paper now before the House was of that exceptionable character or not. He had voted on the night before for an adjourn ment of this question, in order to give gentlemen an opportunity of comparing the different parts of the petition, and coming to a deliberate decision upon their tendency. By this delay they were enabled to judge, whether this petition was presented for the purpose of doing away what might be fairly considered as a grievance, or whether it was intended as a studied insult on the House-as an attempt to make it the instrument of its own dishonour, and to make its Journals the record of its own reproach. With respect to the question, whether that House was bound to receive every petition, however couched, which came before it, there was but one opinion, with the sole exception of a right hon. gent. opposite. There was no doubt the right of petitioning was vested in the people, but there was as little doubt that the right of rejecting such petition was vested in the House, provided it was conveyed in indecent or insulting terms. The people had an equal right to petition the King; but surely no one could contend that their address ought to be received, if it was not drawn up in the most respectful manner. The statute of Charles 2, which gave the right to petition, declared also that that right ought to be properly regulated. With respect to the present petition, he was afraid the delay which had taken place had not been employed as it might in its mature consideration. He was led to this opinion from the assertion of an hon. member opposite, who said, he did not think the petition denied the power of the House to commit, and that if he thought it did, he would vote for its rejection. Now, in neither part of this sentiment could he agree. If the people saw any objectionable power assumed by that House, or any obnoxious measure pass it, they had an undeniable right to petition against such act or such assumption, with this restriction only, that they did it in respectful terms. The present petition, however, did distinctly declare, that in committing, the House had usurped a power "unknown to the law, and not warranted by the constitution." This was surely language as insulting as could possibly be addressed to the House. But lest there should be any doubt, the petition went farther, and not only reprobated the principle, but protested against the practice. Their protest, too, had every form of a protest; and they actual ly declared that they presented it in order that it might be entered on the Journals, as the Letter of sir F. Burdett was not so entered, although the vote of the House which committed him was. Now that Letter had been declared by the House a flagrant violation of its privileges; and if after such declaration an approbation of that Letter presented to the House was not to be considered an insult, it was hard to say how far they might be carried by their forbearance. Some gentlemen opposite had declared that they conceived themselves exonerated from all blame or responsibility on this subject, as it was the conduct of ministers, and ministers alone, which had excited those petitions. This was not true; all parties in the House had agreed as to the libellous doctrines of the letter which had caused the committal of sir F. Burdett, and it was in consequence of that committal that the petitions had been presented. He warned public men how they now sought individually to be exonerated, or stood aloof in the moment of such an attack; it was indeed a regular systematic attack-the result of a system deeply cousidered, dangerously organized, and sought by every means to be widely diffused among the people; a system which, by affecting an hypocritical respect for the Sovereign, went directly to undermine the House of Commons. was the traitorous attempts of the last fifteen years now skulking under a new shape, and assuming a most dangerous and deadly form. There was no country which could be said to be safe where the legislative power was attacked with impunity, and daringly branded in such indecent terms. At any time this would be most dangerous, but at the present time the peri was doubly hazardous; a time when we were engaged in a most momentous and protracted war, and necessarily obliged to incur the most aggravated burthens. From such attempts no side of the House was safe-no men in the country secure. They menaced not party, but parliament-not ministers, but the -~stitution-not any certain set of men, bu all the inestimable blessings which time, and toil, and struggles, had secured to the country. The question now was, whether the House would lend itself to such attempts; whether they would become the servile ministers of their own dishonour. The petition had not only assailed their practice, but their very motives, and as It serted the "suspicion and jealousy with which they viewed the imprisonment of sir F. Burdett at a time when they expected so much from his efforts in the cause of reform." If the House were now to submit to such language, they would infallibly encourage the spirit to which he had before alluded. The experiment of conciliation had been tried and failed. They had been persuaded to receive the Westminster petition, on the ground that such apparent tolerance in that House must tend to quiet the people, by shewing them that their interests and representations were attended to. What had been the consequence? Why the present petition, still more strongly worded, immediately followed. If the House now submitted, it would be termed not conciliating, but pusillanimous. They were reproached with requiring an army to enforce their orders. Concession now would be only considered as an additional proof of their weakness-another argument of their timidity. such a power, he thought, and so did his. constituents, that they ought not to have. it. The case of libel was not a case of ne-, cessity, and the necessity ceasing, so should the exercise of the privilege cease also. Sir M. Wood denied that he had said that the meeting was not respectable. What he had said was, that the majority of the persons there assembled were not freeholders. Mr. Mellish stated, that he had attended the last meeting at Hackney, and that he had there stated, that as he looked upon them as a meeting legally convened by the sheriffs, he should obey their directions, by presenting their petition to that House; that at the same time he did not think he was bound to compromise his opinions as an independent member of parliament, or to concede them in an unqualified way to the opinions of others, however he might be disposed to respect them. His hon. colleague had said that nine-tenths of that meeting were freeholders. He could assure him of his conMr. Ponsonby said, in explanation, that viction at least, that the majority of that he could not take upon himself to judge meeting were not freeholders. When he in what degree the hon. gent. enjoyed spoke of presenting their petition, they the faculty of hearing; but he could not heard him with as much silence as then think that gentleman possessed the faculty prevailed in the House, but the moment in perfection, if he attributed to him words he spoke in favour of any opinion of his which had never escaped him. He had own, not exactly conformable to theirs, never said nor implied, that that House the tumult was so sudden and over-bearwas bound to receive any petition, how-ing, that he told them, smiling, since they ever offensively worded. He had said that it was the practice of the House to receive petitions, though they might be thought to be somewhat objectionable in the use of certain expressions; and he now said, that those who imagined there was a studied offence in that or any other petition offered to their notice, were bound as men of sense and men of spirit to vote against the admission of such pe titions. Mr. Byng rose merely to observe upon an expression which had fallen from an hon. gent. who had arraigned the respectability of the meeting at Hackney. That hon. gent. was not present at that meeting. He (Mr. Byng) was; and he felt no hesitation in saying, that it was one of the most numerous and respectable meetings of freeholders he had ever witnessed. He added too, that nine tenths of that meeting did not think that House had the right of commitment in cases of libel. He joined with them in that opinion. (Some murmurs.) He repeated that such was his opinion, and that if the House had VOL. XVI, would not hear him, it was useless to trouble them any farther. As, however, he had promised to present their petition, he should now support the motion that it should lie upon the table. Admiral Harvey said, that he, as a freeholder of Middlesex, would have attended the meeting, but that he thought it an er parte meeting, and convened for the purpose of censuring that conduct which he had approved and followed; and consistently with which he should now vote, that the petition be rejected. The House then divided; For receiving the petition 58; Against it; 139; Majority 81. [MOTION RESPECTING THE LATE TreaSURER OF THE POST OFFICE IN IRELAND.] Sir John Newport said, that, to the ques tion which he had to bring before the House, he hoped the most calm, dispassignate, and deliberate discussion would be given. It was of most material importance, as it concerned the revenue of Ireland, and deeply affected the interests of that country. Under these considera3 G that in the incidents of the customs, sir George Shee had received the sum of 5,67 31. from the 5th of August, 1807, to 1808; and that he was superannuated after being in office but eight years, during which he had not attended to the duties of his office. He had another resolution respecting the grant to the treasurer of the post-office. He could not help stating the grounds upon. which this gentleman had requested a superannuation. The money received in the post-office, instead of being delivered into the Bank, was left in the hands of the deputy-treasurer. A reform was thought necessary, and a minute was made for the purpose of getting the money into the Bank. Many attempts were made to do away this minute, that the cash might return into the old channel; but the effect was ineffectual. The treasurer waited for a government which would superannuate him for his services, and he at last found it. He supposed, as he had not made away with the money which went through his hands, that he was entitled to a large remuneration. The last resolution he had tions he was convinced that the discussion would be abstracted from all prejudices. The legislature of that country had been transferred to this; the revenue then of that country should be the peculiar care of England, inasmuch as its benefit was the benefit of England, and as the neglect would be most calamitous to both countries. He had long considered the plan of incidents as one extremely prejudicial, and one which it was most necessary to abolish. Under the denomination of incidents, not only pensions and salaries were ranked, but every emolument and fee obtained by those connected with the revenue. In bringing before the House the present subject, he was not unattended by authorities of the most unquestionable nature. The commissioners appointed to inquire into the abuses of the Irish revenues, had observed and censured this system, as most injurious to the interests of the country. He would direct his attention to two cases in which grants were made of pensions: the first case was that in which the grant of 1,000l. was made to Mr. Croker, surveyor-gene-to make was, that the House considered ral, for extra official duties; this appeared, in the 9th Report of the commissioners, censured. He did not mean to undervalue the exertions of Mr. Croker, or the services which he had rendered; the commissioners allowed that his business was of a most weighty nature, but yet not such as to justify a grant to such an amount. He could not conceive any greater evil than that of applying the public money upon occasions where it was not deserved; the evils resulting from a practice of this nature would be of great magnitude and extent. The first resolution he had to put was, that it appeared, from the 9th Report of the commissioners, that the sum of 1,000l. was, in the year 1807, paid to Mr. Croker for his extra official duties, together with the annual sum of 8007., a house, &c. that the commissioners of inquiry did not conceive those duties were such as to entitle him to such a sum. The next resolution he had to propose related to a grant to sir George Shee, receiver general; a grant in contradiction to the rules of that House. He had been in office only eight years, during which he had performed none of the duties of it. This was no case of commiseration; it was the case of a man of rank and fortune; he was, nevertheless, superannuated. The second resolution was, that it appeared to the commissioners such a system of conduct as this highly reprehensible, and a violation of what it was the duty of ministers to preserve. That the public money should not be made use of by any officers, and that such as had done so, were deserving the reprehension of that House. The hon. bart., said, that what he had stated were but parts of a very extensive system. It would be found that many officers, nominally superannuated, had salaries under government, arising from other situations; that 5 or 6,000l. a year were given to a storekeeper, when it could be proved, that between 130,000l. and 150,000l. value in goods had disappeared, and never been been accounted for by those who were justly responsible. He conjured the House to negative those grants; the public must be discontented at seeing the rewards of self-denominated services. Mr. Foster would state in broad and strong terms, that what the hon. baronet advanced respecting Mr. Croker was not founded in fact. Had he read the 9th Report through, he would have found that he was mistaken. The sum of 1,000l. was not given to that gentleman for extra services, but as a composition for the claim he had on government to a much larger amount. [Here he read the memorial of Mr. Croker from the Report, in corroboration of this assertion.] It was a 421] debt due to him, and which he would have There never was an officer more fairly entitled to com- Mr. W. Smith observed, from the Report of the commissioners, that Mr. Croker was not entitled to the sum granted. What ever mis-statements there have been proceeded from that board. It did not appear from their Report, that any extra official duties were performed. If the statement of the right hon. member was correct, Mr. Croker was a most injured man'; for instead of a paltry remuneration of 1,000l. he was entitled to a moiety of penalties, amounting to upwards of 40,000l. for which he had commenced suits. In his opinion there was no censure too strong for the conduct of the commissioners who made the Report before the House. Mr. Croker said, that after the very kind and handsome manner in which the hon. gentlemen opposite to him, had spo- coming into office, turned his attention to of this business.-It appeared to him, that there was strong ground to complain of the commissioners upon whose report the hon. baronet had brought forward this subject. They had, in their Report, omitted all the circumstances which he had stated to the House, though they must have been acquainted with them. The memorial which Mr. Croker presented to the lord lieutenant distinctly stated the grounds of his claim, but it concluded, as is usual in memorials, with requesting the favourable attention of the lord lieutenant to it, in consideration of his long, faithful, and extra-official services. The clerk in entering it, instead of entering the whole grounds of the claim, merely stated, that it was for extra-official services, and so the commissioners had disingenuously stated it, although they had all the documents before them. The impression which the Report must make upon every man's mind must be similar to that which it had made upon the hon. baronet's, and it was only by wading through an appendix of 300 folio pages in which they had buried Mr. Croker's me paid. He wished here to observe, that this was not, strictly speaking, Mr. Croker's official duty; every gentleman knew that the departments of superintendance and controul were totally distinct from those of account and check. Mr. Croker was in the former department, and therefore this was not his official duty. Mr. Croker proceeded in this way for several years enforcing the payment of the arrears, and regularly giving up the penalties. It now only remained for him to state how the money which Mr. Croker had received, became vested in him. Two distillers, of the name of J. and E. Edwards, had several times got into arrears, but upon paying them up, the penalty had always been remitted. It happened, however, that on one information against them, for penalties to the amount of 2,100l. they did not pay the arrears, and the consequence was, that evidence was produced against them, and a conviction took place. The penalty was hung in terrorem over them, to enforce the payment of the arrears, but they did not, in fact they could not pay, for they were insolvent. The legal offi-morial, that the real truth of the case could cers of the court where the conviction took place, proceeded to levy the penalty (Mr. Croker being then in England ;) a warrant was issued, and the money was levied, and then it was vested by law, one half in the crown, and one half in the prosecutor. Mr. Croker being, as he had already stated, at that time in England, in discharge of his duty, did not know any thing of this transaction till he was called upon to know whether he had received his moiety of the penalty, it then appeared that the money, when levied, had been paid into the hands of the collector of the Excise, and he, by mistake, instead of carrying it to the account of fines and seizures, carried it to the account of arrears. The money having thus been levied, a moiety of it became legally vested in Mr. Croker, but it having got, by the mistake to which he had alluded, into the treasury, the mistake could not be rectified but by a memorial. If Mr. Croker had been in Ireland when this transaction took place, there would have been no mistake upon the subject, because the half of the 2,1001. penalty recovered would have been paid to him under the Act of Parliament, and there would then have been an end of the business, but the money when levied having been carried to a wrong account, had produced the whole be found out, while they inserted their own garbled story on the very front of their Report. The Report stated, that it was the practice of the Board of Excise to remit the penalties, but it did not state what was the fact, and what in candour at least might have been stated, that Mr. Croker was entitled to one moiety of the penalties. The Report also stated, that there was no difference between this case and any other-the difference was this, that in other cases the penalties had not been levied, but remitted, and that in this case, of the 2,100l. penalty, the money had actually been levied, and of course had become legally vested under the Act of parliament, and with this legal and marked difference, the commissioners have been pleased to say, that they could see none. It was a singular circumstance belonging to this case, that although he had the honour, an honour of which he was proud, of being intimate with the noble lord, then chief secretary for Ireland, (lord Wellington,) and though he was living in his father's house in Dublin, at the time when this job, as it had been called, was going on, he never heard one word about it, nor knew of the transaction, until he read it in the Report. He thought it no slight a proof of the fairness of the transaction, that so near a relation had |