then moved that the Petition do lie on the table.

rose, to signify, that although he should second the motion of his hon. colleague, he did not feel himself bound to support the Petition.

moved that the Petition be again read by the clerk. It was read accordingly. After which the right hon. gent, again rose, and said, he was sure, that, from the conduct he had observed on a former day, when a petition was presented to that House (from the electors of Westminster,) containing expressions so strong and so reprehensible, the House would not consider him as indisposed to entertain a petition coming from any individual or class of his Majesty's subjects, if couched in terms at all consistent with the respect due to the House. However convinced he was that the petition upon that occasion contained some expressions that ought to have been omitted, he did not object to let it lie on the table. He trusted the House would see from that instance, his earnest wish to recommend to them every possible forbearance, consistent with the maintenance of their own dignity; but when he considered the language of the present Petition, he conceived it impossible to consider it in any other light than that of a deliberate and unparalleled insult to the House. He did not conceive that the object prayed by this Petition was of itself a sufficient cause to warrant its rejection. But he would appeal to the House upon this plain question, whether there was any member who beard this Petition read, that did not conceive it to be rather an experiment to try how far the forbearance of the House would go in the sufferance of language such as it contained; or whether it could have any other object than to insult, when it went to a direct and a declaratory censure, from the mere authority of the petitioners, upon the conduct of that House, in exercising its authority towards the person named in the petition, by committing him to confinement for a violation of its privileges. Upon that part of the Petition which commented upon the manner in which the officer had proceeded in executing the order of the House, he should at present forbear to say any thing, as any error or irregularity on the part of that officer in executing the warrant committed to him, might be a question for the future consideration of the House. But the Petition, in other respects, was totally different from the style and language of petitions presented to Parliament. It did not appeal respectfully to the authority of the House. It did not ask for any revision or reconsideration of the circumstances of which it complained; but the petitioners protest against such an exercise of the privileges of the House, and charge it with assuming and exercising powers contrary to law. The measure which the petitioners urged might take place at some time, if the wisdom of Parliament should deem it fitting. But was the language of a petition, from any class of subjects, to charge that House with assuming illegal privileges, or to dictate to them how they should act in the exercise of their rights and privileges? There was nothing in the Petition which approached in any degree to the character of a respectful appeal to the authority of Parliament. It did appear to him, therefore, that considering the language in which a former Petition was couched, considering the language held out of doors to depreciate the character and authority of that House, and seeing in the language of this Petition a proof that the forbearance of the House from time to time served but to encourage new insult, it was high time that a line should be drawn somewhere, and the present was a fit occasion for that purpose. He therefore submitted to the discretion of the House, whether the present Petition, for the causes he had stated, ought not to be rejected.

said, he understood the Petition was unanimously voted by a very numerous and respectable body of freeholders; and as he did not know to what consequence its rejection might lead, he should vote for its reception.

hoped, as it was his intention to vote for the reception of this Petition, he might be permitted to state the grounds for that vote. The hon. member who had just spoke, had said the Petition was unanimously voted by a very numerous and respectable meeting of freeholders; but it did not therefore follow that the House should receive a Petition couched in improper and offensive language; and such language would determine him to oppose the reception of such a Petition, however numerously, unanimously, or respectably it might have been Voted. He did not, however, view the present Petition in the very objectionable light stated by the right hon. gent., and should therefore vote for its reception. The right hon. gent. had professed his own unwillingness to adopt any step that might have the appearance of impeding the right of petitioning that House; and he instanced his forbearance in the case of the Westminster Petition, in which he stated that there were many expressions highly objectionable, and which ought to have been omitted; but for his part, he thought that Petition was couched in such terms as the House of Commons ought not to reject. The present Petition, though not couched precisely in the same words, was pretty much in the same manner, and in his mind ought not to be rejected for the sake of a coarse word or phrase hastily adopted. He thought it the duty of the House of Commons to throw open a wide door for petitions, instead of evincing a disposition to reject them upon the mere ground of a vulgar or objectionable word. When he considered how the House of Commons was composed, and the opinion generally entertained by the country, of the state of the representation, if something was not done to reform that representation, the House must expect to find the language of petitions not very flattering. The present petition he did not think such an one as ought to be rejected. There were several petitions received before by the House, containing expressions full as strong, and yet they were not rejected upon that account; and so long as these abominations were suffered to exist, of which the people complained, in the present state of the representation, so long would it be impossible for that House to command respect from the people.

