observation to the right of petitioning, that He would of course be happy to encou in order to preserve that right it was ne- rage all those who professed to support cessary to guard against any licentiousness that desirable measure, in any application in its exercise. The petition under con- they thought proper to make to that House sideration he conceived to be a most licen- in its favour, provided such application tious exercise of that right, and therefore was couched in decorous and proper terms. he must oppose its admission. He must But this petition was not of that character, oppose it, because he could not sanction and therefore he could not defend it.. any proceeding calculated to encourage This petition, however, and all the other that sort of commotion in which the mid- proceedings which he, in common with dle men like himself-in which those who all reflecting men, lamented, was to be wished to keep aloof from all extremes traced to that unfortunate vote (for the were sure to be trodden under foot. It committal of sir Francis Burdett), which could not be supposed that in the vote he he had endeavoured to prevent, and which meant to pronounce upon this subject, he he never could cease to deplore. Whatwas influenced by the consideration that ever indeed might be the termination of the chancellor of the exchequer took the this controversy, he must always regret same course. His vote was the result of a that vote for the consequence which it had thorough conviction, which he rather be- already produced. But this was not the lieved would very seldom incline him to only subject of his regret. He could not vote with that right honourable gentle- help thinking, that if any of the several man. Passing from this topic, the ho- propositions for reform submitted to that nourable member adverted to the obser- House had been adopted, the character of vation of an hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle), the House would have been more respectwith regard to the conduct of his side of ed through the country. The body of the House upon the committal of sir F. the people would have reverenced its proBurdett. How that side of the House ceedings, would have regarded it as their could have exulted in the committal of real representation, as the guardian of the hon. baronet, while no less than 152 their rights, and, therefore, would have of that side voted against it, was a spe- come forward to support it in the assertion cies of paradox which he confessed he of its privileges. But how different were was unable to comprehend.-That the the circumstances at present, owing to the House had lost much of its weight and re- state and conduct of that House. He was spectability in the public estimation, and aware, that in what he had said, he might through its own conduct, he conceived it perhaps give offence to both parties; but absurd to deny. But still he must be he was conscious that he had no such inexcused, if he thought that it should not tention, and should trust to their candour give up any part of the weight and re- to acquit him of it. After what he had spectability it retained, and that it should said, he should vote for rejecting the petitenaciously maintain its privileges. Al- tion. though he was satisfied that that House required reform-although he felt that that reform must, and he hoped would ere long, take place, yet it should be recollected, that if any of its privileges were now lost, it might be found extremely difficult to regain them, even after the reform was accomplished. Therefore the House should not, because it had committed some breaches of duty, be guilty of a still farther breach by surrendering its privileges-by neglecting to transmit those privileges to their successors, for the benefit of the people, to whom, and for whom, they were necessary, as they would be found to be, particularly in the event of reform. For this reform he anxiously looked. He had been a petitioner, in fact, to that House, and he would petition for it again and again, if necessary. Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald (of Kerry) said, that however much he respected, in general, the opinions of the hon. gent. Mr. Barham, he must on the present occasion, wholly differ from him, and should vote against the rejection of the petition. The ground must be strong, indeed, and the objections clear and unquestionable on which he could assent to the rejection of a petition, from so large and respectable a body of their constituents, presented in the legal and regular manner to that House. If petitions were to be rejected merely on the imputation of containing warm expressions objectionable to the administration of the day, a most dangerous impression might be made on the public mind; might it not inspire an apprehension that the right of petition was become nugatory, depending, altogether, on the will of the minister. He concur- ing on the right itself, which it was their red with the last speaker in lamenting duty to guard inviolate. To what extent the cause of all those discussions-the might not such a principle be carried? committal of Mr. Gale Jones, and the Did gentlemen propose to submit the pemore so, as he was originally of opinion, titious of the people to a previous scrutiny and still remained so, (notwithstanding his analogous to an imprimatur; did they respect for the talents of those who thought propose to refer them to the minister or otherwise) that the House had not any his agent? that if one contained an exright, acknowledged by the laws or the pression