し adopt such a plan of effectual reform in the representation of the Commons in parliament, and of the duration of the same, as to their wisdom shall seem proper." Mr. Duncombe stated, that although he presented this petition, he did not approve of the manner in which it had been worded he had said so to those who desired him to present it, but they were determined it should be presented, and he did so in compliance with their wishes. He said he had presented several petitions for a parliamentary reform; and to a temperate reform he had always been, and still was, a friend, but he would not go the length which seemed to be the object of this petition-a representation from population alone. We had too much reason to dissent from such a plan, from the confusion and anarchy of France. But, however, as far as the words of this petition were to be considered, he begged leave to tell the House, that the petitioners were only manufacturers, and not very well acquainted with the language required for addressing the House, and that circumstance he trusted would be an extenuation of their fault. He then moved, "That the said petition be brought up.” Mr. Ryder opposed the bringing up of the petition, on the ground that it was not worded in a manner sufficiently respectful to that House, and that they could not, consistently with their own dignity, receive it. Mr. Francis observed, that no hon. gentleman had pointed out any one disrespectful expression contained in the petition. It had been said, that the prayer was not objected to; but how was it possible to pray for a reform in the representation of the people in parliament, without using terms in the body of the petition, which might be construed, by ingenious men, into disrespect for the House? In his opinion, it would be but fair in gentlemen to state the passages which appeared to them so highly objectionable. Mr. Ryder explained, that his objection did not go to the prayer of the petition; but it appeared to him, that what was said by the petitioners, in the beginning of the petition that that House was not in fact, what they were obliged, in form, to term them, was so highly disrespectful to the House, that they would altogether lose sight of what was due to their own dignity, if they should allow the petition to be brought up. Mr. Grey said, he had hoped that the hon. gentleman would not have confined himself to the general objection which he had mentioned, but would have pointed out some specific expressions, particularly indecent and disrespectful to the House. The petition from Nottingham had been alluded to, and it had been said that, if no difference could be shown between that petition and it, the present ought to share the same fate that it had done. He, for one, did certainly think that the Nottingham petition ought to have been received; but, on the supposition that the rejection of that petition had been right, it was surely incumbent on those who, on the ground of that precedent, opposed the present petition, to point out the particular expressions in it, which are similar to those which had been supposed objectionable in the Nottingham petition. He could see nothing disrespectful in this petition-nothing for which he thought it necessary to state an extenuation. Ifany thing contained in it should be so construed, and the petition, on that account, rejected, gentlemen might say, as they pleased, that the people had a right to petition for a reform of the representation in parliament; but they would deny to them, in the same breath, the power of exercising such right. Did he conceive that the House of Commons was at this moment, in a just sense of the word, a proper representation of the people in parliament, he would not certainly bring forward that motion, of which he had given notice. Had the petitioners been of that opinion, they would not have petitioned the House. With what decency could hon. gentlemen say, that those sentiments and expressions were indecent and disrespectful to that House, which they themselves had, over and over again, expressed to their constituents? The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Pitt) had done so; a noble duke (Richmond) had done so also. Petitions, too, for the same purpose with the present, and couched in language no less strong, had been on former occasions presented and received by the House. Were they then to tell the people, that, instead of acting upon one uniform rule of right and justice, they were to be regulated by whim, or by what might be convenient at the time, to the interest of certain persons? Nothing was so essential to the procuring respect to that House, as consistency in its proceedings and nothing could be so derogatory to its dig nity, as to encourage the people to state fairly their grievances, and then, when they did come forward with a fair statement, to turn short round upon them, and refuse to receive their petitions, upon a little inaccuracy of expression. He must therefore give his vote for receiving the petition. Mr. Wilberforce said, that it appeared to him that the hon. gentleman had confounded two things which were perfectly distinct; and upon that very distinction he grounded his sentiments with respect to this petition. The hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, that the petitioners must have a right to state in their petition whatever he might speak in his place in the House, and in the same terms. To this doctrine it was impossible for him to subscribe. Liberty of speech and freedom of discussion in that House, formed an essential part of the constitution; but it was necessary that persons coming forward as petitioners, should address the House in decent and respectful language. In saying this, he stood up, not for the dignity of the House only, but for that of the whole Commons of Great Britain. Those who wished that any respect should be paid to that House, were called upon to give the most determined opposition to what rather seemed to be a systematic design of presenting petitions to the House, couched in the most indecent and disrespectful language, for the purpose of trying how far they would bear with such insults, and perhaps even with the view of their being rejected. This, he conceived, was not more injurious to the House than to all those who wished for a moderate reform; for what could tend more to confound those who aimed at reform of