn to be his own. In consequence of this determination, he stated, that he had suffered much persecution at the instigation of lord Lonsdale. He still held the property, but he had at last been served with an ejectment by lord Lonsdale. He (sir F. B.) thought it impossible, when the petition should have been read, that the House should take no farther step against a practice which was the worst of treason, for it involved every feature of that crime which was odious and disgusting; it was a violation of the constitution, and combined perjury with ingratitude, want of faith with breach of trust. It was a miniature picture, com. prehending all offences, and presenting an exact resemblance of the borough-mongering system. It was that system which created the dissatisfaction which the ministry wished to put down by force. The public at large knew that they had a right to be represented, and that no peer should interfere in the election of members. 946 Nay, there were resolutions on the Journals of the House, making it a breach of its privileges, and consequently of those of the people, for any peer so to interfere. And what a system, which went in defiance of rights, privileges, and resolutions, to be tolerated! It was A combination and a form indeed, On which each devil did seem to set his seal, To give the world assurance of a fiend.! He concluded by moving, that the petition be brought up.

Mr. Bankes
wished to know more particularly the grievance complained of in the petition, and its prayer.

Sir F. Burdett
replied, that among many grievances a painful one was, that the petitioner had been the object of vindictive prosecution. The prayer was, that the House would take the case into consideration, and afford such redress as it might think proper.—The hon. baronet was about to read the whole petition, when

Mr. Bankes
interfered, and objected to the reading of the petition, as being contrary to the usage of the House. He contended, in the first place, that a court of law was the place in which the petitioner should seek redress, and in the second place, that as to the original circumstance it was too distant in point of time to be made the subject of parliamentary consideration.

§ Mr. Brand
would not discuss the question as to the authority of the courts of law. As he understood the matter, a committee sat on the election, and the petitioner had been a sort of agent or engine of the noble lord who nominated, as it appeared, to this borough. The petitioner swore to the property conveyed to him, and had kept it; and it did not appear, from all the circumstances, that he had a much earlier opportunity of stating his case. He felt it incumbent on the House to take some measures in this case; but how could the whole case be known, except the House heard the petition read? The House was bound to consider a subject of this nature.

§ Mr. Bathurst
could not see how the House could take up the question, so as to decide upon it. A committee of the House had seated the two members. Would it be contended that this was wrong? In fact it was, if any thing, a legal question. The hon. baronet could say no more than that the petitioner had a legal title to his conveyed property; but that he had been served with an ejectment. 947 The courts of law must decide whether he had a bona fide property, or vice versa. The question to be raised upon this petition was far different from a general question. Proofs of particular property in the borough could not be brought before them; and the only way of discussing such subjects was, by a general proposition; such, for instance, as they had lately had.

§ Sir H. Parnell
thought, that the circumstances of the case were of such a nature as to entitle the petition to the consideration of the House. He observed, that he had known a man to be called upon to return conveyed property the day after his vote. The conveyance was made to him by the agent of a peer who nominated for the borough.

Mr. Peter More
observed, that the petition stated a distinct grievance to have been suffered by the individual; and where a grievance was felt, he hoped that in this country there was always a remedy. He trusted, therefore, that an opportunity would be afforded him, by the reception of the petition, to exercise his judgment on the case.

§ Mr. W. Smith
must protest against the doctrine, that it was not the right of a member to read from a petition in the course of his speech. He never heard so from the Chair; but he remembered a good deal about the mode of presenting petitions; and what the presenter should; or should not say on such occasions. It had been said, that the member should have read the petition, and seen that there was nothing in it improper. The House was always in a state of embarrass-merit on questions of this sort. If the Statements of the petition, as far as they had been mentioned, were true, they told facts which were alike anomalous to the law of the land and the constitution of that House. A freeholder or voter should be so bona fide. This petition showed the contrary. Yet, when the subject of burgage tenures came before the House, they all felt that men had freehold or other property made over to them fraudulently, and for a particular purpose. According to an old saying of Mr. Lee, the qualification of property was nothing but a little hot wax and wet paper. This was to convey a bona fide right to the temporary occupier: but how did the question stand in common sense and law, when the conveying party brought his ejectment? The man to whom the property was made had 948 it, or had it not. The man appeared to be persecuted, because he would not give up what was made over to him. Here the House were in their accustomed embarrassment on such occasions. It would be better to enact something to establish the right of burgage tenures intelligibly for the return of members, than to leave them as they were. They were now disgracefully covered with a cloak and a concealment. The petition showed the absolute necessity of some reform. He had nothing to do with the petitioner's conscience. While these boroughs existed, it seemed good that now and then these faggots, as they were called, should come under the notice of parliament.

§ The Speaker
said, that he wished to of fer a few words relative to the right of a member to read in his place a petition as part of his speech. It certainly was expected from every member, that he should read a petition before he presented it, in order that he might be enabled to state to the House whether it was couched in decorous language, and what were the facts it contained; but it was contrary to the invariable practice to read the petition itself in the course of his speech. In answer to another point alluded to at an early part of the debate, when it was urged that if a petition was brought up, it should afterwards be read at the table; he was of opinion, that if the petition was in itself objectionable, or if the prayer was such as could not be complied with, it was in that stage, as well as in any other liable to be opposed.

§ Mr. Curwen
hoped the House would not be unwilling to hear the petition read. It stated some things which went against the honour and dignity of the House of Commons, out of which some measures might spring which might be of importance to the character of the House for its own vindication. The public discontent did certainly arise, in some part, from an idea of the improper construction of that House. He could not see how the petition could be refused.

Sir R. Fergusson
thought the House would not consult its own dignity by refusing to receive the petition.

Sir F. Burdett
said, that if it was a rule of the House to prevent the reading of petitions in the way that he had done, nothing could be more easy than to describe the substance. He was not at all surprised at the objections made to the reception of the petition by the member for Corfe Cas- 949 tle, and others who were returned in the same way which the petition went to expose. It was quite natural that they should raise objections in limine. The petition went to charge a peer of parliament with interfering in the election of a member. How could the House get rid of that? It went further to state, that the interference was fraudulently conducted. Though the House might shut its ears against those facts, the country would not; and unless some step was taken, he should be compelled to bring the question forward in the nature of a charge, so as to oblige them to entertain it.