or complained of a grievance in practice of the constitution, to try for libel, a way offensive to such minister, they and to pass sentence of punishment there- were not to entertain it. In what case of on. He was also of opinion that the dignity a public nature could a petition be imaof the House was not consulted by com- gined, which under such circumstances mitting their power in conflict with a would be admissible? The hon. gent. had, person of that description. He was, fur- however, stated that it was no petition but ther, decidedly of opinion, with due de- a protest. He did not know what the ference, that the House had acted unjus- hon. gent.'s definition of a petition was; tifiably, in punishing one of its own mem- it stated a grievance and it prayed for rebers for some indiscreet language in an dress, that appeared to him to be the very Address to his Constituents, on an occa- character of a petition. It did that cersion when he conceived their liberties to tainly, in very plain and simple language. be involved which address he was consti- It stated the grievances strongly, and in tutionally justified in, and perhaps bound what other language could they expect to make-nor should he think that the that grievances strongly felt, would be House would then consult its dignity, its stated? They accused the House of asinterest, or its duty, by throwing any im- suming an illegal power, that was the pediment in the way of petitioning from grievance, and the remedy asked for was, the people. To reject the petition would the reversal of their proceedings, their complete that tissue of error and impolicy erasing from their Journals the objectionin which ministers had involved the House. able decisions. What, was it to the subWhat would the people think? by "peo- stance of such an application that gentleple" he did not mean the mob, such as men objected? Was there any thing criwere described by gentlemen; but the minal or unprecedented in such an applisober, reflecting class of men, those who cation? Had not their predecessors repaid the taxes, the army and navy, and ceived repeated petitions to the same efsupported the expences of the state, who fect, and had they not ultimately comwere perfectly competent to form a just plied, as in the case of Wilkes, by reversjudgment of the conduct of their constitu- ing and erasing from their Journals, their ents? what would such men think? Why, most solemn judicial proceedings? He that having already infringed the per- would therefore recommend to the House, sonal liberty of the subject, having pu- to be extremely cautious how they threw nished his representative for complaining any obstacle in the way of petitions. A of such infringement, nothing more re- caution the more necessary, when be remained than to extinguish the right of peti-flected that those were the same ministers tion in the body of the people. What! who had insolently rebuked the city of was the assertion of that right to be con- London for complaining of the Cintra sidered a jacobinical claim? No, it was Convention, a transaction, which, though the law and constitution of the land. It is sanctioned by that House, would attach that subsidiary but invaluable right which indelible disgrace to the British name. in the opinion of all the best writers on The same ministers, who not daring to rethose laws, and that constitution, it becomes peat that rebuke when the first city of the the duty of the people to exercise, when- empire remonstrated against the still more ever their liberties are thought, by them, atrocious transactions of Walcheren, insidito be invaded; considered in that point of ously shut the ears of their Sovereign to view, the wording of a petition was in the complaints of his people, and locked up his mind of little importance. He did their petition in the office of one of their not advocate the language of the petition colleagues. The same ministers would in question, he might not admire the taste now, with systematic hostility, avail themin which it was written; but were those selves of some objectionable phrase in pe reasons for rejecting a petition and trench-titions, to undermine the right itself. He person more disposed than himself to treat with extreme tenderness the right of peti tioning. He should be very unwilling to reject any petition merely from an inadvertent expression which might appear disrespectful; but when he considered the entire language of this petition, he felt himself, under all the circumstances of the case, compelled to reject it. If they did not reject the present petition, he did not see how they could ever in future re There could not avoid reprobating the idle and impolitic language held by some gentlemen, of rallying round ministers. What merit these gentlemen, who thought ministers deserving of capital punishment for the infamous Expedition to Walcheren, could discover in their subsequent conduct in originating or managing the proceedings against sir F. Burdett, to call on men to rally round them, he was unable to comprehend. He, on the contrary, thought that their conduct in those trans-ject any petition on the grounds of its beactions rendered them infinitely more criminal. That the nation entertained its unanimous opinion notwithstanding, and in difference from the decisions of that House, he firmly believed. But he could not concur in the alarm at the interposition of the great public bodies of the country. He saw nothing in the constitution of that House rendering it so extremely subservient to public feeling. He could