said, that having read a letter in all the public papers, purporting to be written by his Majesty, and sent to king Ferdinand VII. he begged leave to ask a question of the right hon. gent. opposite, viz. Whether it was to be looked upon as a document which had any pretensions to the character of authenticity?

declined giving any answer, on the ground that it might be prejudicial to the public service.

said, he could not conceive how a letter that had been so profusely published, both in the French papers and those of this country, and which must thereby be known to all the world, could in any respect prove inconvenient or injurious to the public service.

said, that before the House proceeded to the general business, he felt anxious to call their previous attention to a due consideration of the subject matter, and circumstances of the two Notices received from sir Francis Burdett, and communicated by him (the Speaker) to that House. This was the more necessary, as the law term was so near commencing. He waited, therefore, the result of the serious consideration of the House upon the proceedings had and to be had, respecting a subject so deeply interesting to their privileges.

said, that he was not then aware of any course more fit to be adopted upon a matter of such importance, than that of moving the appointment of a Select Committee to consider of the proceedings had and to be had in reference to the Notices communicated to that House by their Speaker.

observed, that perhaps the more convenient way, in the first instance, would be to enter the Notices as read, and then move for the appointment of the Select Committee. The Notices were accordingly entered as read.

then moved, That there be appointed a Select Committee to consider of the proceedings had and to be had, with reference to the Notices served upon the Speaker at the instance of sir Francis Burdett.

expressed a wish that the right hon. gent. would condescend to put the House in possession of the grounds, upon which he thought it right to move for the appointment of a Committee. The right hon. gent. might have reasons, which. though satisfactory to himself, might not when stated be equally so to many others who had come down to the House, without having yet made up their minds upon what was the best course to be pursued in a case of such unprecedented difficulty.

replied, that it was with a view to obviate the necessity of any discussion in the present stage, that he had moved for a Committee in the first instance. To provoke a debate upon the case as it then stood, would only be calling upon the House to do that which could be so much more conveniently done by the Committee. Besides, the House could not be so well enabled to form their judgment, upon what would be the most advisable mode of proceeding, before they had been furnished with the result of the Committee's deliberations. They would judge of the report made by the Committee, and act upon it accordingly; but he thought that before they had received the opinion of that Committee, upon the course they would recommend to be pursued, any discussion upon what would be that best course, would be premature, and defeat the very object of the motion he had made.

rose, and objected to the terms of the motion, as too general, vague, and undefined: that it adopted the words in which the communication was made, which were very proper as communication, but very unfit as resolution. He observed that the motion did not even conclude with an order to report? As to the great question involving the privileges of that House, Mr. Adam said, he had made up his mind upon it. His conviction was, that their privileges must be maintained inviolate by resolving and acting according to their privileges; therefore he saw no reason for a Committee at all; at the same time, if it was the wish of others, he should not object to it; but then it must be confined and restricted. He thought the motion, as it was now worded, transferred to the Committee the powers of the House, and established them as a committee of direction, which was most objectionable, as it admitted of a construction inconsistent with their privileges, and raised a doubt where none existed. A Committee might, for the satisfaction of members who had not had leisure themselves to search, be appointed to report facts and precedents, but not opinions. He would therefore suggest the propriety of a verbal alteration in the motion, authorizing the Committee, so appointed, to report to the House facts and precedents.

observed, that the usual method was to insert in such motion certain formal words of instruction to the Committee.

was proceeding so to alter his motion, when

suggested the propriety of requiring the Committee to give in their Report upon a certain day. The time of notice was nearly expired, and there should be as little delay as possible, upon a matter of such importance. The more he considered the subject, the more serious he thought it. He wished therefore that the Committee should be required to report within a certain time.

apprehended that it was not usual with the House to limit the deliberations of their Committees, by compelling them to deliver in their Reports upon a specific day.

stated, that it had so happened, that in the course of that morning, in searching for precedents, he had met with the case of Mr. Hobart's servant: having been arrested for debt. The Committee appointed upon that case were directed to give in their Report upon the following Wednesday.

