matter of opinion, which the House might | adopt or not as it pleased. If the petitioners differed in opinion, that opinion was expressed with deference, and it still remained with the House to determine whether they would grant the prayer or not. The truth was, that no petition would be presented to the House without an object, and that object must necessarily either be to do something they had omitted, or to undo something they had done. A petition approving, in all respects of their conduct, was not to be expected, because in such a case there could be no occasion for petioning. Every petition implied complaint, and that complaint must necessarily relate either to some ground of grievance or neglect. If this petition was rejected, he saw no ground on which any petition from the people of England could hereafter be received, so that the right of petitioning must be wholly destroyed. It would be for the House to consider if they would hold out this doctrine to the people, and tell them that no complaint on their part would be henceforth heard by the House. He admitted at the same time, that there were expressions in this petition that might have been better omitted; but what were they to expect when the people had been disappointed and irritated? When it was the opinion of so many persons in and out of the House-when, he would say, it was the opinion of such a great and enlightened mind as that of the hon. gent. near him (Mr. Whitbread), not only that the House had exercised its privileges improvidently but that it had no right, in the present case, to exercise it at all-was it surprising that the people should express themselves frankly and warmly on the subject? Goaded and irritated as the people had recently been by the conduct of public men (one of whom, in whose imprudence all those difficulties in which the House found itself originated, had lately been raised to a situation of great honour and emolument), was it surprising that the petitions should express their feelings of disgust in strong and energetic language? The House, he admitted, must have privileges; but if the House had their privileges, the people had their privileges too; and one of these privileges was to bring their complaints and grievances before that House. If they stood up in defence of their own privileges, it was but fair they should allow the people theirs. The people, whether right or wrong in their claims-whether justifiable or not in their complaints or grievances, had a right to be heard. Their petition ought to be received if the lan guage was not wholly unconstitutional, but with the House it remained to determine, whether they should follow up their address or not. It was for this simple right he contended, and he saw nothing in the present petition that would deprive the petitioners of it. Mr. Jacob said, it was his firm and decided conviction, that a majority, and a very great majority, of the real people, not the populace, were against the principles contained in this petition. He admitted that the populace of England approved of the sentiments of this petition, but not the people of England, and he made a great distinction between the people of England, and the populace of England, and contended, that the principles here set forth, are maintained and supported by those designing persons whose aim it was to set the populace of England above the people and the laws of England. Had the people of England approved of these sentiments, there must have been a great many more petitions than he had, hitherto, seen; but there were pone-except in London, Westminster, Hackney, and Reading. To convene meetings upon subjects of politics at these populous places was not difficult, for those who connected themselves in strict alliance with the inhabitants of Fleet-lane and Saffron-hill; and with such persons when a great number of them were collected, it was easy to raise among them the cry of No Peculation, and No Popery, or any other cry, as it was pretty certain that these sons of light would rally round each other, for the sake of plunder, if nothing else; that being the practice on which their existence depended; but he contended, and he hoped the House would believe that the language of this petition did not proceed from the people of England. As to the livery of London, they were not collected together in such a manner as they could speak the sense of the livery at large. One of his hon. friends had said, that there were present on this occasion about 2000 persons; and he maintained that not one-half of them were liverymen; and he undertook to account for this by observing, that across the Common hall there was a passage to go into the court of King's bench, so that every person who demanded admission into that open court, was entitled to enter, and persons in this way got into the common hall, who were no liverymen, under pretence of going into the court of King's bench. Thus, they passed for liverymen; and by clamour and brutality which prevail at such places, they intimidated the peaceable and the decent; for it was too much to expect that such persons would expose themselves to the brutality or ferocity of persons of that description; many of whom were assassins and pick-partisan in these turbulent proceedings; pockets. Decent, sober, and quiet men would not attend among such a rabble. Being thus deterred from attending the common hall, some of the most respectable of the livery drew up a protest against the proceedings of this common hall. They were 1,700 in all; a greater number of the livery men of London than they had actually attended this common hall on this occasion; they published this their protest, and they were what they professed to be, really liverymen of London; they pledged themselves, not to support the ministers, but to support the constitution of this country; that was to say, they pledged themselves to support the form of government under which we