§ Lord Lynedochpresented a Petition in favour of Reform in Parliament, from the Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Perth, in county meeting assembled. In presenting this petition, he felt it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to another petition, which was incorrectly said to be that of the county of Perth, and which had been intrusted to his noble friend (the Earl of Kinnoul). That petition was against a Reform in Parliament, and had been hawked about for signatures from mansion to mansion in Perthshire. Their Lordships no doubt recollected, that, during the last Session of Parliament, the word "reaction" had been plentifully used. It had travelled down to Scotland, and meetings were held by the Anti-reformers in consequence, in order to get up petitions. Upon one occasion, he wished to attend such a meeting, and found he could not be permitted to enter, without a card of invitation. This was a secure method of obtaining unanimity, and, of course, the petitions submitted to such meetings were agreed to without a dissentient voice. The Anti-reformers of Perth had pursued the same prudent method, and had contented themselves with publishing their petition in the provincial papers, inviting signatures, and endeavouring to procure them by all sorts of means and influence. The number of signatures was certainly, by such means, very much increased. That the present system of Representation in Scotland did not truly represent the feelings and interest of the inhabitants, must be evident, when he stated that, in the county of Perth, there were not more than 230 freeholders. Under those circumstances, the inhabitants of that county, in common with the other inhabitants of Scotland, were decidedly of opinion that the Reform Bill would be a boon of inestimable value to the people of Scotland, 830 inasmuch as it would create among them that which did not exist at present—he meant an independent yeomanry, such as was the pride of every county of England. They were indignant that this Anti-reform petition should go forth to the world as a document embodying their sentiments. They therefore called a public meeting of the county, which was held on the Links of Perth, and which was attended by upwards of 25,000 persons. The petition which he had then the honour to present was agreed upon at that meeting, and received in a few days afterwards upwards of 27,000 signatures. It had been stated in the Morning Chronicle, that if the late Duke of Athol had been alive, no such meeting as that of which he had just spoken would have taken place, inasmuch as he exercised feudal influence over Perth, and would have exerted it to prevent such a meeting. Now he for one would deny that his late illustrious friend exercised any feudal influence in Perth. Influence he had there undoubtedly, but it was influence which he had fairly earned by his assiduous attention to the business of the county. It was true that his late illustrious friend was a true Tory in principle; but then he was one of those Tories who felt themselves bound, as the King's friends, to support the King's Government. There was, therefore, every presumption that, had the life of the Duke of Athol been spared, he would, as one of the King's friends, have supported the King's Government on this question. The noble Baron concluded, by expressing a wish, that when his noble friend (Earl Kinnoul) should present the Anti-reform petition from the county of Perth, their Lordships would recollect the statement which he had just made, and if they did so, they would receive its allegations with the greatest caution. He then moved, that the petition be read, at length.
The Earl of Mansfielddenied, that this petition emanated from a meeting of the county of Perth, properly convened. He admitted, that it was numerously signed, but it was signed by the inhabitants of Perthshire only, male and female, for he had been assured that a number of women attended the meeting, and had actually signed the petition. It must therefore be taken for the petition of those who had signed it, and not as the expression of the feelings of the freeholders and Commissioners of Supply, representing the properly of the county. He could not help designating the animadversions which the 831 noble Lord had made on the Anti-reform petition from Perthshire, as premature, knowing, as he did, that that petition had not yet been presented. He had read the petition, which was worded respectfully, to their Lordships; but he was sorry to say, that the language of some of the speakers at the meeting at which it was agreed to was of the most inflammatory description. A freeholder of Perthshire who was a candidate for the Representation of Perth, supposing that town to gain the right of sending Representatives to Parliament under the Reform Bill, had, if he was to trust the public journals, addressed the meeting in the following terms:—"I would advise you to cast away the wen that is on your neck—I mean the Bishops." The gentleman who used that language lived in a remote and distant part of the country. He might, therefore, not have heard, that a recommendation had been given to cure that faction by the infusion of a great many new Peers among the old ones; he might not have heard that a majority of the Peers of Parliament were deemed by a Minister of the Crown a mere faction—he might not have heard that such language had come from a person sitting on the reverend bench, or if he had heard of such language, it might have made him alter his opinions as to the propriety of casting away the wen that was on their necks. He was happy, however, to say, that the language of abuse against that respectable bench would be met here with greater indignation even than the vituperation which was lavished upon themselves, and which he knew their Lordships were prepared to meet with silent contempt. He felt it to be his duty to volunteer these remarks in the absence of his noble friend, Lord Kinnoul, the Lord-lieutenant of the county.
§ Lord Lynedochdenied, that any such language had been used at this meeting by the gentleman in question. He had never heard of the circumstance before. As he was on his legs, he would mention a fact which would show how strong the feeling in favour of Reform was in Perthshire. At the time that their Lordships were discussing the question, whether the Reform Bill should be read a second time, a great number of weavers assembled every day at Perth to see the mail come in from the south, and to learn the intelligence which it brought. After the news came down, that the Bill was rejected, they stopped the mail to know whether there had been any 832 disturbances in London. The guard, who was determined to hoax them, replied in the affirmative, and said, that the Duke of Wellington and another illustrious individual had been shot by the mob. This intelligence, which ought to have excited general disgust and indignation, was hailed with satisfaction by the assembled multitude, and in the vehemence of their indignation against the rejectors of the Reform Bill, they so far forgot the humanity of their natures as to go to a noble and gallant friend of his, and ask him whether they ought not to celebrate the fate of the Duke of Wellington and his colleague by a general illumination.
§ The Earl of Eldonwas inclined to meet this petition, and indeed every other petition, with respect. The noble Baron, however, had given one of the strangest reasons in the world for paying greater attention than ordinary to the statements of these petitioners: for he had told their Lordships that they were in a state of great misery, because two illustrious individuals had not been murdered in London. But were these reformers at Perth the only reformers who used such language? No such thing. What did the reformers at Manchester say in their public speeches? They said that, instead of justice being done upon the individuals, who, at Bristol and Nottingham, had been convicted of the most enormous crimes, the Government ought to hang up his excellent friend, Sir Charles Wetherell, and the twelve Judges. But was even this all that the reformers of Manchester said? No: they told the country that if the King and the Parliament did not legislate as they pleased, they must take upon themselves the duty of legislating for the country. He did not know whether the King's Attorney General had made any inquiries as to whether such speeches as were printed in the newspapers, as coming from the reformers at Manchester, had been uttered or not. If he had made such inquiries, and had found that such speeches had been delivered, he had not done his duty if he had not instituted proceedings against those who dealt in such inflammatory and seditious language.
§ Petition to be printed.