The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it much more wise to refer the service of Process to the Committee, previous to the adoption of the idea thrown out by the hon. baronet.

Lord Folkestone was of opinion that this was altogether an improper proceeding. Either the steps they might adopt were, or were not, intended to have some weight with the courts below. If it was expected that the expression of their determination on the subject was to have any weight with these courts, what would this be but to interfere with the ordinary course of law? It appeared to him that it would be infinitely more satisfactory to the feelings of the public, and must in the long-run be also infinitely more gratifying to the feelings of the House, that the matter were entirely left to the decision of the courts of law, without the intervention of any resolutions of their own. On these grounds he should object to referring the matter to the Committee.

Mr. Adam said, that he had throughout taken infinite pains to be correct in all the parts of this proceeding; he had considered every step in it most coolly, and had acted in all the stages of it to the best of his judgment. In no part had he felt more anxiety to be right than in the measure of appointing a Committee, which it was proposed now to charge with the inatter respecting the Serjeant, as well as that which related to Mr. Speaker. He sincerely wished that no such step had been taken. But he was particularly averse to its existing with its present power, and he had, after due reflection, for that reason come to a determination not to attend the Committee, because it seemed to him to counteract the course which he thought should be taken as the only means of securing the privileges of the House. He had satisfied himself, and he presumed to think that what he had to say would satisfy every gentleman who heard him, that he had acted correctly. When the Committee was moved for the other day, he had come to the House determined to oppose it, from a conviction that it was uunecessary, and that it was worse than unnecessary, by giving ground for implying that the House, by appointing a Committee, doubted of its own clear and ascertained privileges. He had latterly acquiesced in its appointment, however, under the impression that there were, or might be, individual members, who, from

their pursuits and engagements, might not have had the means of inquiry: and they had a right to be satisfied. He had, however, a most serious objection, one that was insuperable, viz. that the Committee should have power to report opinions. To delegate to them such a power was, in his opinion, an abandonment of the privileges of that House. He thought the House had the privileges sought to be called in question. It was necessary for its own safety it should have them, and, if so, it must also have the means of enforcing those privileges.-He said he would shortly illustrate what were his ideas on the subject from what passed previous to the year 1770, when members and their servants, who had formerly enjoyed the privilege of immunity from action, were deprived of that right, when all which was declared to remain with members was the personal privilege of freedom from arrest. This was done by the act of the 10th Geo. 3. c. 50, brought in by the present lord Onslow. Previous to this period, not a session passed without its being shewn what the warrant of the Speaker by order of the House could do. When a member, or even the servant of a member of that House, was served with notice of action, and complaint made, the person who served the action was brought to the bar, was examined whether he was the person who served the writ; and if he confessed he was, or if it was on his denial proved otherwise, the matter was either referred to a Committee of privileges, or the person was at once ordered into custody. That privilege being taken away, the remaining personal privileges were few. Any instance of proceeding upon them since that time were therefore very rare. A return of precedents from that period, of commitment for serving legal process, would, he believed, be nihil. Few persons now existing could have any actual experience of the mode of any proceeding then adopted. Forty years disuse of a daily practice, made the mode of executing the power, fall into oblivion, and might afford a reasonable apology for the House not being at once alert in its course of proceeding, when Mr. Ellis served the Speaker with notice. But it is no reason for not following a course, which, when considered, is the only course that can be followed, consistently with the privileges of the House; and that it was inconsistent with those privileges to appoint a committes vested with a power to recommend a dif

generally known, that his hon. friends, who had already spoken, concurred with him and with those who sat on the same side with him, or if it pleased them better, that they (the ministers) concurred with them (Mr. Adam, &c.) in this opinion. It was not from any doubt on this head that his hon. friends had been nominated to be members of the committee. This was a point on which he presumed to think that no man could doubt. But they had been put on the committee for the purpose of lending their assistance in suggesting the best mode in which the privileges of the House could be enforced with the greatest safety to that cause which they all joined in supporting. He only rose for the purpose of expressing his regret that his hon. friends had declined acting on the committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt the sincerest regret at the view his hon. and learned friends had taken of the obligation by which they were precluded from becoming members of the committee. He gave them full credit for their motives, and acquitted them of any design to embarrass the committee in any report they might make. He thought, however, that every argument they had used in support of the propriety of their declining to act, proved directly the contrary; and if they had a clear view of the steps necessary to be taken in such a proceeding, instead of being a reason for their declining to act, this should rather have operated as an inducement to them to impart to the committee the clear view of the case which they themselves possessed. They might, unfortunately, not have been able to inspire others with the same clear view of the subject which they themselves had, but still if this had been the case, they could easily have rescued themselves from any imputation which might have arisen from their being members of a committee which had refused to be governed by their wise counsel. On the other hand, if the committee had been unanimous, must not the report have possessed greater weight, coming, as it must have done, from gentlemen of every political sentiment in that House..