The motion then stood thus:—"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider of the proceedings had and to be had, in reference to the Notices communicated by Mr. Speaker, to examine into facts and precedents, with reference to the said Notices, and to report the same, with their opinion thereupon to the House."

rose to oppose it. He said that from the commencement of that Unhappy contest down to the present stage of it, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone on step by step with equal ignorance of what ought to be done, and equal improvidence as to the consequences of what was done. He first persuaded the House to commit itself in such a Contest, without foreseeing or providing against the consequences of his own rashness and precipitancy, and then, as soon as it became involved in the embarrassments they led to, the right hon. gent. asked leave to take the Easter Recess to consider the best means of extricating them from the difficulties his councils had created—the Easter Recess passed, the right hon. gent. came before them, and proved in his very first proceeding that he was as ignorant and as improvident as ever. He did not know what to do, but still he would be doing; and accordingly he made a motion, which he (Mr. Whitbread) agreed with his learned friend (Mr. Adam) would, if carried, have had the effect of delegating to a Committee the question of the House's privileges, of which the House itself was the judge. If the House thought proper to submit to be so led by the right hon. gent. from one step to another, they would have themselves alone to blame if they found themselves guided from error to error. The fact was, that throughout the whole business the conduct of the right hon. gent. had shewed that in his views of that question he had been guided by no fixed principle. He did not know what to propose to the House; he had no advice to offer; and not knowing what to do, he proposed that a Committee should be appointed to inform them what they were to do. Under such circumstances, it would be disgraceful, in his opinion, to transfer to a Committee what, was their own business. Let the House meet the question at once, and decide upon what proceedings it would become them to pursue; and not resort to the appointment of a Committee, as if it were designed as a pretence for procrastination. For these reasons, and because no reason whatever was advanced by the right hon. gent. in support of the motion, he should vote against it.

said, that he understood that the present motion had been made in consequence of a communication made to the House by their Speaker; the object of which communication was, he presumed, to obtain the directions of the House in the very important case to which it referred. He did not think that the present motion was calculated to answer that object, and he had serious doubts how far it would be right in that House to receive instructions from a Select Committee upon the question of their own privileges. They would do well to consider, whether the appointment of a Committee would not tend more to excite than to remove the doubts respecting their privileges, which unhappily existed at this moment. If they could receive any communication from a Committee upon such a subject, he thought it should relate only to such facts as they had examined into, and upon which they judged it necessary to report their opinions; the business of such Committee, however, would more properly relate to facts than opinions. He, however, entertained such serious doubts of the propriety of appointing a Committee to give the House information as to its privileges, that he should beg leave to suggest the propriety of adjourning the present debate rather than appointing a Committee.

said, that what had fallen from the hon. gent. who spoke last but one, was only a renewal of that general abuse in which he was in the habit of indulging, and which did not require an answer. But with respect to the observations of the right hon. gent. who spoke last, he would beg leave to observe, that the mode recommended by his right. hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was that which was usually adopted by the House upon similar occasions. With respect to the objection of the Committee dictating to the House, he did not think that was a fair statement of the proposition; the opinion of the Committee was not obligatory upon the House; they would use their own discretion; and on the report being made, it would be for them to follow or not to follow whatever suggestions it might submit to their final consideration. He was sure that the House would be able to decide after they had received the report more satisfactorily and conclusively than they now could do after such a desultory debate as might be expected in the present stage of the business.

thought that the objection that had been made to delegating the authority of that House, on the question of their privileges, to a Select Committee, had great weight. He knew of no, way of obviating that objection, but by referring the case to the Committee of Privileges, instead of that which it was proposed to appoint.

complained of the difficulties into which the House had been led step by step by the ignorance of the right hon. gent.; at their breaking up for the recess he had set them a sort of Easter task, and so well in the interim had the gentleman himself learned the lesson he was to teach, that he now called upon the House to appoint a Select Committee to give him and them the necessary instructions. The right hon. gent. had pledged himself to consider the subject. Had he done so? and if he had, what was the result? that he neither knew what to do or what to advise; if this was not the case, why appoint the Committee; or even if it was, why call upon any Select Committee to teach the House their privileges? The right hon. gent. was bound to consider the consequences of the rash proceedings he had been so earnest with the House to adopt. Suppose the Select Committee should be for pleading and that that House should be against pleading, would not a schism of that kind tend to strengthen all the growing prejudices against their privileges? He did not think it right that the Committee should give an opinion, for he could not consent that the question should be prejudged before it came under the consideration of the House in general. He concluded with moving, to leave out the words "with their opinion thereupon," so as to confine the Committee merely to report precedents and facts.

could not see with what justice ministers were chargeable with ignorance and, rashness; was it to be contended that those who voted for punishing an attack upon the privileges of that House, and for calling forth its authority in defence of its privileges, were criminal, because they did not foresee that that authority would be resisted?