agreed that the doors of the House ought to be opened widely to receive the petitions of all who chose to apply to them in a regular and proper manner. All the argument on this head, however, must fall to the ground, the moment it appeared that any application of the kind was not really a petition, but a paper by which it was sought, in a covert manner, to insult the House. The petitioners, in this case, had dressed up as a petition, a paper, not by which they expected any redress of grievances, but by which they presumed to dictate to the House what they chose to think right. As to any reform, or rather to an alteration in the constitution of that House, he had no hesitation in declaring his opinion, that it would not tend to the advantage of the people. He objected, therefore, to gentlemen taking that for granted which had not been proved, and was not conceded to them. As to the words of the petition, they were disrespectful in the highest degree. It did not contain such a prayer as the petitioners could, by possibility, expect to be granted; and to allow it to lie on the table would only lead to the presenting of others still more offensive. The House must a stand against such a practice at some time or other, and it was better to do so now than at any after period. It had been said to be a respectable meeting, but gentlemen saw enough of what was to be expected from such meetings in the neighbourhood of populous towns, and the spirit of this meeting might be judged of from their refusing to hear a gentleman of the highest respectability, a member of that House (Mr. Mellish), on his attempting to deliver his sentiments on the subject. This circumstance did not add much to the argument derived from the unanimity of the meeting.

thought the words of the petition she wed that it was not the object of the petition to procure the liberation of sir F. Burdett, a reform in parliament, or any other specific object. The petition was only made the vehicle of conveying a gross insult to the House, and a dogmatical denial of its privileges. The petition from Westminster was capable of receiving a more favourable interpretation. The present was not. It was becoming in that House to be moderate; but when moderation produced only insult, then it became the House to assert its dignity. He thought the House might by a former occasion have adopted the more moderate course; but now it was necessary for them to support their proceedings.

said, that the petitioners were not, like the majority of that House, convinced of the constitutional authority of its privileges. They, on the contrary, denied that authority, and more particularly questioned the legality of those acts in which it had recently been asserted. Allowance was to be made for men warm with such a subject; but he should be sorry if the warmth which might have found its way into some expressions of their petition, should be caught by the House in commenting upon those expressions. The passage, which had been so much objected to, would be found at last to be no more than the most brief, abrupt, and somewhat coarse declaration of the opinion of the petitioner, which they must either have indulged, or have no ground for petitioning at all. There was another consideration, and he begged to address it to the feelings pf the House. This question of privilege of Parliament was, it seemed, one, which could not be easily submitted to any other tribunal than that of Parliament itself. In proportion, then, as the subjects of the realm, found the means of its legal discussion narrowed, in that proportion should Parliament open the doors to any appeal made to itself upon the subject, and not too scrupulously weigh the terms in which such an appeal was made. For these reasons he should vote for receiving the petition.

wished, as the present was a question of very great importance, that time should be given for consideration, and that there should be a fuller attendance of the House than there was at that moment. If such a discussion had been expected, he was satisfied the attendance would have been fuller. He should therefore move that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow. If pressed for an immediate opinion, he must say that he was against receiving the petition.

seconded the motion of adjournment.

conceived the paper now under consideration had nothing in it of a petition but the name. Such a practice ought to be checked in limine; and he saw no occasion for delaying till tomorrow what they ought to do to-day. A worthy alderman was afraid of the consequences of refusing such petition. For his own part he had no fear of the kind.

was of opinion, the House had already gone too far to talk of stopping in limine. They had already received a petition, which was at least sufficiently strong. He could not in his own mind conceive any thing stronger than the petition by the inhabitants of Westminster, who had told the House that they had offered a gross indignity to them. He thought the House had better agree to the proposition of his honourable friend, that they might deliberately consider how far they would allow that power to be stretched, which certain persons had instilled it into the minds of the misguided people they had a right to carry to any length, by filling them with wild and absurd ideas of their rights. Though he was a friend to petitioning, this was a petition which he was inclined to think ought to be viewed with more than usual strictness. There was a disposition to deny that the House, as it was at present constituted, afforded a legal representation of the people. Against such a doctrine he protested, and contended that it was equal to the discharge of those duties which it owed to the country in the consideration of its affairs both abroad and at home. He felt infinitely more disposed, on a question of this kind, to coalesce with those who entertain this opinion, than with those who thought the representative system entirely corrupt, and that it should be destroyed. He agreed that the terms in which the Petition was conceived were extremely offensive; but they might be found, at the same time, to be only a repetition of what had found its way into so many other petitions. He thought it better, therefore, to assent to the proposition of his hon. friend, that the debate should be adjourned.

