Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

soner has submitted to the House." Another thing that shewed the usage not so general was, that different gentlemen did not agree among each other as to the forms of the practice-as whether the petition should simply express sorrow; or also confess guilt, and acknowledge the justice of the punishment. One right hon. gent. had denied that the punishment was sufficiently severe. This was a part of the cause not to be argued upon-it was matter of feeling. He had also been charged with sophism, and a blow had been given by anticipation to bills now pending, and in the success of which he acknowledged he felt a lively interest. The principle on which they had been founded was said to be a sophism, but he felt consoled by the assurance that whatever were their merits the House would not prejudge them. But it had been said that the punishment for contumacy was a punishment for an offence in addition to the first, and that it was in Mr. Jones's power to terminate that punishment.There was a law once very prevalent in different parts of the continent, and he believed now existing in some countries, that no malefactor condemned for a capital of fence should be executed before he had confessed his crime, and this confession was extorted by the torture of the rack. The cases of Clavering and Sandon had been much relied upon, but they really appear. ed as cases that ought to have been cited in order to shew the injustice of such a rule. Sandon was committed for prevarication of a very gross and wanton nature -the other was committed for prevarication by no means so aggravated. Sandon sent in an abject petition, acknowledging his guilt, and was forthwith discharged; the other continued a prisoner the whole of the sessions, rather than say that he was conscious of prevarication. He might indeed plead confusion of understanding, and so far comparatively redeem his character. It had been said, that the punishment was, after all, limited, as he must be enlarged at the end of the sessions; but this meant rather that their power was limited, not the punishment, for the King was not bound to prorogue a Parliament, and thus the liberty of the subject was transferred to the power of the crown, and was that a state in which the criminal jurisdiction of that House ought to remain? He concluded by a solemn declaration, that if he were in the situation of Mr. John Gate Jones, he would sacrifice

his liberty, highly as he valued it, before he would consent to purchase it by a pitiful retractation of his real sentiments, compromising his character, and violating his integrity.

The House then divided on the motion, for the enlargement of Mr. Gale Jones. Ayes 112-Noes 160-Majority 48.

[BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.] Mr. Wallace wished to state to the House a fact which had just come to his knowledge since he complained to the House respecting the misrepresentation of a speech of an hon. bart. Subsequent to the publication of the speech of the hon. baronet opposite, he understood an apology had been sent highly creditable to the editor of the paper in which it appeared.

Sir J. Anstruther wished it to be understood, that he had not caused in any way the subject to be brought forward. He did not know that it was the intention of the hon. gent. to take up the subject, or he would have desired him to give up his design, and let it alone. He first knew of the offence from the receipt of the apology.

Mr. Wallace confirmed the statement of the right hon. baronet, as to his being wholly unacquainted with his intentions.-[Here the conversation ended.]

HOUSE Of Lords.

Tuesday, April 17.

[CRUELTY TO ANIMALS' BILL.-Lord Erskine presented a Bill for the more effectually preventing malicious and wanton cruelty to animals, which he observed was the same as the bill which was before the House last session, when it was sent to the other House, with the addition of a clause which he had framed in order to obviate an objection made to the former bill, that a man might be liable, at the caprice of a magistrate, to all the punishments imposed by the Bill, for a mere act of sudden passion. This objection had no foundation whatever in law, but in order to prevent any obstacle to the progress of the bill arising from it, he had framed a clause, enacting that malicious and wanton cruelty should be expressly charged in the indictment on information, and which must be of course proved before the party could be convicted.The bill was read a first time and ordered to be printed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, April 17. [WESTMINSTER PETITION FOR THE RE

LEASE OF SIR F. BURDETT.] Lord Coch-representation of the people into your serane presented a Petition from a Meeting rious consideration; a reform in which, is of the Electors of Westminster, held this in our opinion, the only means of preday in Palace-yard.-The Petition was serving the country from military desread by the clerk, of which the following is potism." a copy :

Lord Cochrane then moved, "That the Petition should lie on the table."

The Hon. J. W. Ward opposed the mo tion. He conceived, that if the House should accede to such a proposition, it would submit to the grossest violation of

"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. "The Petition and Remonstrance of the Inhabitant Householders, Elec-its dignity. He hoped that the House tors of the City and Liberties of West- would evince its repugnance to any attack minster, assembled in New-Palace- upon its privileges, and unanimously reYard, the 17th of April, 1810, by ject this petition. the appointment of Arthur Morris, esq. the high bailiff, in pursuance of a requisition for that purpose.