said that three weeks had already elapsed since the Speaker had communicated to the House the Notices in question. That communication had been made on the 17th of last month, and it was now the 7th of May; the proceeding was entirely new; it had never before occurred; never in the times of the worst reigns, when that House was contending for the liberties of the people in their assertion of their own privileges; never was it known that an individual commenced proceedings at law against their Speaker for issuing his warrant in obedience to the vote of that House; yet unprecedented as was this circumstance, happening too at a period teeming with those monstrous and unheard of novelties, which are at once the peculiar characteristic and disgrace of the present times, his Majesty's ministers pass over the whole business as an ordinary occurrence; the Notices are ordered to be entered upon the Journals, and nothing more is heard of them till three weeks after; till within a day of the term; the day after to morrow would be the first day of term, and the month would soon be expired. Was there, he would ask, nothing in that impertinent paper, calling itself a Notice, to awaken the attention of ministers? Ought they to have slept upon it so long? Or ought they not rather to have seized the earliest opportunity of bringing the question to final issue? In expressing his opinions openly and frankly upon this question, he believed himself to be discharging a great public duty, because in doing so, he did all that lay in his power (limited as was that power, and humble as was his influence) to counteract a great public delusion, by which the honest, the undesigning, and unwary, were made the pliant dupes and tools of artful men. Such a crisis did not admit of negligence or delay. Why had nothing been done in consequence of those notices till that day, when the day after to-morrow would be the last day of term?—Did not ministers know that this action was threatened, and what excuse had they in delaying to take any steps, until the day but one before term? If they were ignorant of the proper course for the House to follow, why did they not at first recommend the same step which they now propose? The delay that occurred was highly reprehensible upon a question involving such important constderations—a question attended with the most perilous difficulties—a question, whose issue went to affect the constitution of parliament, and which was so seriously expected by the public—a question upon which he himself never had and never could have a doubt, notwithstanding all that was duly circulated by the persons initiated in the new school of Privilege. Of the Privilege of that House to commit in all cases for offences against itself, he not only never had a doubt, but he was convinced it could not part with it, without surrendering all its legislative, its inquisitorial and judicial functions. But it was contended by the disciples of the new school, that the power of the House did not extend to libels. It extended to all offences committed against itself. It was contended that the libel should be tried by a court of law. How was the House in such a case to proceed? It could institute no process, nor bring any action in its own proper character. It must supplicate the crown to take up such a prosecution. Whatever, under such circumstances, was the decision of a court of justice, it was open to the party prosecuted to appeal to the House of Lords, and by such an act the House of Commons was reduced to the necessity of having its own privileges tried and determined upon by an estate of parliament, with which it ever claimed a co-eval and co-extensive authority. Contemptible and shallow were these pretenders who ventured to deny this right, and to insult the crown by an affected regard for its dignity, which they considered was impaired by the exercise of that privilege. It was astonishing that the threat of action had not before been taken notice of; that in this novel and unprecedented case, the House had not taken some steps or agreed to some resolutions expressive of its opinion and determination upon the subject. Besides, when he considered the daily trash circulated upon this subject, he was more deeply impressed with the necessity of that House entering into resolutions which might prevent the progress of that delusion, which, though disregarded by every reflecting mind, was calculated to deceive the ignorant and the unwary. Had it before done so, the present emergency might have been avoided; not that he thought the individual who gave the Speaker the notice of his intention to bring an action, would be induced to desist, but that his instruments would be prevented by the determination of that House. Suppose that the Lord Chancellor, having committed an individual for contempt, had been told, sitting on the bench, by an attorney, that it was his intention to bring an action for false imprisonment on the part of the person committed? What course would his lordship in such circumstances take? Was it not to be presumed that he would at once order the attorney to the care of one of his lordship's tipstaffs? That the House had the power to act at once he was fully satisfied: nor did he see the necessity of appointing a Committee at all; if, however, it was consi- dered the best course in this stage to appoint such, he would only give it his assent in the manner specified in the amendment of his right hon. friend, namely, that it should examine into facts and precedents without reporting any opinion of its own.

expressed his perfect concurrence in every word uttered by his learned friend, respecting the extent of the privileges possessed by that House. The impression of his speech upon that point, he would not attempt to weaken by a repetition of the same arguments; but he was conscious that every member of that House, if it was to exist at all as an estate of Parliament, must see the utter impossibility of drawing any distinct line of difference in the exercise of its power to commit for offences against its privileges. Adverting then to the narrower part of the question, namely, what course ought to be adopted in consequence of the Notice of action served upon the Speaker, he could not subscribe to the inference drawn by gentlemen opposite, when they blamed ministers for having suffered so much time to elapse without pursuing the proper course. Why, when the House of Commons was attacked, were ministers to be considered the only persons to recommend what ought to be done in consequence? Was it respectful to the House itself to say that its privileges should only be protected by his Majesty's ministers? The threatened action was against the House, and it was equally the duty of all to propose the proper means of defence. If also there was any blame for the delay that had occurred, it attached to one side as much as to the other. But it was said, that the proceedings which led to this state of things were the act of the ministers. Such language should never be received but with reprobation. It might, indeed, be a popular argument out of doors, but never ought to be sanctioned within the walls of that House. Those proceedings were adopted by a majority, and the moment they were agreed to, they became the acts of the House of Commons. With respect to the measures which the House ought then to adopt, he was friendly to the appointment of a limited Committee, which should search into all facts and precedents, and report its opinion. From that report the House would be able to arrive at a conclusion, which being duly and fully considered, would be acted upon with that determination which the case rendered absolutely necessary.