could not agree that any insult was meant to be offered to the House by the present petition. The petition which had been received from Westminster contained no prayer; the present contained not only a prayer, but an earnest request that the House would comply with the object of the petition. He had used the freedom in that House to go to the full length the petitioners now did, in expressing their opinion. These sentiments he still, with submission to the House, entertained. He had presumed to deny that parliament had the right which it had assumed and exercised. He had been allowed to express that opinion; and he submitted that the freeholders of Middlesex had the same right to express their opinion on the subject. It was quite possible by strong resolutions to insult the House in the grossest manner, while, at the same time, the petition to be presented to them should be conceived in a way which might escape notice. The petitioners here had only candidly declared their opinions, as subjects of this country were entitled to do. To his (Mr. Wardle's) mind, these sentiments were true throughout. He trusted, therefore, that the petition would be received.

was of opinion the petition ought to be received, because he did not think the words were such a departure from the respect to the House as should warrant them in rejecting it. If the petitioners were of opinion that the House had acted illegally, he did not see in what other terms they could have expressed themselves, than by declaring that such was their opinion. If the House had acted thus illegally, it would be a grievance which it was the duty of the people of England to come forward and complain of in the most determined, though becoming language. Great authorities had their doubts on this subject, though he confessed he had none. He was for receiving the present petition, however, because he thought it was not so offensive as the petition from the inhabitants of Westminster, which had been received.

thought the words of the petition conveyed a studied insult to the House. It would be strange if this House, the majesty of the people, was the only body in the kingdom which could be libelled with impunity; nay, which receiving petitions insulting to themselves, must be compelled to become the servile instruments of their own degradation and disgrace. If the House were insulted by Resolutions, as an hon. gent. had supposed, even those who denied their right to be judges in their own case, must admit that they might go into a court of law, and there obtain justice; but if they once received on their own table a petition, in which they were insulted, no such redress could be obtained. He agreed, however, with his learned friend who spoke last, in thinking that the right of petitioning should not be broken in upon till every gentleman had an opportunity of reading over the petition and comparing the objectionable paragraphs with the context. He recommended to the House therefore to accede to the motion for adjourning the debate till to-morrow.

, seeing those who agreed with him in principle thought a delay necessary, though he himself was not a convert to that opinion, could have no objection to acceding to it. Now he was on his legs, he begged to explain the difference between the two petitions, and shew that the hon. gent. (Mr. Lambe) was not correct in the deduction he had made. The ground on which the former petition was received was repeatedly stated in the debate, and was precisely this; that as the sentence containing the accusation of a gross insult being offered, might apply to the officer executing the Speaker's warrant, it was but fair to put the most favourable construction upon a petition from the subject. He agreed that they must receive petitions against their acts, but, at the same time, they would take care in what language they were couched. They would take care that they were petitions, and not papers to dictate to the House what they ought to do. They might ask a revision of the judgment of the legislature; but they were not, as in the present case, to set up a petitioner's authority against the authority of the House, and call imperiously for a change, not for a re-consideration. While he, therefore, acceded to the adjournment, he would be ready either now, or at any other time, to contend that this petition, from its language, scope, and design, was such, as they neither could, nor ought to admit to lie on their table, as a perpetual insult.

said, he was of opinion, that the debate should be adjourned. He thought the prayer of the petition obviated any objection to the first clauses of it. He only stated this that all parts of it should be taken into consideration together. He would not contend, but that there were strong and wrong expressions in the outset of this petition; but when all parts were compared together, he could not see an objection to its being laid on the table.

stated, that he was at a loss to know how his constituents could express their opinions better than they had done. They conceived the House had assumed a power which they thought was not vested in them. His constituents were more strongly urged to this idea, from the conduct of it, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, where they expunged their former Resolutions, knowing them to be illegal, from their Journals.

said, he would vote for the adjournment. He thought this was a question that formed part of a measure, which had not been yet decided on, and must remain for a decision, until a jury of the country had formed an opinion. It was not his wish to enter into the merits of the point, as it would, in another place, undergo a more able discussion. He hoped it was the intention of the House to meet the question fairly. He could not see the objection to a petition which went to the purpose of bringing forward a most justifiable regulation. If he thought it was the intention of the people to enforce it by violence, he would be one of the first to oppose them; but when they legally petitioned, he would be the first to support them. He wished to know in what statute it was held out to petitioners, how they should word their petition. He knew there was a certain mode of heading and ending it, and with this the present applicants had complied. The paragraph which the outcry of the night bore against, did not deserve it, for it had been assumed by the House, and acknowledged by hon. gentlemen in their places.

The question for adjourning the debate was then put and agreed to.