HL Deb 21 February 1817 vol 35 cc472-91
Earl Grosvenor

said, that a petition had been put into his hands, to be presented to their lordships, to the matter of which he was anxious to call their particular attention before they proceeded to the order of the day. The petition was from Thomas Cleary, the secretary to the London Union Society; and he was the more anxious to call their lordships attention to it now, because it might perhaps be the only opportunity which the individual might have of doing himself and others justice, before their lordships should have adopted measures founded on the report of the secret committee; and he had been given to understand since he came into the House, that it was the intention of ministers to propose the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. When this report of the secret committee had been first read at the table, he had contended that the evidence on which the committee had founded their conclusions ought to be laid before their lordships, to enable them to judge whether these conclusions were supported by the evidence, before they adopted measures upon it; because, in a matter of such magnitude, it appeared to him that they ought to legislate cautiously, and, he might almost say, less violently than seemed to be at present in contemplation. The noble president of the council at that time met him with statements of practice and usage. He spoke then merely from a feeling of the gross impropriety of acting upon the report, without satisfying themselves, from inspection of the evidence, that the conclusions were just: but he was now provided with a precedent—that of 1794, when a very strong report, and also the evidence were produced. It had occurred to him, when he first heard the report read, that much of it consisted of inference from facts, rather than a statement of facts; and that it was therefore peculiarly desirable that their lordships should see the evidence. This feeling was considerably strengthened by the statements, in this petition, which might be true for any thing he knew to the contrary. Whether they were so or not, he could not take upon himself to say; but if they were true, they would not only throw considerable suspicion on the evidence from which the committee had drawn its conclusions, but show that very great injury had been done to the individual who now petitioned, as well as to other persons.—His lordship then read the petition as follows: To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Petition of Thomas Cleary Secretary to the London Union Society. Humbly showeth, That it is with great reluctance, as well as humility, that your petitioner offers himself to the notice of, and prays for a hearing from your right honourable House; but that your petitioner, though a very humble individual, feels himself impelled by a sense of imperious duty, to beseech your right honourable House to pause, and to hear further evidence, before your right honourable House proceed to adopt legislative measures upon the report, now on the table of your right honourable House, from your late secret committee. Your petitioner begs permission humbly to state to your right honourable House, that he has read in the aforementioned report of the secret committee of your lordships, the following passage; to wit: 'Others of these societies are called Union Clubs, professing the same object of parliamentary reform, but under these words understanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments—Projects which evidently involve not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution. It appears that there is a London Union Society, and branch Unions corresponding with it, and affiliated to it. Others of these societies have adopted the name of Spencean Philanthropists; and it was by members of a club of this description that the plans of the conspirators in London were discussed and prepared for execution."' Your petitioner presumes not to oppose his opinions against those of a committee of your right honourable House; but he hopes, that he may be humbly permitted to state, that when a bill was brought before your right honourable House by the late duke of Richmond, laying it down as a matter of principle, that annual parliaments and universal suffrage were the inherent and unalienable rights of Englishmen, the noble duke was not accused of a desire to produce "a total subversion of the British constitution. It is not, however, on matters of opi- nion, but on matters of most important fact, that your petitioner humbly appeals to the candour, the wisdom, and the justice of your right honourable House, and on matters of fact, too, with regard to which your petitioner is able to submit to your right honourable House the clearest and most indubitable testimony. Your petitioner's entire ignorance of the views of the secret committee of your right honourable House, as well as his profound respect and extreme deference for every thing done within the walls of your right honourable House, are more than sufficient to restrain your petitioner from attempting even to guess at the reasons for your committee's having so closely connected the London Union Society' with the societies of 'Spencean Philanthropists;' but your petitioner humbly begs leave to assure your lordships, that he is ready and able to prove at the bar of your lordships, that there never has existed, between these societies, the smallest connexion of any sort, either in person or design, the object of the former being to obtain "a parliamentary reform, according to the constitution," while that of the latter, as appears from the report of your lordships committee, has been to obtain a common partnership in the land; and that, therefore, any evidence which may have been laid before the secret committee of your lordships to establish this connexion, is, as your petitioner is ready to prove at the bar of your lordships, wholly destitute of truth. But the facts to which your petitioner is most anxious humbly to endeavour to obtain the patient attention of your right honourable House, relate to that affiliation and correspondence, which your lordships secret committee have been pleased to impute to the London Union Society, by observing that "it appears that there is a London Union Society, and Branch Unions, corresponding with it, and affiliated to it;" a description which seems, in the humble conception of your petitioner, to resemble that which was given of the London Corresponding Society, in 1795, and which, as your petitioner humbly conceives, point to measures of a nature similar to those which were then adopted; and your petitioner, though with all humility, ventures to express his confidence, that the evidence which he doubts not has been produced to your lordships secret committee to justify this description, is wholly and entirely false, as your petitioner is ready to prove, in the most satisfactory manner, at the bar of your right honourable House. Upon this important point your petitioner humbly begs leave to represent to your right honourable House, that the London Union Society was founded in 1812 by Mr. Edward Bolton Clive, Mr. Walter Fawkes, the late colonel Bosville, Mr. Montague Burgoyne, the present lord mayor, Mr. Alderman Goodbehere, Mr. Francis Canning, Mr. William Hallet, sir Francis Burdett, major Cartwright, Mr. Robert Slade, Mr. Timothy Brown, Mr. J. J. Clarke, and several other individuals equally respectable; that it continued to hold meetings but a very short time; that it never did any act except the publishing of one address to the nation on the subject of reform; that it never had any one "Branch;" that it never held any correspondence either written or verbal with any society of any sort; that it never was affiliated to any society, or branch, or any body of men whatsoever; finally, that it has not even met for nearly three years and a half last past; and, of course, that it is not now in existence. What, then, must have been the surprise and the pain of your humble petitioner, when he saw, in the report of your lordships secret committee, this London Union Society represented, not only as being still in existence, but busily and extensively at work, establishing branches and affiliations, carrying on an active correspondence, infusing life into societies of Spencean Philanthropists, and producing, by these means, plans of conspiracy, revolution, and treason! And, though your petitioner is too well assured of the upright views and of the justice of every committee consisting of members of your noble and right honourable House not to be convinced that very strong evidence in support of these charges must have been produced to your lordships secret committee, your petitioner cannot, nevertheless, refrain from expressing most humbly his deep regret, that your lordships committee should not have deigned to send for the books and other testimonials of the character and proceedings of the London Union Society; and your petitioner humbly begs leave to observe, that this omission appears singularly unfortunate for the London Union Society, seeing that the secret committee of your lordships appear, in another part of their report, to lament the want of means of obtaining the written proceedings of societies, and seeing that it was natural to expect, that a society having branches, an affiliation and an active correspondence, had also a copious collection of written documents. Your petitioner is aware, that he has trespassed too long on the patience of your lordships; but, well knowing that your lordships seek only for truth as the basis of your proceedings, he humbly hopes that you will be pleased to excuse the earnestness of his present representation, and he also presumes humbly to express his hope, that your lordships will be pleased, in your great tenderness for the character and liberties of his majesty's faithful subjects, to consider whether it be not possible that your secret committee may have been misled, by what they may have deemed good evidence, as to other parts of their recent report; and, at the least, your petitioner humbly prays that your lordships will, in your great condescension, be pleased to permit your petitioner to produce all the books and papers of the London Union Society at the bar of your right honourable House, where your petitioner confidently assures your lordships that he is ready to prove all and singular the allegations, contained in this his most humble petition. And your petitioner will ever pray. THOMAS CLEARY. His lordship observed, with regard to the petition he had just read, that it contained statements which it was of the utmost importance the House should thoroughly examine, because if these statements were correct, the secret committee must have been imposed upon. He had the highest respect for the members of that committee, but they might easily have been misled by false evidence, persons desirous of courting the favour of the House.

The Duke of Montrose

rose to order. He considered it highly disorderly to impute to the members of a committee appointed by their lordships any motives, such as courting the favour of the House, which could influence them in the discharge of a public duty.

Earl Grosvenor

said, if the noble duke had allowed him to finish his expression, it would have been found that he had no intention whatever of imputing motives to the members of the committee. All he meant to say was, that persons with a view of courting the favour of that House, of courting the favour of ministers (for what was intended but to give ministers additional power), might state to the committee what was not the fact, and that thus the committee might have been misled. This was his view of the subject, and it was most important that such a consideration should be adopted by the House. Was it to be endured, that upon statements made by any committee to that House, and which statements were offered to be proved at the bar to be untrue, the liberties of the people of England were to be placed at the disposal of Mr. Canning, Mr. Bragge Bathurst, lord Castlereagh, and their colleagues?

The Duke of Athol

rose to order, and put it to the House, whether it was consistent with the order of their proceedings, that motives should thus be imputed to individuals?

Lord Rolle

also rose to order, and asked whether it was fair thus to attack individuals, who not being members of that House, could not defend themselves?

The Lord Chancellor

declared the allusion to Mr. Bragge Bathurst, &c. to be most disorderly, nor could he consent to remain ten minutes longer in the situation which he held, if the House decided it to be in order. Nothing, indeed, could be more disorderly than the whole proceeding on this petition, which purported that the petitioner knew of a proceeding of that House, which he could not, consistently with the orders of the House, know any thing about, the report having-been presented for the use of the members of that House, and of them only.

Earl Grey

said, it appeared to him, that those who now stood forward in support of the orders of the House were themselves the violators. What his noble friend had said contrary to order, he had yet to learn. He did not hear him impute improper motives to any man. What he understood him to say, and which he was ready to repeat after him, was this, that the effect of the measure now in contemplation would be to leave the liberties of the country at the mercy of the ministers of the crown. Then his noble friend had named certain members of the other House—whether discreetly or not was for his own consideration; but he believed it was not contrary to order to name in that House members of the other House. It appeared to him, therefore, that his noble friend had been most improperly interrupted, and chiefly by the learned lord on the woolsack, whose duty it particularly was to take care that the orders of the House should be attended to. When a noble lord was called to order, then, before any other noble lord spoke, the noble lord so called to order ought, without interruption, to be allowed to give such explanation to the House as he thought proper.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that whatever might be the objects of persons out of the House, he was sure that no individual within it could think of promoting their objects by the introduction of disorderly proceedings in that House; but a more disorderly proceeding than this he had never witnessed. He denied that he was particularly called upon to take care that the orders of the House should be attended to; although he admitted that such was his duty equally with that of any other noble lord in the House. The noble lord had stated, that it was in contemplation to suspend the Habeas Corpus act. Had any thing been as yet said about the suspension of that act? If the report of the committee of the House of Commons had been brought up and laid on their lordships table, then he admitted that the noble lord might have referred to the proceedings, and mentioned the names of members of the other House: but no communication of the Commons report had been made to them, and they knew nothing whatever of it; therefore it was disorderly to refer to it. With respect to the report of their lordships committee, it had been ordered to be printed for the use of the members of the House only; and the petitioner could regularly know nothing of it. In his anxiety to see the orders of the House enforced, he might perhaps go too far; but he conceived that he was perfectly right in calling the noble earl to order; and if he was wrong, he was so far wrong, that he wished the House to say whether he was right or wrong, that he might know his situation.

Lord Holland

said, that the speech of the learned lord who bad just sat down, made in support of the orders of the House, was itself eminently disorderly, When any noble lord was called to order, the usage was, that no other lord should speak till that noble lord had an opportunity of giving the proper explanation; but, instead of arguing that point, the learned lord proceeded to charge his noble friend with being disorderly for having brought up the petition, and read it to † their lordships in the present state of their proceedings. But if it was disorderly to have introduced the petition at all, then, if they meant to insist upon that point of order, his noble friend ought to have been interrupted before he stated the petition; but after that had been suffered to pass, it ought not to be made a ground of interruption, with reference to an entirely distinct point; for nothing could be more disorderly than, in rising to order on one point, to proceed to argue on another point, with respect to which there had been no call to order. Now, whether the learned lord was in a particular manner bound to take care that the orders of the House should be enforced, or was in that respect merely on a footing with the other peers, this was clear—that his noble friend having been called to order, he ought to have been heard in explanation without interruption: but yet his noble friend had been interrupted in a manner which had prolonged a most disorderly conversation.

The Earl of Liverpool

, notwithstanding all he had heard, maintained that the whole proceeding of the noble earl was disorderly; first, in his bringing the petition before the House, before the report of the committee could have been regularly known; second, in referring to measures as about to be proposed, of which the noble earl could, as yet, regularly know nothing. According to the strict rule of order, the noble earl might certainly have been interrupted at the outset; but for the sake of general convenience, there was always a disposition to indulgence in this respect, and therefore the noble lord had been suffered to proceed with the statement of the petition. The point, however, in which he conceived the noble earl to have been particularly disorderly was this; that the noble earl had grounded his statement on an assumption that measures were in contemplation of which he could, as yet, regularly know nothing. All that the noble earl knew was, that the secret committee had made a report, which was read in that House, which was ordered to be printed for the use of the members of that House, and which was to be taken this night into consideration; and yet the noble earl had cast an imputation on the ministers of the Crown, on a ground of which he could regularly know nothing. He knew that, for the sake of convenience, measures intended to be proposed to parliament were some- times previously communicated to individuals in conversation and otherwise; and in ordinary cases he would not have objected to an allusion to such projected measures; but if the noble earl had experienced the indulgence of the House, he had made a most unjustifiable use of that indulgence, in throwing out imputations against the ministers of the Crown, and even casting a personal odium upon certain members of the executive government, to whom the exercise of the powers which it might be necessary to concede, would not immediately and directly belong. This was the substance and truth of the matter, and there could be no question but that the proceeding was disorderly. The noble earl ought not to have taken advantage of the indulgence of the House, to throw out these imputations against the ministers of the Crown, on the assumption that measures were to be proposed of which he could know nothing.

Earl Grosvenor

maintained that he was perfectly in order in making the allusion he did. He should have been utterly out of order to have named peers in that House, and he merely, therefore named those ministers who were in the other House. With regard to the petition he had presented, he contended it was of the greatest importance, particularly with a view to the measures to be founded upon the report of the secret committee, that it should be ascertained whether the allegations in that report were correct or not. The petitioner was now at the bar with the papers and books of the London Union Society ready to present them; ready also to adduce evidence, that with regard to that society the allegations in the report were unfounded, and he trusted their lordships would allow that testimony to be received. His lordship concluded by moving that the petition be read.

The Lord Chancellor was proceeding to object to the petition being received, when the earl of Lauderdale spoke to order, stating that the only question was, that the petition be read. The lord Chancellor admitted this, and said he had no objection to the petition being read. The petition was then read by the reading clerk at the table; after which, earl Grosvenor moved, that it should lie on the table.

The Lord Chancellor

objected to receiving the petition. Whatever might be the conduct in other societies, it was peculiarly incumbent upon that House to maintain inviolate the rules and orders of their proceedings. If he stood alone, he would be found advocating the maintenance of those rules and orders which formed the only safeguard for the regularity of their proceedings. The report of the secret committee had only been printed for the use of their lordships; it was a proceeding confined within that House. How, then, could it be endured, that a petition should be received quoting a passage in that report, and calling upon the House to receive evidence in contradiction to it. Such a proceeding would be most irregular and disorderly, would be in contradiction to all their orders, to all their established rules, and to the constitution, if he understood it. He could not, therefore, consent to receiving any such petition; and should the House agree to receive it, he should feel it his duty to enter a solemn protest against the proceeding.

Earl Grey

said, he entirely agreed with the noble and learned lord as to the maintenance of the rules and orders of that House, nor should the noble and learned lord stand alone in maintaining them. With the opinion of the noble and learned lord, however, that to receive this petition would be contrary to those rules and orders, and contrary to the constitution, he could not agree. He understood the constitution in a different sense. He had always understood it to be a principle of the constitution that no subject of the realm should suffer a wrong without the means of redress; but how would the case stand, if in such a case as this the subject was debarred from his right of petition. In consequence of the publication of reports of commitees of parliament affecting the character of Mr. Horne Tooke, that gentleman brought an action against the publisher of those reports. When the case came on for trial before lord Kenyon, then lord chief justice of the court of King's-bench, that learned judge at once refused to let the proceeding go on, stating that the proceedings of parliament were not cognizable in courts of law; and as he sometimes happily applied quotations, he made use of one in that instance, observing, that were the proceedings in parliament to become cognizable in courts of law, then "Chaos is come again." It having thus been determined that the subject, however his character might be affected by any proceeding in parliament, had no redress in a court of law, where was he to obtain redress except in parliament? It was in vain to say that he had no right to know what was passing in parliament; it was well known, that in point of fact, the proceedings of parliament did in some way or other go forth to the public; and was it to be endured that a technical objection was now to be set up to deprive the subject of his right of petition? Was it meant to be said, that with regard to a bill (which was as much a proceeding within the House as the report of a committee) the subject was on such a ground not to be allowed to petition against it? Was it to be endured, that if a bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus was brought in, and not printed, for instance (the case with former bills of that nature), that the subject should not be allowed to petition against it, because it was a proceeding in the House of which no one out of the House had a right to know any thing? If such an objection were at all applicable, it must equally apply to all bills, to all debates, and to every proceeding within the House. What was this but denying altogether the right of petition to the subject? He knew nothing with regard to the petition now before the House, whether the allegations it contained were true or not, but at least they were of great importance, when it was considered what measures were in contemplation, particularly if the report of the committee were to lead to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. Surely, in such a view of the question, it was of the utmost importance to ascertain whether the statements in the report were well founded or not. He therefore was of opinion that the petition ought to be received.

The Earl of Harrowby

did not think it necessary to follow the arguments of the noble earl, or to go through the statements of the petition. He should merely confine himself to the question of the order of the proceedings of the House, which it seemed to be the fashion, to call a technical objection. He could not so consider it, the objection arising out of the essential forms of the House, which it was of the highest importance to their proceedings should not be infringed. Such a question as this, besides, ought to be considered with a view to its consequences, and what must be the result if they received this petition? It would no doubt be followed by petitions from all the societies alluded to in the report, the Hampden Clubs and the Spencean Philanthropists, which would tend to embar- rass their proceedings in a manner altogether unprecedented, and, at a moment involving the safety of the country, might be productive of the greatest public danger. He therefore saw no reason whatever for receiving this petition.

Lord Holland

was decidedly of opinion, that no sufficient reason had been urged why this petition should not be received. On the contrary, every reason, in his view of the subject, combined to urge its reception. He was as great an advocate as any noble lord for the maintenance of the rules and orders of their proceedings; but was it to be endured, that a rule was now to be practically applied for the first time, in order to do away the subjects right of petition? It had been already clearly shown, that for an injury done to the character of an individual by proceedings in parliament, he had no remedy in a court of law; and would their lordships take away all remedy by refusing the only means of redress, that of petitioning the House? It might be said that their proceedings were not public; but when it was known to every one that their proceedings were public, was it any answer to an individual to say, that he had no right to know what passed in that House, when he found himself in the ordinary intercourse of society deprived of his character in consequence of the publication of these proceedings? It was true that the committee had properly abstained from naming individuals, but the principle remained the same; the petitioner petitioned on behalf of himself and other respectable individuals connected with him to remove the stain upon them which resulted from the report of the committee, and surely the common and ordinary rules of justice demanded that they should be heard in their defence, and to disprove the allegations of the report involving their characters and conduct. He thought, therefore, the House were bound in justice to receive the petition and the evidence tendered.

Earl Grosvenor

said, he had heard no adequate reason whatever, why this petition should not be received. The report stated allegations, which it was alleged in the petition were untrue; was it not therefore of the greatest importance to ascertain the point? It was in vain to say that they did not know what measures were in contemplation; they had a right to consider the possibility of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus being resorted to, in consequence of this report; and in this view it became of still greater importance to the public welfare, and to the liberties of the people, that it should be ascertained by evidence, whether the allegations in that report were founded or not.

The Earl of Lauderdale

observed, that the noble lords who opposed receiving the petition, did not prove that either in the details of its allegations, or in the spirit of its prayer, it attacked the forms of that House. What was, then, the ground of their objection? That it adverted to certain proceedings of that House, which the House alone was presumed by its forms to know. The objection, if it had force, was equally hostile to any petition being presented against bills. Indeed, there was no parliamentary proceeding against which, if justified, it would not be hostile. There was nothing in the stages of parliamentary progress lower than petitions on subjects to be entertained; yet the usage of parliament was, to receive counter-petitions. On resolutions of committees, frequently on reports of committees, it adopted the same course. He recollected well, that in the instance when a committee of that House reported the well-known Irish propositions, petitions, as numerous as were ever on any occasion presented, were received by that House, and that before any legislative measure, or any formal promulgation of such intention, was adopted by parliament.

The Duke of Athol

briefly adverted to some passages in the petition, which he considered highly disrespectful to the committee of their lordships House, and formed a justifiable ground, even without any reference to the forms alluded to, for its rejection.

Lord Erskine

said, that he could not understand upon what principle the petition could be rejected, unless its language had been held to be insulting or disrespectful to the House. He could surely not be suspected of any vexatious opposition to government, since he had not been even once in his place during the last session, and for this short reason, because, though he could not change his opinions of the impolicy of the wars against France which it was too late to reconsider; yet he thought ministers entitled to credit for the successful termination of hostilities, and considering the period to be not then arrived for the adoption of a peace establishment, he had no object for attendance. He desired to deal with ministers as they ought to have dealt with the people, by a judgment upon the overt acts of their administration, which he was very sorry to say were now of a most unjustifiable and alarming description. He was in a distant part of the country when he learned only from the public papers his majesty's message, and the appointment of a committee to consider it.—When the atrocious attack was made upon the Prince Regent, which might have been the treason of a single miscreant, though surrounded by mischievous people that the ordinary police might have dispersed, the country appeared every where else to be in the most profound tranquillity, and the petitioner, though guilty of no manner of offence, yet finding himself implicated by the report, only desired to offer his exculpation, and to support it by proof. Now, if a petition, having this justifiable object, ought to be rejected to night, because it referred to our report, could a petition referring to it be received at any future period; and was it just, that though immense bodies of peaceable subjects were stigmatized upon ex parte evidence, and their liberties abridged upon its authority, yet that they might be told they had no right to know any thing of the matter? The report of the committee had made an almost universal charge of treasonable conspiracy against the petitioners for reform throughout the whole kingdom. He desired to read the passage: "Others of those societies are called Union Clubs, professing the same object of parliamentary reform, but under these words understanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments,—projects which evidently involved not any qualified or partial change, but a total subversion of the British constitution." Now, though no man was more decidedly adverse to the alterations prayed for, which were nothing like a restoration of either the principles or practice of former times, yet even if their adoption had a tendency to the subversion of the constitution, or if adopted, would even certainly subvert it, yet he was wholly at a loss to conceive how men could be justly charged as traitorous conspirators for entertaining absurd opinions, which they only petitioned parliament to sanction, leaving their rejection on the legislative wisdom of their country. When, therefore, they found themselves charged in the Journals of parliament with treasonable combinations to maintain them by rebellious force, he could not comprehend upon what principle their exculpation was to be rejected. He had himself presented a petition, signed by above 20,000 inhabitants of Glasgow and its neighbourhood, and he found them also accused by the report as traitors to the state. Should they also resist such an accusation, he should think it strange if they were not to be heard.—But the main stress of the objection seemed to be that they could not take notice of this report which condemned them; but the contrary had been decided, as truly stated by his noble friend (earl Grey), in the case of Mr. Horne Tooke. He was present himself when it was held by the whole court of King's bench, that every subject of the realm having a right to know, and, unless prohibited by parliament, to publish its transactions, the charge of a libel could not be supported against a publisher, who, in that instance, had only printed what he copied from the Journal of the House of Commons. The petitioner, therefore, having a right to refer to the report of the committee, and being severely inculpated by it, had a right also to be heard in his defence. The numbers also had been objected to, which such a claim of petitioning might involve; but that objection did not lie in the mouths of those who made general accusations. If he (lord E.), were to say in a large assembly, that there was not an honest man to be found in it, and an individual desired to be heard, could he be allowed to refuse him, by saying he must then hear them all? Certainly he must in that case hear them all, whatever might be their numbers from the generality of the charge.

The Earl of Darnley

said, that, in his opinion, the arguments adduced by the noble lords opposite, were completely refuted by the spirited and argumentative speech of his noble friend (earl Grey). The petition was couched in respectful language; it distinctly stated that the committee had received, from some quarter or other, evidence that was not true; and it called for an inquiry into all the circumstances. In what a situation, then, would the committee be placed, if, after this was alleged, their lordships should reject the petition! The petitioner stated that they were ready, and able, and willing to prove, on oath, at the bar of the House, that the report of the secret committee, as far as it related to the Union Society, and the ramifications of that society, had not any foundation in fact. When a report was presented, on which measures might be founded hostile to the liberty of the subject—measures that might go to deprive the petitioner of liberty—was it not proper that he should come forward, and, in respectful language, declare, that he was ready to be heard at the bar, on oath, and to point out those fallacies on which the committee had proceeded? His noble friend had justly observed, that it was most important, at the present moment, that the legislature should show a particular willingness to redress grievances; and he called on their lordships, for the sake of the people of England, for the sake of justice, for the sake of their own purity of character, to receive this petition. Whatever feeling their lordships might entertain of the magnitude of the danger that threatened the country, from dissatisfaction and discontent, of this he was sure, that parliament in adopting measures on this occasion could not proceed with too much caution. They ought to prove, that while, on the one hand, they were determined to enforce the law, they were, on the other, most anxious, by every means in their power, to protect the liberties of the people. "If," said his lordship, "you reject this petition, I confidently assert, that you will not do justice to the people of this country—that you will not do justice to yourselves."

