Sir W. Ingilbypresented a Petition from Gainsborough, praying for a Reform. The hon. Member observed, that this was almost the first from the county of Lincoln on this important subject, and would by no means be the last. He rejoiced to state, that the spirit of reform, now spreading through the country, was everyday becoming more and more apparent, as the necessity for it became more and more urgent. These petitions came from a numerous and independent body of the people, and. they especially prayed for the annihilation of the rotten boroughs, and for vote by ballot. He felt very great pleasure in presenting them to the House, and in cordially supporting their prayer.
§ Mr. Beaumontpresented a similar petition from North Shields.
§ Mr. Bellsaid, that the petition had not resulted from a public meeting, but had been got up privately. He objected to the petition, because one passage of it asserted, that if a rational reform were not granted, the people would take it by violence. That did not express the sentiments of the people of Northumberland, for the population of that county was peaceable, and not at all disposed to seek reform or improvement of any kind by measures of violence, or by any but the most legal and constitutional measures-In that statement he was sure that his hon. colleague would concur.
§ Mr. Beaumontsaid, that the passage did not allude to the people of Northumberland, but to the people of England in general. He would put one question to his hon. colleague. Did he or did he not believe that the people of North Shields were favourable to reform?
§ Petition to be printed.
§ Mr. Hodgesin presenting several Petitions from different parishes in the county of Kent, praying for Reform in Parliament, and a reduction of Taxation, said, that be quite agreed in the prayer 973 of these petitions, and he hoped that prayer would be granted, at least in part. With repect to the mode of reform, that was not the occasion to deliver his opinions, but hoping that he should not excite the angry feelings of any hon. Gentleman, in the same manner as the hon. and learned member for Waterford did last night, he must say, that he sincerely concurred in his admiration of the vote by ballot. Whatever reform his Majesty's Ministers might think proper to propose, they would not, he hoped, omit to introduce the ballot; without which the interests of the people could not be secured. He was happy to have it in his power to state, that the recent change in the Administration had operated most favourably on the minds of the people. He had received a letter that morning from a most respectable and valuable Magistrate of the county of Kent, in which he stated, that under the late Administration, when it became necessary, in consequence of the disturbances that had occurred, to swear in a number of Special Constables, he could get nobody to be sworn; but since the change in the Administration, the respectable inhabitants had come forward in great numbers, and were now as anxious to uphold the peace of the county as they were before to stand aloof. That was a most important fact; and he trusted that it would prove an additional inducement to his Majesty's Ministers, to bring forward measures to promote the benefit of the country.
§ An Hon. Member begged leave to address one word to the House on that part of the speech of the hon. member for Kent in which he stated, that several persons had refused to act, under the late Administration for the suppression of outrages. Was it fitting or proper that these gentlemen should consider themselves authorized to withhold their assistance under one particular Government, and afford it under another? He regretted that there should be any set of men in this country so neglectful of their duty; for, be their opinion what it might, it was their bounden duty to stand forward for the suppression of outrage and tumult. He hoped that those gentlemen who did thus improperly refuse to render their assistance, would now uphold the peace of the country with double vigilance and double perseverance; and by doubly watching over its interests, that they would endeavour, in some mea- 974 sure, to retrieve the character they had so nearly lost.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellexpressed his surprise at the statement of the hon. member for Kent, and he must beg leave to say, that those of his constituents who refused to be sworn in as Special Constables during the continuance of the late Administration, completely abandoned the duty which as Englishmen they owed to their country. He hoped that the hon. member for Kent would tell his constituents, that when a man is called upon to maintain the peace of any particular district, he is not to say, "I will maintain it under this set of Ministers, and I will not maintain it under that." He hoped that the hon. Member would tell them that they were violators of that principle which every man should act upon,—that they were defaulters in the payment of that debt which every man owed to his country — that the maintenance of the public peace was a duty—that they were to act like private individuals as they are, and not make themselves tools or partisans of any Government. He trusted that the House would not consider such a statement as any argument in favour of the measure of reform, for the repeal of the malt-tax, or for the redress of grievances. Such arguments were subversive of the Constitution. He could not sufficiently admire the presumption and impertinence of these persons, as if they were authorised to decline assisting in the preservation of the public peace, because one set of men or another set of men happened to be in Office. He hoped, however, that the constituents of the hon. member for Kent would henceforward do their duty, and that he would never again state in that House circumstances so disgraceful to his constituents.
§ Mr. Hodgesdid not mean to follow the course pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, by reading his constituents a severe lecture. Instead of lecturing them, it would be better if he were to endeavour to confirm them in their present opinions. He trusted that the present Ministry would do their duty, and by that means effectually prevent disaffection and outrage. With respect to the conduct of the Magistrates in the county of Kent, he would take the liberty of referring to an Address, a Memorial sent to the late Prime Minister by the Grand Jury of the county of Kent. In that memorial, addressed to the Duke of Wellington, it was said, 975
We feel, that in justice we ought not to suffer a moment to pass away without communicating to your Grace, the great and unprecedented distress which, we are enabled from our own present experience to state, prevails among all the peasantry to a degree not only dreadful to individuals, but also to an extent which, if not checked, must be attended with serious consequences to the national prosperity. In making this communication to your Grace, it is our only object to call the attention of the Government to the real state of the country, and in the hope that effectual measures may be taken to alleviate distresses which press so heavily and severely on all classes of society.This memorial was signed by every gentleman on the Grand Jury, and was not unworthy of the attention of the House. Eleven out of the twenty-three Grand Jurymen were candidates for the honour of a seat in Parliament, and the remainder were gentlemen of the first respectability. If that memorial had been attended to, not one of the disgraceful scenes which had recently occurred would have taken place in Kent. In all probability, if the present Administration bad then been in power they never would have occurred.
§ Petition to lie upon the table.