"We, the inhabitant householders, electors of the city and liberties of Westminster, feel most sensibly the indignity offered to this city, in the person of our beloved representative, whose Letter to us has fallen under the censure of your honourable House, but which, so far from deserving that censure, ought, in our opinion, to have led your honourable House to reconsider the subject, which he had so ably, legally, and constitutionally discussed.

"We are convinced that no one ought to be prosecutor and juror, judge and executioner, in his own cause, much less to assume, accumulate, and exercise all these offices, in his own person.

"We are also convinced that the refusal of your honourable House to inquire into the conduct of lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval, (then two of his Majesty's ministers) when distinctly charged with the sale of a seat in your honourable House, evidence of which was offered at the bar, by a member of your honourable House; and the avowal in your honourable House, "that such practices were as notorious as the sun at noon day" practices, at the bare mention of which the Speaker of your honourable House declared that our ancestors would have started with indignation," and the committal of sir Francis Burdett to prison, enforced by military power; are circumstances which render evident the imperious necessity of an immediate Reform in the Representation of the people.

"We, therefore most earnestly call upon your honourable House to restore to us our Representative, and, according to the notice he has given, to take the state of the

Mr. Creevey could not see any objection to the Petition being laid on the table.

Mr. Curwen considered the language of the petition highly indecent; and sug gested to the noble lord the propriety of withdrawing it, for the purpose of preparing and presenting one of a more decorous kind, if the object of the petitioners really was to promote the cause of reform. He hoped the House would give the noble lord this opportunity, if he chose to avail himself of it.

Mr. Lushington adverted to the petition of Mr. Horne Tooke, stating that seats were sold in that House like stalls for cattle in a market. This petition was received, because it related to an election, though the style of it was thought highly offensive. But that petition, it was to be observed, was not entitled A Remonstrance. Mr. Whitbread wished the petition to be read again.

It was read again accordingly.

Mr. Whitbread was sorry that he must differ from the opinion of his two friends near him, and wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his opinion, whether or not he thought the petition should be received. He should have been better pleased if the terms of the petition had been a little more softened; but if the House rejected it, such as it was, it would do one of the most violent things that a House of Commons had ever done. The meeting from which it came had been legally constituted, every thing had been conducted in the most orderly manner as he was informed, and the peti tion was signed by the high bailiff. The word "remonstrance," in the title, had been objected to. Whether there were precedents of petitions with the addition of that word, he did not know; but it was well known, that whenever a grievance was complained of, a remonstrance was, in

fact, made, and the word was often used in petitions and addresses to the crown. So that it could not be said, that the word was inconsistent with the dignity of the House. The petitioners unquestionably spoke of the indignity offered to the city of Westminster in the person of their representative. This, however, did not necessarily refer to the conduct of the House, but to that of its officers, and those with whom they consulted. They remonstrated against the violence that had been offered to their representative, and affirmed that he had ably and constitutionally argued the question of the right of the House to imprison. They certainly had a right to express their opinion upon this matter he himself had in that House contended that sir F. Burdett had done nothing illegal in the course of that Argument. He would, if called upon, give the same opinion out of the House; and this, he apprehended, could not reasonably be construed into any disrespect to the House. -As to the reference to the charge against lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval, for trafficking in seats in that House, this was regularly brought to their notice by the voses and journals of the House. They had a right to express their opinion upon that transaction, and the opinion they had expressed was not different from his and that of many others. They had also adverted to expressions which had fallen from members in that House, which, perhaps, might be somewhat irregular, as they could hardly have got at them through any privileged channel. But surely it could not well be deemed an impropriety to refer to the words which had fallen from the Speaker words which had come so fully and accurately before the public, and which had been received with so much satisfaction. They then prayed for the release of their representative. They questioned the right of the House, to imprison in cases of libel, where the defendant had not the means of repelling the charge afforded by the ordinary legal forms. It was not for him to enter into that point then; but upon it many differed from the decision of the House, and the petitioners had a right to give their opinion. The effect of the warrant, too, was a subject upon which they had a fair right to express an opinion. Was it surprising that they should wish for a reform of the House of Commons, and should be anxious for the release of its ablest champion: They had not charged the House

