§ Mr. Broughamsaid, he held in his hand a petition, praying for parliamentary reform and retrenchment, and complaining generally of grievances, signed by 2,736 inhabitants of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch. The petition prayed generally for such reform as might seem most agreeable to the House. It was signed by most of the respectable householders of the parish. He had to state to the House, that very considerable obstructions had been thrown in the way of the signing this petition, though he did not mean to say that force had been used to prevent persons from signing. One person had made himself most active on this occasion—he was a police magistrate, a person receiving money from government. The House ought to be extremely jealous of the interference of persons in such a situation to prevent the people from exercising their rights. The individual who had used his utmost efforts to impede the 871 people from petitioning, was well known for his zeal on the opposite side of the question—he was the well known Mr. John Gif-ford. This magistrate had applied to the rector of the parish, to induce him to refuse the use of the vestry-room for receiving signatures to the petition, and this application was successful. Many other efforts were made by persons, who were supposed to be agents of this magistrate and others, to obstruct the petitioners in the exercise of their rights. Finding, however, they could not prevent, by the means used by them, a number of persons from resorting to the place where the petition lay for signatures, they sent persons not resident in the parish to sign it, that they might take this objection to the petition. These signatures, were mostly written by one hand. In consequence of this attempt, one sheet was actually obliged to be withdrawn from the petition. He thought it right to mention this circumstance, that the animadversion which it could not fail to call forth, might prevent those persons, and others similarly disposed, from being active on future occasions.
Lord Cochranesaid, he held in his hand a petition from the incorporated trades of the borough of Irvine praying for parliamentary reform. Seeing the learned lord advocate of Scotland in his place, he wished to ask him, whether the information which he had formerly stated was correct or not, namely, that the schoolmaster and another individual at Glasgow, who were taken up and confined two nights and two days in a dirty place, with a damp unwholesome floor, had been discharged, there being no foundation for any charge against them?
The Lord Advocatesaid, he could have no difficulty whatever in stating, that the persons taken up at Glasgow had not been taken up for having convened together for the purpose of considering as to the mode in which parochial relief might be obtained. They had been taken up on a charge of treasonably conspiring against the government. It would be improper in him to state to the House what discoveries had been made against any of the individuals arrested—it would be improper towards the individuals themselves, as it might create an impression against them in the public mind, and it would be improper with reference to the carrying on the public business of the country. With respect to a question put to him the other 872 night whether the oath read by him to the House was one of the papers which was found on the persons arrested: he could not give an answer to it without prejudging the cause of those individuals and doing that which was contrary to the principles of British justice. The magistrates were in possession of evidence which proved that parochial relief was a subject which never had been agitated at any of the meetings.
The Lord Advocatestated, that he had received no information whatever, whether all or any of the persons taken up, on the charge of a treasonable conspiracy, were liberated or not. But he knew the magistrates would not detain one moment any person against whom there was no foundation of a charge. But he had received no information on the subject.
§ Mr. Broughamcould not help thinking that the learned lord had not understood the question put to him by the noble lord. The learned lord had very properly deprecated all prejudging of the question of the individuals taken up, and stated that an answer to the question, whether the oath was one of the papers found on these individuals would be prejudging their case. But in the question of the noble lord there was nothing about any papers or oath, but whether it was true or not, that the persons arrested had been in fact discharged.
The Lord Advocatestated, that he had received no information whatever to enable him to answer the question of the noble lord.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he had received a letter from Glasgow, informing him that the persons apprehended, and afterwards liberated, had been taken up on the evidence of spies. In this letter it was said, that a spy came lately into a room, where the writer of it, and some other persons were assembled, and declared that a king was of no use. The person using this language was taken before a magistrate, when it turned out that he was a hired spy, and the person who had him taken up was told that if he did not leave the court instantly he should be put into prison. This spy called himself a loyal man. This put him in mind of Mr. John Gibbs, who when he had incurred a heavy penalty for an offence against the excise laws, pleaded that he was a loyal man, and this was found an efficacious plea. Mr. Limbrick, the police 873 officer, too, the other day was accused of violently treating a boy for pulling down a hand-bill, put forth by police agents against Mr. Hunt; the boy was sent to gaol, and did not appear very likely to obtain redress. Mr. Limbrick's defence of himself was only that he was a very loyal man, and attached to his king and country. This sort of declaration of loyalty appeared calculated to cover as many sins as charity.
§ The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Lord Cochranewished to know, whether he might present at once a number of petitions which he held in his hand?
§ The Speakersaid, that the indulgence which it was the practice of the House to grant with regard to the presentation of many petitions at a time, was very indefinite. If the member who presented them could take on him to state that they were all precisely in the same terms, it had been sometimes the custom to receive seven or eight at once; but if there were any variations in them, it was the safer and the better course to present them one by one.
Lord Cochranesaid, he would present them separately. He then presented a petition from Grooby, which, he observed, was nearly in the form of others which had been rejected by the House, but the words which had been deemed most objectionable had been left out.