had the happiness to live, as it was formed of King, Lords, and Commons; and possessing as they did an attachment to the representatives of the people; shewing as they did, a proper regard and respect for the representatives of the people, and a full confidence in the virtue of the wisdom of the parliament and purity of the laws of the land, and the equal distribution of justice, he did believe, and after this he hoped he should not hear any thing to the contrary, that the virtuous part of the community were against the publication of such sentiments as those which were contained in this petition, but they were intimidated by these ferocious persons who attended these public meetings; there were many who knew the truth of what he was saying, and that there were, even of real property, character, and virtue, many who had been terrified into silence by a desperate mob on this occasion was notorious, but they had afterwards expressed their dissent to these turbulent proceedings. He maintained that he was no more of a party man than sir F. Burdett himself was. He was as independent in that House as any man in it, nor was he afraid to avow his sentiments on this or on any other occasion; as a proof of it, he begged leave to refer the House to his conduct in it. He had by his vote, shewn he could censure the son of the King-(the duke of York)—and also the brother of Mr. Pitt(the earl of Chatham)—they had not escaped his censure, since it appeared to him that they deserved it-sir F. Burdett had met his censure also, and he deserved it a thousand times more than the other two; for he was a thousand times more criminal.-He said he was no follower of a court faction, any more than he was a nor were the people of England factious or pleased with these violent proceedings. When he spoke of the people of England he alluded to that middle class of the community, among whom resided so much virtue and so much intelligence, and that class of the community was of opinion, that the House of Commons had not exceeded its authority in the present case, but had exerted that authority for the protection of its own proceedings, and for the general benefit of the people of England. He did not admit that the feelings of the people of England were such as the hon. bart. had stated, that is, favourable to the sentiments contained in this petition; these sentiments and feelings he believed were not common to the people of England; as a proof of it, there were no petitions from any quarter, except that of this metropolis and the county Middlesex; but when the meeting was at Hackney, which could easily communicate with Saffron hill, on account of its being in the vicinity, there a mob might be raised at any time. As a proof that these proceedings which were had at public meetings, were the work of a few individuals, and not the spontaneous ef fusion of the hearts of the mass of the people of England, he called upon the House to remember that there were no petitions of this kind from any part of the country. He took that to be a proof of these principles not being countenanced by the people of England. He did not pretend to infallibility. Should other petitions come, he should change his opinion; but he set very little value on the resolutions of such a mob as that which he had endeavoured to describe; they were strangers to each other when they met, and generally followed any leader and voted any thing that was proposed to them; where a meeting was held of neigh bours, and persons who knew each other, and they passed resolutions, expressive of their complaints, attention should be paid to the determination of such a meeting, because it was the result of the genuine feeling of the people of England. He did not mean to draw a conclusion from all these observations against the reception of the present petition offered to the House, that was a matter entirely with the House, and they would deal with it according to its deserts; he should not object to it on account of its being signed by only 12 men, but he could no more help thinking that these things were the effect of the management of a few, than he could help thinking, that he was himself a citizen of London. And applying the knowledge which he possessed as a citizen of London, and comparing the spirit of the resolutions which passed at the meeting of the livery, with the language of the petition now offered, he would say, if there be one man in that House who would lay his hand upon his heart, and then declare, he did not believe these petitioners intended to insult the House, all he could say, was, that such a member would be justified in voting for the reception of this petition; but the judgment of such a member was very different from his; he trusted, however, that the feeling he had upon the subject of this petition, was consonant to the general feeling of the House, and that, therefore, this petition would be rejected by the House. He was ready to throw open the doors of the House of Commons, as widely as possible, for the purpose of receiving genuine petitions; that was to say, those statements of grievances really felt by those who complained of them, and who really did seek redress in the true spirit by which redress ought to be expected, and by which alone it could be obtained, by civility of language and decency of deportment; but it would be childish folly to throw open the door of the House of Commons to such a thing as this, for it was neither more nor less than a studied insult on the House of Commons, reflecting on events, some of which had occurred last year, and which had no real connection with the matter which the petitioners profess now to be their object to attain; and stating some things as facts, which in reality never occurred. Such, for instance, as that of our troops going to Walcheren without any object, and without hope;-that was not true, for they had an object and an hope in the expedition to Walcheren, although