1 VOL. XIV. No. 19.] LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1803. [PRICE IOD. "That it is the RIG.IT o the subject to petition the king........ And they" (the people of England) a do claim, demand, and insist upon, all and singular the premises" (the right of petitioning being only a part), " as their undoubted nehtsad liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings, or proceedings, "to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example." - BILL OF RIGHTS. 673] TO THE FREEHOLDERS AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF HAMPSHIRE. GENTLEMEN, *It is with great pleasure, and with some degree of pride, that I have seen, in the public papers, a notification, that, on Wednesday, the 2d of November, a meeting of the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy, Freeholdets and other Inhabitants of this county, is To be held at the city of Winchester, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of a petition to the king for an Inquiry into the causes of the Convention, ately entered into by eur generals in Porugal. That this meeting will be well atended as to numbers, and that there will e present gentlemen able and willing to oint out what ought to be done, there can de no doubt; but, as it appears to me, that few previous remarks, with respect to the bjects of the meeting, may tend towards Molucing unanimity, and thereby adding orce to the decision, I beg leave to offer you ay sentiments upon the subject. Gentlemen, the sorrow and indignation the Convention in Portugal have been, id are, more general than any feeling ever as been known to be in this country, with the memory of the oldest man living, ith the sole exception, perhaps, of the rrow which was felt at the death of LORD ELSON. That this sorrow and indignation ere not founded in reason no one has atimpted to shew us. There have been atupts made, amongst the parties concerned the transaction, to shift the blame from me to the other; there have been attempts ade to make us believe that the Convention ..not altogether so bad as we thought it; at, there has been no man bold enough to and forward and assert, that we were a arion of fools, who had all joined in conFarming that which had in it nothing worthy condemnation. It is clear, then, that the thing itself, the red which we so universally lament, is a roper subject of lamentation. It is clear, mat our sorrow and our indignation are well Loded, But, if these feelings of ours are - produce no effect upon the conduct of [674 those who are invested with the care and superintendance of our rights and interests; if our feelings are to be stifled; if we have not the right, or, which is the same thing, if we are deterred from exercising the right, of demanding justice to be done upon those who have been the cause of what we complain of; if this be the case, there is nothing in our situation which distinguishes it from that of slaves. For, Gentlemen, what is the great characteristic of slavery? It is this; that though the slave feel loss and vexation, he dares not openly complain. We are in the daily habit of speaking of Buonaparte as a despot, and of the people of France as his slaves; and, in so doing, we are not, I am convinced, guilty of injustice. But, what are the proos, which we possess, or pretend to possess, of the despotism of Buonaparte and of the slavery of the French peop? What are these poojs? For, if we assert; without proof wherewith to support our assertions, we are guilty of falsehood; and falsehood is not less falsehood, merely because it is uttered against an enemy. What are these proofs, then? Not that he has no parliament, for he has a legislative assembly as well as we; not that, in his legislative assembly, his ministers have always a decided majority, for, you know well, that our king's ministers have the same; not that he can do what he pleases with his army, appointing, promoting, and cashiering the officers at his pleasure, for, you know, that our king hos precisely the same power, and that, when, upon a late occasion, an attempt was made to abna that pover, fist tempt was stigmatized as an attach just prero getives of the crown; not le of rance are not represented in ticar les gislative assembly, for, there are elections in France as well as in England, and, perhaps, it would be very difficult to prove, that be tween those elections and ours there is any material difference. Well, then, Gentle men, what is the ground, upon which we charge the people of France with being slaves, and what is the proof which we possess of the fact? The ground is imply Y this, that they dare not go to their sovereign | and drawers of water. In the present case, with complaints; and, the only proof that we possess of this fact, is, that they do not go to him with complaints. If, therefore, we do not complain to the king, when it is noterious to the world, that we have so bitterly complained to one another, will not that world conclude, that we dare not complain; and, upon the same ground that we call the French people slaves, will not the world justly impute slavery to us? No matter what be the cause, by which we are restrained from complaining; whether it be the bayonet in the hands of a soldier, or the means of corruption in the hands of a minister; whether it be the dread of death from the hands of the executioner or from the cravings of hunger. The cause matters not, so that the effect be the same, so that we are slaves, it matters not whether we are held in slavery by the force of steel or by that of gold. those who do pretend to understand military affairs have not attempted to defend the transaction of which we complain; while some of those persons, who are most active in opposition to our petitioning the king, have asserted, that one of the generals protested against the Convention. But, what are their opinions to us? It is sufficient, that the thing appears to us to be matter for complaint. That is all that is required to justify our complaining; unless we be content to see and hear only through the eyes and ears of those, who appear to think that they have a right to treat us as their slaves, merely because they wallow in luxury upon the fruit of our labour. When, but a very few months ago, it was thought useful to those in power to obtain addresses to the king in praise of his speech about Spain and Portugal, and of the military measures be intended to adopt with regard to those coun (tries; then you were not thought to be quite so unfit judges of matters of this sort then you were called upon to give your opi nions of measures even berore they had been put into execution. And now, by the very same persons, who then so called upot you, you are told that military operations and making Conventions are matters above your capacity. So that, though you are very good judges as long as you are disposed to praise, you are not fit to judge at all, wher you are disposed to condemn; and, in short you are to be well-broken dogs in the servics of the ministers of the day, at whose com mand you are to dash on, come in, stand back, give tongue, run mute, creep, cringe or lie, dead as a stone, at their feet. Thit expedition to Portugal, the intention of undertaking which you were, by the agents of the ministers, called upon to praise, has cost England as much as the whole amount Those who wish to prevent the people from petitioning the king upon this occasion, tell us, that we are not competent judges of the matter, upon which we have taken it upon us to decide. That we are not all soldiers is certain, and that very few of us, comparatively speaking, would be able to conduct battles and sieges is obvious; but, all of us, who are not absolute ideots, know, that when an army is sent abroad at a vast expence, the people who pay that expence, have a right to expect some services from that army; we know, that when one army is double the force of another, and when the latter has been beaten by a third part of the force of the former, that it is reasonable to expect, that the weaker army ought, very soon, to become captives to the stronger. There does not require any military science to enable us to speak with confidence as to these points. If we most be generals, or admirals, in order to be able ❘ of one year's poor-rates; that it has done to form correct opinions, in every case relating to military and naval affairs, it is plain, that we must, in future, hold our tongues; and that we have nothing to do with such affairs, but to pay the expences attending them. Upon the same principle, we could never, with propriety, complain of any measure of the government, however disgraceful or oppressive it might be. If a treaty were made giving up the Isle of Wight to France, we might be told to hold our peace, seeing that we are not plenipotentiaries and secretaries of state; the chancelfor of the exchequer might, upon the same principle, bid us be silent upon the subject of taxation; and so on, till we were redaced to the state of mere Hewers of wood herm to England instead of good no man hat the assurance to deny; and yet you are told that you ought not to call for inquiry into the conduct of those who have caused al this injury, because you are not competent judges of the matter. This insolence may show you in what contempt you are held by the persons to whom I have so frequently alluded; and, if you now suffer yourselves to be bullied or wheedled into silence, vou will convince the world that you are worthy of that contempt. But, there is another objection to ou petir oning the king, at this time, which objection is worthy of your particular nom tice, and, I trust you will think, of yout marked reprobation. It is this: thay ince the promulgation of the king's answer | are "pronouncing judgment without previo the city of London, any further petitions or inquiry are unnecessary, seeing that be therein declared his, intention to institute in inquiry, after which further petitions, besides being useless, may seem to imply a lonbt of his sincerity. Gentlemen, the betition of the city of London was expressdin terms as humble as it is possible for any description of human creatures to make se of towards any earthly being; and the nswer they received contained as sharp a reuke as any king of England ever gave to is subjects. The king told them, that it as "inconsistent with the principles of British justice to pronounce judgment without previous investigation;" and that, the interposition of the city of London could not be necessary for inducing him to direct due inquiry to be made."low. Gentlemen, there was no judgment onounced on any one by the petition ofthe for cringing Londoners. They only prayWhat an inquiry might be ordered; they id, what the whole nation had said, that • Convention was disgraceful and injurious the country; they expressed their sorrow at so many English lives and so much nglish money should have been lost and pended in vain, and they humbly imared the king to institute an inquiry into ecause of such a calamity, and to bring e offenders to justice; but, they judged one; they marked out no one for anishment; they preten led not to say, hether the blame lay with the ministers the generals; they, with the rest of the hon, were convinced that blame lay somemere, and they prayed, in a most humble le, that an inquiry might take place. as there, in this, Gentlemen, any thing inconsistent with the principles of British lice?". Why, is not this the mode of ceeding in all our courts? The man, o thinks himself aggrieved by another n, comes into court, in his own person by his attorney, and demands that the edged offender be put upon his trial. The mand cannot be refused; it often hapas, that the party accused is found to be mocent; but, no one attempts to say, that demand is inconsistent with the prinles of British justice; no judge, when plied to for a warrant, a writ, an attachnt, or citation, ever tells the plaintiff t he is come to " pronounce judgment." ben any of us apply for a warrant or nmons against a thief, or a poacher, we ert that the person has been guilty of eving or poaching; yet, the justices nesend us away with the rebuke, that we ous investigation." It would be an in-. sult to your understandings to pursue the illustration; for there is not a man of you, who will not clearly perceive, that the application of the poor humble citizens of London was strictly consistent, not only with the principles of British justice, but, as nearly as the case would permit, with the forms of legal proceedings. As to the necessity of this application, the king alluded to the trial of General Whitelocke, and told the poor citizens, that he should have hoped, that his conduct in that case would have convinced them, that their ind terposition was not necessary to induce him. to institute inquiry in this case. But, Gentlemen, pray mark the distinction. In both cases the transaction was reprobated by the nation at large; in both cases the NATION complained of disgrace and inquiry; but, not so with the MINISTRY, who, in the former case, gave, at once, evident signs of their agreement in feeling and opinion with the nation; whereas, in the latter, case, they gave signs as evident, that they disagreed in feeling and opinion with the nation, and that, though they might not openly justify the Convention, their intention was not to put upon their trial any of the persons, who had framed or ratified it. Upon the arrival of the intelligence, or, at least, when the intelligence could no longer be kept from the public, they made a short and equivocal communication of it to the Mayor of London; they caused the guns of the Park and Tower to be fired, which, as you well know, is the token of joyful tidings; they caused an illumination to be made at all the offices and buildings under their controul; they put us to the expence of candles, coloured lamps, and flambeaux, for the celebration of the erent; and, in short, they did, upon this occasion, exhibit all those marks of joy that were by them exhibited at the intelligence of the battle of Trafalgar. Well, then, Gentlemen, what similarity is there in the two cases? and, why were the poor citizens of London to be rebuked, because they seemed to suspect that Wellesley and his associates would not be brought to trial, without a direct application of the people to the king? Were they, because Whitelocke was tried for an act which the ministers openly lamented, to conclude that Wellesley would be tried for an act at which these same ministers openly rejoiced? Poor creatures, how is it possible, that they could have drawn such a conclusion? There were, inoreover, Gentlemen, other circumstances to justify this interposi tion on the part of the people. Whitelocke had the misfortune to commit his disgraceful act at a time when the ministry was composed of a new set of men, of men who were the political enemies of those who sent him out on his command; and the citizens of London, slavish as they have been for many many long and disgraceful years, had had opportunities enough of perceiving, that circumstances of this sort are not with out their influence. They knew, besides, that the Convention-making generals were not only appointed by the present ministry, who, of course, were their political friends, but that one of them, he who led the way in the transaction that has filled us with indignation, was one of the ministry, one of his brothers another of the ministry, and that his family had, at least, twelve fast friends in the parliament. These were circumstances calculated to have great weight; and when the citizens of London perceived, that the ministers, in the Gazette Extraordinary, in which they gave us an account of the transactions in Portugal, published the Armistice, which was negociated and signed by Wellesley, in the French language only; when they perceived this, must they not have been convinced, that it was the resolution of the ministers to screen this general, at any rate, and that to screen him would be impossible, if either of the others were put upon their trial? Must not this have been evident to every man of common sense ? Well, then, in this state of things, what do the citizens of London do? Why, they meet, and determine to appeal to the king; they say, we see that the ministers are dis. posed to withhold satisfaction from us for this great injury and disgrace, and therefore, as to the prime source of justice, we will apply to the king himself. They do this in language the most humble; their prayer is termed an unnecessary interposition; they are accused of acting inconsistently with the principles of British justice; and they are charged with pronouncing judgment previous to investigation, at the very moment when they pray for an investigation. not been given to us. If we approve of what they did, it is our duty to do the same; or else, upon all other occasions, the whole nation is to look upon itself as being represented by the city of London; one petition and one answer will do for the whole; London will be the only part of the nation, whom any king or any minister, will have to manage; and the country at large, ad the land and all its owners and all its cultivators, are, at once, sunk into complete insignificance. Not so, however, think the government agents, when they call for praises of the ministry. Then, as in the late instance, the more addresses the bette The city of London began last summer, and they had their answer; but, the addressing did not stop there. The counties and cities and boroughs, down to the boroughs of ten men, followed the example. No body told them that it was unnecessary to proceed; but, on the contrary, they were urged on, till there was not a single spot left, from which an address of praise had not been extracted. Besides, Gentlemen, do you perceive, in the answer of the king to the citizens of London, any assurand that he will cause an inquiry to be instituted The words are these: "I should have hoped "that recent occurrences would have com "vinced you, that I am at all times ready "institute inquiries on occasions in whi "the character of the country or the hono " of my arms is concerned, and that the terposition of the city of London coil not be necessary for inducing me to rect due inquiry to be made into a transa tion which has disappointed the hopes 2 expectations of the nation." Now, Gen tlemen, this is, you perceive, by no mean a positive assurance that any inquiry sha take place; and, supposing it to amount that, the word due, carefully qualifying t word inquiry, leaves, I think, little room doubt, that the inquiry, if any, is not like to be of that vigorous kind, which it is t wish of the nation to see take place. T answer implies, that the king has been all times ready to institute inquiries of th sort in contemplation. There was a co vention at the Helder, by which eight t sand French sailors were released out of prisons to go and fight against us; and, any inquiry did take place upon that occ sion, an occasion in which the character the country and its arms was certainly en cerned, it was of so secret and quiet a kind that the people never even heard of it; 20 I take it, that this is not the sort of ing Now, Gentlemen, can you discover any thing in this transaction which ought to prevent us from petitioning the king for inquiry? We have all the original inducements that the citizens of London had; but, we are told, that, at any rate, the king has now declared that he will institute an inquiry, and that, therefore, to petition for that purpose now, would, besides being useless, seem to imply a doubt of his sincerity.Gentlemen, this doctrine is quite new. The ❘ which we now wish for. Besides, does it gra answer given to the citizens of London has ly encourage us to rely upon the advice tha sentation of what he or she deems to be a ،، London sneaked out of the presence of their sovereign, whose dignity had reproved their indecency and rebuked their presumption, and became a laughing stock." Well, we really deserve this language. We have so long submitted to be the tools, the sport, the slaves, of the minister of the day, that there is no insult which we do not merit at their hands, or the hands of their underlings. Then, again, we are asked: "do the people believe that their old king the king will now receive, that we see, at at another king should take his place, first clared what were their own rights, and, mongst these rights, was that of petitioning e king. This declaration, which makes art of an act of parliament, contains the tter of what we call the constitution. very man; every individual person, in whater rank or situation of life, has, according the constitution of England, an unquesonable right to lay before the king a repre is wanting in justice and integrity so much, as to require a lecture upon both, from every Burgh, City, and county in the kingdom?" You will observe, Gentlemen, that when the object was to obtain addresses of praise, these same people had no objection to a lecture from every Burgh, City, and County in the kingdom. But, what is now become of this boasted right of petition, if it be proper to reprove and rebuke the petitioner, and to treat his petition as a presumptuous lecture ? A petition, from the very meaning of the word, must contain a prayer that something may be done; a petition to the king must necessarily contain an expression of the petitioner's desire that the king will do something; and, therefore, if to express such a desire be indecent and presumptuous; if to express such a desire be to insinuate that the king is wanting in justice and integrity, it is evident, that there an be no petition free from the that the right of petitioning the king, as |
