moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the Middlesex Petition: which having been agreed to, he again rose—He said, that though the attendance of the members was not such as he could wish, considering the importance of the subject before them; yet it was satisfactory to reflect, that any decision to which they would now come, must carry with it greater weight, than if it had been come to on the former night; it could not now be imputed to precipitancy or heat, nor attacked as a proceeding, adopted without consideration, and a mature acquaintance with the subject. Every man must feel himself more happy in voting under the present circumstances, than if he had been driven to a vote in the first instance, before his feelings had time to cool, and his judgment to act. After the lapse of such time, and the advantage of the reflection which it permitted, he was sorry to say, that he felt himself constrained to vote against the petition. He did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of petitioning, or to limit that right which he considered so essential to the liberties of the people. On the contrary, he was desirous of throwing open the doors of the House as wide as possible, to their complaints and applications; there was no allegation in such petitions into which he would refuse to enquire; no argument to which he would not listen, and there was scarcely any request which he would not be disposed to attend to; but this which was now before them, he felt it his duty to refuse; because it was not a petition, but a protest against the authority of the House; it was not an application, but a menace.—He could not conceive what the object of it was, unless that the petitioners wished to try how far they could go in abusing and insulting the House of Commons. If the real object had been to induce the House to revise its proceedings in the cases of Gale Jones and sir F. Burdett, and to recommend an early attention to parliamentary reform—they would have carefully expressed themselves in a language not likely to be rejected, but he perceived it was the purpose, continually apparent, to trench upon the privileges, and depreciate the authority of the House of Commons, There was no assertion more grossly untrue, or more dangerous, than to say that the House of Commons maintained privileges contrary to law, and subversive of the rights of the people. What, he would ask, were the privileges of that House, but the privileges of the people?—privileges which, he declared individually for himself, he would chearfully resign; but he considered them the privileges of the people, and, therefore, he could not consent that those privileges, as they now existed in that House, should be abandoned. He could not consent that the dignity of the people should be lessened, and, therefore, he would support the dignity of that House. He lamented extremely that there were members who lent themselves to the clamours of popular faction, and joined in this species of insult to the House of Commons, and in the endeavour to compel the House to abandon its privileges; but those men seemed little aware of the consequences to which their conduct directly tended; for if once those factions, to which they had lent themselves as the tools, should be successful in their real object, which was the complete subversion of all existing authorities, those very men would be the very first victims of the storm they aided to raise, and would be swept away like chaff before the wind. Those parties, with whom such men unfortunately combined themselves, knew much better than they did the true purpose they had in view. They knew that, when the privileges of that House were dissolved in effect, the power of the crown, and the monarchy itself, which the privileges of that House equally limited and protected, would speedily be dissolved also. The infallible consequence of destroying the authority of the House of Commons, would be either to substitute in the place of our happy constitution, an absolute monarchy, or else a republic. But a republic in this country, would, as all other republics, ancient and modern, had done, end in a military despotism. Such was the consequence in all ages; it was inevitable. The French revolution had taught no new lessons; it was but a recent illustration of what had often been illustrated before, and it was impossible to contemplate it, without feeling, in its full force, the absurdity of any attempt at republican government, and the horror of any revolutionary speculation. He could not help thinking, that those who supported such doctrines as had been of late avowed were either wilful deceivers, or voluntary dupes. It was his wish, however, that the House, even on the rejection of this petition, should not adopt any precipitate measure likely to excite in the public mind a spirit of irritation, or afford a handle to those who wished to represent that House as hostile to the rights of the people, or inclined to reject their petitions when offered in decorous language. He could wish the House to adopt, on this occasion, some resolution expressive of this sentiment, that the House of Commons was never unwilling to receive the petitions of the people, nor to attend to the prayers of those petitions; but that the House could not record upon its Journals, under the name of a petition, that which was in fact, a protest against its own authority. He could wish that some gentleman, more competent than himself, would assume the task of framing such a Resolution, to which he should be happy in giving his support; but still he thought that a mere rejection of this petition, without a full discussion of the subject, would not be enough. The House had a right to demand of all its members a bold avowal of their sentiments, in order to strengthen its hands for the maintenance of its privileges. He felt that this was not a time for a mere negative performance of duty: but that it was a time to speak openly and act decisively. He had therefore thought it his duty to state his reasons for opposing the reception of this petition. But while he felt himself justified in attaching blame to the framers and supporters of the petition, he did not think that all the blame was theirs; much was also to be ascribed to another quarter, to ministers themselves. They had often been warned that they went too much against the sense and feeling of the people; but the warning was in vain. They had resorted to similar expedients, for the purpose of exciting a popular cry, when that popular cry made in favour of themselves, or of the narrow and bigotted principle upon which they wished to stand. No wonder that it was now turned against them. Their conduct, in every part of it, was calculated to produce the dissatisfaction which unhappily prevailed; they had disregarded the voice of the people, they had mocked them with sham inquiries up to this very day. They had resisted every proposition for inquiry, in order to the reform of public abuses; and where they were found to concede inquiry, delinquency, when discovered, was protected rather than punished. Even upon a recent occasion, when a member of that House, either deservedly or undeservedly, rendered himself obnoxious to the popular feeling, how did his Majesty's ministers mark their regard to public sentiment? Why; by instantly covering that member with honours and rewards! [The hon. member alluded to Mr. Yorke]. He desired to be understood as not speaking, from any animosity to that gentleman: but he thought the present not a fit time for such a conduct on the part of ministers. Not content, however, with incurring for themselves the popular odium they had also endeavoured by their language to transfer that odium to those who had constantly opposed their obnoxious measures, and never ceased to cry out against the ruinous tendency of such measures. They had given to the demagogues the example for that language by which the House was now continually reviled and insulted. Their constant reply to those who resisted their measures, or arraigned their misconduct, was, that their only motive for opposition was a wish to get into their places. Could they suppose the people would not catch at such language? Their very phrases were adopted in every popular discussion, and made the general ground of abuse of both sides of the House. But he could not suppose any man so absurd as to oppose such ministers merely for the sake of getting into their places, under existing circumstances. He wished the House, however, to view with temperate consideration the state of popular feeling, and that those persons whom he had been just addressing would consider how far they themselves had been instrumental to the success of those who propagated libels upon the parliament. If there was any such sentiment that he or his friends were actuated by, any views to power or emolument, he wished it to be fairly and fully investigated. Apologising to the House for trespassing so long on their indulgence, he wished the question for rejecting this petition might be shaped as a resolution in the form he had already suggested. He had drawn up one as rather explanatory of his own sentiments than to bind the House to adopt it in the precise form it was now drawn up. He concluded with moving the following Resolution, explanatory of the grounds upon which the petition should be rejected:—"That the House was at all times willing to receive the petitions of the people; but that it could not receive that which, under the name of a petition, was a protest against the proceedings of the House."