both were cruelly frustrated. To conclude, believing, as he did, that this petition did not speak the sense of the people of England-in any VOL. XVI. legitimate sense of the word people; and believing, that some of the instigators of these proceedings connected themselves with desperadoes, who, by their presence, struck terror into the virtuous part of the community who happened to witness their clamour by which they imposed silence on those who differed from them in opinion-he should vote against the reception of this petition. Sir S. Romilly observed, that it must be the general wish, to come to a calm vote on the subject, whatever that vote might be, but the speech of the hon. gent. who spoke last was not much calculated to promote that object. Having voted for the Middlesex petition, the House would not be surprised that he should support the receiving of this. It was of the utmost importance that those who proposed to vote for the rejection of the petition, should distinctly state the grounds of that rejection. If the doors of the House, according to the expression of the Speaker, which had been received with such universal approbation, were to be thrown wide open to petitioners the House ought not to make any great difficulty on account of the expressions of persons who really thought themselves aggrieved. The House ought to be desirous that these appeals should be made to itself, and that these differences of opinion should find their proper channel in addresses to the House. He was not in the House last night, and therefore had no means of knowing what passed in it, except through the information of friends and other sources of communication; upon matters of this sort he had endeavoured, through these mediæ, to inform himself of what passed on that occasion, and he owned he did not then collect, nor could he now see, the ground on which the petition now offered to the House was to be rejected by it. That was information which he had yet to acquire. He had heard it said, that the present petition was meant to insult the House. How was he to collect the meaning of those petitioners but by the language of the petition. That language was humble. His learned friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thought otherwise; he hoped he would point out hereafter, wherein the language was not humble. The matter of the petition could not be agreeable to the House of Com mons, because it was a petition presented to them against themselves, and if the House of Commons were determined not to have any thing presented to them that 30 was disagreeable, they never would have anger. So far was this from being against any petition presented against any act of the petitioners, that they ought to be retheir own at all. But, gentlemen said, spected for their forbearance in the lan"look at the petition, and then put your guage they had used towards the House, hand upon your heart and say, whether since they had expressed much less than you do not think it was intended to send they felt. Nor had the House any reason to you an insult, although there was nothing to take offence at any person being angry offensive in the language." He could not with it for its conduct. The House ought take upon himself to say that he had been only to act on what had been expressed, able to perceive in the petition any thing not on what had been thought, for if the that appeared insulting, he had examined House was disposed to punish every body it with all the care he was able, and yet who thought ill of its proceedings, perhe had not been able to find out any of haps it would be difficult to know where fensive language in this petition.-(Mur- to stop; for that would go to the rejection murs from the ministerial benches)-Gen- of every petition, that ever was, or could tlemen might think what they pleased, be presented to the House, in consequence but he had no desire, no wish but that of of its own conduct. But the hon. gent. preventing the House getting into a situa- who spoke last, had said, more than once, tion which might increase its perplexity, and seemed to dwell with a good deal of for it had difficulties enough to encounter emphasis upon the expression, that the already. He wished to conciliate the sentiments contained in this petition were people, rather than irritate them; for what not the sentiments of the people of Eng object could he have in taking any course land-it did not purport to be the sentibut that which was likely to allay any ment of the people of England, it puranimosity, rather than awake it? He ported only to be the sentiment of the should therefore ask the House what the livery of London in common-hall, assemreason was that this petition was to be re-bled regularly and constitutionally, and to fused reception, except merely because it be the sentiment of a majority of the is the opinion of the House that this peti-livery on the occasion to which the petition is certainly intended to insult the House; but he could not see one point of difference between the present petition which is to be rejected, and the Westminster petition which was received, except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer approved of the reception of one, and disapproves of the reception of the other. He saw no difference in the two petitions, except that which was greatly in favour of the present petition. But it had been said, that if the resolutions which preceded this petition were examined, it would instantly appear, that the petitioners were angry with the House of Commons, and therefore it is natural to suppose that they meant to insult the House. He really thought the House of Commons were not to look at the resolutions at all, they were not before the House, and they were not intended to be transmitted to the House, nor should the House consider itself bound to know of their existence; but if the House were disposed to take notice of such resolutions, and