crease of them may be prevented, they |tion of undefined privilege, so analogous know that such a Reform only twenty to undefined prerogative, may it not be years ago might, and probably would, have respectfully asked, if there either be or averted a war that has burthened the can be a prerogative, a privilege beyond nation with an additional debt of nearly this a power of acting for the public 600 millions, and added forty millions a good, where the positive law is silent? year to its taxes: The flagrant violations and again, where the law can be made of the elective rights of the nation, the to speak, can it be either necessary or shameful inequality of representation, and expedient, or safe, that there should be the unconstitutional length of parliaments, any discretionary prerogative or discreas well as the seducing of members from tionary privilege? If the law be capable their fidelity to the people by places and of redressing a libelled sovereign, and for pensions from the crown, being obviously that cause deny to the King a privilege of wrong against the constitution, against the being at once accuser, jury, judge, and principles of our law, against justice, executioner in his own cause, how can against reason, against decency, and ut- such irreconcileable powers be justly terly subversive of public liberty, big with claimed by either of the other two branches every species of ruin, whether pecuniary, of the legislature?-And would not a union political, or moral, and tending no less to of such powers constitute a despotism unthe subjugation of these islands to a foreign known to the English constitution, and reconqueror than to the debasement and volting to reason? But leaving to the semisery of the people and their posterity, rious meditation of the House these imconstitute a grievance truly intolerable: portant questions, in which the legality or wherefore the petitioner, deprecating all illegality of their warrant against sir F. that metaphorical and contemptible soBurdett seems to be involved, allow the phistry about the constitution, by which petitioner to call the attention of the House wicked men endeavour to exhibit as a to the late military proceedings rising out mystery that which our brave unlettered of orders issued by civil authorities, and ancestors framed as a plain, practical, and more especially to the act of breaking honest rule of government, trusts that the open, with a military force, and by vioHouse, as early as may be, will originate lence, the house of the said sir F. Burdett a law for extending representation to the -not charged with either treason or fesame limit as direct taxation in support of lony or a breach of the peace, and conthe poor, the church, and the state, for dis- ducting him through a body of armed soltributing that representation with justice diers, drawn up in his own hall, to a carand impartiality, for bringing back par- riage surrounded by an army, and so to a liaments to a constitutional duration, for so prison: on the flagrant illegality of such ordering the elections as to prevent unne- an outrage on an Englishman, the petitioner cessary trouble and expence, as well as presumes there is but one opinion: it is tumult, and for preserving their freedom personally known to the petitioner, that and completing the polls in one day, and two days prior to the seizure of sir F. Burlikewise for protecting from treasonabledett as aforesaid, when a number of perviolation, by appropriate laws, the Majesty of the nation, as it ought to be personified by the House: few and simple as are these propositions, they would, as the petitioner is humbly of opinion, do more for our country, its liberties, its prosperity, and its glory, than were done for it by Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights: here, under a strong persuasion that the evils of destroyed representation had arrived at their acme, this appeal to the serious reflection of the House had actually been closed, but that erroneous persuasion has been done away by recent events, which have placed before the nation's wondering eyes those evils in still more terrific shapes, and leading to still more dreadful consequences: on the ques VOL. XVI, sons assembled before his door were charged with being rioters, a body of soldiers belonging to the standing army, in military array, and under the orders of a general officer then present, were employed, and, as the petitioner humbly conceives, illegally employed, to keep the peace; and he believes the same illegal mode of keeping the peace was persevered in until the imprisonment of the said sir F. Burdett was accomplished: A standing army, although necessary for offensive war and the protection of external possessions, being yet altogether unknown to the law and constitution of this kingdom, such army not constituting part of the civil state, but being under a different command and subject to a different law, cannot of 3 U standing army for restoring quiet, what is established the principles whereby to course be a legal instrument for governing the nation, that is, for executing any process of the law, or for ministerially performing any act of a civil authority for giving effect to the law, even although such act were lawful to peace officers: When an indiscreet populace, angered by violations of public liberty, or other cause, assemble together, annoy, by any species of assault, those whom they consider as their oppressors, none can deny that the law is violated, and the peace broken; but those who lead out a standing army, in full mi-vernment rank despotism tary array and equipment, to restore order, commit a violation of law a thousand times more criminal, and a breach of the peace ten thousand times more violent and alarming: A rabble of idle men or unruly boys might on a sudden daub our clothes, demolish our