with the indignity offered to the city of Westminster by his seizure. They rather seemed to attribute it to the Serjeant at Arms and his advisers, who had evinced a disposition to support themselves with the military instead of the civil power, and he knew that the civil power had not been called out till the military went out along with it.-As to the petition of Mr. Horne Tooke, stating that seats were sold in that House like stalls for cattle in a market, that petition had been laid upon the table, and properly. Why? the allegation was true. Seats in that House had been sold like stalls for cattle in a market. If the House thought its dignity wounded by being charged with the practice, why not put an end to it? How could the House reasonably call it an insult to be told of the traffic in seats by Mr. Perceval and lord Castlereagh, unless it could justly aver that the charge was unfounded? We loved the treason, it appeared, though we could not bear to be called traitors. Look, said Mr. Whitbread, at the former petitions presented on this very subject of reform. You will find that previous questions had been moved upon them; but when was it refused to lay them on the table? I adverted on a former occasion to a magnificent expression of your's (the Speaker) "That the doors of that House were always wide open to petitions.”—But if this petition be rejected without even allowing it to be laid on the table, I doubt it will be hereafter said, that the doors of the House are closed against petitions.The composition of the petition was perhaps liable to some objection; but be did not think that this was to be examined so very closely in cases of petition. However sorry he was to differ from his two friends behind him, he should consider himself as having done a great injury to the subjects of this country, if he were not to vote with the noble lord for laying the petition on the table. He hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Brand) would not neglect to take up that part of it which related to a reform of the House, because the country not only desired it, but the House had need of it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer entered fully into the feelings of the hon. gentlemen who objected to the laying this petition on the table. Yet in a case of petition, he would rather err on the side of indulgence than on the side of severity, if the question could at all admit of a doubt. They had on the journals strong instances

[ocr errors]

of forbearance with respect to petitions. For instance, the language of the petition of Mr. Horne Tooke had been generally reprobated, but still the House had shewn a disposition to overlook the language, and to regard the substance and object of the petition. This had been the principle upon which the House had acted. At the first reading of the petition, the word indignity" had sounded rather harsh in his ears; and if one were disposed to be captious or even very strict, the expressions, that the House had better not have censured the hon. baronet, but ought to reverse its decision, might very justifiably be made a ground of objection to the petition.-But still it could not be denied that they had a right to petition that House to reconsider its decision. They had the right also to petition for reform, and in petitions of this kind the House had usually exercised a great deal of forbearance. Whether he was right or wrong in the opinion, that the petition ought to be laid on the table, he trusted there had been nothing in his conduct throughout, that could afford room for syspicion, that, if he had thought the petitions ought to be Rejected, he would have hesitated to have said so. But upon the principle on which the House appeared uniformly to have acted, it would rather be disposed to excuse even some intemperance of language in such petitions. As to the word Remonstrance in the title, he was almost ashamed to declare, that he did not know whether there were any precedents in point. He, however, rather imagined there were. But at any rate the word remonstrance was often used in petitions to the crown, and was always in substance contained in petitions complaining of grievances. If the House, however, should think, that this petition was intended merely as a vehicle of abuse, it ought undoubtedly to reject it: but if there were reasonable ground to doubt of its having been so intended, then by the principle, which had usually governed the House, the petition ought in his opinion to be allowed to lie on the table.

Mr. Ponsonby had read the Petition over three times, and from all the cousideration he had been able to give it, he did not think it contained any matter that ought to cause its rejection; if there were any thing in the wording of it, let the House hear the complaint on that subject, but do not let it, from any impropriety of this kind, interfere with the right of pe

titioning of the subject, so essential to them, and so necessary to enable the House to protect them. The right hon. gent. then proceeded to read the petition, paragraph by paragraph, and, by his comments to shew, that the opinion he had given on the subject-matter, was correct. As for the language, in some parts, he did not think it was what it ought to be, but still that was not a sufficient ground for rejecting the petition. Indeed it appeared to him impossible, that a petition against any proceeding of that House, could be so framed, as not to afford a bandle to some one to oppose its reception, could that be thought a sufficient ground.

