§ Lord Althorppresented a Petition, signed by about 50,000 persons, who had formed part of a meeting of (as he was informed)nearly 180,000 inhabitants of Glasgow and its vicinity, praying that the House would adopt all constitutional means of forwarding the Reform Bill, and refuse supplies to the Crown until it was passed. The last sentence of the petition, which referred to "the intrigues of a faction" to defeat the measure, he must admit was strongly worded, but he apprehended that the terms were not such as would induce the House to pause before it received the petition.
§ Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that his objection to the paragraph was, not that it was strongly worded, but that it asserted what was false.
§ Mr. Robert A. Dundaswas anxious to take that opportunity of setting himself right in regard to what he had said on a former day, when the petition from Edinburgh was laid upon the Table. A gallant Officer, a relation of his own, had been present at the meeting where the petition was agreed to, and speaking from the information he (Mr. Dundas) had received, he had stated, that at the meeting flags and emblems were displayed, one of which represented the King without his head, and another had for inscription, "Put not your trust in Princes." These were arranged round the hustings; but he was now quite willing to retract any aspersion he had cast upon the gallant Officer; still 298 maintaining it, however, as his opinion, that it was not becoming in any man holding the King's commission to be present at a meeting where such flags and emblems were exhibited. It was true, the gallant Officer might have gone there, in the first instance, with a view to preserve the public peace; and he deeply regretted that any construction should have been put upon what he (Mr. Dundas) had said, which in any degree reflected upon the honour and integrity of the gallant Officer.
§ Mr. Gillonasked if the hon. Member meant to lay it clown as an axiom, that it was unbecoming in any man who held the King's commission to express his political opinions?
§ Mr. Robert A. Dundasadded, that what he had said was, that it was unbecoming in any man who had received such favours from his Sovereign to be present at a meeting where such emblems were exhibited.
§ Mr. Gillonobserved, that he had received a communication from Edinburgh, enabling him to contradict what the hon. Member had stated on a former day with regard to one of the emblems. The feeling in favour of Reform throughout Scotland was highly commendable.
Mr. James E. Gordonremarked, that the hon. Member had omitted to state which of the two emblems noticed had not, in fact, been displayed. He would assert that the speeches delivered at the meetings in Scotland were disgraceful to the individuals and to the country.
§ Sir John Byngremarked, that the Officer to whom the hon. Member had alluded had served in the same regiment with him (Sir.J. Byng), and four days before the meeting at Edinburgh, he had received a letter from him, containing sentiments highly commendable, showing, that whatever he might think of Reform, he knew his duty to his country to be paramount to every other consideration. The object of the meeting was, to obtain the end proposed by proper and constitutional means, and he was sure that the gallant officer would not have remained an instant on the spot had he seen any flag of the infamous description of that alluded to. Either the flag was withdrawn, or the gallant Officer would have withdrawn himself. The explanation of the hon. member for Edinburgh was perfectly gentlemanlike and satisfactory.
The Lord Advocatewas sure that the gallant Officer had not seen the objection- 299 able emblem. The retraction and disclamation of the hon. Member was highly to his credit, as he had spoken from erroneous information. The exhibition of any such emblem was denied by the Chairman of the meeting, and by the Committee.
Mr. Kennedymaintained, that the gallant officer was not only justified in attending, but he was bound to attend.
Mr. Humefelt called upon to give a direct denial to the assertion of the hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. James E. Gordon) that the meetings at Edinburgh and in other parts of Scotland, were disgraceful. He considered that they did the highest honour to the country. The proceedings had been without disturbance, and the sentiments uttered had been expressed in a constitutional manner. It was very possible that some of the friends of the hon. member for Dundalk had exhibited the emblem in order to disgrace the meeting,
§ Sir George Murrayobserved, that the gallant Officer alluded to was, of course, quite at liberty to attend the meeting. His conduct would only have been objectionable if the emblems mentioned had been displayed.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanmust call the attention of the House to the notable inconsistency, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should present a petition against voting Supplies to the Government.
§ Lord Althorphad himself alluded to the singularity some nights ago, when he presented other petitions of the same kind.
Mr. James E. Gordonremarked, that after the conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex at public meetings, he should not hold him a competent judge of what was constitutional.
Mr. Humedid not care a pin for the opinion of the hon. member for Dundalk, and was ready to leave it to the country to decide whose notions were most deserving of approbation.
§ Mr. Gillonadded, that not a single meeting in Scotland had been disgraced by riot, and he should have been proud to have been present at all of them.
§ Petition to be printed.