window glass, and assume a momentary authority; but an organized posse comitatus would instantly restore peace, and the dominion of the law; whereas, when a standing army, assuming the office of our protector, subjects as to a government of ball and bay-feated 100,000 French at Cressy, and an onet, then indeed our constitution is foully stained, liberty is stabbed, and the law itself is demolished! The sword may indeed again return to its scabbard, and the soldiery retire to their barrack fortresses, but, if their re-appearance be to depend on the discretion of any, from a police magistrate up to the King, is not this military government? It is not surely with discretionary power thus despotic that parliamentary privilege, forgetting its own defensive nature, will claim to have kindred, or seek to hold fellowship. The English government is itself only to blame, if its legal means of suppressing riots, by a resistless county power, be not at all times, and in all places, in perfect readiness at a call for preserving the public tranquillity; shall it claim to use for this purpose the military force of a standing army, because it has purposely and insi'diously kept the civil power in a state of inefficiency? Shall it first cripple the law and then claim to use an army for our government? If then our rulers have, and particularly for the last thirty years, against law, against remonstrance, against exhortation, intentionally left the county power which is vital to our constitution, in its shamefully neglected state, and have on all occasions of trifling disorders in our streets, disorders to which their own neglect of duty gave birth, got into a constant babit of illegally introducing the army which in this instance could have no other object than to overpower or to kill all such as might have attempted to resist, by force, the execution of the order of the House; the House is therefore intreated to give mature consideration to the following queries: If a standing army be unknown to the law and constitution of this kingdom, must not its employment, under pretence of inforcing law, be in fact the greatest of all violations of law, and an actual subversion of the constitution? Is it not the duty of every man within the ages of 15 and 60, as a member of the county power, to resist by force a breach of the peace; the breaking into a house, orany act of illegal violence against a fellow subject whether the peace breakers or the house breakers or other violaters of the law be or be not soldiers? If any person or per son defying the law should determine to perpetrate acts of illegal violence in open rebellion against law, and should, with an intent to overpower or to kill all persons who should attempt to resist them, put themselves at the head of an army of mercenary soldiers, and by means of such army should actually carry their illegal and violent designs into execution, would not this be of open deed levying war against our lord the King in his realm? Is not such levying of war of open deed among the treasons enumerated in the statute of 25 Edward III.? Must not the killing of any of the people by an army while so acting be murder? Must not all the soldiery of such army, present at any such murders, be in law principals, as well as those under whose orders they should act? Considering how much the soldiers of a standing army are machines and instruinents in the hands of them who command, must not those who give them orders be the most criminal parties in any such murders? And whether in the present circumstances of this kingdom, considering the immense number of native soldiers under a different command from that of the civil magistrates, and subject to a different law from that of the civil courts, and the vast addition of foreign mercenaries born under arbitrary power, and as soldiers doubly enslaved, a military despotism, as rigorous as that of France, can possibly be averted, but by restoring to full vigour and energy the county power, as thirty years ago was earnestly recommended and urged by sir William Jones: Wherefore the petitioner trusts that in the present awful crisis of our country, the House will take in good part his dutiful expostulations, cheerfully relinquish every unconstitutional claim of power, heal our distractions, and preserve our liberties, by exerting all its energies for restoring our two-fold constitution in its most vital organs, its Commons House, and its County Power." Mr. Whitbread moved that the petition do lie on the table. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that after the recent decisions of that House upon petitions not couched in respectful language, it was unnecessary for him to do any thing more at present, than merely to advert to two offensive passages in the petition just read, which, in his opinion, were conclusive against its reception. The first passage was, that which referring to the vote of last year (the decision on Mr. Madocks's motion of last session) pronounced it beyond endurance. The other in referring to the vote of that House for the committal of sir F. Burdett, characterised it as an act of flagrant illegality. Indeed, if the House were to encourage the presenting of such long petitions, from an indvidual, as that then presented, it may, for the future, expect to have others presented lengthened out into folios. But confining himself to the two insulting passages to which he alluded, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion that it should lie on the table. Mr. Whitbread begged to assure the House that it was his firm persuasion that the gentleman whose petition he presented, had no wish either directly or indirectly to insult that House. From such a charge the character, the whole political career of the petitioner, as visible in his actions, as illustrated by his public conduct, and expressed