found that they contained evidence of anger against the House, it was evidence also that the petitioners, although they felt anger, expressed none towards the House, which shewed that the petitioners did not intend to insult the House; else why should they conceal their tition referred; that out of 3,000, or 2,000, no matter which, that were assembled on that day and on that occasion, there were not 20 who dissented in all. But if this petition was to be rejected, because it is not the sentiment of the people in England, it would come to this, that every petition must be rejected that is not agreeable to the people of England, which, besides the difficulty of ascertaining how the fact stood in such a case, involved many other and insuperable difficulties; but that was not, never had been, and he hoped, never would be, the rule by which petitions were to be judged of; the question was, not whether it was consonant with the wishes of the people at large, but whether it was so, with regard to the wishes of those who presented it. Was hat House to wait till they heard the opinions of all the people before they admitted a petition from a portion of them? The hon. gent. had made distinctions between the people and populace, and had fortunately given a definition which ena bled others to collect that he contrasted the middling with the lower orders. Bat was that House, designed to be the representative of the whole of the people, to allow of any such contrast? And then the hon. gent. said, that decent people were prevented from assembling in the hall, from a dread of pickpockets and assassins!! He would not have mentioned this had he not thought that it would be a disgrace to this popular assembly, whose dignity depended upon its being a popular assembly, to pass over such expressions without notice. As for the clamour that was always to be heard at popular meetings, it even sometimes prevailed in that House; but as far as he had heard, there was nothing like violence at the meeting; and to say that persons could not attend it without imminent danger to their property and lives, was not a true description of it. He repeated, that if they were to reject the petition they ought to state the grounds distinctly. The hon. gent. said, that other counties had not petitioned, but if the doctrine was to be acted upon that you ought not receive one petition for fear of encouraging others, it was not likely that other counties ever would petition. He thought, on the contrary, that the encouraging of others to come to the House for the redress of grievances was a reason for receiving this petition. It was, he repeated, of the greatest importance to encourage this mode of appeal. He would vote for the reception of the petition. land, and coeval with it. It was with Sir John Newport observed, that the very idea of a petition implied disapprobation, and that, if disapprobation of the conduct of the House was to be a ground of objection, they might have addresses, but they never could have petitions. Were they to force the people to allow their. grievances to ferment in their own bosoms instead of coming with a declaration of them to the House? This was what had produced the calamities on the continent. The privilege of stating their grievances, was one which he hoped the people would never part with; for, if they did, there was an end of the constitution. This petition came from a regular body legally convened, which an hon. gent., who had been elected to a high office in the city (Mr. Jacob) had characterised, Mr. C. W. Wynn stated, that the reason by coupling them with assassins and pickpockets from Saffron-hill and Fleet-lane! why he approved of the adjournment last night was that many were absent from not Were the Livery of London and the Inknowing that the petition was to have habitants of Westminster, to be debarred been presented. He never had any doubt from presenting petitions, because they upon the subject himself. He disclaimed happened to have such places as Saffronthe resolutions as any ground of objection hill and Fleet-lane in their neighbourto the petition, though these were highly hood? As to his assertion, that there were no petitions from other counties, offensive, and might have been a just cause of punishment for breach of privilege. But there might be such petitions in good men for their improper conduct in other time; but at any rate were they to rerespects were not to be deprived of their fuse to hear a part of the people till the inherent right of petition. The question whole came forward? Sir J. next adwas, whether the petition itself was couch-verted to the counter declaration, which ed in proper language. In his opinion it be contended was irregular. How were When they said that the House counties to be assembled if this practice was to become general. Instead of going had imprisoned two of their fellow subabout from house to house for signatures, jects without law and against law, it was not the introduction of such expressions all who could ought to have attended the by an "humbly conceive," that could meeting. It was their duty to have done But then the hon. gent. said, that the render them unexceptionable. They so. might as well say, that they humbly con- King's-bench was sitting at Guildhall, and ceived that the House had not the power that a great number got in under the preWere these meetings of taxing, or of passing a bill, and yet tence of going to that court, Was that could these expressions be endured? The always the case? never to be considered as of any great petition was a studied insult. He did not A great deal go into the falsehood of the assertions, consequence, except when they approved that they had acted against law, &c. since of the conduct of ministers? was said about taking the sense of the it was well known, that the privileges of the House were part of the law of the people in opposition to that of the House was not. |