observed, that as he had seconded the motion for the adjournment the day before, he felt it incumbent upon him to make a few observations upon the subject now before the House. He rejoiced with the hon. gent. who spoke last, that the delay had taken place, not because he should now give a vote different from that which he had been prepared to give the day before, but because the vote of this night, whatever it might be, would be a vote of greater weight and dignity, than if it had been given yesterday, under the impression of that heat and agitation which the offensive language of the petition was calculated to produce. It was his misfortune, on the present occasion, to differ with many honourable friends of his, with whom he had been in the habit, of acting in the humble sphere in which he moved in this House, and with whom he hoped long to continue to act; but it was some consolation to him to know and foresee from what had fallen from those hon. friends themselves, that though they differed in their votes, there was no material difference in their opinions as to the offensive character of the petition now presented. An hon. friend of his (alderman Combe), had stated yesterday, as a reason for receiving the petition, that he knew not what might be the consequences of its rejection—He did not know what might be the consequences of its rejection; but he would tell his hon. friend, that he was more solicitous about the interests and character of the House, than for the consequences of the rejection of this petition. But although he did not know what would be the consequences of the rejection of the petition, he had a decided opinion upon what would be likely to be the consequences of its reception; and this opinion was, that if this petition were received, the table would very soon, be covered with insults and indignities offered to the House, by those whose object it was to degrade, vilify and insult the House of Commons. He begged not to be understood, or to be supposed to believe, that there was any general disposition throughout this country to insult and vilify the House of Commons. He believed no such thing. That there were great discontents and dissatisfactions, and arising from just causes, he admitted and contended, and he should at all times be ready to concur in measures for their correction. One great and principal cause of those dissatisfactions he believed to be the oppressive, vexatious, and tyrannical, manner in which the taxes of this country were levied upon the subject. And it was his firm belief, that if ever the horrors of a revolution should be brought upon this country, it would be attributable more to the vexatious and oppressive mode of carrying the tax laws into execution, than to the burden (great as it was) of the taxes themselves. He was less afraid of meetings in Palace yard, or at Hackney, than of what was silently carrying on at the tax office in Somerset place. He concluded by saying, as he considered the petition to be a protest, and an insult upon the House, he should vote for its rejection.

moved that the Westminster petition be read for the purpose of comparison. The Clerk having read it accordingly, the hon. gent. rose and stated, that he wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote he intended to give. He had opposed the Westminster petition, because, whether the prayer of it was right or wrong, he then thought, and did still think, that it was couched in language highly indecent and improper. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to call the attention of the House to it, that it might not pass sub silentio like an ordinary petition. Yet he meant to vote for the reception of this petition, and this required explanation. He was actuated now, as he had been then, by a regard to the dignity of the House, and in his opinion no mean part of dignity was consistency. He had heard nothing in the present petition more objectionable than what appeared in the other, which the House had determined to receive. How he would have acted if this had been a res integra, was another question. In these cases the House ought to act on a broad principle, and not receive one petition because its offensive nature could be explained away by a quibble, and reject another of the same kind, because a similar quibble could not be found. He saw no fair and open ground of objection to this petition, that did not equally apply to the other. That the practice of the House varied not only from century to century, but even in the course of twenty years, was obvious, when gentlemen compared the conduct of their ancestors, as to petitions, in the brightest times of our history, with the proceedings of the present day. They could not help these changes, but still they ought not to allow them to take place with an indecent rapidity. The practice ought not to change from week to week, and from day to day, merely because a chancellor of the exchequer had more political courage on one day than he had on another. At the same time he declared his unaltered detestation and abhorrence of the principles of those who sent this petition, and if any one could shew him a real and substantial difference between the Westminster petition and the present, he would be prepared to vote for its rejection.

felt himself at a loss to follow the hon. gent. in his ideas of consistency. The hon. gent. having been averse to receive the Westminster petition and thinking that the House had done wrong in receiving it, wished the House to follow up that which he conceived to be their error, by committing another error in receiving the petition under consideration. This certainly did not appear to him to be the best mode of preserving the dignity of the House. He was one of those who, on the first reading of the Westminster petition, thought with the hon. gent. that it contained matter of so offensive a nature as to preclude the House from receiving it; but on a more attentive consideration, the objectionable passages appeared capable of being interpreted in a way in which it was desirable that all petitions presented by the people to the House of Commons should, if possible, be interpreted. But was the Middlesex petition of that description? Could any one believe that it was sent to the House with any other view than with a premeditated design to insult, them? If in the discharge of their duty, the House ought not to be too scrupulous. If in their anxiety to shew that they threw their doors wide open to the petitions of the people, they had received the petition of the electors of Westminster, did it follow that they were to go on day after day receiving petitions, each more insulting and offensive than its predecessor? Whatever might be the sentiments of the hon. gent. such was not in his opinion the course by which the House would best maintain its dignity. The hon. gent. in whom the discussion that evening originated, had ascribed to his Majesty's ministers, and to those who supported them, a great deal of what he called the prevailing dissatisfaction of the country. In the first place he must be permitted to doubt the existence of that dissatisfaction. If the hon. gent. really believed that it existed, he must also believe that the House had lost the confidence of the country. From such a conclusion he most completely dissented. One of the instances adduced by the hon. gent. as tending to create this supposed dissatisfaction was, that his Majesty had been advised to select a gentleman to fill a high official situation who had, whether justly or unjustly, recently been assailed by popular clamour. Now he conceived, that if his Majesty's ministers were to advise his Majesty to listen to popular clamour, whether deserved or undeserved, they would, indeed, experience the dissatisfaction of the country. He was persuaded that the hon. gent. had used that expression inadvertently, and that he would be disposed to retract it. Another hon. gent. had attributed a great deal of this supposed dissatisfaction to the conduct of the board of taxes. This was a most extraordinary and most unjust accusation. The board of taxes were the mere instruments of parliament. To single out that board as worthy censure for executing a very painful duty, which they were compelled to execute, in the execution of which they have no option, was to cast blame where it was wholly unmerited. With respect to the proposed resolution, he did not think it at all necessary that the rejection of the petition should be prefaced by any declaration of the motives by which the House were actuated. Such a declaration was not customary. The House of Commons had already shewn their willingness to receive the petitions of the people when they could do so consistently with their duty to themselves and their constituents. The mere fact of the reading of the petition and its rejection would sufficiently shew the grounds on which the House proceeded.