in his writings, ought to protect him. His only object was to take constitutional means of putting upon record his own opinion of the passing events of these times. In stating that opinion, the petitioner felt he did it respectfully, although he would not consent to adapt his style or regulate his sentiments according to the newfangled doctrines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his associates-of that Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, not satisfied with his opposition to throwing the doors of that House open to the prayers of the people, nor with his fastidiousness as to the language of petitions, had on that night found a new ground for rejection, merely, because the petition of a subject was rather of greater length than was ordinarily presented, and that consequently it would occupy too much room upon the journals of that House. The objection made to the words, “ past endurance," could not be for one moment supported. A House of Commons, putting the conduct of the present out of all question, might have done and had actually done things, which ought not to have been endured. If the fact was so, ought not the people to complain, and if they thought their acts intolerable, why deprive them of the opportunity of stating their opinions, that they were so? If such a state of events had taken place in the country, that it was almost its general opinion that the conduct of that House was past endurance, would it not be more wise and more politic to receive the petitions of the people, acquainting it that such was the public opinion, rather than by a denial of all redress, to almost urge the peo. ple to acts of open violence? Was it by the denial of redress and the refusal ever to hear the public complaint, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would convince the people that the conduct of that House was to be endured? You may put the victim upon the rack; his complaints and cries you may refuse to hear, but you cannot prevent death to take place in some of the paroxysms of his suffering. It was so with that House. It might inflict; the country would complain; by that House their prayers may be disre- of Brunswick Oels. He regretted that it garded. Their grievances may be multi-was necessary to bring a motion in the plied, but the constitution must expire. But with respect to the words themselves, what was more common in the ordinary phraseology of language? Was it not every day heard, when schedules of income tax, assessed taxes, and the catalogue of imposts were sent out, to draw the last shilling from an aggrieved and burthened people ;-was it not the common, the heart-felt observation, that such things were past endurance? But, in the reference made in the petition, the language could be only considered figurative, inasmuch as the evil so complained of had been endured. The next objection referred to the manner in which the petitioner spoke of the conduct of that House towards sir F. Burdett. He stated it to be, in his opinion, an illegal act. Was this a ground for refusal? Had not the subject a right to state his opinion upon every proceeding of that House? But above all, might he not be allowed to deliver a speculative opinion upon that very question, which by a vote of that House was now sent to a court of law, in which court its Speaker was desired to enter a plea? Under such circumstances, to refuse to receive the petition of a subject, was going to an extent which never could be supported. present shape before the consideration of parliament. He should have hoped that, after the very liberal conduct of parliament towards the civil list at a time not long past, some means might have been provided for affording a sufficient relief to the duke of Brunswick, in his present circumstances, without coming to parliament for another grant of public money. It was for his Majesty's ministers to consider whether it was wise or prudent for them to expect parliament to give money merely because they were asked for it. When he recollected that, within the last two years, no less a sum than 10,0001. per annum was voted for the duchess of Brunswick, he thought that if there had been any other mode of providing for his highness without laying additional burdens on this country, it should have been resorted to. The large pension which had been granted to the duchess of Brunswick was voted by that House, unanimously, as he believed, and without any observations. As to his highness the duke of Brunswick Oels, although he had as high a respect for his rank and charac ter as any man, yet he did not conceive that his claims were of the same nature as that of the duchess of Brunswick, the sister of the King. He, however, had The Chancellor of the Exchequer ex- made no objection to the pension of 7,000%. plained. It was not for doubting or ques- voted to his royal highness from the contioning their privileges that he objected to solidated fund. He knew that the consothe petition. It was for directly assert-lidated fund was much the best security ing that there was but one opinion, that upon which a pension could be charged, they were illegal, and that the acts of the as it would be regularly paid. But while, House were so outrageous, as to be past for this reason, he agreed to the pension endurance. being secured in that fund, still if any Mr. Brand maintained that it was the other means could be pointed out for inundoubted right of the subject to question demnifying that fund for the burthen so every act of authority of the House, or thrown on it, he thought such means ought any other branch of the constitution. to be had recourse to. The pension might He should, therefore, be sorry if the pe- have been secured on the civil list, or the tition were rejected on that account. 4 per cents. without burthening the conMr. Secretary Ryder thought the ex-solidated fund; but ministers, however, pression "past all endurance," fully suf- thought proper to come to parliament, and ficient to warrant the rejection of the to propose it as a matter of course to throw petition. If the House permitted such in- it upon the consolidated fund. Now, if sulting language, they would deserve to any other fund could be shewn to exist receive it. sufficient to relieve the country of the burthen of this pension, and he understood that the Droits of Admiralty were sufficient for that purpose, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared not to assent) be thought that such fund ought to be ap plied to that purpose. He hoped that gentleman would not so far misunderstand A division then took place-For receiving the Petition 32; against it 91. [DUKE OF BRUNSWICK'S ANNUITY.] Mr. Tierney rose, in pursuance of a notice he had given on a former day, to move an humble Address to his Majesty with respect to the pension granted to the duke him, as to suppose that he meant that the moved, it would be a more gracious, or pension should be charged on the Droits of rather a less offensive manner, to seek Admiralty, but he did think that a certain their wishes, by addressing his Maportion of them ought to be paid into the jesty at once to grant such a sum out of consolidated fund, for the purpose of in- the droits of the admiralty for the general demnifying it for the burthen so thrown service of the country, and not for this upon it. He could not see any more particular pension. The Address was inwholesome application of those Droits, deed curiously constructed. It began by which were supposed by many to be the taking great credit to the House of Comabsolute property of the crown, than to mons for the liberality they displayed in be applied towards making a suitable pro- the grant, and for their anxiety in securing vision for so near a relation to his Ma- a provision for a prince so nearly allied to jesty. The right hon. gent. concluded by his Majesty, and yet immediately after moving, "That an humble Address be taking this credit for liberality, it turned presented to his Majesty, to represent to short round upon his Majesty, and requesthis Majesty that we have proceeded to ed that he would pay them the whole take into consideration his Majesty's most amount of what in their liberality they had gracious Message relative to his serene just granted. It must be recollected, how. highness the duke of Brunswick Wolfen- ever, that out of the droits of admiralty his buttel: To assure his Majesty, that we Majesty had recently given large sums for participate in his Majesty's anxiety to the general service of this country. Bemake such provision as may be suitable tween 3 and 400,000!, had been given on to the rank and to the misfortunes of a account of the prizes taken at Copenprince so nearly allied to his Majesty's hagen, which otherwise must have been throne, and for whom his Majesty's feel- purchased from the captors, at the expence ings are so strongly interested: humbly of the country. The right hon. gent. had to acquaint his Majesty, that with a view stated that two years ago, no one objected to secure to his serene highness a settled in- to a pension of 10,000l. a year then grant come, the payment of which shall be regu-ed to the duchess of Brunswick; and yet larly made, we have granted to his serene highness an annuity of 7,000l. charged upon, and payable out of, the consolidated fund to represent to his Majesty, that while we are thus anxious to shew our at-wick had been no relation of his Majesty, tachment to and respect for his Majesty's illustrious House, we feel ourselves called upon humbly to submit to his Majesty's gracious consideration the heavy and increasing burthens to which his Majesty's faithful subjects have been and still are exposed in the prosecution of the war against France, burthens which we know not how to alleviate, but which we are bound by our indispensable duty not unnecessarily to augment: humbly there fore to implore, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that from the money at the disposal of the crown from the droits of admiralty, such a sum be paid into the consolidated fund as may be equal to the value of the annuity proposed to be charged upon the same for his serene highness the duke of Brunswick.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer considered that an application to his Majesty of the nature contained in that Address would be perfectly novel, and such as had never before been adopted by parliament. He considered that if the House really agreed with the substance of the Address the same application which was made now might have been made then, and perhaps with greater force; as she was nearer allied to his Majesty. If the duke of Bruns still from his sufferings he had a claim to the generosity of the English nation. Such claim had been allowed to other royal and distinguished persons, who, driven from their dominions and estates, had sought shelter in this country. It must also be recollected, that the annuity was only contingent, as it was to last no longer than the continent remained in the present unsettled state, and, therefore, it would not be easy to ascertain what sum from the droits of admiralty would be an equivalent for an annuity so circumstanced. He Mr. Creevey would not by any means admit that the droits of admiralty were the absolute property of the crown. thought, that when the king accepted a fixed annual income of 800,000l. it was supposed that he had given up all other claims. It never could be conceived at that time that such a sum as seven or eight millions could get into the hands of the sovereign, after the commutation which had been made. Although the law officers said that this was completely and absolutely the King's private property, what |