HC Deb 11 March 1817 vol 35 cc968-71
Sir W. Geary

presented a petition from the freeholders and inhabitants of the county of Kent, praying for Reform.

Sir E. Knatchbull

said, that the petition was presented as that of the county of Kent, and as expressive of the sentiments of the county. He believed that it expressed the sentiments of the majority of the meeting at which it was voted, but he denied that it expressed the sentiments of the county, or could be received as the petition of the county. The high sheriff had signed it in the name of the meeting; but he could only sign for himself—he could not sign for others; and this petition, therefore, could not be received, except as the petition of the individual whose signature it bore.

The Speaker

said, there were only two modes in which petitions could be viewed as coming before the House. They must either come from individuals, assemblies of individuals, or corporate bodies. If they came from corporate bodies, and were signed in the name of the corporation, and sealed with its seal, they were considered as the prayer of the corporation. If they came from individuals, or meetings of individuals, they were to be considered only as the petitions of the persons whose signatures they bore. They could not, when signed by one in the name of the rest, be considered as the prayer of the whole.

Sir W. Geary

said, that the manner in which the petition was signed, arose from a misconception that it would be taken as the petition of the county if signed by the sheriff in county court: it would otherwise have been most numerously signed.

Mr. Calcraft

was sensible, after what had been said, that the forms of the House precluded the petition from being received as any thing else than the petition of the high sheriff who signed it; but he hoped that, as it was substantially the petition of the meeting, though signed in their names, it would have all the weight which such an origin could give it. The hon. baronet had allowed that it expressed the sentiments of the meeting. That meeting was most respectable—it was numerously attended—it was called with due notice—the requisition was most respectably signed. In consequence of the address to be voted to the Prince Regent, which was a part of the business of the day, the hon. baronet had it in his power to have assembled a greater number of his friends to oppose the petition. The hon. baronet might have exerted all his influence. He was well supported in his opposition by a young man, who displayed great abilities on the occasion, and he might have had the assistance of some demagogues.

Sir E. Knatchbull

said, that he had not opposed the petition. He neither attended when it was discussed, nor offered it any opposition whatever. The chair had rightly decided, that the petition could only be received as the petition of the high sheriff. Though the high sheriff had signed it, however, as he conceived at the time his official duty demanded, he (sir E. K.) was convinced that he neither concurred in the sentiments of the petition, nor would have signed it in his own name.

Mr. Calcraft

said, that had it not been thought sufficient that the high sheriff should sign the petition in the name of the meeting, there would have been no difficulty in obtaining numerous and respectable signatures. The hon. baronet had wished even to take away from the petition the advantage of its one signature, by saying that the high sheriff had signed it contrary to his own sentiments. He did not know intimately the sentiments of the sheriff; but he never heard that they were opposed to the petition, and could attest that he seemed perfectly willing to sign it in the name of the meeting.

Sir W. Geary

was of opinion that the petition spoke the sense of the county; for it was known that the meeting had been convened after a sufficient notice, and that the petition had been agreed to by a great majority. He could not, therefore, imagine that the opinion of the county could be collected in a fairer way. A case similar to the present had occurred at the beginning of the session. A petition had been presented from the county of Cornwall, signed by the sheriff, and afterwards another signed by a number of the freeholders. He was glad this conversation had taken place, that the rule of the House with regard to petitions might be known.

The Speaker

said, that the House would not only see the importance of the rule that had been laid down, but the importance of diffusing a knowledge of it. Petitions could only be received as the petitions of those whose names they bore. When there was only one signature, as in the present case, the House remained entirely in the dark as to the sentiments of the meeting from which the application was said to proceed.

Sir C. Monck

said, that the object of sir E. Knatchbull was evidently to do as much injury as possible to the petition. That hon. baronet had, however, said that the sheriff, in his private capacity, was hostile to the sentiments of the petition: if this were true, it was clear that the sheriff would not have put his name to such a petition, but from a persuasion that it spoke the sense of the county meeting.

Mr. Lushington

said, the petition undoubtedly spoke the sense of the meeting at Maidstone, but from what he knew of Kent, it did not speak the sense of the county at large.

Mr. Ponsonby

said, that nobody could expect that those who visited the treasury, and were the friends of the hon. secretary to the treasury, would sign petitions for retrenchment and reform. This meeting was said not to combine the respectability, or to express the sentiments of the county, when it voted the petition now before the House. He would ask, did this meeting do nothing else that expressed the sentiments of the county? Were the other acts of the meeting not the acts of the county? Did the address to the Prince Regent not contain the sentiments of the county? Did the vote of thanks to the marquess of Camden not express their sentiments? Were not these two acts done by the same meeting with whom this petition originated, and at the same time? How, then, could they be said to express the feelings and sentiments of the county, while this petition did not?

Ordered to lie on the table.