said, that the question divided itself into two branches. One as to the conduct which had hitherto been pursued; the other as to what would be expedient, under the present circumstances. He complimented sir A. Pigott for the broad constitutional doctrines which he laid down, and professed his agreement with him in the narrower, as well as in the wider view of the question. The situation of the House at present, was, in many respects, novel; but there did not appear to him to be that ground of doubt as to the proceedings they should adopt, to call for the appointment of a Committee. If, however, such an appointment was thought necessary, the House should not delegate its power to the Committee; it might happen, that, in case of difference between the Committee and the House, people would begin out of doors to dispute as to the right of the House to differ from it. Time was also to be considered of importance in the present stage of the business, and therefore, he was of opinion that the power of the Committee should be limited to search into facts and precedents, and that no report should be given.

severely censured ministers for having suffered this matter to be dormant from the 12th of April to the 7th of May. It was disgraceful, that a notice should have been suffered to be served on their Speaker, and no discussion had on it for almost a month? They were told by one hon. gent. that they ought to come to a decision as to their future proceedings, because the term began on an early day. What! were they to be afraid of a court of law, or to think any court could touch their rights? The very notice was, in his opinion, deserving of being treated as one of the grossest breaches of their privilege. Would they allow process against their Speaker and that he should be treated as a private individual? The very discussion of such a question was an insult. He did not mean to approve of the proceedings into which they had lately been led, on the ground of expediency, but he must defend them on the ground of privilege, on which it was impossible they could be censured.

expressed his coincidence in every argument and observation of sir A Pigott. He said, most truly had his learned friend shewn, that this great question affected the very constitution of Parliament, and that, if the House did its duty with fairness, the absurdities of the doctrine of this new school of privilege would be beaten down, and the just right of that House and the people unquestionably established. Mr. Adam said, he did not rise then, however, to detain the House with the repetition of opinions which he had already discussed at so much length, but merely to recommend such a modification of the original motion, as should insure that unanimity, which was most desirable in the step that the House was adopting, and at the same time to secure against the committee being empowered to deliver opinions, which would convert it into a committee of management or direction, and would embarrass the House in coming to a decision, on the only principle on which it can act, namely, by enforcing obedience to its privileges, according to its power. Mr. Adam said, that it was to be recollected that the original motion for the Committee was not worded after due preparation (by its proposer, Mr. Perceval), so that it could not be supposed that he would be tenacious in adhering to it. It was worded on the sudden, adopting the oral dictation of the chair. The mover could have no desire, therefore, strenuously to support it against any modification. What he would recommend was, that the Committee should search into precedents and examine into facts only; and by acceding to that modification, celerity, a most necessary object, would be obtained; whereas, if the House called for a report of their opinion upon the question at large, in addition to the other embarrassment connected with the power to give opinions, considerable delay must be the consequence; and the House be clogged with the opinion of the committee.