discover none of that sympathy in their vote applauding the policy of the late Expedition. He saw no symptoms of democracy in the sentiments of that House. If there was any danger to be apprehended from foreign influence amongst them, it certainly was not from the influence of the people. Such influence had unfortunately but too little weight there. It would, of course, but ill accord with the public feeling, to have it not merely slighted, but ignominiously spurned at. It was surely sufficient punishment to petitioners, if their complaints were not proceeded on. He was, however, desirous to encourage their applications. From such applications alone, strongly urged, did he expect those measures which he thought indispensible to the salvation of the country. To reject the petition in question, would, in his mind, have the most mischievous consequences, and would trench upon one of the most valuable rights of the peopleperhaps the most important to the security of the remainder, of all those which, as representatives, were vested in their guardianship. Mr. Barham, in explanation, stated, that it was his wish to accompany the rejection of the petition, with a resolution declaratory of the reasons which induced its rejection; and thus pointing out to the petitioners the propriety of avoiding any dictatorial strain, and the way in which they ought to proceed in their applications to that House. Mr. Wilberforce said, that there was no ing couched in disrespectful and offensive How ing, most strongly, an opinion against the Westminster petition, his right hon. friend had distinctly stated the dangers on the one side, and the favourable circumstances on the other, and candidly declared, that, in his judgment, the balance was in favour of receiving the petition. He reminded his right hon. friend, that though the cry now adopted by the petitioners was in favour of the popular side, yet too much ought not to be conceded on that account; for the time might come, when their petitions would be as much against the popular interests, as they now pretended to be for them; and in the same degree attempting to run down, vilify, and degrade the House. They must all recollect, in the history of the country, that this was the case in the instance of Dr. Sacheverel. In the reign of Charles II. the people were deluded into petitions, praying that no more Parliaments might be assembled. Such things might happen again; and if they now gave way, they ought to remember that they were destroying solid strength, and what he might call the triumph of reason and justice; that they were subverting all that was consistent with happiness, stability, and glory, to build up confusion and disgrace. In rejecting this petition, they were debarring the freeholders of Middlesex no right or privilege. They might call for the re-consideration of any proceeding of that House. The House would revise and re-consider their acts, and they would do it the more freely, if they did not allow themselves to be dictated to by any other body. They would review their proceedings with that independence belonging to them, as the third branch of the legislature, and the unfettered representatives of the people. He could have wished, that their rejection of this petition had been accompanied by some such resolution as was read by the hon. mover, to shew, beyond the possibility of misrepresentation, that they acted in this way, from no feeling of affront, but in the performance of a duty incumbent on them, to preserve, not their personal rights, but the rights of the people entrusted to their care. The preservation of their privileges and dignity was indeed a trust, not a property. There was nothing in the petition that might not be again stated inoffensively, and in a stile consistent with the dignity of the House to receive. As the petition now stood, he felt it to be a duty he owed to those who sent him there, and to the peo ple of England, whom he represented, to. reject it. Mr. Ellison said, that if he really conceived that the House was held in such contempt by the country as it was often stated to be, he should feel ashamed to sit there; but he was convinced that there was no foundation for the statement. To whom were the country to look for any important advantages? Was it to the hon. baronet who was in the Tower, or any of his partizans? It appeared to him that a party had sprung up in the country, which it was the duty of that House to crush. He objected to the petition, as being in many parts false. It was not in the execution of the Speaker's warrant that innocent blood had been split; but the loss of some lives proceeded altogether from the necessity of preserving the public peace, and the impossibility of the military bearing any longer the many indignities and attacks they had been exposed to. The mob on the late occasion were, in some respects, more dangerous than that which assembled in the time of lord George Gordon. The mob of lord George Gordon had not come, as the late mob had done, with pistols in their pockets, and did not, like them, fire upon the military. Under the recent circumstances, the conduct of the military was most exemplary. He should vote for rejecting the petition, as being unfounded in truth. Mr. Morris did not perceive any thing in the present petition which was so very offensive as that the House should refuse to receive it. The debate appeared to have taken a very different turn from what it had taken the preceding night. On the last night the objection seemed to be merely that the power of commitment