“I apprehend, however, that this information is not founded in fact: if I am wrong, I see several gentlemen round me, connected with the house of commons, who will set me right. That there is no particular time limited for the presentation of private petitions, and that they might be brought forward at any period of the session, I am inclined to think the usages of the house will permit. The latter clause of Mr. Perceval’s letter, which states that my claims are not of a nature for the consideration of parliament, appears to me inexplicable. If they are not referred to that branch of the legislature, to whose consideration then ought they to be submitted? Yet thus was I bandied about from man to man, and from place to place. Suppose this had been the case with either of you, gentlemen of the jury, and that your sufferings had been equal to mine, what would have been your feelings? It is the duty of every individual to apply through the proper channel for redress, and through what other channel ought you to apply but through the heads of government? Upon this occasion, however, those whose duty it was to have redressed my grievances treated them with indifference, and were deaf to the dictated of justice. In consequence of this denial on the part of Mr. Perceval to investigate a business in which the national honour was concerned, I was left at a loss how to act, or what course to pursue: I, therefore, returned home, and remained inactive for nearly eighteen months, when, finding that I could no longer hold up against the ruinous effects of those failures which were the consequence of the injustice with which I had been treated, every one coming upon me for that which I was unable to pay, and my family borne down by the deepest affliction at the distresses to which they were exposed, I found it necessary to renew my applications, which I did to the treasury, and submitted to them a petition, reiterating those claims I had so unsuccessfully made before. To this application I received for answer—
“ ‘Treasury Chambers, Feb. 24, 1810.
“ ‘Sir,—Having laid before the lords commissioners of his majesty’s treasury your petition of the 16th instant, submitting a statement of losses sustained by you in Russia, and praying relief, I am commanded by their lordships to return to you the documents transmitted therewith, and to acquaint you that my lords are not able to afford you any relief.
‘I am, &c.
‘Geo. Harrison.’
“I next made application to his royal highness the Prince Regent to have my affairs laid before parliament, explaining anew the disgraceful conduct of the consul and ambassador at Russia, who, by suffering me to be so persecuted, had been guilty of an act which brought eternal disgrace on the country. (Here he read documents similar to the former, and repeated all the statements respecting the manner in which he had been treated in Russia.) The answer I received was as follows:
“ ‘Whitehall, Feb. 18, 1812.
“ ‘Sir,—I am directed by Mr. Secretary Ryder to acquaint you that your petition to his royal highness the Prince Regent has been referred, by the command of his royal highness, for the consideration of the lords of his majesty’s most honourable privy council.
‘I am, &c.
‘J. Beckett.’