contended, that what his hon. friend had said with respect to the recent appointment of Mr. Yorke to the head of the Admiralty was perfectly justifiable. He knew no mode by which the sense of the people of a county could be better collected, than by their refusing to re-elect any individual sent back to them for that purpose. When, therefore, the hon. gent. condemned his hon. friend for maintaining that the appointment of Mr. Yorke to office was not sanctioned by public approbation, the conduct of the electors of Cambridge was a sufficient voucher for the injustice of that condemnation. He was extremely sorry however that his view of the subject under discussion differed from that of his hon. friend. He should not vote for the rejection of the Middlesex petition; he could not find any thing in that petition more offensive than the expressions contained in the petition which had already been received by the House, and he could never think that any language which did not directly imply offence, but which might be construed into offence, ought to induce the House to reject the petitions of the people. He in treated the House to consider the nature of the object for which the petitioners prayed. If the people complained of an act of that House, was it not indispensible that they should term it injurious? In the many petitions presented against tax bills (although such petitions were not allowed to be presented until the session succeeding that in which the bills were passed), the measures complained of were usually denominated "partial, oppressive, and unjust." Could any thing be abstractedly more offensive than to charge that House with partiality, oppression, and injustice? and yet it did not appear that any petitions had ever been rejected in consequence of their containing such charges; because that House considered them as conveying the sentiments of the petitioners. It should be equally so with regard to the present petitioners. They thought the conduct of that House unjust, and they told them so. If they really and conscientiously thought the House in its conduct unjust, how could they express that in words but such as they had made use of, and ought to make use of? Far, indeed, was he from concurring in the sentiments contained in their petition. He knew of no privilege claimed by that House which it did not possess. He knew of no power exercised by it which it had not the right to employ. He had most certainly read in that petition, and elsewhere, that the House had claimed and exercised privileges and powers which it did not constitutionally possess; but such statements, he was far from considering as offensive, proceeding as they did from an ignorance of the constitution. The surrender of any of the privileges of that House would lead to the destruction of the constitution. He regretted the ignorance which seemed to influence the people upon this subject; but he could not look upon it as an offence, if they differed in opinion from that House, that they should say so—As to the designs of those who had stirred up the spirit which manifested itself on the present occasion, he was not acquainted with them; but if their designs were evil, it was the duty of ministers to detect and punish them. He cautioned the House against laying too much stress upon the accounts of public meetings, as reported in the papers. He could quote one instance, as a proof that they were not to be relied on with much confidence; for either the papers must be wrong, or an hon. member of that House (Mr. Wardle) must have hazarded some very strange assertions. The hon. member was reported to have said, that when the ministers were contending for privileges, which did not belong to the House, the opposition had joined in the cry "to rally round the ministers upon such an occasion." He was sure that the hon. member could have said no such thing; he must have known that he would be one of the last men in the country to rally round the ministers. He was also reported to have said, "that his Majesty's ministers were reproached by the opposition, for not bringing in the military in the first instance." The hon. member could not have said this, no such thing having happened. The gentlemen on his side of the House, instead of adopting such language, had accused and condemned the government for having employed the military before they had tried whether the civil power would not have been sufficient. The hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle), was also reported to have ascribed to what were commonly called the two great parties in the House, the greatest selfishness and impurity of motive. He supposed that this must also have been a mistake—for surely no man could arrogate so much to himself as to think that he had more wisdom and more honesty than the whole House of Commons. No man could be absurd, or unjust enough to say, that out of 658 members, 650 were notorious rogues. It was for these reasons that he thought the news-paper reports could not have been correct, and ought not to be relied upon with too much confidence. The right of petition was that of which the House ought to be particularly careful; in the maintenance of which he felt that he could not with propriety, vote against the petition.

hoped the House would indulge him in a few observations, in reply to the personal attacks which had been made upon him ("No! no!" from the Opposition: "upon the newspapers.") Then, as the right hon. gent. had quoted from the news-papers certain expressions which were attributed to him, that right hon. gent. should have stated where he had found them, because for his part he had not seen them so stated in any newspaper. What he had said he believed was this, that he thought it rather a curious moment for the gentlemen of the opposition to shew that they rejoiced in the commitment of sir F. Burdett. He said too, that he had heard it stated by one gentleman amongst them, that the occasion required them to rally round the government, and from that sentiment having been cheered particularly by the members on the opposition benches, he was justified in assuming it to be general. It had even been stated by one hon. gent. that even if his Majesty's ministers were to have hereditary offices in the government, the House ought to rally round them on such an occasion. As that hon. member was in his place, he would correct him if he was wrong: but the impression upon his mind was that he had made use of the expression; but as to his having said that no members of that House were honest, but the few who concurred in opinions with himself, he could not recollect his having used any such expression, and he was sure he had not, because he had never thought so: but in or out of that House, he should always state freely what he thought, though he could assure the right hon. gent. never with offence towards him personally. In stating however fairly and openly his opinion of public affairs and public men at the general meeting of the electors of Westminster, he had done nothing more than what was his right and what he conceived to be his duty. He hoped that similar occasions for speaking his sentiments, would often recur. Indeed, he thought they could not occur too frequently, because it was for the benefit of the people to have a frequent opportunity of expressing their sentiments, and for the benefit of that House also to have an opportunity of knowing those sentiments. The more frankly those sentiments were expressed, the more he should approve of them. Having said so much as to the attack which had been made upon him, he had only one word to add on the subject of the petition under consideration. He trusted that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pursue the same course with respect to this as he had done with respect to the Westminster petition. In that case the right hon. gent. had consented to receive the petition, as containing the sentiments of the electors of Westminster. If he should put a similar construction upon the present, which was the construction upon which it ought to be received, he was sure the right hon. gent. would have no difficulty in acceding to the motion that it be laid upon the table.

, in explanation, stated that he had not intended any attack upon the hon. gent. What he had said was directed against the statements in the newspapers, purporting to be reports on the hon. gent.'s speech. As he had been called upon to state where he had seen these reports, he should inform the hon. gent., in the Morning Chronicle and the Times newspapers; and also in another, the name of which he did not recollect; but all the accounts were nearly similar. What the hon. gent. had just stated, corroborated his assertion that the hon. member had never made use of the expressions stated to have been used by him.

