presented a Petition from a Meeting of the Electors of Westminster, held this day in Palace-yard.—The Petition was read by the clerk, of which the following is a copy:—

"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.

"The Petition and Remonstrance of the Inhabitant Householders, Electors of the City and Liberties of Westminster, assembled in New-Palace-Yard, the 17th of April, 1810, by the appointment of Arthur Morris, esq. the high bailiff, in pursuance of a requisition for that purpose.

"We, the inhabitant householders, electors of the city and liberties of Westminster, feel most sensibly the indignity offered to this city, in the person of our beloved representative, whose Letter to us has fallen under the censure of your honourable House, but which, so far from deserving that censure, ought, in our opinion, to have led your honourable House to reconsider the subject, which he had so ably, legally, and constitutionally discussed.

"We are convinced' that no one ought to be prosecutor and juror, judge and executioner, in his own cause, much less to assume, accumulate, and exercise all these offices, in his own person.

"We are also convinced that the refusal of your honourable House to inquire into the conduct of lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval, (then two of his Majesty's ministers) when distinctly charged with the sale of a seat in your honourable House, evidence of which was offered at the bar, by a member of your honourable House; and the avowal in your honourable House, "that such practices were as notorious as the sun at noon day;" practices, at the bare mention of which the Speaker of your honourable House declared "that our ancestors would have started with indignation," and the committal of sir Francis Burdett to prison, enforced by military power; are circumstances which render evident the imperious necessity of an immediate Reform in the Representation of the people.

"We, therefore most earnestly call upon your honourable House to restore to us our Representative, and, according to the notice he has given, to take the state of the representation of the people into your serious consideration; a reform in which, is in our opinion, the only means of preserving the country from military despotism."

then moved, "That the Petition should lie on the table."

opposed the motion. He conceived, that if the House should accede to such a proposition, it would submit to the grossest violation of its dignity. He hoped that the House would evince its repugnance to any attack upon its privileges, and unanimously reject this petition.

could not see any objection to the Petition being laid on the table.

considered the language of the petition highly indecent; and suggested to the noble lord the propriety of withdrawing it, for the purpose of preparing and presenting one of a more decorous kind, if the object of the petitioners really was to promote the cause of reform. He hoped the House would give the noble lord this opportunity, if he chose to avail himself of it.

adverted to the petition of Mr. Horne Tooke, stating that seats were sold in that House like stalls for cattle in a market. This petition was received, because it related to an election, though the style of it was thought highly offensive.—But that petition, it was to be observed, was not entitled A Remonstrance.

wished the petition to be read again.

It was read again accordingly.