any kind, with those who wished to upset the constitution and with the people who were commonly called jacobins? Though member for the county from whence the petition came, he thought it so highly indecent and disrespectful to the House, that he felt he could not do otherwise than vote against its being received. expressions of disrespect in it. The petition had been said to come from ignorant tradesmen; if so, polished language was hardly to be expected; but why did not the hon. gentleman and his colleague advise them to soften any expression which seemed to them improper? He must conclude they had not done so, because they wished the petition to be rejected. Mr. Fox said, that on a subject of this kind, he could not consent to give a silent vote. If the question was at that moment, whether the prayer of the petition should be granted, he would not hesitate to say that he would give it the most direct and unqualified negative; for, however he might have been misrepresented out of doors, there was not in the kingdom a more steady and decided enemy to general and universal representation, than himself. But as the question was not at present that the House should comply with the prayer, but merely that it should receive the petition, his vote should be of a very different kind; for he must strongly support the motion for bringing it up. He did not deny that the House might with propriety reject a petition, on account of disrespectful language, but he never remembered more than one, which in his opinion ought to have been rejected on such an account, if it had been in the power of the House to reject it; and that was the petition presented, by Mr. Horne Tooke, against the last election for the city of Westminster.* But as it was a petition complaining of an undue election, the House had no discretionary power, for it was obliged by law to receive it. Under any other circumstances, a petition containing similar language ought to be rejected, because the language was not used for the purpose of supporting the prayer; but the prayer was made solely for the purpose of affording the petitioner an opportunity to libel the House of Commons. Mr. Fox said, that the rule which governed his conduct as to the admission or rejection of petitions was this; if the introductory matter was irrelevant to the Mr. Lambton said, that any diffidence prayer, he thought the petition ought to which the petitioners might have expressed be received, although the language might as to the hon. gentleman who spoke last, be offensive in which that matter was enor his colleague, presenting their petition, forced; but if the introductory matter was he must presume to have been rather the irrelevant to the prayer, and conveyed effect of their total silence last year, with insult or libel, he in that case would not respect to the subject of it, than from any hesitate to vote for its rejection. Withidea of its containing expressions disre-out such a distinction as this, he did not spectful to the House. He wished that the hon. gentleman would point out any * See Vol. 28, p. 921. see how a petition for a reform in parlia- | the most fatal consequences to the public ment could ever be admitted; for it must peace.-Mr. Fox said, he did not mean state that the House was not pure, or to adopt the the learned lord's doctrine to that it was corrupt, or that it did not fully its utmost extent, for he believed it was represent the people. If these assertions too far strained; but he quoted it to were not true, there could be no ground for show, that in the opinion of a person now an application for reform, and if petitions high in his majesty's counsels, the right containing them were to be rejected, be- of petitioning was so sacred, that it was cause such assertions attacked the charac- not to be defeated under the pretence ter or the authority of the House, then there that it was not exercised in this or that was an end of all hope of reform; and, what form, or with this or that degree of rewas more, there was an end of the right of spect.. Applying this doctrine to the the subject to petition; for if to state his present case, he said the petition ought grievance was a libel, the more real that not to be rejected, even though it should grievance, the less he must venture to state in the most unqualified terms, deny the it, and consequently it must remain unre- House to be the genuine representative of dressed. In the opinion of some men, the the people for if there was a defect in the right of the subject to petition was so sa- representation, if any who ought to be cred, that nothing contained in the peti- represented were unrepresented, the fact tion could warrant the rejection of it. He could not be stated without its being remembered particularly that a noble and stated at the same time, that the House learned lord, now holding the high office did not fully represent the people; withof chancellor (lord Loughborough), as- out making this out, there could be no serted many years ago in the House of ground for a reform; and if it was asCommons, that so extensive and absolute serted and made out, then the House, was the power, and so undeniable the according to the doctrines which he had right of the subject to petition King, that day heard, must reject the application Lords, and Commons that however offen- as disrespectful: this surely, would be an sive or even treasonable the matter of it absurdity of the grossest kind, and the might be, neither could the petition be admission of such a principle was the rejected, nor the parties presenting it be more fatal, as it necessarily perpetuated tried or punished for the contents. This abuses, and rendered a redress of grievargument was maintained on an occasion ances impossible.