was glad the hon. gentlemen over the way had at last argued themselves into the opinion that no party consideration ought to enter into this debate. When he first introduced the subject he had thought, that if ever there was a question which ought not to call forth party feelings, it was this; and, he was therefore the more surprised at the warmth it excited in the hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite (Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Tierney). He was now called on in candour to agree to an amendment, for the sake of unanimity. Why, if he allowed himself to be persuaded to this, another gentleman might start up, as the hon. gent. had done, and accuse him of incapacity, vacillation, want of foresight, and firmness of mind. He did sincerely lament that the subject had been taken up with so much party spirit, as he at least expected neutrality in the consideration of putting the House of Commons into the right way of acting. Instead of that, however, the hon. and right hon. gentlemen had seized, with avidity, the opportunity of reviling those against whom they were opposed in politics. It was an opportunity too tempting for them to let slip.—His Majesty's ministers were charged with improper delay, in not making some proposition on this subject at an earlier period. Such a charge, however, he presumed to think, was equally imputable to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) as to him. Gentlemen on the other side of the House looked up to him; it was, therefore, but natural that he should have been ready to advise the House in a question in which they were all interested, as well as any gentlemen on the ministerial side. He had given no advice on the subject, however; nay he had declared that he would not do so—that he was resolved that nothing that fell from him should throw any light on the question. Was it not equally incumbent on that right hon. gent. as on any other member of the House, to give his advice on the subject? Yet he chose to wait all the period which had elapsed, and then to tell ministers that they should have taken some step in the business on the very first day. When the Speaker acquainted them that the Notice was served, the view he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took at that time was, that it was only necessary to preserve it on their Journals. The gentlemen opposite were not backward on other occasions in giving advice, and suggesting amendments. Why did they not do so then, if they considered the course pursued as reprehensible, as they would now represent it to be? Perhaps they were taken by surprise—but they had time to recover themselves, for, owing to an inaccuracy, a second Notice was necessary some days after the first, with which the same course had, without a word of censure, or the intimation of a contrary opinion from any one, been adopted. No! The enlightened minds, comprehensive understandings, and extraordinary talents, of the gentlemen opposite, were not employed to enlighten their darkness, and guide them from the ill counsels to which they were attending. Even now, though they would condemn, they would not enlighten the House.—Nay, the right hon. gent. Mr. Ponsonby) withheld advice, and declared his opinion should not be extracted from him. The hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) accused him of not having foreseen, he resistance which was opposed to the House. It was not however from any experience of past events, to be supposed that this would be the case; but even on he hon. gentleman's own grounds, it might have ensued in a case of actual obstruction, and the question then came to this: whether an individual would quietly submit to, or, as a strenuous patriot, would resist the law. Did the hon. gent. mean to say, that they were only to exert their privileges against those who would not resist. If this was his way of preserving the dignity of the House, he could only say there was a very great difference between their opinions. He was also accused of ignorance; and if he was inclined to retort, he would say, that in describing him, the gentlemen opposite had only given their own character. It would seem as if they were ignorant of all precedents and information on the subject. Did they not know that a Committee was appointed in 1771, on the matter of a breach of privilege, and that they were instructed to examine into facts and circumstances; to consider what further proceeding might be necessary to enforce these privileges and to give their opinions thereon? Here was a precedent in point; and he trusted, notwithstanding the asperity which had unfortunately been introduced into this night's discussion, that when the committee came to be appointed, the unanimity which was so much desired would prevail.

rose, with considerable animation, and said that the right hon. gent. seemed to him to have lost his temper. The cause of that loss of temper was obviously, that he could not find any hon. member to instruct him what course to pursue. The right hon. gent. was ignorant what course to adopt, and was mortified that his ignorance should be so manifest to the House. What right had that right hon. gent. to console himself for this mortification by attacks on the gentlemen on his side of the House? What right had that hon. gent. to expect that he should give him any advice on this occasion? He had given that right hon. gent. and the House already all the advice he could suggest relative to the proceedings which led to the present circumstances, and it had been rejected. When the rejection of that advice had involved them in a difficulty they knew not how to obviate, it was not for them to apply to him and his friends to extricate him from it. By blindly persevering in their own course, they had brought about the present embarrassment. It was inculcated from the highest authority, "that when the blind lead the blind, both must fall into the ditch." If the right hon. gentlemen opposite, therefore, found themselves involved in a difficulty, themselves alone they had to blame. Upon whom but themselves could they charge the commitment of sir F. Burdett, and the manufacture of that paper, which charged them with having usurped the power to imprison the King's subjects? In that wild and foolish production, as with all respect for sir F. Burdett he must call it, the power of the House to commit was denied, and it might from that be inferred that the exercise of that power would have been resisted. The right hon. gent. had imputed to his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) the having said, that the right ought not to be enforced but where there was no resistance, and had then asked with the same triumph, whether that was to be considered a proof of their magnanimity, of their consistency, of their desire to maintain the dignity of the House? Now, he could readily believe, that there was not less magnanimity on his side of the House than amongst the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side; and he trusted that that would appear from the whole of their conduct relative to this business. But the right hon. gent. when pressing a right which he had reason to know would be resisted, ought to have been prepared to show how in such a case it could be executed. If the gentlemen on his side had recommended the commitment, and become thereby the cause of the subsequent difficulties, would not the right hon. gent. have loudly called on him to point out how they should be remedied? Would he not have attributed all to the workings of party spleen and captious hostility? The right hon. gent. had made a furious attack upon him, because he was not disposed to give any opinion upon the subject till the House should be brought into a situation when some declaration would be necessary. It was also added, that in consequence of the confidence reposed in him (to a greater extent than he merited) by his friends round him, he was particularly bound to give an opinion upon the subject. He might perhaps be misled by vanity to give such an opinion, if his judgment did not prevent him from giving it prematurely. What ground had he to expect, that if he were to give it, the majority of the House would agree to it? Could he have any security that he should not be outvoted? Or that, upon his advice being so rejected, he should not be twitted by the right hon. gent. with having given it prematurely? An opinion he most certainly had upon the subject; but the right hon. gent. was wrong if he supposed he could be taunted into a premature declaration of it. His Majesty's ministers, if they did their duty, should be prepared to propose some measure to the House on the subject. Whilst supported by the majority, they must be taken to possess the confidence of that House; and if they had not that confidence, they should not continue in office. Besides, they were in possession of all the facts, which the House could not be; and consequently it was more particularly incumbent upon them to offer advice to the House on that occasion. If they abstained from offering such advice, the House might rest assured, that it was not from any feeling of modesty or moderation, but from a pitiful pusillanimity which restrained them from taking any responsibility upon themselves for the advice they might give. He should vote for the amendment.

had an ohservation or two to make upon the answer given by the right hon. gent to what had fallen from him in the course of the debate. When he had asked a question of that right hon. gent. in the course of the night, respecting a letter now before the world, and that right hon. gent. declined to answer, he took it for granted that the document was authentic. When he put a question to the right hon. gent. near him (Mr. Secretary Ryder), and that member declined to answer it, he believed it was because the right hon. member could not answer the question. But when the right hon. gent. last addressed himself to answer what had fallen from him, in the debate, he invented a speech for him, and in replying to that, gave any thing but an answer to what he had actually said. He could not help admiring the manner in which the right hon. gent. had then lashed himself into a fever of debility in buffeting the shadows of his own imagination. All he should say, however, was, that the sentiments imputed to him by the right hon. gent. did not belong to him, and the par- ticular expression he quoted he had never uttered.

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

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

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

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

objected to the nomination of those who had opposed the motion, on the ground that the Committee ought to deliver no opinion. It was rather strange to appoint men to give an opinion, who had voted against any opinion being given at all.

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

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

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

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

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

, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, in support of the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens, felt satisfaction that it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any great length. As the House of Commons was now so anxiously engaged in asserting its own rights, he trusted it would not be too much to expect that House to afford protection to the rights of the citizens of London. It was not his intention to dwell upon the right of the subject to present petitions to his Majesty, nor to descant upon the value of that right which was the foundation of our civil independence, and the principal bulwark of British liberty. These were considerations that must be familiar to every gentleman who heard him. The right of petitioning the sovereign was exercised in three ways, one was, by transmitting the petition to the secretary of state, in which case there was not the smallest chance that it would ever meet the eye of his Majesty. The next was, when persons having access to his Majesty at his levees, put their petitions into his own hands: but the third and most valuable mode was, that of presenting a petition to his Majesty upon the throne, in which case an answer was always received. This mode of petitioning was confined to the Universities and the City of London By the constitution of the City of London, it was divided into four branches. The first was the court of aldermen; but on diligent inquiry, he could not find any precedent of any petition of that court to his Majesty. The next was the court of common council, which enjoyed the privilege of presenting its petitions to the sovereign upon the throne. The third was a court which very seldom met, but also enjoyed the right, called the Court of Lieutenancy; and the last and greatest, was the livery, consisting of the lord mayor, aldermen, common council-men, and the whole body of electors, who assemble in what is called the common hall. This body claimed the same privilege, and it had been conceded to and exercised by them on a considerable number of occasions, but for the last few years it had been denied them. As much difference of opinion had existed for a long time respecting the claim made by the livery of London to present their petitions to the King on the throne, he should briefly put the House in possession of the real state of that question: and for that purpose refer to the different addresses and petitions which had been agreed to by the livery of London, in common hall, during the present reign. In the year 1769, an address was voted to his Majesty, but as no particular instruction accompanied it on that occasion, that address was presented to the King at his levee. In the year 1770, an address was voted, and the sheriffs were instructed to enquire when his Majesty would be pleased to receive it upon his throne. The sheriffs made the inquiry, but not having received any answer, another common hall came to a resolution that their address should not be presented to the King but upon his throne. When his Majesty was acquainted with this new case, he stated that he would consider of it; he did consider of it, and the result was, that he received the address upon his throne. The right was then understood to be finally settled. In 1771, another address was voted, and a resolution entered into, that the mayor and sheriffs should be accompanied by a great body of the citizens of London. This intention was frustrated by an intimation from lord Hertford, communicated by letter to the lord mayor, that it was his Majesty's pleasure that no more should attend than the act of parliament allowed. The consequence was that in order to conform to the act of parliament, a Committee of ten was deputed to attend the lord mayor and sheriffs; and this address was also received by his Majesty upon the throne. In 1773, another address was received on the throne, without any question respecting the privilege, and an answer was returned to it. In 1775 two addresses had been voted; one in April, which had been received by his Majesty