was sorry that he must differ from the opinion of his two friends near him, and wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his opinion, whether or not he thought the petition should be received. He should have been better pleased if the terms of the petition had been a little more softened; but if the House rejected it, such as it was, it would do one of the most violent things that a House of Commons had ever done. The meeting from which it came had been legally constituted, every thing had been conducted in the moat orderly manner as he was informed, and the petition was signed by the high bailiff. The word "remonstrance" in the title, had been objected to. Whether there were precedents of petitions with the addition of that word, he did not know; but it was well known, that whenever a grievance was complained of, a remonstrance was, in fact, made, and the word was often used in petitions and addresses to the crown. So that it could not be said, that the word was inconsistent with the dignity of the House. The petitioners unquestionably spoke of the indignity offered to the city of Westminster in the person of their representative. This, however, did not necessarily refer to the conduct of the House, but to that of its officers, and those with whom they consulted. They remonstrated against the violence that had been offered to their representative, and affirmed that he had ably and constitutionally argued the question of the right of the House to imprison. They certainly had a right to express their opinion upon this matter: he himself had in that House contended that sir F. Burdett had done nothing illegal in the course of that Argument. He would, if called upon, give the same opinion out of the House; and this, he apprehended, could not reasonably be construed into any disrespect to the House.—As to the reference to the charge against lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval, for trafficking in seats in that House, this was regularly brought to their notice by the votes and journals of the House. They had a right to express their opinion upon that transaction, and the opinion they had expressed was not different from his and that of many others. They had also adverted to expressions which had fallen from members in that House, which, perhaps, might be somewhat irregular, as they could hardly have got at them through any privileged channel. But surely it could not well be deemed an impropriety to refer to the words which had fallen from the Speaker—words which had come so fully and accurately before the public, and which had been received with so much satisfaction.—They then prayed for the release of their representative. They questioned the right of the House, to imprison in cases of libel, where the defendant had not the means of repelling the charge afforded by the ordinary legal forms. It was not for him to enter into that point then; but upon it many differed from the decision of the House, and the petitioners had a right to give their opinion. The effect of the warrant, too, was a subject upon which they had a fair right to express an opinion. Was it surprising that they should wish for a reform of the House of Commons, and should be anxious for the release of its ablest champion: They had not charged the House with the indignity offered to the city of Westminster by his seizure. They rather seemed to attribute it to the Serjeant at Arms and his advisers, who had evinced a disposition to support themselves with the military instead of the civil power, and he knew that the civil power had not been called out till the military went out along with it.—As to the petition of Mr. Horne Tooke, stating that seats were sold in that House like stalls for cattle in a market, that petition had been laid upon the table, and properly. Why? the allegation was true. Seats in that House had been sold like stalls for cattle in a market. If the House thought its dignity wounded by being charged with the practice, why not put an end to it? How could the House reasonably call it an insult to be told of the traffic in seats by Mr. Perceval and lord Castlereagh, unless it could justly aver that the charge was unfounded? We loved the treason, it appeared, though we could not bear to be called traitors. Look, said Mr. Whitbread, at the former petitions presented on this very subject of reform. You will find that previous questions had been moved upon them; but when was it refused to lay them on the table? I adverted on a former occasion to a magnificent expression of your's (the Speaker) "That the doors of that House were always wide open to petitions."—But if this petition be rejected without even allowing it to be laid on the table, I doubt it will be hereafter said, that the doors of the House are closed against petitions.—The composition of the petition was perhaps liable to some objection; but be did not think that this was to be examined so very closely in cases of petition. However sorry he was to differ from his two friends behind him, he should consider himself as having done a great injury to the subjects of this country, if he were not to vote with the noble lord for laying the petition on the table. He hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Brand) would not neglect to take up that part of it which related to a reform of the House, because the country not only desired it, but the House had need of it.

entered fully into the feelings of the hon. gentlemen who objected to the laying this petition on the table. Yet in a case of petition, he would rather err on the side of indulgence than on the side of severity, if the question could at all admit of a doubt. They had on the journals strong instances of forbearance with respect to petitions. For instance, the language of the petition of Mr. Horne Tooke had been generally reprobated, but still the House had shewn a disposition to overlook the language, and to regard the substance and object of the petition. This had been the principle upon which the House had acted. At the first reading of the petition, the word "indignity" had sounded rather harsh in his ears; and if one were disposed to be captious, or even very strict, the expressions, that the House had better not have censured the hon. baronet, but ought to reverse its decision, might very justifiably be made a ground of objection to the petition.—But still it could not be denied that they had a right to petition that House to reconsider its decision. They had the right also to petition for reform, and in petitions of this kind the House had usually exercised a great deal of forbearance. Whether he was right or wrong in the opinion, that the petition ought to be laid on the table, he trusted there had been nothing in his conduct throughout, that could afford room for suspicion, that, if he had thought the petitions ought to be Rejected, he would have hesitated to have said so. But upon the principle on which the House appeared uniformly to have acted, it would rather be disposed to excuse even some intemperance of language in such petitions. As to the word Remonstrance in the title, he was almost ashamed to declare, that he did not know whether there were any precedents in point. He, however, rather imagined there were. But at any rate the word remonstrance was often used in petitions to the crown, and was always in substance contained in petitions complaining of grievances. If the House, however, should think, that this petition was intended merely as a vehicle of abuse, it ought undoubtedly to reject it: but if there were reasonable ground to doubt of its having been so intended, then by the principle, which had usually governed the House, the petition ought in his opinion to be allowed to lie on the table.