Mr. Canning observed that, whilst his feelings were with the hon. gentlemen opposite, who opposed this petition, his reason and judgment were with his right hon. friend, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who was for receiving it. Upon the right however of the subject to petition, and in the opinions held by almost every one of the speakers who preceded him, that they ought to look more to the object than be scrupulous in examining the language of this petition, he pretty nearly concurred. As for the present retition, it was evidently framed so near the law, as to give an opportunity to those who preferred it, were it to be rejected, to come again before the House, with another and another, varying perhaps in minutiæ, but still so contrived as in the end to involve them in an intricate and unprofitable contest. The part of it which in his mind appeared to have most offence in it, was that in which they seemed to accuse the House of offering an indignity to a great body of the people.

With regard

Mr. W. Smith concurred in these sentiments, and congratulated the House on its return to moderation. He was happy to see that they had now got above the fear of being thought fearful. to the last sentence of the right hon. gent. who preceded him, he did not think that the construction of the petition warranted the assumption that the indignity was offered by the House; it might as well apply to the serjeant and officers of the House, in executing the duty imposed upon them.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that, even if the former was the construction, that would not warrant the House in the rejection of the petition.

The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

[SIR FRANCIS BURDETT'S NOTICE TO THE SPEAKER.] The Speaker stated to the House that he had received a further notice from sir Francis Burdett, of his intention to take proceedings against him. The notice was occasioned in consequence of an error which appeared in the former one with respect to the parish in which sir F. Burdett's house was.-The notice was then read, and it was word for word the same as the original notice, only varying the parish in which the illegal act was said to be committed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving that this paper be entered on the Journals, took occasion to observe that the present was a subject of very great importance. He wished gentlemen would turn in their minds the question, whether the transaction for which a process had been served upon the Speaker was not a proceeding within that House; and if so whether that process was not a direct violation of the Bill of Rights? Should that turn out to be the case, he would not anticipate the course which it might be necessary to pursue. He only mentioned the subject as one which deserved the serious consideration of every member of the House.

Mr. Whitbread allowed that this was a question of great importance, and he trusted it would experience the most calm and deliberate consideration. He should not have said a word upon it, had it not been that he could not permit the observations of the right hon. gent. with respect to the Bill of Rights to pass unnoticed. He conceived that the right hon. gent. had taken as erroneous a view of the Bill of Rights even as Mr. Yorke himself.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated that he had stated the question for the consideration of the House. It would be for them to determine whether the transaction to which he alluded was or was not a proceeding in the House. The Bill of Rights declared that not only speeches but proceedings in that House should be exempt from the interference now at tempted.

The Letter was then ordered to be entered on the Journals.

[EXPULSION OF MR. HUNT.] Mr. Cal craft, although the motion which he was about to make was of great importance, did not conceive that it would be necessary to detain the House long upon it. The motion was, "That Mr. Hunt, late

treasurer of the ordnance, be expelled that House." This was certainly proposing a great and grave punishment to be inflicted on the individual, but he was persuaded that those who considered the Twelfth Report of the commissioners of Military Inquiry

The Speaker here interrupted the hon. gent., to inquire of the Serjeant (in conformity to the usage of the House) whether the hon. gent. who had been ordered to attend, was actually in attendance ?

The Serjeant replying in the negative; the messenger who served the order of the House was called to the bar, and examined by the Speaker and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.-The substance of his statement was, that he had served the order at the Ordnance Office, that he could not discover Mr. Hunt's private residence, but that Mr. Crewe (the secretary) had told him that he supposed he was out of England.

Mr. Calcraft stated, that an hon. member had informed him that Mrs. Hunt was in town, and that she had lately received a letter from Mr. Hunt, dated Lisbon.

The Speaker asked, if the hon. gent. would answer for this being recorded.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the present motion was evidently premature; and suggested the propriety of sending another summons to Mr. Hunt, before they proceeded any farther. The House would do well to see, before they proceeded to the expulsion of a member, that all due formal, as well as substantial steps, were taken. He therefore recommended to the hon. gent. to postpone his motion till after the recess, by which time full inquiry, and far more effectual search might be made, and the House be enabled to proceed on satisfactory grounds.

Mr. Calcraft concurred in the propriety of this suggestion, and fixed on the first Thursday after the holidays for renewing his motion.

The Speaker then observed, that every thing done hitherto had been perfectly regular, and that they had only failed in bringing the matter to a point, from not having their order brought home to the member to whom it was directed. suggested that the order of the House ought to be renewed:-which was acqui

esced in.

He

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »