Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

exhibition. He hoped the ministers would act with the same energy on other occasions. He felt himself bound to support the present motion.

Sir James Shaw had but a few words to trouble the House with. After the very able manner in which his hon. colleague had opened the question, it would be a proof of bad taste in him to attempt to go over the same ground. He agreed with his hon. colleague in all he had said as to the general right of the subject to petition. The Common Hall was legally convened; it was presided over by the lord mayor, the assembly was most numerous and respectable, and he contended that the livery had a right to present their petitions to the king on the throne. On this account he conceived it to have been the duty of his Majesty's ministers to have advised his Majesty to receive it on the throne, and upon these grounds he should vote for the Resolution.

Mr. Secretary Ryder considered the worthy aldermen as led astray by their sympathy for the rights of the city. If he understood the motion, it was intended as a direct charge against his Majesty's ministers, for having infringed the right of the subject to petition. But if that was the object of the hon. alderman, his motion did not go far enough; because, if his Majesty's ministers had actually violated the rights of the subject to petition, they ought to meet not an implied censure, but a direct animadversion. He was convinced, however, that in a very few words he could satisfy the House, that there was no ground for the motion. The question was, whether the livery of London had rights in this respect which did not belong to other classes of the community; for it was not pretended that ministers had refused to them what they granted to others. He acknowledged that ministers did advise his Majesty not to grant the livery more than was allowed to his other subjects. The hon. alderman had correctly stated, that there were three modes of presenting petitions, 1st, To the king upon the throne, when alone an answer was returned; 2d, At the levee, when the petition was given to his Majesty, who immediately handed it to the lord in waiting; the public levees however having been for some years discontinued, owing to the defect of his Majesty's sight, the 3d mode was that of transmitting petitions through the office of the secretary of state. This the citizens of London had an opportunity

of doing in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects. As to the right of presenting a petition to the king upon the throne, this was confined to the universities and the corporation of London. As to what had been said of the case of 1775, he would appeal to that to show that even the persons who then claimed the right could not have thought they possessed it. The times were then somewhat similar to the present; there was much popular ferment abroad. Mr. Wilkes was then in the height of his popularity, and not, what he afterwards described himself, a volcano extinct, but a volcano in the full blaze of explosion and eruption. What had been the conduct of Wilkes on that occasion? Lord Hertford's letter was dated the 11th of April; and one would suppose, that if Mr. Wilkes was convinced of the right, he would have applied to Parliament, as the hon. alderman now did, or have called a Common Hall to vote resolutions respecting it. But no-he did not answer lord Hertford's letter till the 2d of May. He did not take any notice of the subject in Parliament, though the prorogation did not take place till the 26th of May; and it was not till the 24th of June that the Common-Hall was called, and passed resolutions nearly similar to those voted in the first week of January in the present year. And was this precedent to be relied on, when not one of the boute feu's of the day, until after the lapse of so long a period, ever thought of any step to be taken on the subject? A resolution had even been moved in Parliament by Mr. Sawbridge, which omitted all allusions to the case of the petition. His Majesty's ministers, in the advice they gave his Majesty, had no idea of disrespect to the city of London; all they desired was, to place the livery in the same situation with other classes of his Majesty's subjects. In this they had done no more than that House usually did. Parliament would not suffer any class to petition against a tax bill, with the exception of the corporation of London. Because the corporation of London had the privilege of presenting its petitions by its sheriffs, at the bar, the House received them as not knowing their contents; but the petitions from all other descriptions of subjects were required to be opened by some member in his place. (The right hon. gent. here read a passage from Mr. Hatsell's book, shewing that on one occasion the petition of the corporation had been received on a particular oe

casion, when sir Watkin Lewes was required to state the matter of the petition from the livery on the same subject.) As to the observation of the hon. alderman, that petitions given in to the secretary of state never were seen by his Majesty, he could only assure the House, that since he had been in office, he had received no petition which had not reached his Majesty. The right hon. gent. then adverted to the contents of his own letter to the lord mayor, to shew that he had no wish to treat the city with contempt, and concluded by saying that he should oppose the motion. Lord Folkestone said, that the honourable alderman had not contended for the right of petioning his Majesty on the throne, to which the whole of the secretary's observations applied, but complained that the livery had been denied that access to his Majesty's person, which the law held to be the inherent right of English subjects. This, he contended, was a general subject of complaint, and he adverted to a meeting of the county of Berks, where this obstruction was seriously complained of. Any subject had even at the commence ment of the present reign the right to give a petition into his Majesty's hand. In consequence of the unfortunate case of Margaret Nicholson, a regulation was adopted, that petitions should only be presented at the levee. Now this was done away, and nothing remained but transmission through the office of the secretary of state. This was rather unsatisfactory, considering that the grievance most seriously complained of would often be the retaining of the person in office who was to transmit the petition. The right hon. secretary said, he believed that the petitions sent to his office had been transmitted. This belief of his was a comfortable assurance to those whose rights to petition his Majesty in person were considered as inherent. This mode afforded them an admirable security for the transmission of their grievances to the royal ear! There were, however, stories afloat about petitions having been found in the pigeonholes of the secretary of state's office, unopened and unpresented. Another suspicious circumstance was, that all petitions to the King were not published in the Gazette, though the complimentary addresses in praise of ministers, &c. were sure to be there, with a comment, that they had been most graciously received. But who saw there any petitions, complaining of fruitless and ridiculous expe

ditions, &c.? He had seen a letter from the right hon. secretary himself, denying that he was under any obligation to read such petitions to his Majesty; and thus were the people debarred from that access to the Sovereign which the law called their inherent right. The hon. secretary had compared the present times with those of 1775. He (lord F.) had no doubt that posterity would regard the claims of the present day against the exercise of undue power by the House, in the same light as the claims of those days were regarded by the people of the present day. The resistance then made to the undue exercise of power has been sanctioned by the approbation of the present day, and so would the present resistance be sanctioned by the approbation of posterity.

Mr. R. Dundas said that the objection to the mode of transmitting petitions through the office of the secretary of state seemed to be that the secretary was under no obligation to read them to the King. But supposing they were presented at the levee, what greater security could there be that they would be read? They were in both cases given to his Majesty with other public papers to be perused at the time most convenient for him. The letter to which the noble lord alluded was addressed to Major Cartwright, who had requested an audience of his Majesty to state his opinions on public affairs-and this being refused, he required some security of the secretary of state that he would read his address to the King. This was impossible-the secretary could only send them with other papers. It never had been the custom to publish all addresses and petitions in the Gazette. Nothing was established against ministers, except it could be shewn that they had deviated from the usual practice. could not believe that the people of this country were discontented with the present mode of presenting petitions through the medium of the secretary of state, when they considered the causes to which this was owing.

He

Mr. Horner did not know whether it was that the ministers did not understand the question, or purposely avoided it, from being unable to answer. The speech of the first speaker from the treasury referred solely to the claim of petitioning on the throne, which his hon. friend had expressly waved. The hon. secretary had wandered from the real question to talk of his volcanos, and had even resorted to

Mr. Tierney had no objection to the making of an ample provision in this case; but thought that any grant deemed necessary should rather be charged upon the droits of the admiralty; but before this grant was acceded to, he wished to know what were the circumstances of the duke of Brunswick. It was understood that a new military establishment had been created, from which that prince derived an emolument of from 3 to 5,000l. a year. Now if that were the case, he must think, with every disposition to be liberal to this prince, that from justice to the country the proposed grant was excessive.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the emolument derived by the duke from the military establishment alluded to, did not exceed 15 or 1600l. a year; and to the droits of the admiralty, that he could not, from its nature, consider it as a resource upon which to fix a permanent charge.

a foreign language for invective. This question was of the most vital importance in itself, and still more important from the manner in which it had been received. He then dwelt upon the highly indecorous, indelicate, and improper manner in which the ministers endeavoured to defend themselves by drawing the veil from the infirmities of their Sovereign. It was impossible for the House to believe that his Majesty was not in a state perfectly competent to the discharge of that most important of duties, the giving a proper attention to the complaints of his subjects. If it were otherwise, it would be the duty of the House to order an investigation. But they knew that this was not necessary, and must therefore reprobate the mode of defence to which ministers resorted. The claim of the livery was founded upon what for a century and a half had been considered as the most invaluable rights of Englishmen, which would be nugatory without access to his Majesty's person. Even in the worst times in those of Charles the IId, &c. this access had not been refused. The most corrupt ministers had no idea that it could be refused. How complete would have been their triumph if they had discovered the practice which had of late prevailed! It was the right of the livery of London, as it was of all other British subjects, to have access to the royal person, and it was the refusal which was complained of. Petitions ought certainly always to be respectful and decorous-whether to the crown or parliament. (Hear! hear!) He understood that cheer, and in answer to it said, that he thought some late petitions were exactly the reverse of what the idea of a petition implied. There was in the tenor and even in the expression something that warranted the belief that other objects were in the contemplation of the framers than a mere complaint of grievances. But, on the other hand, the obstruction of petitions, properly so called, was a subversion of the funda-words" or otherwise abuse," as too large mental law of the land.

Upon a division the numbers wereFor the motion, 52-Against it 138 Majority, 86.

[KING'S MESSAGE RELATING ΤΟ THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.] On our re-admission into the gallery we found Mr. Whitbread speaking against the reception of the Report of the Committee upon the King's Message relative to the grant of a provision to the Duke of Brunswick.

Mr. Tierney wished to know what was the amount of the sum on hand as droits of admiralty? This information he required in order to ascertain whether it would be sufficient, by a transfer into the consolidated fund, to purchase the proposed annuity of the Duke of Brunswick.

Mr. Ponsonby, considering that the duchess of Brunswick had an allowance of 10,000l. a year, felt himself obliged, however reluctantly, to observe, that 5,000l. a year would be quite a sufficient grant to the son.

The Report of the Committee was then agreed to, and leave given to bring in the bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 8.

[CRUELTY TO ANIMALS' BILL.] Upon the motion of lord Erskine, the House went into a Committee on this bill.

Lord Ellenborough objected to the

and general in their comprehension, and which might, in his opinion, produce a number of evil effects. He would recom mend the omission of these words en. tirely, and from reconsideration he was also inclined to object to the other words, “ cut, wound;" for when the law came to be applied, he was not sure but the term cut might be extended to the cutting of a whip, which would be a consequence not desired by his noble and learned friend

1

1

881]

PARL: DEBATES, MAY 8, 1810.—Cruelty to Animals' Bill,

The same kind of objection would apply to the term "wound;" but as to the word "maim," there could be no doubt of its legal definition. He would, therefore, first propose this amendment," That the words, cut, wound,' be left out, for the purpose of inserting, kill, stab;" which would be less dangerous in their application.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Lord Erskine conceived that the words which preceded those objected to by his noble and learned friend, would have prevented their misinterpretation; because it must have been evident to a jury, that the cutting, wounding, or otherwise abusing had been committed maliciously, and with wanton cruelty. He had thought it expedient to address their lordships again on the bill, and its principle; but he had received more letters than would fill three such trunks as that on their lordship's table, from all parts of the country; detailing the most horrid acts of cruelty. He had received one, only yesterday, from a respectable gentleman in the country, wherein was detailed the cruel act of a man, who had destroyed two mares, by thrusting the handle of his whip into their bodies. He had shewn this letter to his noble and learned friend, and it appeared, that although the offence were tried at the assizes, it was not punishable under the statute, because no malice could be proved When he first brought against the owner. this subject under their consideration, he had suggested that the laws which existed only regarded the treatment of animals, so far as it was connected with the ownerBut the atship and dominion of man. tending to the feeling of the animal itself, and preventing cruelty from a consideration of its suffering, was certainly new, and deserved to be considered as an æra in legislation. Still his noble and learned friend had thought it expedient to propose the alteration he mentioned, and he was sure that such was his knowledge of that noble and learned lord, that he had done 80 from mature consideration, and a sense of duty, that he was willing to agree with him, rather than dissent from authority be so much respected.

Lord Ellenborough could not help differing in some degree with his noble and learned friend. He had strong objections to making a new era in legislation upon this point. He was of opinion that the moral sense of mankind was sufficient, as it hitherto had been, for the protection of animals {; and it was to be observed

VOL. XVI.

[882

that in no country under the sun was there
any system of legislation for the protec
He was not there-
tion of animals, except so far as related to
the interests of man.
fore prepared to approve altogether of the
principle of the bill; but at any rate it
was incumbent upon the House to render
its enactments so definite and certain, that
it might not be rendered an instrument of
vexation and oppression. It was with this
view he had moved his amendment; and
he must also object to the bill being ex-
tended, as it was at present, to sheep and
swine. Those were animals very apt to
trespass; and the provisions of the bill, if
applied with respect to them, might lead
to great oppressions. A pig might get into
a cottage, and be eating the cottager's po-
tatoes; the cottager might strike the pig
with a shovel, and for thus wounding the
pig might under the bill be imprisoned for
a month. There were other cases of op-
pression which might arise out of such a
bill, and it was therefore necessary that
it should be very cautiously and de-
finitely worded. With respect to acts
of cruelty committed publicly upon ani-
mals, these were contra bonos mores, and
the parties committing them were liable to
indictment.

