and firmness of mind. He did sincerely (the House.-Nay, the right hon. gent.

lament that the subject had been taken up (Mr. Ponsonby) withheld advice, and de

clared his opinion should not be extracted from him. The hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) accused him of not having foreseen the resistance which was opposed to the House. It was not however from any experience of past events, to be supposed that this would be the case; but even on the hon. gentleman's own grounds, it might have ensued in a case of actual ob

this: whether an individual would quietly submit to, or, as a strenuous patriot, would resist the law. Did the hon. gent. mean to say, that they were only to exert their privileges against those who would not resist. If this was his way of preserving the dignity of the House, he could only say there was a very great difference between their opinions. He was also accused of ignorance; and if he was inclined to retort, he would say, that in describing him, the gentlemen opposite had only given their own character. It would seem as if they were ignorant of all precedents and infor

with so much party spirit, as he at least expected neutrality in the consideration of putting the House of Commons into the right way of acting. Instead of that, however, the hon. and right hon. gentlemen had seized, with avidity, the opportunity of reviling those against whom they were opposed in politics. It was an opportunity too tempting for them to let slip. His Majesty's ministers were charg-struction, and the question then came to ed with improper delay, in not making some proposition on this subject at an earlier period. Such a charge, however, he presumed to think, was equally imputable to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) as to him. Gentlemen on the other side of the House looked up to him; it was, therefore, but natural that he should have been ready to advise the House in a question in which they were all interested, as well as any gentlemen on the ministerial side. He had given no advice on the subject, however; nay he had declared that he would not do so-that he was resolved that nothing that feil from him shouldmation on the subject. Did they not throw any light on the question. Was it not equally incumbent on that right hon. gent. as on any other member of the House, to give his advice on the subject? Yet he chose to wait all the period which had elapsed, and then to tell ministers that they should have taken some step in the business on the very first day. When the Speaker acquainted them that the Notice was served, the view he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took at that time was, that it was only necessary to preserve it on their Journals. The gentlemen opposite were not backward on other occasions in giving advice, and suggesting amendments. Why did they not do so then, if they considered the course pursued as reprehensible, as they would now represent it to be? Perhaps they were taken by surprise-but they had time to recover themselves, for, owing to an inaccuracy, a second Notice was necessary some days after the first, with which the same course had, without a word of censure, or the intimation of a contrary opinion from any one, been adopted. No! The enlightened minds, comprehensive understand ings, and extraordinary talents, of the gentlemen opposite, were not employed to enlighten their darkness, and guide them from the ill counsels to which they were attending. Even now, though they would condemn, they would not enlighten

VOL. XVI.

know that a Committee was appointed in 1771, on the matter of a breach of privi-" lege, and that they were instructed to examine into facts and circumstances; to consider what further proceeeding might be necessary to enforce these privileges and to give their opinions thereon? Here was a precedent in point; and he trusted, notwithstanding the asperity which had unfortunately been introduced into this night's, discussion, that when the committee came to be appointed, the unanimity which was so much desired would prevail.

Mr. Ponsonby rose, with considerable animation, and said that the right hon. gent. seemed to him to have lost his temper. The cause of that loss of temper was obviously, that he could not find any hon. member to instruct him what course to pursue. The right hon. gent. was ignorant what course to adopt, and was mortified that his ignorance should be so manifest to the House. What right bad that right hon. gent. to console himself for this mortification by attacks on the gentlemen on his side of the House? What right had, that hon. gent. to expect that he should' give him any advice on this occasion? He had given that right hon. gent. and the House already all the advice he could' suggest relative to the proceedings which led to the present circumstances, and it had been rejected. When the rejection'

3 K

into a premature declaration of it. His Majesty's ministers, if they did their duty, should be prepared to propose some measure to the House on the subject. Whilst supported by the majority, they must be taken to possess the confidence of that House; and if they had not that confidence, they should not continue in office, Besides, they were in possession of all the facts, which the House could not be; and consequently it was more particularly in cumbent upon them to offer advice to the House on that occasion. If they abstained from offering such advice, the House might rest assured, that it was not from any feeling of modesty or moderation, but from a pitiful pusillanimity which restrained them from taking any responsibility upon themselves for the advice they might give. He should vote for the amendment.

of that advice had involved them in a dif-haps be misled by vanity to give such an ficulty they knew not how to obviate, it opinion, if his judgment did not prevent was not for them to apply to him and his him from giving it prematurely. What friends to extricate him from it. By ground had he to expect, that if he were blindly persevering in their own course, to give it, the majority of the House would they had brought about the present em- agree to it? Could he have any security barrassment. It was inculcated from the that he should not be outvoted? Or that, highest authority, "that when the blind upon his advice being so rejected, he lead the blind, both must fall into the should not be twitted by the right hon. ditch." If the right hon. gentlemen op- gent. with having given it prematurely? posite, therefore, found themselves involv- An opinion he most certainly had upon ed in a difficulty, themselves alone they the subject; but the right hon. gent. was had to blame.. Upon whom but them-wrong if he supposed he could be taunted selves could they charge the commitment of sir F. Burdett, and the manufacture of that paper, which charged them with having usurped the power to imprison the King's subjects? In that wild and foolish production, as with all respect for sir F. Burdett he must call it, the power of the House to commit was denied, and it might from that be inferred that the exercise of that power would have been resisted. The right hon. gent. had imputed to his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) the having said, that the right ought not to be enforced but where there was no resistance, and had then asked with the same triumph, whether that was to be considered a proof of their magnanimity, of their consistency, of their desire to maintain the dignity of the House? Now, he could readily believe, that there was not less magnanimity on his side of the House than amongst the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side; and he trusted that that would appear from the whole of their conduct relative to this business. But the right hon. gent. when pressing a right which he had reason to know would be resisted, ought to have been prepared to show how in such a case it could be executed. If the gentlemen on his side had recommended the commitment, and become thereby the cause of the subsequent difficulties, would not the right hon. gent, have loudly called on him to point out how they should be remedied? Would he not have attributed all to the workings of party spleen and cap-right hon. gent. last addressed himself tious hostility? The right hon. gent. had made a furious attack upon him, because he was not disposed to give any opinion upon the subject till the House should be brought into a situation when some declaration would be necessary. It was also added, that in consequence of the confidence reposed in him (to a greater extent than he merited) by his friends round him, he was particularly bound to give an opinion upon the subject. He might per

Mr. Whitbread had an observation or two to make upon the answer given by the right hon. gent. to what had fallen from him in the course of the debate. When he had asked a question of that right hon. gent. in the course of the night, respecting a letter now before the world, and that right hon. gent. declined to answer, he took it for granted that the document was authentic. When he put a question to the right hon. gent. near him (Mr. Secretary Ryder), and that member declined to answer it, he believed it was because the right hon. member could not answer the question. But when the

to answer what had fallen from him, in the debate, he invented a speech for him, and in replying to that, gave any thing but an answer to what he had actually said. He could not help admiring the manner in which the right hon. gent. had then lashed himself into a fever of debility in buffeting the shadows of his own imagination. All he should say, however, was, that the sen timents imputed to him by the right hon. gent. did not belong to him, and the par

ticular expression he quoted he had never

uttered.

Mr. C. W. Wynn observed, that the precedent referred to by the right hon. gent. had taken place in the time of an extremely weak and contemptible administration, which encountered a resistance that had never been expected by them. A Committee had, no doubt, been appointed in that case, and sat for 17 days without having made one step of progress. When they had made a report, it came out that all they recommended was, that Miller should be retaken. But how he was to be retaken they had not pointed out. This was the Committee which Mr. Burke had compared to the committee of rats, appointed to enquire by what means they could guard against the cats, which committee reported, to put a bell about their necks; The committee of rats however did not go so far as to point out how the rats were to fasten those bells. The House was placed in a situation of great difficulty, and he therefore, wished gentlemen to consider whether it would be desirable to establish this proceeding as a precedent, to guide their future practice. He was of opinion that it was much better to have all the facts before them previous to a decision. It was material to consider whether the House ought not to issue a prohibition against the interference of a court of law. They were all aware that in the case of Rice, lord Kenyon had declared, that in a common cause, the court of King's bench would not pay any attention to an injunction from the House of Commons. The present was, however, by no means a common cause, and did not fall within the principle laid down by lord Kenyon. There were also many other questions of the utmost magnitude involved in the question; too great, in his opinion, to be delegated by the House to a Committee.

The House then divided on the Amendment, which was negatived. For the Amendment, 58-Against it, 115-Majority, 57.

A second division then took place on the main question.-For the Committee, 116-Against it, 46-Majority, 70.

On our re-admission we found the Speaker reading over the names proposed for the Committee.

Mr. Tierney objected to the nomination of those who had opposed the motion, on the ground that the Committee ought to deliver no opinion. It was rather strange to appoint men to give an opinion, who

had voted against any opinion being given at all.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not expect, in a question of such moment, that any gentleman would be above lending his assistance.

Mr. Tierney said, that those in that situation who were present, declined the nomination. If the right hon. gent. wanted to grace his Coinmittee from their side of the House, he was mistaken.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply said, that he certainly did not wish to disgrace the Committee from any side of the House.

Mr. Jekyll said, this was a question which he did hope would never have come before the House; but the Speaker had of necessity come before them for advice and assistance. God only knew how the matter might end. He frankly declared he could not conjecture how the business was to be got rid of, or, which he wished had been sooner attended to, how the House was to retrace its steps. The dilemma in which they were involved was one of a most serious and dangerous kind. [Marks of dissent.] He repeated it was a very serious dilemma. [A laugh.] He again repeated, that in his mind, it was a dilem. ma of the most serious nature, and though gentlemen laughed at it now, they might in a very short time, see cause to regret they had ever got into it. A Committee had now been resolved on after two votes of the House. Gentlemen who were of opinion that there should be no Committee, or at least that the Committee should not report any opinion, had been nominated Those who members of this Committee. were of this opinion, and who were present, had declined sitting upon it. Others who were absent, he was convinced, entertained similar opinions. He really put it to the right hon. gent. if, in point of candour, the names of such persons ought not to be omitted.

The Resolution, however, was agreed to, five were declared to be a quorum, and the Committee had power to report from time to time.

[MOTION RESPECTING THE ADDRESS OF THE CITY OF LONDON.] Mr. Alderman Combe, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, in support of the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens, felt satisfaction that it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any great length. As the House of Commons was now so anxiously engaged

in asserting its own rights, he trusted it | levee. In the year 1770, an address was would not be too much to expect that voted, and the sheriffs were instructed to House to afford protection to the rights of enquire when his Majesty would be the citizens of London. It was not his in-pleased to receive it upon his throne. The tention to dwell upon the right of the sub- sherifis made the inquiry, but not having ject to present petitions to his Majesty, received any answer, another common nor to descant upon the value of that right hall came to a resolution that their adwhich was the foundation of our civil inde- dress should not be presented to the King pendence, and the principal bulwark of but upon his throne. When his Majesty British liberty. These were considerations was acquainted with this new case, he that must be familiar to every gentleman stated that he would consider of it; he who heard him. The right of petitioning did consider of it, and the result was, that the sovereign was exercised in three ways, he received the address upon his throne. one was, by transmitting the petition to The right was then understood to be finally the secretary of state, in which case there settled. In 1771, another address was was not the smallest chance that it would voted, and a resolution entered into, that ever meet the eye of his Majesty. The the mayor and sheriffs should be accomnext was, when persons having access to panied by a great body of the citizens of his Majesty at his levees, put their peti- London. This intention was frustrated tions into his own hands: but the third and by an intimation from lord Hertford, commost valuable mode was, that of present- municated by letter to the lord mayor, ing a petition to his Majesty upon the that it was his Majesty's pleasure that no throne, in which case an answer was al- more should attend than the act of parhaways received. This mode of petitioning ment allowed. The consequence was was confined to the Universities and the that in order to conform to the act of parCity of London. By the constitution of liament, a Committee of ten was deputed the City of London, it was divided into to attend the lord mayor and sheriffs; and four branches. The first was the court of this address was also received by his Maaldermen; but on diligent inquiry, he jesty upon the throne. In 1773, another could not find any precedent of any peti- address was received on the throne, withtion of that court to his Majesty. The out any question respecting the privilege, next was the court of common council, and an answer was returned to it. In 1775 which enjoyed the privilege of presenting two addresses had been voted; one in its petitions to the sovereign upon the April, which had been received by his throne. The third was a court which Majesty on his throne; another in June, very seldom met, but also enjoyed the which never was presented. In this latter right, called the Court of Lieutenancy; case the chamberlain was informed by and the last and greatest, was the livery, letter from lord Hertford, that it was his consisting of the lord mayor, aldermen, Majesty's pleasure not to receive any adcommon council-men, and the whole body dress upon his throne from the city of of electors, who assemble in what is called London but in its corporate character. the common ball. This body claimed the This communication was then submitted same privilege, and it had been conceded to a common hall, at which certain re-. to and exercised by them on a consider- solutions were voted, declaratory of the able number of occasions, but for the last right of the city of London to present their few years it had been denied them. As petitions, or addresses, to the king on the much difference of opinion had existed throne, and to have an answer to them, for a long time respecting the claim made Another resolution was also passed, conby the livery of London to present their taining an express injunction to the petitions to the King on the throne, he sheriffs not to present the address but to should briefly put the House in possession the King on his throne. The sheriffs of the real state of that question: and for having waited upon his Majesty on a that purpose refer to the different ad- levee day, were informed that the Address dresses and petitions which had been would be received at a levee; but on agreed to by the livery of London, in stating their instructions, his Majesty incommon hall, during the present reign. formed them that he would be at all times In the year 1769, an address was voted to ready to receive the petitions of his people, his Majesty, but as no particular instruc- and that he was the best judge where. tion accompanied it on that occasion, that No Address was, therefore, presented on address was presented to the King at his that occasion, The same fate attended