was denied; but on the present occasion the objection was generally that the language of the petition was offensive. He did not think, that asserting that the House had acted contrary to law in a late instance, was denying that they had a right of committing. They might have that right on other occasions from the necessity of the case, and yet it might happen that they had it not in the case of a libel, which was an offence that might be punished in the due course of law. The people might well doubt that they had such a right; and if it should turn out that they had it not, then it must be allowed that they had done an illegal act. It was said, by one of his Majesty's ministers, that the House must now make a stand, or that their þable would be covered with similar petitions. | the language of a petition to the House of This however was not his opinion; nor did Commons ought to be respectful and inofhe expect that many other counties would fensive. He protested against the petition petition on this subject, whatever might in the name of the great majority of the be the fate of the petition for Middlesex. freeholders of Middlesex, and he thought He thought the House would in no degree the House would disgrace themselves in relieve itself from hearing petitions similar entering it on their Journals. in substance, by rejecting the present petition. On the contrary, the rejection of it would naturally produce another county meeting, and another petition. This, however, should be no consideration, if the privileges of the House were seriously attacked; but if they were not seriously attacked, it would be worth considering whether any real advantage would be obtained by rejecting the petition. Sir Mark Wood considered the petition as the most disrespectful ever presented to the House; but whether they rejected it or not, he did not think their table would be covered with any thing similar. The petition was not what it was stated to be. It was stated to be, "The petition of the freeholders of Middlesex, in full county assembled." Of the persons assembled at Hackney, not one-third were freeholders, and the petition was signed by no more than eight names. To this meeting he, a freeholder of the county, would not go, because he knew that nothing he could say would be attended to, and that it was in vain to attempt to be heard, in combating the opinion of the party there assembled. There were many freeholders of the county deterred from going, for the same reasons, and because they knew there were hundreds of persons there not freeholders, determined, by cry and clamour, to drown every voice not raised in favour of their own way of thinking. He protested against the petition being received as the petition of the freeholders of Middlesex, and he was confident, that if the county was polled throughout, 9 out of 10 of the freeholders would not only not sign it, but would think themselves disgraced by its being laid on the table. He might be asked why, then, did not the 9 in 10 attend and reject the propositions? His answer was, because they knew, that, so near the metropolis, it was easy to collect a crowd of persons, who would drown every thing in noise and clamour. In the course of this debate, many subjects had been introduced, not necessarily connected with it. What bad the conduct of the ministers towards sir F. Burdett to do with the language of the Middlesex petition? Whether ministers were right or wrong, Lord A. Hamilton observed, that if the hon. member who spoke last was rightly informed, and that nine-tenths of the freeholders of Middlesex were hostile to the petition now before the House, he could not help thinking, that those nine-tenths had not done adequate justice to the county of Middlesex in allowing a remaining tenth to assume the voice of the county itself. He did not think the language of the petition so disrespectful as to make it necessary for the House to reject it. He had himself stood up for the right of commitment, but he thought it perfectly fair and allowable for any petitioner to deny the right. The word protest' had been objected to, as offensive to the dignity of that House; but he did not perceive any thing in that word more than a solemn denial of the right, the exercise of which they complained of. It appeared to him that there were other parts in the petition which were more offensive, yet of which no notice had been taken. He did not like to hear asserted, that all public men were corrupt, and that they were bought and sold. The Middlesex petition seemed to have introduced that doctrine rather unnecessarily, upon the present occasion. The petitioners dwelt pointedly on the sale of seats in that House, and on the corrupt state of the representation. This topic, introduced, as he thought, unnecessarily, appeared to him more disrespectful to the House, and conveying more offence than the use of the word protest, which had been so much dwelt on. Nevertheless those parts of the petition which appeared to convey the greatest offence were passed over without any observation, while others of much less moment were urged as a ground for rejecting the petition. He did not approve of the language of the petition, but he could not bring himself to reject it. Mr. Stephen said, that there were two questions for the consideration of the House. The first was, whether it was the bounden duty of that House to receive any paper, however disrespectful, libellous or defamatory, merely because that paper was called by the name of a petition; and the second was, whether the |