-As he had never seen when the learned lord to whom he had al- the petition which was now the subject of luded, was defending the famous remon- discussion, he could not say decidedly strance of the city of London to the king,* that there were no objectionable parts in in which his majesty was prayed to dissolve it; but if the objection was limited to the his then parliament: the remonstrance first part of the petition, he was so far went so far as to state, that the House from thinking it disrespectful, that he of Commons, by its decision in the case of thought it absolutely necessary, in support the Middlesex election, had forfeited all of the prayer of the petition, for the petipower and authority, that its acts were not tioners to state, that the House of Comvalid, and that the subjects were not bound mons is not virtually, and, in the just to obey them; this was striking at the sense of the word, the true representative root of all order and government; and of the people of England. It had been yet the learned lord had defended the re- said, that there was a material distinction monstrance on this ground, that the sub- between the language which might be ject having a right to petition for a parti- spoken in the course of debate in that cular object, he must have a right to urge House, and the language which was proper every thing relative to that object; and and decent to be made use of in petitions. as the object in this case was to procure It had been said, that freedom of speech a dissolution of parliament, the city of was an essential part of the constitution. London was warranted in saying that it But was not the freedom of petitioning ought to be dissolved, because it had equally so? And, if so, might not peticeased, in the opinion of the city, to be a tioners state their grievances in strong legal parliament, and to keep it sitting terms? He could not see with what proand making acts which the people were priety this petition could be rejected, not bound to obey, must be productive of unless they were to say that they would reject all petitions praying for universal personal representation; for his part, he * See Vol. 16, p. 874. 783] 33 GEORGE III. Debate in the Commons on the would not refuse to admit them, because | [784 echoed from every part of the kingdom, Mr. Secretary Dundas conceived the petition. Mr. Sheridan said, that the Nottingham petition was much stronger than the present. He suspected that the objection to the roughness of the language was not the real cause why this petition was opposed; he was confirmed in this opinion, by a recollection of the conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer, at the time of presenting the Nottingham petition. Whether the petition could have been better worded to please some hon. members was foreign from the present subject; but for the petitioners to have expressed their thoughts better was impossible. They said that the House of Commons was not, in the just sense of the words, what they were, from form, obliged to term it-the Commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled. Would the right hon. gentleman say it was? These things considered, in his opinion, there was not a more respectful style to be adopted, consistently with the spirit of the petition, the nature of the grievance it complained of, and the remedy it called for. The language of the petition was correct; and he would ask those who objected to it, to prove it was not true; the fact was, that they felt sincerely the truth of it. 29 108 Motion for bringing up a printed Peti tion from Norwich.] May 6. Petitions for a Reform in Parliament were this day presented from Westminster, Suffolk, Poole, the parish of Aldgate, Warwick, Huddersfield, Dundee, Paisley, Montrose, Kilmarnock, Kirkaldy, Newmilns, Perth, Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Irvine, Stratharen, Galston, Roxborough, Linlithgow, Anstruther, and Nottingham. Mr. Hobart stated, that he held in his hand a petition for parliamentary reform signed by upwards of 3,700 inhabitants of the city of Norwich; but he doubted whether it could be received as the names were subscribed to a printed copy of the petition, in breach of the orders of the House.-On the motion, that the said petition be brought up, Mr. Bouverie said, he always had been for receiving petitions, but not for insulting that House. The petitioners in this case had only stated a grievance, which ought in his opinion to be attended to. Perhaps it might have been more properly" worded; but he did not see any thing to induce him to vote for its rejection. Mr. Pitt said, that when the question came to be agitated, he should submit to the House his reasons why he thought that a parliamentary reform, in whatever shape it might come, should be opposed at the present time. The question before the House was, whether the petition presented to them was such as they ought to receive, and whether it did not contain matter of evident disrespect to the House? The expressions which had been complained of were clearly unnecessarily introduced; and that of itself appeared to him to be a reason for thinking that the disrespect was intentional. He should therefore oppose the bringing up of this petition. The Speaker stated, that on the 23d of September 1656, the House resolved, That no private petition, to be directed to the parliament, be printed before the same be read in the House;" and on the 1st of December in the same year, the House ordered, "That the order against printing private petitions before they are presented to this House, be duly ob served: and that the serjeant attending this House shall seize upon such printed petitions, in the hands of any person that shall deliver or disperse the same." He thought it right to call the attention of the House to the time at which the order was made, being during the usurpation of Cromwell, and also to this circumstance, that it was not in the form of a standing order; but he added, at the same time, that it had been the practice and rule of the House to decline receiving any peti tion, either private or public, that had Mr. Whitbread saw no reason for re- been previously printed; at least he bejecting this petition. The petitioners al-lieved, and had been informed, that no lowed that the present House had the power to proceed to the redress of the grievances complained of, by originating a bill for that purpose. The petitioners had a right to address that House, and in the language of the present petition; for if the grievance was not to be stated, the remedy could not be applied. On the question, That the said petition be brought up, the House divided: [VOL. XXX.] printed petition had ever been received. Mr. Burke said, it seemed to deserve much consideration whether the House would do right in receiving a petition which had been circulated in print for the purpose of influencing the country, and only came there in the second instance, particularly when it was contrary to practice so to do: for he would not rest much on the order. |