Earl Grey

observed, that it appeared to some noble lords as if there was no distinction to be made between the committee of their lordships House and the evidence that was produced before that committee. In his contemplation, there was a very manifest distinction, and on that distinction the petitioner seemed to ground his respectful application. He did not arraign the proceedings of the committee, but he offered to contradict the evidence it had examined. His petition alleged, that he has himself been misrepresented; and thus aggrieved, what other means were left him to defend himself from the injury, but the very course he has pursued? Against this course the learned lord on the woolsack has met the petitioner with, a new point of form, which he would contend had no foundation in any former precedent of their lordships' House. The question itself was of such serious importance, that he could not help pressing it upon the deliberative judgment and calm consideration of the House. As to the argument, he could have no doubt where it rested; but knowing how often the majority of their lordships, as to the extent and validity of the conviction that he entertained, differed from him, he begged them, as they valued the good opinion which that House wished to hold with the country, to consider how it might be affected by the rejection of the present petition. They surely ought not, in times like these, to shut their ears against the prayers of the subject, or refuse to receive information calculated to throw a new light on the report of a committee, on the truth and effect of which report they were most probably to be that night called upon to adopt measures the most important to the welfare of the nation. Under the impression that he felt on the subject, he was anxious to proceed in the best way that the forms of the House would allow. He would therefore, propose to move as an amendment, that this debate be adjourned for a short time, in order that the matter may be referred to a committee of privileges, with instructions to search for precedents, and to report whether there was any instance of a petition similar to the present being rejected on the ground of reference to proceedings of that House, of which the petitioner ought to have no knowledge. With this view, he moved that the debate be adjourned until Friday next.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he felt the strongest disposition to treat every petition which might be offered with the greatest indulgence. Were there any ground for doubt, he should be disposed to hesitate before he rejected the present petition; but he saw no ground for any inquiry of the kind the noble lord had proposed. Not a word had been said to show that the petition was such a one as ought now to be received, or that any similar petition had ever been admitted to their lordships' table. It advanced assertions which the individual from whom it came had no means of proving. It inferred that certain measures were to be adopted of which he could know nothing. It had been said by the noble lords on the other side, that petitions against bills were equally objectionable; but this was not the fact, as the usage of parliament had decided the question with respect to the right of petitioning against them. With respect to the Irish propositions, to which a noble earl had referred, they afforded as little authority for the opinion which had been maintained. Those propositions in- volved measures affecting the interest of great bodies of people; and they were printed for the purpose of giving the persons interested an opportunity of considering them, and petitioning against them, if they should think fit. On comparing the statements of the present petition and, the prayer, it appears, that the inducement of the individual to come forward, is a desire that he may be heard, in order to prevent the adoption of measures similar to those of 1795, and which he conceives the legislature has now in view. That this is the object of the petitioner is to be inferred from the context: he prays to be heard, because he supposes that certain measures, similar to those of a former period, may be in contemplation. Whether such measures are to be proposed or not it is impossible for him to know; and to what a state would their lordships be reduced, were they to permit individuals to come forward with petitions, not merely against measures before the House, but against measures which the petitioners apprehend may be introduced: their lordships must perceive to what an inconvenient extent such a principle as this might be carried. Every individual in the country who apprehended that any measure affecting himself, or the public in general, might at some time or another be introduced into that House, would have the right of appearing at the bar with his petition. The noble earl had not been able to refer to any instance of a similar petition being received; and he considered that a sufficient reason for rejecting it, as well as for not acceding to the proposed adjournment.

Lord Holland

contended, that the noble earl had entirely failed in supporting the distinction that he had attempted to draw between the present case and that of the precedent of the Irish propositions. All former reports of the committee were not, according to the forms of parliament, promulgated; they were as much secret as the present report, to which the petitioner had adverted. Yet the table of that House was crowded with petitions. A noble duke had taken another and a better ground for rejection. But did the fact correspond with the objection? The present petition was, in no way, in his opinion, objectionable, as to the language in which it was couched. There were, as he understood, but two grounds on which the petitions of the subject could be refused; either when what was asked was out of the cognizance of the House to grant, or when it was stated in disrespectful language. Neither of these objections could be urged against the petitioner, and in every view of the subject he must say, that the House would evince a great appetite for the refusal of petitions, should it reject the present, without at least investigating those precedents, on which very precedents, those who opposed its reception, ventured to ground their hostility.

Earl Fitzwilliam.

—As I had the honour of being a member of that committee of secrecy, whose report has been presented to this House, I feel solicitous to give my opinion on the subject of this petition. To that report, I assented, from the nature of the evidence that was before the committee. That evidence has been contradicted by the petition, both in point of fact and time; and therefore I should be exceedingly sorry that a petition containing such allegations should not be received. At all events I feel it a duty most seriously to press upon the consideration of the House the propriety of adopting the amendment of my noble friend.

The House divided on the amendment, when the numbers were—Contents, 18; Not-contents, 641.—Majority against the Amendment 46. The motion for laying the petition on the table was then put and negatived.

List of the Minority.
DUKES. Lauderdale
Sussex Rosslyn.
Somerset. VISCOUNT.
MARQUESS. Torrington.
Wellesley. LORDS.
EARLS. Auckland
Darnley Erskine
Derby Foley
Essex Holland
Fitzwilliam Say and Sele
Grey St. John.
Grosvenor