HC Deb 20 March 1817 vol 35 cc1209-10
Mr. Brougham

presented a petition from the inhabitants of the ward of Bishopsgate, praying for Parliamentary Reform. The subject had been so frequently before the House that it remained only for him to protest against the delusion, so much depended upon, by the opponents of the measure, that no weight ought to be given to the numerous petitioners in favour of reform, because the petitions had been set on foot by persons who were actively engaged in recommending that measure. Let those who advanced that doctrine accept the challenge he had before thrown out, let them in their turn set on foot petitions against reform, and see what number of signatures they could obtain. The result, he had no doubt, would establish the fact, that a very great majority of the people were solicitous for a constitutional reform in the representation. With respect to the manufacturing of petitions as it was called, it was to be recollected that Mr. Pitt and the duke of Richmond, both concurred (though it was due to the former to say that he never did proceed to the length of universal suffrage) in the propriety of circulating petitions in furtherance of their object, for the signatures of those who were friendly to reform.

Mr. Bankes

denied that Mr. Pitt had ever given his countenance to the doctrine of universal suffrage, and from the habits of intimacy in which he was with him, he could take upon himself to say, that he believed he never was a party to the manufacturing of petitions.

Mr. Brougham

said, that either the hon. gentleman must have greatly misconceived what he stated, or he was not in the House at the time. He had particularly mentioned that Mr. Pitt did not go all the lengths of the duke of Richmond, as to universal suffrage; but it was curious, when the reformers were twitted and taunted with being enemies to their country, or jacobins, it was studiously kept out of sight, that Mr. Pitt was once a most strenuous and active reformer. He had only to refer them to the correspondence of the Rev. Mr. Wyvill, to see the notes that had passed between Mr. Pitt and the active reformers of that day. In the case of the king v. Frost, who was a respectable attorney, but certainly not of equal consequence with Mr. Pitt, it was proved, that Mr. Pitt had addressed him as a "zealous friend" to the public, on no other account than that of his active co-operation on the subject of reform.*

The Hon. J. W. Ward

observed, that the friends of reform appealed to the authority of Mr Pitt in his early life, while the opponents of that measure referred to his conduct in matured life, and particularly after the experience of the French revolution. Whatever had been the practice alluded to, he certainly would never admit that petitions manufactured in London, and sent down ready made to the country, perhaps imperfectly representing, if not contradicting, the sentiments of the subscribers, could be entitled to the same consideration as those which proceeded generally from the dictation of petitioners themselves; nor would it be just that they should, though such, it would appear, had been the sentiments of his hon. and learned friend.

Lord A. Hamilton

said, that after his hon. friend had voted two or three times in favour of parliamentary reform, it peculiarly became him to be the apologist for Mr. Pitt's change of opinions. While he was on his legs, he begged to say, that as to the statement made the other evening of a petition from Dumfriesshire having been signed by children, he had that day received a letter from a very respectable gentleman on the spot, who directly contradicted that statement.

Mr. Sharp

said, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ward) had, in his mind, misrepresented the nature of Mr. Pitt's support to the cause of parliamentary reform. He could assure that hon. gentleman, that so late as the Irish union, Mr. Pitt in the arrangement of the representation of that part of the united kingdom, had taken the utmost pains to secure to the people the power of returning sixty out of the hundred members who were to be returned to parliament.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.