sures.

his misfortune, on the present occasion, to differ with many honourable friends of his, with whom he had been in the habit of acting in the humble sphere in which he moved in this House, and with whom he hoped long to continue to act; but it was some consolation to him to know and foresee from what had fallen from those hon. friends themselves, that though they differed in their votes, there was no material difference in their opinions as to the offensive character of the petition now presented. An hon. friend of his (alderman Combe), had stated yesterday, as a

knew not what might be the consequences of its rejection.-He did not know what might be the consequences of its rejection; but he would tell his hon. friend, that he was more solicitous about the interests and character of the House, than for the consequences of the rejection of this petition. But although he did not know what would be the consequences of the rejection of the petition, he had a decided opinion upon what would be likely to be the consequences of its reception; and this opinion was, that if this petition were received, the table would very soon be covered with insults and indignities offered to the House, by those whose object it was to degrade, vilify and insult the House of Commons. He begged not to be understood, or to be supposed to be

They had given to the demagogues the example for that language by which the House was now continually reviled and insulted. Their constant reply to those who resisted their measures, or arraigned their misconduct, was, that their only motive for opposition was a wish to get into their places. Could they suppose the people would not catch at such language? Their very phrases were adopted in every popular discussion, and made the general ground of abuse of both sides of the House. But he could not Suppose any man so absurd as to oppose such ministers merely for the sake of get-reason for receiving the petition, that he ting into their places, under existing circumstances. He wished the House, however, to view with temperate consideration the state of popular feeling, and that those persons whom he had been just addressing would consider how far they themselves had been instrumental to the success of those who propagated libels upon the parliament. If there was any such sentiment that he or his friends were actuated by, any views to power or emolument, he wished it to be fairly and fully investigated. Apologising to the House for trespassing so long on their indulgence, he wished the question for rejecting this petition might be shaped as a resolution in the form he had already suggested. He had drawn up one as rather explanatory of his own sentiments than to bind the House to adopt it in the pre-lieve, that there was any general disposi cise form it was now drawn up. He concluded with moving the following Resolution, explanatory of the grounds upon which the petition should be rejected:"That the House was at all times willing to receive the petitions of the people; but that it could not receive that which, under the name of a petition, was a protest against the proceedings of the House." Mr. Grenfell observed, that as he had seconded the motion for the adjournment the day before, he felt it incumbent upon him to make a few observations upon the subject now before the House. He rejoiced with the hon. gent. who spoke last, that the delay had taken place, not because he should now give a vote different from that which he had been prepared to give the day before, but because the vote of this night, whatever it might be, would be a vote of greater weight and dignity, than if it had been given yesterday, under the impression of that heat and agitation which the offensive language of the petition was calculated to produce. It was

tion throughout this country to insult and vilify the House of Commons. He believed no such thing. That there were great discontents and dissatisfactions, and arising from just causes, he admitted and contended, and he should at all times be ready to concur in measures for their correction. One great and principal cause of those dissatisfactions he believed to be the oppressive, vexatious, and tyrannical manner in which the taxes of this country were levied upon the subject. And it was his firm belief, that if ever the horrors of a revolution should be brought upon this country, it would be attributable more to the vexatious and oppressive mode of carrying the tax laws into execution, than to the burden (great as it was) of the taxes themselves. He was less afraid of meetings in Palace yard, or at Hackney, than of what was silently carrying on at the tax office in Somerset place. He concluded by saying, as he considered the petition to be a protest, and an insult upon the House, he should vote for its rejection.

and thinking that the House had done. wrong in receiving it, wished the House to follow up that which he conceived to be their error, by committing another error in receiving the petition under consideration. This certainly did not appear to him to be the best mode of preserving the dignity of the House. He was one of those who, on the first reading of the Westminster petition, thought with the hon. gent. that it contained matter of so offensive a nature as to preclude the House from receiving it; but on a more attentive consideration, the objectionable passages appeared capable of being interpreted in a way in which it was desirable that all petitions presented by the people to the House of Commons should, if possible, be interpreted. But was the Middlesex petition of that description? Could any one believe that it was sent to the House with any other view than with a premeditated design to insult them? If in the discharge of their duty, the House ought not to be too scrupulous. If in their anxiety to shew that they threw their doors wide open to the petitions of the people, they had received the petition of the electors of Westminster, did it follow that they were to go on day after day receiving petitions, each more insulting and offensive than its predecessor? Whatever might be the sentiments of the hon. gent. such was not in his opinion the course by which the House would best maintain its dignity. The hon. gent. in whom the discussion that evening originated, had ascribed to his Majesty's ministers, and to those who supported them, a great deal of what he called the prevailing dissatis

The Hon. J. W. Ward moved that the Westminster petition be read for the purpose of comparison. The Clerk having read it accordingly, the hon. gent. rose and stated, that he wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote he intended to give. He had opposed the Westminster petition, because, whether the prayer of it was right or wrong, he then thought, and did still think, that it was couched in language highly indecent and improper. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to call the attention of the House to it, that it might not pass sub silentio like an ordinary petition. Yet he meant to vote for the reception of this petition, and this required explanation. He was actuated now, as he had been then, by a regard to the dignity of the Honse, and in his opinion no mean part of dignity was consistency. He had heard nothing in the present petition more objectionable than what appeared in the other, which the House had determined to receive. How he would have acted if this had been a res integra, was another question. In these cases the House ought to act on a broad principle, and not receive one petition because its offensive nature could be explained away by a quibble, and reject another of the same kind, because a similar quibble could not be found. He saw no fair and open ground of objection to this petition, that did not equally apply to the other. That the practice of the House varied not only from century to century, but even in the course of twenty years, was obvious, when gentlemen compared the conduct of their ancestors, as to petitions, in the brightest times of our history, with the proceedings of the pre-faction of the country. In the first place. sent day. They could not help these changes, but still they ought not to allow them to take place with an indecent rapidity. The practice ought not to change from week to week, and from day to day, merely because a chancellor of the exchequer had more political courage on one day than he had on another. At the same time he declared his unaltered detestation and abhorrence of the principles of those who sent this petition, and if any one could shew him a real and substantial difference between the Westminster petition and the present, he would be prepared to vote for its rejection.

Mr. R. Dundas felt himself at a loss to follow the hon. gent. in his ideas of consistency. The hon. gent. having been averse to receive the Westminster petition

he must be permitted to doubt the exist ence of that dissatisfaction. If the hon. gent. really believed that it existed, he must also believe that the House had lost. the confidence of the country. From such a conclusion he most completely dissented. One of the instances adduced by the hon. gent. as tending to create this supposed dissatisfaction was, that his Majesty had been advised to select a gentleman to fill a high official situation who had, whether justly or unjustly, recently been assailed by popular clamour. Now he conceived, that if his Majesty's ministers were to advise his Majesty to listen to popular clamour, whether deserved or undeserved, they would, indeed, experience the dissatisfaction of the country. He was persuaded that the hon. gent. had

used that expression inadvertently, and that he would be disposed to retract it. Another hon. gent. had attributed a great deal of this supposed dissatisfaction to the conduct of the board of taxes. This was a most extraordinary and most unjust accusation. The board of taxes were the mere instruments of parliament. To single out that board as worthy censure for executing a very painful duty, which they were compelled to execute, in the execu tion of which they have no option, was to cast blame where it was wholly unmerited. With respect to the proposed resolution, he did not think it at all necessary that the rejection of the petition should be prefaced by any declaration of the motives by which the House were actuated. Such a declaration was not customary. The House of Commons had already shewn their willingness to receive the petitions of the people when they could do so consistently with their duty to themselves and their constituents. The mere fact of the reading of the petition and its rejection would sufficiently shew the grounds on which the House proceeded.

many petitions presented against tax bills (although such petitions were not allowed to be presented until the session succeeding that in which the bills were passed), the measures complained of were usually denominated "partial, oppressive, and unjust." Could any thing be abstractedly more offensive than to charge that House with partiality, oppression, and injustice? and yet it did not appear that any petitions had ever been rejected in consequence of their containing such charges; because that House considered them as conveying the sentiments of the petitioners. It should be equally so with regard to the present petitioners. They thought the conduct of that House unjust, and they told them so. If they really and conscientiously thought the House in its conduct unjust, how could they express that in words but such as they had made use of, and ought to make use of? Far, indeed, was he from concurring in the sentiments contained in their petition. He knew of no privilege claimed by that House which it did not possess. He knew of no power exercised by it which it had not the right to employ. He had most certainly read in that petition, and elsewhere, that the House had claimed and exercised privileges and

possess; but such statements, he was far from considering as offensive, proceeding as they did from an ignorance of the constitution. The surrender of any of the privileges of that House would lead to the destruction of the constitution. He regretted the ignorance which seemed to influence the people upon this subject; but he could not look upon it as an offence, if they differed in opinion from that House, that they should say so.-As to the designs of those who had stirred up the spirit which manifested itself on the present occasion, he was not acquainted with them; but if their designs were evil, it was the duty of ministers to detect and punish them. He cautioned the House

Mr. Ponsonby contended, that what his hon. friend had said with respect to the recent appointment of Mr. Yorke to the head of the Admiralty was perfectly justi-powers which it did not constitutionally fiable. He knew no mode by which the sense of the people of a county could be better collected, than by their refusing to re-elect any individual sent back to them for that purpose. When, therefore, the hon. gent. condemned his hon. friend for maintaining that the appointment of Mr. Yorke to office was not sanctioned by public approbation, the conduct of the electors of Cambridge was a sufficient voucher for the injustice of that condemnation. He was extremely sorry however that his view of the subject under discussion differed from that of his hon. friend. He should not vote for the rejection of the Middlesex petition; he could not find any thing in that petition more offensive than the expressions contained in the pe-against laying too much stress upon the tition which had already been received by accounts of public meetings, as reported the House, and he could never think that in the papers. He could quote one inany language which did not directly imply stance, as a proof that they were not to be offence, but which might be construed relied on with much confidence; for into offence, ought to induce the House to either the papers must be wrong, or an reject the petitions of the people. He hon. member of that House (Mr. Wardle) intreated the House to consider the nature must have hazarded some very strange of the object for which the petitioners assertions. The hon. member was reportprayed. If the people complained of aned to have said, that when the ministers act of that House, was it not indispensible were contending for privileges, which that they should term it injurious? In the did not belong to the House, the opposition

been stated by one hon. gent. that even if
his Majesty's ministers were to have he-
reditary offices in the government, the
House ought to rally round them on such
an occasion. As that hon. member was
in his place, he would correct him if he
was wrong but the impression upon his
mind was that he had made use of the
expression; but as to his having said that
no members of that House were honest,
but the few who concurred in opinions
with himself, he could not recollect his
having used any such expression, and he
was sure he had not, because he had never
thought so: but in or out of that House,
he should always state freely what he
thought, though he could assure the right
hon. gent. never with offence towards him
personally. Ir stating however fairly
and openly his opinion of public affairs
and public men at the general meeting of
the electors of Westminster, he had done
nothing more than what was his right and
what he conceived to be his duty. He
hoped that similar occasions for speaking
his sentiments, would often recur.
deed, he thought they could not occur too
frequently, because it was for the benefit
of the people to have a frequent opportu-
nity of expressing their sentiments, and for
the benefit of that House also to have an op-
portunity of knowing those sentiments. The
more frankly those sentiments were ex-
pressed, the more he should approve of
them. Having said so much as to the at-
tack which had been made upon him, he
had only one word to add on the subject of
the petition under consideration. He
trusted that the right hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would pursue the same
course with respect to this as he had done
with respect to the Westminster petition.
In that case the right hon. gent. had con-
sented to receive the petition, as contain-

In

had joined in the cry" to rally round the ministers upon such an occasion." He was sure that the hon. member could have said no such thing; he must have known that he would be one of the last men in the country to rally round the ministers. He was also reported to have said, "that his Majesty's ministers were reproached by the opposition, for not bringing in the military in the first instance.' The hon. member could not have said this, no such thing having happened. The gentlemen on his side of the House, instead of adopting such language, had accused and condemned the government for having employed the military before they had tried whether the civil power would not have been sufficient. The hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle), was also reported to have ascribed to what were commonly called the two great parties in the House, the greatest selfishness and impurity of motive. He supposed that this must also have been a mistake-for surely no man could arrogate so much to himself as to think that he had more wisdom and more honesty than the whole House of Commons. No man could be absurd, or unjust enough to say, that out of 658 members, 650 were notorious rogues. It was for these reasons that he thought the news-paper reports could not have been correct, and ought not to be relied upon with too much confidence. The right of petition was that of which the House ought to be particularly careful; in the maintenance of which he felt that he could not with propriety, vote against the petition. Mr. Wardle hoped the House would indulge him in a few observations, in reply to the personal attacks which had been made upon him ("No! no!" from the Opposition:" upon the newspapers.") Then, as the right hon. gent. had quoted from the news-papers certain expressions which were attributed to him, that right honing the sentiments of the electors of Westgent. should have stated where he had found them, because for his part he had not seen them so stated in any newspaper. What he had said he believed was this, that he thought it rather a curious moment for the gentlemen of the opposition to shew that they rejoiced in the commitment of sir F. Burdett. He said too, that he had heard it stated by one gentleman amongst them, that the occasion required them to rally round the government, and from that sentiment having been cheered particularly by the members on the opposition benches, he was justified in as suming it to be general. It had even

VOL. XVI.

minster. If he should put a similar construction upon the present, which was the construction upon which it ought to be received, he was sure the right hon. gent. would have no difficulty in acceding to the motion that it be laid upon the table.

Mr. Ponsonby, in explanation, stated that he had not intended any attack upon the hon. gent. What he had said was directed against the statements in the newspapers, purporting to be reports on the hon. gent.'s speech. As he had been called upon to state where he had seen these reports, he should inform the hon. gent., in the Morning Chronicle and the

3 F