on his throne; another in June, which never was presented. In this, latter case the chamberlain was informed by letter from lord Hertford, that it was his Majesty's pleasure not to receive any address upon his throne from the city of London but in its corporate character. This communication was then submitted to a common hall, at which certain resolutions were voted, declaratory of the right of the city of London to present their petitions, or addresses, to the king on the throne, and to have an answer to them. Another resolution was also passed, containing an express injunction to the sheriffs not to present the address but to the King on his throne. The sheriffs having waited upon his Majesty on a levee day, were informed that the Address would be received at a levee; but on stating their instructions, his Majesty informed them that he would be at all times ready to receive the petitions of his people, and that he was the best judge where. No Address was, therefore, presented on that occasion. The same fate attended an address voted in 1781, and the next subsequent address in 1797. In the year 1800 another address was voted to be presented to the King on the throne, and in consequence of an instruction to that effect, the sheriffs waited on his Majesty at Weymouth, to know when he would be graciously pleased to receive it on his throne. The sheriffs obtained, his Majesty's permission for the chamberlain to read to him their instructions; but received the same answer as in 1775—that his Majesty, ever ready to receive the addresses of his subjects, was the best judge where. His Majesty, upon all those occasions, intimated his wish to receive those addresses at the levee and not upon his throne. Upon the representation of these circumstances by the sheriffs to the common hall, certain resolutions were agreed to, which were communicated to the King at Windsor by the sheriffs. These were all the cases that had occurred during the present reign until the latter end of last year, when the citizens of London had to complain of the calamities of the times, and the livery of London was assembled to address his Majesty on the grievances with which the nation was oppressed. This was done at a time when the public and the citizens of London in particular, were borne down by the burthen of taxes, but more especially one grinding tax, rendered doubly oppressive by the measures resorted to for rendering it productive. It was the more necessary for them to carry up their complaints of grievances to the throne, because they saw the measures recommended in that House for their redress unavailing. Disgusted, therefore, with the losses that had been sustained; provoked by the expences incurred, whilst no means were taken to bring public defaulters to justice; mortified at the rebuke which his Majesty had been advised unseasonably to give to the City of London, on the occasion of the Convention of Cintra, having no confidence in their rulers; and highly disgusted at the failures in Spain and at Walcheren, and with all the afflicting circumstances of national calamity and disgrace, the livery of London required the lord mayor to call a common hall. That hall was called, and a more numerous and respectable meeting never assembled in London. An Address was voted to his Majesty, and the lord mayor and sheriffs directed to present it to his Majesty, at a levee, waving their right to have it presented on the throne, in consequence of the state of his Majesty's health. On the 14th of December, they applied to the secretary of state, and were informed by him that they would not be allowed to present it at a levee; and the 20th of the same month, when waiting on his Majesty with another Address, they were refused permission to present this Address at the same time. The consequence was, that the livery had come to resolutions similar to those voted in 1775. What he complained of was, not that the Address of the livery had not been received on the throne, because, as his fellow citizens had waved their right on that head, he was not bound there to insist upon that for them which they did not instruct him to contend for; what he had to complain of was the obstruction given to presenting the petition to his Majesty at his levee. Having stated the case, he should conclude by moving—"That the obstruction made by his Majesty's ministers to the Address of the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, of 14th December last, being presented to his Majesty in person by the lord mayor and sheriffs, is an infringement upon the right of the subject to petition the sovereign upon all lawful occasions."

rose to second the resolution of his hon. colleague. Whatever he might have thought of the terms in which the address had been couched, as it had been passed at the Common-Hall, it ought to have been presented. He should ever stand up for the rights of the city. The obstruction to the Address was, in his mind, unjust, impolitic, and unwise, and therefore he felt pleasure in seconding the motion.

likewise said, that the petition had been agreed to at a Common-Hall legally convened. What would have been its fate if a fair hearing had been allowed to all, he would not pretend to say; but it had been carried through, and therefore ought to have gone to the throne with the usual facility. While he agreed with his hon. colleague so far, he could not concur in the censure which he had passed on the conduct of ministers. He thought they deserved a great deal of praise for the manner in which they had conducted their expedition. They also deserved a great deal of praise for the manner in which they had preserved the peace of the metropolis on a late occasion. He remembered the riots in 1780, and hoped he should never again see any such exhibition. He hoped the ministers would act with the same energy on other occasions. He felt himself bound to support the present motion.