§ The petition was read. It stated, among other things, that the House did not, in a constitutional manner, represent the people, and prayed for universal suffrage and annual parliaments.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he did not know what words had been left out of the petition, but he imagined there could not be any more objectionable than those which remained, viz. the sentence which stated that the House did not in a constitutional manner represent the people.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, it would be more satisfactory if, on the rejection of a petition, it were understood what were the words really objected to. In the present instance, the petitioners asserted that the House did not represent the people, which was the grievance they complained of, and without asserting which it was in vain for them to approach the House. The ground on which the House rejected petitions in general was, that the petitioners, instead of stating their grievances plainly, went it of their way, and inserted words which might be offensive to those who heard them. Such an objection could not be 874 taken to the petition before them, for the words of it were as inoffensive as might be, it merely stated the grievance they had to complain of, and prayed that that grievance might be remedied by a constitutional representation of the people.
Lord Binningsaid, he did not pretend accurately to recollect the words of the petitions formerly rejected, but as far as his memory went, the ground on which they were rejected was, the assertion that the House did not represent in a constitutional manner the people of England.
§ Mr. Broughamdenied that the expressions were the same as those used in a former petition which was rejected. In that former petition it was said, that the House of Commons, in no legal, rational, or constitutional sense, represented the people. He did not defend the correctness of these words, although he had voted for the reception of the petition in which they were contained; but he thought there was so wide a difference between them, and those used on the present occasion, that hon. members who were for the rejection of the former might consistently agree to receive this. When it was said that the House did not legally represent the nation, the phrase might be construed to imply, that it had not the power to make laws to bind the people; but when it was stated that the representation was not constitutional, it was merely a mode of declaring that there had been departures from the constitution which ought to be corrected by bringing it back to its former purity. In short, it was nothing else but a way of stating the argument for reform. He did not think the argument was skilfully stated when conveyed in this language; but it ought to be recollected, that the petitioners were not learned clerks, and could not be expected to speak on abstruse subjects with perfect strictness and technical precision. The question was, not whether they were formally correct in their expressions, but did they mean by these expressions to insult the House? If they did not (of which there was no evidence), their taking their own way of stating their own argument should not be made the ground of rejecting their petition. He wished rather to throw open the door to the prayers of the people, than to shut it. It was much better to receive a petition couched in loose, and incorrect language, where no disrespect was intended by it, than to incur the imputation of cavilling with the expressions and disregarding the complaints of the people.
§ Mr. Bathurstconcurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, that the doors of the House should be thrown open to petitions, and that there should be no cavilling or scrupulous examination of the language in which they were conveyed, so as to find out insults or disrespect. The House had acted on this principle, and had extended to petitioners every indulgence. It had heard from night to night charges of corruption. This allegation, which was now objected to, however, was not a matter of feeling, but a challenge of competency. The hon. and learned gentleman had allowed that he would object to a petition which averred that the House of Commons did not legally represent the nation, but the word constitutional, here used, was exactly the same thing. If the House did not constitutionally represent the people, its sitting was unconstitutional, and its acts were not binding, nor could it legally impose taxes. He, therefore, would oppose the reception of the petition, as impeaching the power of the House, and denying its title to exercise its functions, particularly the important function of taxation.
§ Mr. J. W. Wardsaid, that if it were once received and acknowledged that the House did not in a constitutional manner represent the people, it must also be allowed that it existed in contradiction to the law. What might be inferred from this was pretty plain, and indeed the inference was actually made by some of the petitioners. His hon. and learned friend had said that considerable allowance was to be made for unlearned men and simple persons, and so on. Now, if they looked at the uniformity of these petitions, and the manner in which they were drawn up, they must be convinced that they were not the productions of simple and unlearned men, but were penned by "learned clerks," who knew pretty well what they were about when preparing them.
§ Mr. Calcraftthought the petition could only be considered as an expression of the opinions of the petitioners as to the state of the representation. That the House virtually represented the people, the petitioners acknowledged, by applying to the House for the change in the representation which they desired. He thought the petition, therefore, should be received as an expression, perhaps foolish, perhaps absurd, but not dishonest, of the petitioners opinions.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the petition before them called the debates of the House 876 protracted and useless, though the word disgusting was omitted.
§ Mr. Lambtonread a part of the petition which had been presented from Bristol, on the first day of the session, and received by the House. That petition stated, that the House represented in no constitutional or rational sense the people of England—that the constitution was subverted, and that taxation without representation was slavery. It also stated that the debates of the House were a mockery, and only-served to weary the public patience. Another petition, which had been received, said, "If the House had been really the representatives of the people, instead of being the tools of a grasping oligarchy of borough-mongers, &c." As the House had received petitions containing such words as these, it could hardly with any appearance of consistency reject a petition so much less offensive, as that on the table was.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldsaid, that the statement of the hon. member was one of the best arguments for the rejection of the present petition, as it showed the extent to which insults on the House would be carried, if once admitted by them. If there were precedents for the admission of such petitions, there were also precedents for their rejection, and the House would judge whether it was not wiser to assert its own dignity, than to submit to reiterated insults.
§ The petition was rejected.