, as the hon. member seemed to have alluded particularly to him, trusted he should be indulged in making a few observations. When that hon. gent. imputed to the members on the opposition side of the House, that they rejoiced at the commitment of sir F. Burdett, he was of opinion that he should have looked rather to their votes than to their cheers for evidence of their sentiments. For himself, he was one of those who thought the House had not exceeded its just and constitutional privileges in that instance. How far it might be desirable to exercise these privileges on any particular occasion was quite another question. But such privileges the House not only had, but ought to have; and without them it must soon cease to exist as an integral branch of the legislature. The hon. member in quoting the particular expression which inadvertently fell from him in the former debate, should have quoted it correctly.—He had said, and he repeated it again, that, if the question was between the present ministers continuing in place, and the subversion of the constitution, he would make his election of the first of these alternatives, even though it was to give them hereditary seats. He would try to have them removed by all legal and constitutional means, but no further would he go; and it was in this sense that he would rally round the government, or rather round the constitution and the House of Commons. There was no comparison between this government as it exists, and the ruin of every thing dear to us as men and Britons; our laws, freedom, and the constitution of our ancestors.

had never felt more difficulty upon any subject than upon the very important question under consideration. It often happened that men of the best intentions differed in opinion toto cœlo upon topics of this description; and in proof of this he could not help adverting to the speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Ward). That hon. member had voted against receiving the Westminster petition, and yet thought that the House was in consistency bound to receive this. Now, in both these opinions he must differ from his hon. friend. He had not only voted for receiving, but contended that the House was bound to receive, the former petition; not because it was the petition of the electors of Westminster, but because the passage which appeared most offensive in it, might be supposed to refer to the conduct of their officer, and not to the conduct of the House. The present petition however he conceived to be peculiarly offensive, and his objection to it, he confessed, to rest upon his persuasion that it conveyed an intended insult to the House. He should, therefore, oppose its reception. It was not in fact conceived in the terms, or drawn up in the spirit of a petition. For instead of asking, or even recommending, it dictated authoritatively to the House. The case between Sir Francis Burdett and that House was said to be at present sub judice. It was understood that it was to be submitted to the investigation of a court of law, and he should ask, was it respectful, or was it decorous in a party professedly complaining to that House, to pronounce not a mere opinion upon the question, but a most authoritative decision? It was in fact impossible to read this petition attentively, without seeing that it was indecorous—without feeling that it was the object of the parties by whom it was drawn up, to try to what extent they could contrive to offend the House, and still get their petition upon the table. Believing that the Westminster electors entertained no such view, he supported the motion for the reception of their petition. If it should be said that the rejection of the petition under discussion, implied any wish to narrow the right of petitioning—he felt that no such wish could be imputed to him. For the twenty-six years during which he had been a representative of the people in that House, he could refer to his conduct as the best defence against any such imputation; as in the course of that period he had never voted against any popular (if it was for him to say what was popular) or constitutional measure. He was sorry that his sense of duty should, on this occasion, impel him to oppose many persons whom he respected. But he differed from them only as to the means they employed for carrying their object. It had been often observed, and with justice, that it was necessary to the preservation of the liberty of the press to guard against its licentiousness; and why not apply the same observation to the right of petitioning, that in order to preserve that right it was necessary to guard against any licentiousness in its exercise. The petition under consideration he conceived to be a most licentious exercise of that right, and therefore he must oppose its admission. He must oppose it, because he could not sanction any proceeding calculated to encourage that sort of commotion in which the middle men like himself—in which those who wished to keep aloof from all extremes—were sure to be trodden under foot. It could not be supposed that in the vote he meant to pronounce upon this subject, he was influenced by the consideration that the chancellor of the exchequer took the same course. His vote was the result of a thorough conviction, which he rather believed would very seldom incline him to vote with that right honourable gentleman. Passing from this topic, the honourable member adverted to the observation of an hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle), with regard to the conduct of his side of the House upon the committal of sir F. Burdett. How that side of the House could have exulted in the committal of the hon. baronet, while no less than 152 of that side voted against it, was a species of paradox which he confessed he was unable to comprehend.—That the House had lost much of its weight and respectability in the public estimation, and through its own conduct, he conceived it absurd to deny. But still he must be excused, if he thought that it should not give up any part of the weight and respectability it retained, and that it should tenaciously maintain its privileges. Although he was satisfied that that House required reform—although he felt that that reform must, and he hoped would ere long, take place, yet it should be recollected, that if any of its privileges were now lost, it might be found extremely difficult to regain them, even after the reform was accomplished. Therefore the House should not, because it had committed some breaches of duty, be guilty of a still farther breach by surrendering its privileges—by neglecting to transmit those privileges to their successors, for the benefit of the people, to whom, and for whom, they were necessary, as they would be found to be, particularly in the event of reform. For this reform he anxiously looked. He had been a petitioner, in fact, to that House, and he would petition for it again and again, if necessary. He would of course be happy to encourage all those who professed to support that desirable measure, in any application they thought proper to make to that House in its favour, provided such application was couched in decorous and proper terms. But this petition was not of that character, and therefore he could not defend it. This petition, however, and all the other proceedings which he, in common with all reflecting men, lamented, was to be traced to that unfortunate vote (for the committal of sir Francis Burdett), which he had endeavoured to prevent, and which he never could cease to deplore. Whatever indeed might be the termination of this controversy, he must always regret that vote for the consequence which it had already produced. But this was not the only subject of his regret. He could not help thinking, that if any of the several propositions for reform submitted to that House had been adopted, the character of the House would have been more respected through the country. The body of the people would have reverenced its proceedings, would have regarded it as their real representation, as the guardian of their rights, and, therefore, would have come forward to support it in the assertion of its privileges. But how different were the circumstances at present, owing to the state and conduct of that House. He was aware, that in what he had said, he might perhaps give offence to both parties; but he was conscious that he had no such intention, and should trust to their candour to acquit him of it. After what he had said, he should vote for rejecting the petition.

said, that however much he respected, in general, the opinions of the hon. gent. Mr. Barham, he must on the present occasion, wholly differ from him, and should vote against the rejection of the petition. The ground must be strong, indeed, and the objections clear and unquestionable on which he could assent to the rejection of a petition, from so large and respectable a body of their constituents, presented in the legal and regular manner to that House. If petitions were to be rejected merely on the imputation of containing warm expressions objectionable to the administration of the day, a most dangerous impression might be made on the public mind; might it not inspire an apprehension that the right of petition was become nugatory, depending, altogether, on the will of the minister. He concurred with the last speaker in lamenting the cause of all those discussions—the committal of Mr. Gale Jones, and the more so, as he was originally of opinion, and still remained so, (notwithstanding his respect for the talents of those who thought otherwise) that the House had not any right, acknowledged by the laws or the practice of the constitution, to try for libel, and to pass sentence of punishment thereon. He was also of opinion that the dignity of the House was not consulted by committing their power in conflict with a person of that description. He was, further, decidedly of opinion, with due deference, that the House had acted unjustifiably, in punishing one of its own members for some indiscreet language in an Address to his Constituents, on an occasion when he conceived their liberties to be involved—which address he was constitutionally justified in, and perhaps bound to make—nor should he think that the House would then consult its dignity, its interest, or its duty, by throwing any impediment in the way of petitioning from the people—To reject the petition would complete that tissue of error and impolicy in which ministers had involved the House. What would the people think? by "people" he did not mean the mob, such as were described by gentlemen; but the sober, reflecting class of men, those who paid the taxes, the army and navy, and supported the expences of the state, who were perfectly competent to form a just judgment of the conduct of their constituents? what would such men think? Why, that having already infringed the personal liberty of the subject, having punished his representative for complaining of such infringement, nothing more remained than to extinguish the right of petition in the body of the people. What! was the assertion of that right to be considered a Jacobinical claim? No, it was the law and constitution of the land. It is that subsidiary but invaluable right which in the opinion of all the best writers on those laws, and that constitution, it becomes the duty of the people to exercise, whenever their liberties are thought, by them, to be invaded; considered in that point of view, the wording of a petition was in his mind of little importance. He did hot advocate the language of the petition in question, he might not admire the taste in which it was written; but were those reasons for rejecting a petition and trenching on the right itself, which it was their duty to guard inviolate. To what extent might not such a principle be carried? Did gentlemen propose to submit the petitions of the people to a previous scrutiny analogous to an imprimatur; did they propose to refer them to the minister or his agent? that if one contained an expression or complained of a grievance in a way offensive to such minister, they were not to entertain it. In what case of a public nature could a petition be imagined, which under such circumstances would be admissible? The hon. gent. had, however, stated that it was no petition but a protest. He did not know what the hon. gent.'s definition of a petition was; it stated a grievance and it prayed for redress, that appeared to him to be the very character of a petition. It did that certainly, in very plain and simple language. It stated the grievances strongly, and in what other language could they expect that grievances strongly felt, would be stated? They accused the House of assuming an illegal power, that was the grievance, and the remedy asked for was, the reversal of their proceedings, their erasing from their Journals the objectionable decisions. What, was it to the substance of such an application that gentlemen objected? Was there any thing criminal or unprecedented in such an application? Had not their predecessors received repeated petitions to the same effect, and had they not ultimately complied, as in the case of Wilkes, by reversing and erasing from their Journals, their most solemn judicial proceedings? He would therefore recommend to the House, to be extremely cautious how they threw any obstacle in the way of petitions. A caution the more necessary, when he reflected that those were the same ministers who had insolently rebuked the city of London for complaining of the Cintra Convention, a transaction, which, though sanctioned by that House, would attach indelible disgrace to the British name. The same ministers, who not daring to repeat that rebuke when the first city of the empire remonstrated against the still more atrocious transactions of Walcheren, insidiously shut the ears of their Sovereign to the complaints of his people, and locked up their petition in the office of one of their colleagues. The same ministers would now, with systematic hostility, avail themselves of some objectionable phrase in petitions, to undermine the right itself. He could not avoid reprobating the idle and impolitic language held by some gentlemen, of rallying round ministers. What merit these gentlemen, who thought; ministers deserving of capital punishment for the infamous Expedition to Walcheren, could discover in their subsequent conduct in originating or managing the proceedings against sir F. Burdett, to call on men to rally round them, he was unable to comprehend. He, on the contrary, thought that their conduct in those transactions rendered them infinitely more criminal. That the nation entertained its unanimous opinion notwithstanding, and in difference from the decisions of that House, he firmly believed. But he could not concur in the alarm at the interposition of the great public bodies of the country. He saw nothing in the constitution of that House rendering it so extremely subservient, to public feeling. He could discover none of that sympathy in their vote applauding the policy of the late Expedition. He saw no symptoms of democracy in the sentiments of that House. If there was any danger to be apprehended from foreign influence amongst them, it certainly was not from the influence of the people. Such influence had unfortunately but too little weight there. It would, of course, but ill accord with the public feeling, to have it not merely slighted, but ignominiously spurned at. It was surely sufficient punishment to petitioners if their complaints were not proceeded on. He was, however, desirous to encourage their applications. From such applications alone, strongly urged, did he expect those measures which he thought indispensible to the salvation of the country. To reject the petition in question, would, in his mind, have the most mischievous consequences, and would trench upon one of the most valuable rights of the people—perhaps the most important to the security of the remainder, of all those which, as representatives, were vested in their guardianship.

, in explanation, stated, that it was his wish to accompany the rejection of the petition, with a resolution declaratory of the reasons which induced its rejection; and thus pointing out to the petitioners the propriety of avoiding any dictatorial strain, and the way in which they ought to proceed in their applications to that House.

said, that there was no person more disposed than himself to treat with extreme tenderness the right of petitioning. He should be very unwilling to reject ay petition merely from an inadvertent expression which might appear disrespectful; but when he considered the entire language of this petition, he felt himself, under all the circumstances of the case, compelled to reject it. If they did not reject the present petition, he did not see how they could ever in future reject any petition on the grounds of its being couched in disrespectful and offensive language. The shades of what was offensive in expression were infinitely varied; but it did appear to him that, in the present petition, the object of the petitioners was purposely stated in most offensive language. The petitioners might have come forward and stated every thing which they thought proper to state in language which would not have been offensive or insulting to the House. There was this difference between the Middlesex petition and the petition of Westminster, which had been received: The Middlesex petitioners stated broadly and directly, that the House of Commons acted contrary to the law; and in the manner of expressing it appeared to think that the law was so clear and undeniable, that no could have misunderstood it; but that in acting against the law, they had acted against their own conviction. Now the petition from Westminster did not go that length. It stated, that "in our opinion," and "we are convinced," and in qualified expressions of that nature, that the law had been violated; but it did not state it positively, as the Middlesex petition did. It was true that the Middlesex petition ended in the technical manner with a prayer, which the Westminster petition did not; but he would consider much more the general spirit of the petition, and whether it was meant to be insulting or not, than he would the mere technical form. The hon. gent. opposite, (Mr. M. Fitzgerald) in his opinion, acted rather harshly and unfairly towards his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose feelings and actions were strongly indicative of a high zeal and regard for the public interest, when he accused him of wishing to narrow the right of the subject to petition. How could the hon. gent. do this, if he recollected, that when his own friends, and even the friends of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer joined in expressing, most strongly, an opinion against the Westminster petition, his right hon. friend had distinctly stated the dangers on the one side, and the favourable circumstances on the other, and candidly declared, that, in his judgment, the balance was in favour of receiving the petition. He reminded his right hon. friend, that though the cry now adopted by the petitioners was in favour of the popular side, yet too much ought not to be conceded on that account; for the time might come, when their petitions would be as much against the popular interests, as they now pretended to be for them; and in the same degree attempting to run down, vilify, and degrade the House. They must all recollect, in the history of the country, that this was the case in the instance of Dr. Sacheverel. In the reign of Charles II. the people were deluded into petitions, praying that no more Parliaments might be assembled. Such things might happen again; and if they now gave way, they ought to remember that they were destroying solid strength, and what he might call the triumph of reason and justice; that they were subverting all that was consistent with happiness, stability, and glory, to build up confusion and disgrace. In rejecting this petition, they were debarring the freeholders of Middlesex no right or privilege. They might call for the re-consideration of any proceeding of that House. The House would revise and re-consider their acts, and they would do it the more freely, if they did not allow themselves to be dictated to by any other body. They would review their proceedings with that independence belonging to them, as the third branch of the legislature, and the unfettered representatives of the people. He could have wished, that their rejection of this petition had been accompanied by some such resolution as was read by the hon. mover, to shew, beyond the possibility of misrepresentation, that they acted in this way, from no feeling of affront, but in the performance of a duty incumbent on them, to preserve, not their personal rights, but the rights of the people entrusted to their care. The preservation of their privileges and dignity was indeed a trust, not a property. There was nothing in the petition that might not be again stated inoffensively, and in a stile consistent with the dignity of the House to receive. As the petition now stood, he felt it to be a duty he owed to those who sent him there, and to the people of England, whom he represented, to reject it.

said, that if he really conceived that the House was held in such contempt by the country as it was often stated to be, he should feel ashamed to sit there; but he was convinced that there was no foundation for the statement. To whom were the country to look for any important advantages? Was it to the hon. baronet who was in the Tower, or any of his partizans? It appeared to him that a party had sprung up in the country, which it was the duty of that House to crush. He objected to the petition, as being in many parts false. It was not in the execution of the Speaker's warrant that innocent blood had been split; but the loss of some lives proceeded altogether from the necessity of preserving the public peace, and the impossibility of the military bearing any longer the many indignities and attacks they had been exposed to. The mob on the late occasion were, in some respects, more dangerous than that which assembled in the time of lord George Gordon. The mob of lord George Gordon had not come, as the late mob had done, with pistols in their pockets, and did not, like them, fire upon the military. Under the recent circumstances, the conduct of the military was most exemplary. He should vote for rejecting the petition, as being unfóunded in truth.

did not perceive any thing in the present petition which was so very offensive as that the House should refuse to receive it. The debate appeared to have taken a very different turn from what it had taken the preceding night. On the last night the objection seemed to be merely that the power of commitment was denied; but on the present occasion the objection was generally that the language of the petition was offensive. He did not think, that asserting that the House had acted contrary to law in a late instance, was denying that they had a right of committing. They might have that right on other occasions from the necessity of the case, and yet it might happen that they had it not in the case of a libel, which was an offence that might be punished in the due course of law. The people might well doubt that they had such a right; and if it should turn out that they had it not, then it must be allowed that they had done an illegal act. It was said, by one of his Majesty's ministers, that the House must now make a stand, or that their table would be covered with similar petitions. This however was not his opinion; nor did he expect that many other counties would petition on this subject, whatever might be the fate of the petition for Middlesex. He thought the House would in no degree relieve itself from hearing petitions similar in substance, by rejecting the present petition.—On the contrary, the rejection of it would naturally produce another county meeting, and another petition. This, however, should be no consideration, if the privileges of the House were seriously attacked; but if they were not seriously attacked, it would be worth considering whether any real advantage would be obtained by rejecting the petition.

considered the petition as the most disrespectful ever presented to the House; but whether they rejected it or not, he did not think their table would be covered with any thing similar. The petition was not what it was stated to be. It was stated to be, "The petition of the freeholders of Middlesex, in full county assembled." Of the persons assembled at Hackney, not one-third were freeholders, and the petition was signed by no more than eight names. To this meeting he, a freeholder of the county, would not go, because he knew that nothing he could say would be attended to, and that it was in vain to attempt to be heard, in combating the opinion of the party there assembled. There were many freeholders of the county deterred from going, for the same reasons, and because they knew there were hundreds of persons there not freeholders, determined, by cry and clamour, to drown every voice not raised in favour of their own way of thinking. He protested against the petition being received as the petition of the freeholders of Middlesex, and he was confident, that if the county was polled throughout, 9 out of 10 of the freeholders would not only not sign it, but would think themselves disgraced by its being laid on the table.—He might be asked why, then, did not the 9 in 10 attend and reject the propositions? His answer was, because they knew, that, so near the metropolis, it was easy to collect a crowd of persons, who would drown every thing in noise and clamour. In the course of this debate, many subjects had been introduced, not necessarily connected with it. What had the conduct of the ministers towards sir F. Burdett to do with the language of the Middlesex petition? Whether ministers were right or wrong, the language of a petition to the House of Commons ought to be respectful and inoffensive. He protested against the petition in the name of the great majority of the freeholders of Middlesex, and he thought the House would disgrace themselves in entering it on their Journals.

observed, that if the hon. member who spoke last was rightly informed, and that nine-tenths of the freeholders of Middlesex were hostile to the petition now before the House, he could not help thinking, that those nine-tenths had not done adequate justice to the county of Middlesex in allowing a remaining tenth to assume the voice of the county itself. He did not think the language of the petition so disrespectful as to make it necessary for the House to reject it. He had himself stood up for the right of commitment, but he thought it perfectly fair and allowable for any petitioner to deny the right. The word 'protest' had been objected to, as offensive to the dignity of that House; but he did not perceive any thing in that word more than a solemn denial of the right, the exercise of which they complained of. It appeared to him that there were other parts in the petition which were more offensive, yet of which no notice had been taken. He did not like to hear asserted, that all public men were corrupt, and that they were bought and sold. The Middlesex petition seemed to have introduced that doctrine rather, unnecessarily, upon the present occasion. The petitioners dwelt pointedly on the sale of seats in that House, and on the corrupt state of the representation. This topic, introduced, as he thought, unnecessarily, appeared to him more disrespectful to the House, and conveying more offence than the use of the word protest, which had been so much dwelt on. Nevertheless those parts of the petition which appeared to convey the greatest offence were passed over without any observation, while others of much less moment were urged as a ground for rejecting the petition. He did not approve of the language of the petition, but he could not bring himself to reject it.

said that there were two questions for the consideration of the House. The first was, whether it was the bounden duty of that House to receive any paper, however disrespectful, libellous or defamatory, merely because that paper was called by the name of a petition; and the second was, whether the paper now before the House was of that exceptionable character or not. He had voted on the night before for an adjournment 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 actually 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 ministérs, 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 considered, 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. It 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 peril 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 constitution—not any certain set of men, but 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 asserted 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.

said, in explanation, that he could not take upon himself to judge in what degree the hon. gent. enjoyed the faculty of hearing; but he could not think that gentleman possessed the faculty in perfection, if he attributed to him words which had never escaped him. He had never said nor implied, that that House was bound to receive any petition, however 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 petitions.

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 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 necessity, and the necessity ceasing, so should the exercise of the privilege cease also.

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.

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 conviction at least, that the majority of that meeting were not freeholders. When he spoke of presenting their petition, they heard him with as much silence as then, prevailed in the House, but the moment he spoke in favour of any opinion of his own, not exactly conformable to theirs, the tumult was so sudden and over-bearing, that he told them, smiling, since they 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.

said, that he, as a freeholder of Middlesex, would have attended the meeting, but that he thought it an exparte 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.

said, that, to the question which he had to bring before the House, he hoped the most calm, dispassionate, and deliberate discussion would be given. It was of moat material importance, as it concerned the revenue of Ireland, and deeply affected the interests of that country. Under these considerations 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-general, 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 moat 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 800l., 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 that in the incidents of the customs, sir George Shee had received the sum of 5,673l. 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 to make was, that the House considered 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.

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 debt due to him, and which he would have recovered, had he sued at law for it. This he trusted, would be a sufficient answer to his first Resolution. The subject of the second Resolution had been discussed and decided already. With respect to the matter of the third Resolution, he was persuaded that the more it was inquired into, the less would it be found to warrant the conclusions drawn by the hon. baronet. The observations of the hon. gent. might have applied to the former constitution of the Irish Treasury. It had been formerly the custom to allow the receiver-general a quarter per cent. on the sums passed through his hands, which on the average amounted to upwards of 5,000l. a year, but latterly this enormous emolument was prohibited. It ceased after the death of sir Henry Cavendish, and his successor who should have enjoyed it, was entitled to a moderate compensation. That was settled at 1,400l. a year. There never was an officer more fairly entitled to compensation than sir George Shee. Would the hon. bart. say that 1,000l. a year was a compensation for discharging the duties of an office through which three millions and a half of the public money passed, and for the due execution of which security to the amount of 25,000l. was given? With respect to sir George Shee, there was no favour asked or granted, nor was there any due. He lamented the hon. member had not given him an opportunity of answering the other strong cases to which he alluded. He was convinced they would be found equally unsupported Without fear of contradiction, he would assert, that the present government of Ireland was as strict and economical as even the hon. bart. could desire.

observed, from the Report of the commissioners, that Mr. Croker was not entitled to the sum granted. Whatever 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.

said, that after the very kind and handsome manner in which, the hon. gentlemen opposite to him, had Spoken of Mr. Croker, he certainly rose to address the House without any personal feeling upon this question. He wished to submit to the House a statement of the facts of the case, and unless he very much flattered himself, he should convince the House of the perfect propriety of every part of the business in which Mr. Croker was concerned. Mr. Croker was appointed in the year 1800, surveyor general of the port of Dublin, with a salary of 800l. per annum, being 400l. a year less than any other surveyor general had, when employed, though his duty required a constant residence in the city of Dublin. When he came into office, he found very considerable arrears of duties due from the distillers. It had been said that the commissioners ought to have known of these arrears, and have prevented them, but the fact was, that the commissioners could not ascertain the amount of the arrears nor the quantity of spirits that had gone into consumption without payment of duty until the end of every quarter, and then it sometimes happened that it was too late to recover them. Mr. Croker, upon his coming into office, turned his attention to this subject, and he found in an act of parliament then in force, the means of compelling the distillers to make their returns, and pay the duties weekly. In this act there was a clause enacting, that if any distiller should suffer an arrear to exist beyond a given time, he should be liable to a certain penalty, one half of which was to go to the crown, and the other to the prosecutor. When Mr. Croker put this law into force, it was well understood by the distillers of Dublin, that his sole intention was to take measures for enforcing the payment of the money due to the public, weekly; that in case of any failure on their part in paying the duties, he should, indeed, by prosecuting them, become entitled to certain penalties, but that he would not touch one farthing of those penalties, provided they would pay their arrears, and that the board of excise would remit the other half of the penalties. In pursuance of his plan, Mr. Croker did, in enforcing the payment of arrears, obtain judgments for penalties to the amount of 42,000l. and by the strict letter of the law, he would have been entitled to one half of them; but in consideration of the understanding with the distillers, he merely kept those penalties in terrorem over them, and remitted them as soon as the arrears were 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 officers 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 Jaw, 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 2,100l. 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 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 memorial, that the real truth of the case could 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 never once begged of him to mention it to the government; so much was it a matter of right and so little a matter of favour. But he had other grounds of complaint against these commissioners; they had not stated, that this case had been referred to the solicitor of the board, and that he had made a Report decidedly in favour of the right which accrued under the warrant. It might also have been expected, that, in point of fairness, when they were about to make this Report, they would have examined Mr. Croker himself upon the subject; but not one question did they ever put to him upon the subject, though they had daily opportunities of doing it. He concluded with stating, that he trusted he had made out a clear case, and that he had done justice to Mr. Croker. With respect to the character of that gentleman, the gentleman opposite to him, had spoken of it in terms which left him nothing to wish upon the subject. If any thing more had been necessary, he believed he might safely appeal to the right hon. gent. who filled the chair. He believed Mr. Croker attracted that gentleman's notice when he was in Ireland, and he believed also, that he owed that notice to the high character which he possessed. (The Speaker assented.) Mr. Croker concluded by trusting the House would pardon him for feeling on such an occasion the desire of doing justice to the character, not only of the individual, but of the Board of Excise, and of the government.

disclaimed any idea of wishing to throw blame on Mr. Croker, whom he admitted was a highly meritorious officer. Being now apprised of the circumstances just stated by the hon. gent., which were perfectly satisfactory, he should withdraw the two first Resolutions. At the same time he must still consider the board of excise as very negligent.

, referring to the report, observed that if the right hon. bart, had taken the trouble to read it, he would have found in the Appendix that Mr. Croker stated in his memorial that his claim was proper and legal, and the commissioners, in their report, bear him out, by stating that he was entitled to a moiety of the sum in question by law.

considered the giving of a moiety of the fines to the informer not as an equitable principle. He bore testimony to the merits of Mr. Croker as a public officer, who deserved every favour that government could shew him, by the length, the zeal, the talents and the integrity of his public life.

thought that Mr. Croker had great ground of complaint against the commissioners for having made so incorrect a report, which had been suffered to rankle in the public mind to the prejudice of that gentleman since February 1809. He thought the right hon. bart. before he brought the charge, would have done as well to have looked into the report, and not have taken the word of the commissioners.

The two first Resolutions were then withdrawn. On the question being put on the third Resolution,

said, he trusted the House would indulge him for a few minutes while he answered the attacks which the hon. bart. had made upon the Irish government, for the transaction respecting the post office. What had passed upon the preceding resolution should be a warning to him in future to be cautious how be brought forward charges affecting persons of high character, and how he applied such epithets, without taking care to be in full possession of the facts of the case. He flattered himself that in this case he should convince the House that the hon. bart. was as completely mistaken, with respect to the facts, as he was in the last. The hon. bart. had began by stating, that when this subject was before under discussion, he (Mr. Pole) had got rid of it by the previous question, and had skulked from the fair discussion of the decision. This language of the hon. bart. would teach him in future not to show so much courtesy as he had done upon the occasion alluded to. The House would recollect, that when the hon. bart. brought forward his Resolution respecting the Irish Post Office, on a former night, he mixed it with so much fact, that he (Mr. Pole) from mere courtesy, did not think it right to propose a direct negative, but had moved the previous question. He would take care, however, how he shewed such courtesy again. He did not mean to accuse the hon. bart. of doing any thing unparliamentary, but certainly it was not usual to bring a subject a second time under discussion when it had been once decided. He had very little to state upon this subject now more than he had urged on a former occasion; but as many gentlemen who were present now had not heard his former statement, he would, with the permission of the House, shortly repeat it.—This right hon. bart. had fallen into an error respecting the case of Mr. Forward, into which he had been led by the Report; he had stated, that that gentleman had been superannuated, after only 8 years service. That was not the fact: the case was shortly this. In 1800 Mr. Forward was, by patent, appointed Treasurer of the Post Office, an office which was considered as a perfect sinecure. He remained in it never doing duty, until 1808, when the office was reformed. During a part of that period the right hon. hart. and his friends were in office, and they had never called upon Mr. Forward to do any duty, so perfectly did they consider his office as a sinecure. The Commissioners in their report, had stated, as a principle, that public officers should not be remunerated except for long services, but that gentleman had been remunerated after a service of only eight years. Now there was the more unfairness in this statement, because it was partly true and partly false. They ought to have stated, that this office of Mr. Forward's was a perfect sinecure, that upon the reform of the office he had been removed, in order that the office of Treasurer of the Post Office might be made efficient, and that they had been remunerated as was always the case when patent officers were removed. There was in this Report, as there was in the Report respecting the case of Mr. C.'s materials given in the Appendix, out of which a fair statement might be made; but the Commissioners thought proper to frame their Report in the way he had mentioned—They had used the word superannuation, as applied to Mr. Forward, and used it most improperly. That the word was not used in the order for granting him his salary, it was "compensation," and that was the term which the Commissioners ought to have used. It was singular that the principle of not calling upon sinecure patent officers to do any duty, or in cases where a light duty was annexed to the office, to do more than they had been accustomed to do, was recognized by the hon. bart. himself, in an act which he brought in for abolishing offices that were useless, or in part useless. That was the principle upon which the Irish government acted in the case of Mr. Forward, and yet the right hon. bart. now made it a ground of accusation. When the right hon. bart. and his friends were in office, they attempted something like a reform in this office, they found Mr. Forward with a sinecure situation of 5,000l. a year, and the use of the public money, they took from him very properly the public money, but they never thought of making him do the duties of his office: they left him in possession of it, and of the salary. The hon. bart. had talked of pretended reforms having been made in the Post Office, but if the hon. baronet had taken the trouble of reading the Appendix to the Report, he would have found that he (Mr. Pole) was justified in speaking of these reforms in the manner he had done, and that they were real and substantial reforms. (Mr. Pole then read an extract from the Report, speaking in high terms of the efficient reforms which had been effected in the Post-Office.)—Such was the opinion of the Commissioners upon the reforms effected, and yet the hon. bart. had called them pretended reforms. In the course of his speech, the hon. bart. had alluded to something which the Commissioners had brought forward in the shape of a charge. They stated, that while they were prosecuting their inquiries, they discovered something improper in the Post Office, and that an attempt had been made to conceal it from them; and the hon. bart. had mentioned the subject as if government had been apprised of the impropriety, and had connived at the concealment. If the right hon. bart. wished to be informed of what government knew relative to this subject, he had not the slightest objection to lay all the papers concerning it before the House, for he had no wish for concealment on that or any other subject. At present, however, he would state the case from memory, as correctly as he could:—A rumour some time ago reached him that there was great malversation in the department of the clerks of the roads in Ireland, he of course endeavoured to ascertain whether that rumour was well or ill founded, and he received a statement of every thing which had been discovered respecting their misconduct. There were in Ireland four clerks of the roads, and the chief perquisites of their office arose from newspapers sent to different parts of Ireland. At the time of the Union they presented a Petition, setting forth that their emoluments had been greatly reduced, and praying for compensation. An inquiry was made into the amount of their emoluments, and their salaries were fixed, at the average of their emoluments for the three preceding years.—The perquisites which they had before received were ordered to be paid into a fund, out of which their salaries were to be paid; if that fund was deficient, that deficiency was to be made up by government; if there was a surplus, it of course went to the public account. In consequence of this arrangement the clerks paid in what they called their receipts into this fund, but it appeared that there was every year a deficiency. Last summer an inquiry was made into the business, and it was found that they had been guilty of great frauds; but as they were before been considered as men of good characters, they were permitted, by the post office, to resign their situations, on making good the deficiency.—When the lord lieutenant found what had been done, he ordered the whole matter to be made public immediately. The whole case was laid before the law officers of the crown, with a direction to them to investigate the business fully, and to prosecute the parties, if it could properly be done.—This order was given within 24 hours after the papers had reached his hands. The prosecution did not take place, because it was the opinion of the law officers that it could not be carried on with effect. These were the circumstances of the case; but how it happened that they were not laid before the commissioners he did not know. He would not dwell longer upon this subject at present; his object was only to shew that great reforms had been made in that office, that the government of Ireland were adopting regulations for making it as perfect as possible. A penny post had been established, after the plan of the one in this country, and other improvements had been made. He would not take up more of the time of the House, but he trusted that gentlemen would bear in mind that this was not a new question; that it had been discussed before: that the hon. baronet had taken advantage of his courtesy in not giving it a direct negative before; [Sir John Newport said, across the table, he was afraid.] "Afraid!" said Mr. Pole, "I am sure the right hon. baronet does not mean to say seriously, that I was afraid to meet his resolution with a negative. However, if he does think that I was afraid upon the former occasion, I will convince him that I am not now, by giving his resolution a most direct negative."

made a short reply. He read a letter from Mr. Forward himself, in which it appeared that that gentleman did not consider his situation a sinecure.

observed, that what he had heard upon the subject would make him more than ever solicitous for the abolition of sinecures, and more especially of those secured by patent.

remarked that the word patent appeared to carry in the hon. gent.'s apprehension some magical power. It was merely the evidence of the great seal to a grant, and could not secure that which it was illegal to bestow.

A division then took place—