The Lord Chancellor, in not opposing the progress of the bill in its present stage, wished it to be understood, that he might not thereby be considered as precluded from saying content, or not content, to the passing of the bill, according to the shape in which it came out of the Committee. In looking at this bill for the protection of animals, he could not help asking, why as the ox was mentioned the bull was not also included ?

The Earl of Lauderdale was decidedly hostile to the bill, conceiving that the moral sense of mankind was amply sufficient for the protection of animals, and that nothing could be more dangerous than attempting to enforce principles of mo rality or humanity by legislation.

as

Lord Redesdale objected altogether to legislating upon the principle now sumed., The bill, however, was deficient in the very object which it sought, as it did not extend its protection to animals, which it might have been supposed would have naturally come under its provisions. Thus, for instance, the bull was not mentioned, although it was well known that bulls were cruelly used by being baited, whilst, at the same time, bull-baits were a great terror and annoyance to the neigh

3 L

bourhood in which they took place. As to the other objects, embraced in the bill, they were not fit for the interference of the legislature, as they did not concern the advantage or the injury of man. He was ready to allow the purest motives to the noble and learned lord, but perhaps he had so long contemplated this subject, that his mind had become so heated, as to prevent the exercise of his cool discretion.

thought proper to oppose the second read. ing.

Lord Holland was sure, that his noble and learned friend need not have justified his conduct; for whatever might be the difference of sentiment on the bill, there must be attributed to that noble and learned lord every good and honourable motive. It was with diffidence and great pain to his feelings, that he differed in opinion from him on the present question;" Lord Erskine said, if his mind had been not only from his personal respect for him, too much heated, he thought the minds of but from the esteem he entertained for his other noble lords had been too long cold talents and good qualities, and for his past in the expression of their opposition to services in maintaining the law of this the principles of this bill. He thought country; for which, in his humble judgthere was considerable inconsistency,when ment, without invidious distinction, the he recollected the unanimous support the country were more indebted to him, than bill had received the last session, when any lawyer, for a number of years. Every there were present 110 peers. No one one must acknowledge, that if all acts of had intimated his objection, except the cruelty could be prevented, it would be a noble and learned lord who had last ad- most desirable object on the part of hudressed them. In the House of Com- manity. But it was, in his mind, quesmons, though opposition was made, it was tionable, how far the interference of leread the second time with the consent of gislation would accomplish the desired a large majority, and would have passed, ends of the best motives. Many attempts if it had not been at the end of the session, had been made, at different times, to enwhen there were scarcely members to force the laws of God and morality, but form a House. He was surprised to hear they were generally productive of effects what had fallen, and the revolution which opposite to the wishes of humanity. It had been effected in their lordships' minds; was on the same ground that intolerance and he was more surprised that his noble was the usual result of religious laws. He friend (Lauderdale) should intimate his should be the last man to permit cruel dividing the House, at the present time, acts; he viewed them with detestation; when he was in the House, yesterday, and but he doubted of the benefit of legislative gave no opposition to the second reading. interference. He should rather recomHis noble friend had not been present last mend the reverend prelates to impress the session; but if he had left his own bobby-people with a sense of their moral duty, horse at that time, and attended to his duty in that House, it would have been better for his health, and of greater service to the country. They had been sufficiently told of Spain, and his noble friend had introduced the Spanish mode of perforating the spine; but in the arguments used, he was sure his noble friend could not be serious. No such acts of butchers could fall under the construction of this bill. If their lordships should now alter their mind, it was not his fault that he had brought the subject under their consideration; for they had extended to him every encouragement to believe they concurred with_him in the propriety of the measure. For himself he had not altered his mind in the smallest degree on the principle and necessity of the bill, and he trusted their lordships would not take this opportunity of dividing the House, when it was not summoned, and they had not

and an aversion to all acts of cruelty. His noble and learned friend was entitled to thanks for his exertions in this cause, and the speech which he delivered, last session, but which he had not the pleasure of hearing, though he had the satisfaction of reading it, had done honour to his abilities and feelings, and must have been productive of beneficial effects upon the minds of the people.

The Lord Chancellor said a few words in explanation of his conduct; and concluded by recommending his noble and learned friend to move for the re-commitment of the bill on a certain day, and that the lords be summoned for that purpose. He would move, " "That lord Walsingham do leave the chair."-Agreed to.

Lord Erskine then moved, That the bill be recommitted this day se'nnight, and that the lords be summoned."-Ordered.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »