The motion being then put by the Speaker, it was ordered nem. on. and the right honourable T. Townshend, Mr. Grerville, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Conway, Mr. Attorney General, and the Lord Advocate were directed to prepare and bring in the fame.

January 23.

The Earl of Surrey prefented a petition to the Houfe from Earl of the borough of Launcefton, in the county of Cornwall. His Surrey. Lordship faid, that he ought to apologife for undertaking to prefent a petition from any part of a county with which he had no connection, in which he had no property, and confequently no perfonal intereft; and perhaps he was the lefs excufable, as the borough from which the petition came had two reprefentatives in the Houfe; one of them, however, would do him the juftice to fay, that he had offered him the petition, and requested he would prefent it; but the honourable member [Mr. Percival] had declined it.

His Lordship ftated, that he had received a letter from an inhabitant of Launcefton, in which the writer complained that the great bulk of the wealthy householders were deprived of the benefits that electors in other places enjoyed: by this his Lordship prefumed, that the writer meant the mere benefit of the franchife, and not the benefits of corruption; an idea that he flattered himfelf no man would prefume to fuggeft to that House.

He then moved, that the petition might be brought up; the motion paffed; and the petition was read, fetting forth, that the borough of Launcefton is an ancient borough, and bas conftantly, time out of mind, fent two members to Parliament; by the charter of Philip and Mary it was incorporated by the name of "Mayor and Commonalty," with a power to the faid Mayor and Commonalty and eight Aldermen, or Mayor and majority of them, to elect freemen from the most honeft, moft difcreet, and most refpectable of the inhabitants, and from the freemen to make choice of eight men, or a Common Council, to be affiftants to the faid Mayor and Aldermen; that the firft Mayor, Thomas Hicks, by and with the confent of the eight Aldermen, under the original charter, elected a number of freemen, and from the moft honeft, difcreet, and refpectable of thofe freemen, made choice of eight men, as a Common Council, or affiftants, and, as often as a vacancy happened in the aldermanic body, fupplied the fame from the Common Council, keeping up

X 2

the

the number of freemen to preferve the independency of the borough; and that the cuftom of fupplying the upper bench from the lower, and keeping up the number of freemen, under the old charter, was obferved for more than two centuries; that this cuftom prevailed in the years 1722 and 1734 will appear from the poll-books at the two contefted elections which happened at thofe periods, at the first of which upwards of fixty freemen, exclufive of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, voted, at the fecond forty-four; and that from the above æra the body of Common Council left its influence, as the aldermanic body was fupplied fometimes from the Common Council, but more frequently from the freemen at large; that about twenty years ago the body of Common Council was annihilated, and within these fourteen years no freemen have been elected but partially, to fupply the aldermanic body; that the prefent freemen are only ten, two of which at least are under the influence of the Mayor and Aldermen; that about twenty years ago the the Mayor and Aldermen were men of very great property within the borough, as will appcar from the land and poor rates; that the fum total of the latter amounts to 1721, 6s. 8d. to which the Mayor and Aldermen, as a body and individuals, contribute the fum of 221. 4s. 4d. and the refidue is difcharged by the principal inhabitants and freeholders of the faid borough. In confequence of thefe facts, and left the Mayor and Aldermen fhould affume to themfelves the fole right of returning members to Parliament, of which the petitioners are very apprehenfive, from their frequent declarations, the principal inhabitants and freeholders of the faid borough humbly petition the honourable the Commons of Great Britain to restore a more equal right of reprefentation to the inhabitants of the faid borough, and to extend that right in fuch a manner, that a few who have unjustly ufurped the power may not exercife the natural and inherent privileges of the many, or to afford them fuch other relief as is confiftent with the claims of their fellow citizens throughout the kingdom, or with the wifdom of the House.

The Earl of Surrey moved that the petition do lie on the table.

The Honourable Mr. Percival reprobated the spirit and tendency of the petition. He thought it altogether groundlefs, and originating in no very relpectable motives. The centure conveyed against him on minute and deliberate confideration, he trufted, would be found premature, as he

I

deemed

deemed the whole bufinefs exceedingly unneceffary and ill

timed.

Lord Surrey declared, that if the conftitution was ftill to Lord Sur remain in its prefent fituation, he should have no objection rey. whatever to that noble Duke's fending up whoever he pleased; as in his opinion, the delegate of one noble family was juft as good as the delegate of another. But his Lordfhip hoped, that this would no longer be the cafe, as they were not to look any where for the members of whom that House was compofed, but to the great body of the people at large, and not, as was the mode now, to receive them from an ariftocracy.

Mr. Burke obferved, that though this petition concerned Mr. Butke, only a fingle borough, yet gentlemen would find themselves miftaken if they fhould imagine that it did not involve a queftion of the very laft importance: this petition having opened the door, many others would follow of courfe; and therefore the queftion now was not, whether the right of voting in the borough of Launceston fhould be extended or not but, whether the ancient and venerable fabric of the conftitution fhould remain untouched? It had now borne the teft of ages, and was venerable not lefs for its antiquity than for the happiness that had been enjoyed under it by the fubjects. He would therefore warn Minifters how they should attempt to raise a cry against the conftitution. If any member thought the reprefentation of the people imperfect, he certainly had a right to fay fo, and propofe any refolutions he pleased on that head; but ftill with the refponfibility of credit and character. If Minifters in either Houfe of Parliament should interfere, and take a lead in this business, he would warn them not to attempt to deface the venerable pile; he would warn them to come prepared with a welldigefted plan for a better reprefentation, before they should dare to touch the hallowed fhrine; he hoped they would not bring any crude propofition, which would not answer any good end: for if it fhould be propofed to refolve that the conftitution of that Houfe was imperfect, and that it should be afterwards found expedient to adopt the fyftem that should be proposed to better it, the confequence would be, that the Houfe of Commons, the people's laft hope, would find itself funk in the estimation of the public, while no remedy could be found to avert this evil. He over and over again warned Minifters, either not to interfere in the bufinefs, or to draw

up

General
Saith,

up fuch a plan, as muft ftrike every man as greatly worthy
of being adopted by the legislature.

The petition was ordered to lie upon the table.

The order of the day was called for, for reading a fecond time the bill for reftraining, &c. &c. Sir Thomas Rumbold, Bart. and Peter Perring, Efq. General Smith moved, that the petition from Peter Perring, Efq. which had been prefented before the holidays, might be read. The prayer of this petition was, that his caufe might be feperated from that of Sir Thomas Rumbold. General Smith then declared, that he did not ftand up the advocate of Mr. Perring; but he thought the prayer of his petition was fo juft, that it ought to be granted. He then moved inftructions to be given to the counfel for the bill, to confine their evidence, for the prefent, to that part of the bill which concerned Sir Thomas Rumbold only. The motion paffed without oppofition.

The counsel for and against the bill were then called to the bar. Mr. Bearcroft and Mr. Cowper appeared in fupport of the allegations in the bill; Mr. Hardinge and Mr. Erikine were counsel for Sir Thomas Rumbold; and Mr. Scott and Mr. Pigot for Mr. Perring. As foon as the counfel had taken their feats at the bar, the Speaker acquainted thofe who were to argue in favour of the bill with the order of the Houfe, made in confequence of General Smith's laft motion. Mr. Bearcroft then entered upon the charge; but as we never give the arguments of counsel, and as we would not wish to be inftrumental in raising a bias in the minds of the public, we fhall take no notice of what fell from the counsel, until the business fhall come to be debated in the House.

Mr. Bearcroft spoke for near three hours; when he coneluded, his colleague, Mr. Cowper, called his firft witness. in fupport of the charges contained in the bill; but the witnefs not appearing immediately, the further proceedings on the bill were adjourned to Tueiday next, and the Houle immediately adjourned.

January 24.

The Earl of Surrey brought up the report of the Committee appointed to examine into the Journals of the House, to ice if there had been a precedent of relief granted to a petitioner for undue election, in order to extend the fame to

the

1

the cafe of Samuel Petrie, Efq. according to the prayer of his petition, which stated, that he conceived himself entitled to the privileges of the House, he being duly elected for the borough of Cricklade, though the fitting member had been unduly returned; and therefore that the Sheriff of Middlesex, pending his petition, had been guilty of a breach of privilege, in arrefting and detaining the body of the faid Mr. Petrie in cuftody.

The Committee, however, in their report declare, that after a very minute inveftigation, they had not been able to procure a precedent affimilating in any degree to the inftauce in queftion; and ftate the only ones on the Journals relating in any degree to arrefts on members of the Houfe, and which precedents not having a fimilitude to the cafe of the petition, the Committee were of opinion, that Mr. Petrie, as petitioning member only, was not entitled to the privilege of the Houfe.

The Earl of Surrey then defired that the feveral statutes refpecting arrefts, made in the prefent and the former reign, fhould be read, which being complied with,

Sir Grey Cooper rofe, and in a very warm fpeech, combated Sir Grey the impropriety of allowing, in fuch cafes as the prefent, the Cooper. privilege of the Houfe. Sir Grey, as a member of the Committee, had been more than commonly attentive to ranfack the Journals, in order, if poffible, to find a precedent either for or against the principle of the petition; but he had found, from the most attentive and accurate examination, that no cafe of the kind had hitherto occurred, when a person only petitioning had applied for the privileges of a fitting member. He was very anxious that a determinate and fixed rule fhould be marked, as he found no fingle cafe on the Journals refembling, in any degree, Mr. Petrie's petition. He found that gentleman had no claim whatever to the privileges of the House; none of these cafes whatsoever, mentioned in the ftatutes, or the defcription of perfons to whom the privileges extended, could poffibly come to point to Mr. Petrie; and Sir Grey, from principle, was happy it was the cafe. There would be no end, he faid, to petitions of that nature, if fuch a licence were indulged; it would operate worse even than infolvency, for ten might become candidates merely for the purpofe of enjoying the benefit of being privileged from arrefts, by preferring petitions upon no grounds or fhadow of right whatfoever. In intervals of the pendency of the petitions, much mifchief might be done to the circumftances

of