HC Deb 25 July 1820 vol 2 cc609-11
Mr. Alderman Wood

presented a petition from Birmingham, complaining of the evils resulting from the state of the representation. The petition reprobated the constitution of parliament. It condemned all attempts made by individuals to possess themselves of boroughs or towns in their own right as acts of treason to the state, and contended that the offenders in the cases alluded to had been inadequately punished in proportion to the enormity of their offence in violating the purity of election. The petition was signed by George Edmonds.

The petition was read and laid upon the table. Mr. Alderman Wood moved that it be printed.

Mr. R. Smith

rose to compliment the House upon the patience with which it had listened to such a compilation of falsehood and nonsense. He had stopped to hear it read through, although it was so extremely prolix, that he might be in perfect possession of its very extraordinary contents. Now that he was aware of them, he certainly should consider himself extremely culpable if he did not oppose the printing of such trash at a very considerable expense to the public; more particularly as there appeared to be less necessity for any delicacy, as the petition and remonstrance was only signed by an individual, and that individual had not so signed it as the representative of a corporate body.

Mr. Alderman Wood

had been informed, on receiving the petition, that it contained the sentiments of a numerous meeting of respectable householders at Birmingham, although it had only been signed by their chairman. It was rather strange, he thought, in the hon. member who opposed the printing of the petition, that he should have waited in the House purposely to possess himself of the information or sentiments it contained, and after having enjoyed such a treat he should have the cruelty to deny a similar indulgence to such gentlemen as were absent. He would not withdraw his motion; there were many reasons why he thought he should press it.

Mr. Gurney

admitted that the petition did not claim any respect from the House as a sensible composition; but he was afraid, in refusing to permit it to be printed, silly as it was, that such a refusal might hereafter be drawn into a precedent on a motion for printing a much more sensible petition. He should therefore prefer that the House should, as it had suffered the petition, after it was aware of its contents, to be laid on the table, suffer it to be printed, as was usual whenever an application of this nature was made, lest the refusal should be drawn into a precedent, to the prejudice of a more serious case.

Mr. R. Smith

considered it sufficient that the House should be open to receive and listen to the suggestions of collective bodies or individuals, some of whom, as in the present instance, might be justly considered reprehensible as having trifled with the time and patience of the House; but when it was gravely proposed by the worthy alderman to print such offensive nonsense, he felt it a duty imposed on him to oppose it as a public evil, as well as an insult to the House.

Mr. Lushington

considered the petition had already, in being suffered to lie on the table, received more attention than it merited. It would be an intolerant evil if such trash were permitted to be printed as a matter of course.

Mr. Alderman Wood

wished to withdraw the motion, as he confessed he had no doubt, from the state of the House, it would be negatived.

Mr. R. Smith

said, he should not consent to its being withdrawn; it was more advisable that the opinion of the House should be given on the merits of the petition in a more marked way by a decided negative.

The question for printing the petition was then put and negatived.