§ Mr. Humesaid he had a petition to present for a reform of parliament, from the Mayor, and Commonalty of Monmouth; but after the extraordinary course which the House had pursued with respect to the last petition, he did not well know what to do with it. It was the right of the people to call for a reform of parliament, and he would say, that the circumstance which had just occurred sheaved the necessity of that reform. To reject a petition without hearing it read, was contrary to the just rights and privileges of the people. Reform might be put off by temporary expedients, but it could not be defeated; the principle was working and would ultimately triumph. He could not but consider it a marked insult on the people, to dismiss their petition even without hearing it read.
§ The Speakersaid, that the House could not suffer persons outside the walls of parliament to cast improper reflections upon it. Inside these walls he was sure that hon. gentlemen would speak of its proceedings with decency.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he had always understood, that it was the right of the people to petition parliament; but be never heard before that it was the right of parliament to reject their petitions. They were bound to hear them read; and then, if any thing appeared to be inadmissible, they might reject them. He had not heard a single improper word in that part of the petition from Bethnall-green which had been read by the gallant officer. It contained truths, though they might be unpalatable ones. In the petition which he now held in his hand, the petitioners humbly set forth that they considered a reform of parliament absolutely necessary for the salvation of the country; and they prayed that it might be speedily effected.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that the petition was by no means signed by the most respectable inhabitants of the town of Monmouth: he could not look upon it as a petition coming from the commonalty of that town; he did not see, that it contained any objectionable passages, however he might differ from the sentiments it contained.
§ Mr. W. Courtenayseconded the bringing up of this petition, for the sake of pointing out the great difference between it and that which the House had just rejected. It was said that the House had rejected a petition without hearing its language; but he would appeal to the gallant officer, whether, in the passage which he had read, it was not his meaning to call the attention of the House to the language? He did conceive, that those who contended for the unlimited admission of petitions, whatever the language might be in which they were couched, were, in truth, the most formidable enemies of the sacred right of petition. He valued the right of petition as much as the hon. member for Aberdeen could do; but he thought that hon. gentleman was quite wrong in saying that the House had no right to reject petitions, numerous instances having occurred within his own memory, in which such a right had been exercised.
Mr. G. Bennetcould not go the length of saying, that there was no petition, whatever its language might be, but what the House was bound to receive. The question then was, whether the petition presented by his gallant friend had come before them with a fair case made out, and a statement of grievances, for the purpose of obtaining redress; or whether it was conceived in language that was insulting to the House? This was the only test by which to try any petition; and. the result of its application in this instance was, that the petitioners had a fair case, and had properly stated their grievances. They began by disclaiming all intention of insult, and they alluded to a declaration (that the sale of seats was as notorious as the sun at noon-day) which most undoubtedly had been made in that House by no less a person than the late Mr. Ponsonby. If any one could doubt the fact for a moment, he would take upon himself to prove it at the bar of the House in less than ten minutes. Besides, the petitioners did not state a case, as if it was put on their own authority; but they stated it, 1373 as they had seen it in the public newspapers; and added, that they conceived it to be a libel on parliament. The gentleman alluded to (Mr. Spooner), while he was in the House, seldom favoured opposition with a single vote; but was generally to be found in the crowded ranks on the other side. His declaration, therefore, was rather a curious one. No doubt he could tell the House a few secrets connected with its own history; and so could an hon. gentleman opposite, (Mr. Wynn), who was secretary to the Treasury under the administration of lord Grenville. He himself (Mr. Bennet) did happen to know a little about the constitution of that House in 1806, which, if he were to repeat, would be found not less curious than the declaration of Mr. Spooner. He thought it was most impolitic to reject petitions connected with the subject of reform, unless under very peculiar circumstances; for the House ought always to remember the declaration of the great lord Chatham—that if it was not speedily reformed from within, it would be reformed with a vengeance from without.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, it very often happened that hon. gentlemen presented to that House, petitions, containing sentiments in which they themselves did not concur. Now, if the principle that had been that evening laid down was to be acted upon, the consequence would be, that any member so circumstanced would have nothing to do but to select some strong passage from the petition, and describe it in his speech as being objectionable, to ensure the rejection of the petition. He, therefore, did mean to contend, that the House ought never to exercise this strong power of rejection, until after it should have heard the petition read. It was on these grounds that he had supported the reading of the petition lately rejected.
§ Mr. Dickinsonre-stated his objections to the petition which had been rejected. It was affirmed in the body of it, that "boys" were brought into parliament to vote. Now, this was not fact. By the term "boys," an indifferent person would naturally suppose, that striplings under age were intended. Every hon. gentleman well knew that the youngest members of that House were between 21 and 25; and that of these, there were very few. He believed there was but one instance, in which an individual had been admitted to sit in that House, being under the age prescribed by law. He alluded to the 1374 case of Mr. Fox; and it was remarkable, that even Mr. Fox, though he had spoken before he attained this legal age, never once voted till after he had completed it.
§ Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was the last man to support any petition that might seem to convey any thing like an insult upon the House. In the case before them, however, the petitioners made no direct allegation. They merely affirmed, that such a report had gone abroad. In his opinion, the House would neglect its duty, if it persevered in rejecting petitions without hearing them read.
§ Mr. Humebegged to correct the misstatement of a noble lord who had said that this petition was not signed by the majority of the commonalty of Monmouth. Though the names of the noble lord's friends and supporters might not appear at the foot of it, it certainly was subscribed by the majority.
Lord G. Somersetcontended that information was as good as that, of the hon. gentleman, and if it were correct the majority of the burgesses had not signed the petition.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.