had read the Petition over three times, and from, all the consideration he had been able to give it, he did not think it contained any matter that ought to cause its rejection; if there were any thing in the wording of it, let the House hear the complaint on, that subject, but do not let it, from, any impropriety of this kind, interfere with the right of petitioning of the subject, so essential to them, and so necessary to enable the House to protect them, The right hon. gent. then proceeded to read the petition, paragraph by paragraph, and, by his comments to shew, that the opinion he had given on the subject-matter, was correct. As for the language, in some parts, he did not think it was what it ought to be, but still that was not a sufficient ground for rejecting the petition. Indeed it appeared to him impossible, that a petition against any proceeding of that House, could be so framed, as not to afford a handle to some one to oppose its reception, could that be thought a sufficient ground.

observed that, whilst his feelings were with the hon. gentlemen opposite, who opposed this petition, his reason and judgment were with his right hon. friend, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who was for receiving it. Upon the right however of the subject to petition, and in the opinions held by almost every one of the speakers who preceded him, that they ought to look more to the object than be scrupulous in examining the language of this petition, he pretty nearly concurred. As for the present petition, it was evidently framed so near the law, as to give an opportunity to those who preferred it, were it to be rejected, to come again before the House, with another and another, varying perhaps in minutiæ, but still so contrived as in the end to involve them in an intricate and unprofitable contest. The part of it which in his mind appeared to have most offence in it, was that in which they seemed to accuse the House of offering an indignity to a great body of the people.

concurred in these sentiments, and congratulated the House on its return to moderation. He was happy to see that they had now got above the fear of being thought fearful. With regard to the last sentence of the right hon. gent. who preceded him, he did not think that the construction of the petition warranted the assumption that the indignity was offered by the House; it might as well apply to the serjeant and officers of the House, in executing the duty imposed upon them.

observed, that, even if the former was the construction, that would not warrant the House in the rejection of the petition.

The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

stated to the House that he had received a further notice from sir Francis Burdett, of his intention to take proceedings against him. The notice was occasioned in consequence of an error which appeared in the former one with respect to the parish in which sir F. Burdett's house was.—The notice was then read, and it was word for word the same as the original notice, only varying the parish in which the illegal act was said to be committed.

, in moving that this paper be entered on the Journals, took occasion to observe that the present was a subject of very great importance. He wished gentlemen would turn in their minds the question, whether the transaction for which a process had been served upon the Speaker was not a proceeding within that House; and if so whether that process was not a direct violation of the Bill of Rights? Should that turn out to be the case, he would not anticipate the course which it might be necessary to pursue. He only mentioned the subject as one which deserved the serious consideration of every member of the House.

allowed that this was a question of great importance, and he trusted it would experience the most calm and deliberate consideration. He should not have said a word upon it, had it not been that he could not permit the observations of the right hon. gent. with respect to the Bill of Rights to pass unnoticed. He conceived that the right hon. gent. had taken as erroneous a view of the Bill of Rights even as Mr. Yorke himself.

repeated that he had stated the question for the consideration of the House. It would be for them to determine whether the transaction to which he alluded was or was not a proceeding in the House. The Bill of Rights declared that not only speeches but proceedings in that House should be exempt from the interference now attempted.

The Letter was then ordered to be entered on the Journals.