Sir A. Pigott conceived the course pointed out by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Adam) to be the only means the House had of asserting its own jurisdiction, and the only means which had been in the use of being adopted when a summons was served on that House. If this mode

of proceeding was passed by, he hoped it would not be said hereafter, that there were persons present who had not yet suggested it to the House. He was inclined at this moment to believe, that this was the first instance a process had been served on an officer of this House, for an act proceeding from the House, in which the attorney who issued the process was not ordered to attend. He did not mean to move this, but merely to suggest it; and to bring to the recollection of the House, that they were now to consider what was fit to be done with an attorney, telling the House it was through his instrumentality that this process has been served. If the House was now to pass it by, it was no fault of his. He only suggested to gentlemen opposite what was the regular and established mode of proceeding; and hoped he should not be told, if, after a lapse of six weeks, it should appear that the proper season of resorting to this proceeding had been allowed to pass over-that he and every other member of that House was to blame for the omission, as much as the gentlemen opposite who were in the service of government.

The motion was then put and carried. And on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the names of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Rose, and Mr. Stephen, were added to the Committee already appointed.

[PETITION FROM THE LIVERY OF LONDON-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] Mr. Alder. man Combe moved that the adjourned debate on this subject (see p. 902) be resumed, which being agreed to,

Mr. Wallace said, that his opinion when he first read this petition was that it should not be received, and every subsequent reflection he had made on the subject confirmed him in this opinion. He did not object to it because it did not convey the sentiments of the majority of the livery, for that would not be a sufficient reason for rejecting it. Even if it could be supposed to be the petition only of the twelve persons by whom it was signed, still it was proper it should be received if couched in becoming language. As the House was told, however, that it was likely to receive a great many other petitions, it was necessary that they should know from what descriptions of persons they came; that they were the petitions of the people of England, and not the claims of a small set of disaffected persons; even this, however,

should not operate as a complete exclusion. Neither was he of opinion that the petition should be rejected because it contained doctrines to his mind unfounded; but because it was part of a complete system of insult pursued out of doors to vilify and degrade this House. He was for rejecting it on account of the number of impertinent and extraneous topics introduced into it; and for the resemblance it bore to another petition which had been already refused. There might be some minute lines of distinction between the two, but they were obviously the offspring of the same parents, and had the same objects in view. Like the Middlesex Petition, it contained a variety of most offensive passages; though it had the appearance of being more respectful, it had none of the reality; there might be a difference between them, but still the resemblance was such-qualis decet esse sororum, and this likeness shewed that they had sprung from the same origin. The petition, in fact, was founded on the resolutions passed at the same meeting, and these were such a set of such a nature, that in other times, the person who had dared to authenticate them by his signature, would not have been out of Newgate 24 hours after he had done so. Another reason for his rejecting the petition was to be found in the circumstances which attended the meeting, It was there stated, that the petition was somewhat different from the resolutions, but that this was done only with the view of getting the petition received. He then read the two first resolutions, and asked, if it was possible had they formed part of the petition, that any man could be found who would say that it ought to be received? In their complaints against the vote on the Walcheren expedition, they did not even give credit to the minority; and even the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) who went farthest with them, was at one of their meetings called a decoy duck. The House must even sacrifice the privilege of committing for libel producing obstruction before it could satisfy them; for the hon. gent. at another meeting, by venturing to assert the privilege thus far, raised such a clamour, that he was obliged to stop it by giving the health of that distinguished patriot Mr. Waithman. But what they aimed at was, the destruction of the privileges of the House, that by this means they might wound the constitution. While he thought the House ought not to be captious in finding fault with petitions, yet

where a spirit of insult was manifest from the document itself, it ought to be rejected. The reception of it would only render the House an accomplice in its own degradation. The good sense of the people he hoped would teach them to respect the privileges of the House which existed for their own benefit.

Sir T. Turton contended, that the pe tition ought to be received. He saw no expressions it contained that could warrant its rejection. Had it been addressed to the persons assembling in St. Stephen's, or had it carried on the face of it a denial of their existence as the House of Commons, then indeed the arguments that had been used would have been admissible. But the petition contained no such expressions. I recognised their authority, and to that authority the prayer of the petitioners was addressed. Their difference of opinion could be no insult to the House, as on that difference of opinion the petition was founded. If they had acquiesced in the decision of the House, there would have been no occasion for petitioning. Their right of petitioning was not attempted to be denied; and if they had that right, they must be allowed to differ from the House on the subject that occasioned their complaints. It had been stated, that whatever might be the language of the petition, or whatever the terms in which it was couched, the resolution passed at the meeting of the livery clearly proved that the petition was intended as an insult. But the House, he contended, had no right to look to those resolutions, whatever might be their nature. The resolutions were not now before them; and if ever they should be brought before them it could only be by a specific motion, when it would be for the House to consider whether those resolutions were a breach of privilege or not. At present they had only the petition before them, and he contended that that petition could not be rejected on the ground of any resolutions that were not regularly before them. It was the petition only they had to consider, and that petition was entitled to stand or fall by its own merits. even to these resolutions he did not see the propriety of the objection that had been made, and had they even been much stronger, they would afford no justifiable ground of rejecting the petition. He saw nothing in the terms of the petition that could authorise them to reject it. It was addressed to the House in due form, and the redress they claimed was merely

But