, although the motion which he was about to make was of great importance, did not conceive that it would be necessary to detain the House long upon it.—The motion was, "That Mr. Hunt, late treasurer of the ordnance, be expelled that House." This was certainly proposing a great and grave punishment to be inflicted on the individual, but he was persuaded that those who considered the Twelfth Report of the commissioners of Military Inquiry—

here interrupted the hon. gent., to inquire of the Serjeant (in conformity to the usage of the House) whether the hon. gent. who had been ordered to attend, was actually in attendance?

replying in the negative; the messenger who served the order of the House was called to the bar, and examined by the Speaker and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—The substance of his statement was, that he had served the order at the Ordnance Office, that he could not discover Mr. Hunt's private residence, but that Mr. Crewe (the secretary) had told him that he supposed he was out of England.

stated, that an hon. member had informed him that Mrs. Hunt was in town, and that she had lately received a letter from Mr. Hunt, dated Lisbon.

asked, if the hon. gent. would answer for this being recorded.

observed, that the present motion was evidently premature; and suggested the propriety of sending another summons to Mr. Hunt, before they proceeded any farther. The House would do well to see, before they proceeded to the expulsion of a member, that all due formal, as well as substantial steps, were taken. He therefore recommended to the hon. gent. to postpone his motion till after the recess, by which time full inquiry, and far more effectual search might be made, and the House be. enabled to proceed on satisfactory grounds.

concurred in the propriety of this suggestion, and fixed on the first Thursday after the holidays for renewing his motion.

then observed, that every thing done hitherto had been perfectly regular, and that they had only failed in bringing the matter to a point, from not having their order brought home to the member to whom it was directed. He suggested that the order of the House ought to be renewed:—which was acquiesced in.

thought this as fit an opportunity as any other, to put a question to the right hon. gent. opposite, respecting lord Chatham. This question he considered to be of extreme importance, and it was of such a nature, that when he heard of the fact, be could scarcely believe it to be possible. He had heard, that notwithstanding the tender of his resignation by lord Chatham, and its acceptance by his Majesty, of which they had been assured by the right hon. gent. opposite, that noble lord still continued to fulfil the duties of master-general of the ordnance, and to draw the salary, and exercise the patronage appertaining thereto. He wished to be informed by the right hon. gent., if this was true or not?

said, that, in point of fact and of law, lord Chatham continued to transact the business of master-general of the ordnance, from day to day, till his successor should be appointed. This was necessarily done in all patent places. But he had merely fulfilled the duties of his office, and had abstained from advising in the cabinet, carrying in the reports, &c. to his Majesty, or doing any other official act connected with his situation, which had devolved, in the interim, on the lieutenant-general of the ordnance.

conceived this to be a gross and scandalous delusion, practised on the House and the country by his Majesty's ministers. They had informed the House that the noble lord's resignation had been tendered and accepted; but he could not understand how that was done, if he still continued to fulfil the duties of the office. He had of late given the right hon. gent. several opportunities of explaining this matter, by urging the inexpediency of having so important an office as master-general of the ordnance vacant, and had once directly asked him if it was filled up? But still the delusion had been carried on. They were now met by the form of patents; but how would that have been, had the noble lord been deprived of his office in consequence of a vote of the House? Would he then still have been allowed to do the duties of that important office, and manage those military affairs, for which they thought him so unfit? The right hon. gent., he fancied, was aware that a motion to this effect was only not made, because the noble lord resigned his situation. It was not whether he attended cabinet councils, advised ministers, or performed other acts, but whether he actually remained in office, after the House and country understood he had retired?

explained. By law, one patent could only be revoked by the communication of another, and the duties of an office must be discharged by the last patentee, even after his resignation, till such time as his successor was appointed.

rose to speak, when he was called to order by a member, who stated, that there was no question on this subject before the House.

then said, he would raise a question in a moment. He wished to be informed whether in point of fact, lord Chatham still received the salary of his office?

thought that whilst he performed the duties he was entitled to receive it, but did not know whether he actually did so or not.

, in answer to the question, stated, that lord Chatham had received the salary as master-general of the ordnance, till the end of the last quarter.

expressed a hope, that he would do so no more, to prevent the disagreeable necessity of his bringing a question on any subject affecting the noble lord, under the discussion of the House.