had but a few words to trouble the House with. After the very able manner in which his hon. colleague had opened the question, it would be a proof of bad taste in him to attempt to go over the same ground. He agreed with his hon. colleague in all he had said as to the general right of the subject to petition. The Common Hall was legally convened; it was presided over by the lord mayor, the assembly was most numerous and respectable, and he contended that the livery had a right to present their petitions to the king on the throne. On this account he conceived it to have been the duty of his Majesty's ministers to have advised his Majesty to receive it on the throne, and upon these grounds he should vote for the Resolution.

considered the worthy aldermen as led astray by their sympathy for the rights of the city. If he understood the motion, it was intended as a direct charge against his Majesty's ministers, for having infringed the right of the subject to petition. But if that was the object of the hon. alderman, his motion did not go far enough; because, if his Majesty's ministers had actually violated the rights of the subject to petition, they ought to meet not an implied censure, but a direct animadversion. He was convinced, however, that in a very few words he could satisfy the House, that there was no ground for the motion. The question was, whether the livery of London had rights in this respect which did not belong to other classes of the community; for it was not pretended that ministers had refused to them what they granted to others. He acknowledged that ministers did advise his Majesty not to grant the livery more than was allowed to his other subjects. The hon. alderman had correctly stated, that there were three modes of presenting petitions, 1st, To the king upon the throne, when alone an answer was returned; 2d, At the levee, when the petition was given to his Majesty, who immediately handed it to the lord in waiting; the public levees however having been for some years discontinued, owing to the defect of his Majesty's sight, the 3d mode was that of transmitting petitions through the office of the secretary of state. This the citizens of London had an opportunity of doing in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects. As to the right of presenting a petition to the king upon the throne, this was confined to the universities and the corporation of London. As to what had been said of the case of 1775, he would appeal to that to show that even the persons who then claimed the right could not have thought they possessed it. The times were then somewhat similar to the present; there was much popular ferment abroad. Mr. Wilkes was then in the height of his popularity, and not, what he afterwards described himself, a volcano extinct, but a volcano in the full blaze of explosion and eruption. What had been the conduct of Wilkes on that occasion? Lord Hertford's letter was dated the 11th of April; and one would suppose, that if Mr. Wilkes was convinced, of the right, he would have applied to Parliament, as the hon. alderman now did, or have called a Common Hall to vote resolutions respecting it. But no—he did not answer lord Hertford's letter till the 2d of May. He did not take any notice of the subject in Parliament, though the prorogation did not take place till the 26th of May; and it was not till the 24th of June that the Common-Hall was called, and passed resolutions nearly similar to those voted in the first week of January in the present year. And was this precedent to be relied on, when not one of the boute feu's of the day, until after the lapse of so long a period, ever thought of any step to be taken on the subject? A resolution had even been moved in Parliament by Mr. Sawbridge, which omitted all allusions to the case of the petition. His Majesty's ministers, in the advice they gave his Majesty, had no idea of disrespect to the city of London; all they desired was, to place the livery in the same situation with other classes of his Majesty's subjects. In this they had done no more than that House usually did. Parliament would not suffer any class to petition against a tax bill, with the exception of the corporation of London. Because the corporation of London had the privilege of presenting its petitions by its sheriffs, at the bar, the House received them as not knowing their contents; but the petitions from all other descriptions of subjects were required to be opened by some member in his place. (The right hon. gent. here read a passage from Mr. Hatsell's book, shewing that on one occasion the petition of the corporation had been received on a particular occasion, when sir Watkin Lewes was required to state the matter of the petition from the livery on the same subject.) As to the observation of the hon. alderman, that petitions given in to the secretary of state never were seen by his Majesty, he could only assure the House, that since he had been in office, he had received no petition which had not reached his Majesty. The right hon. gent. then adverted to the contents of his own letter to the lord mayor, to shew that he had no wish to treat the city with contempt, and concluded by saying that he should oppose the motion.

said, that the honourable alderman had not contended for the right of petioning his Majesty on the throne, to which the whole of the secretary's observations applied, but complained that the livery had been denied that access to his Majesty's person, which the law held to be the inherent right of English subjects. This, he contended, was a general subject of complaint, and he adverted to a meeting of the county of Berks, where this obstruction was seriously complained of. Any subject had even at the commencement of the present reign the right to give a petition into his Majesty's hand. In consequence of the unfortunate case of Margaret Nicholson, a regulation was adopted, that petitions should only be presented at the levee. Now this was done away, and nothing remained but transmission through the office of the secretary of state. This was rather unsatisfactory, considering that the grievance most seriously complained of would often be the retaining of the person in office who was to transmit the petition. The right hon. secretary said, he believed that the petitions sent to his office had been transmitted. This belief of his was a comfortable assurance to those whose rights to petition his Majesty in person were considered as inherent. This mode afforded them an admirable security for the transmission of their grievances to the royal ear! There were, however, stories afloat about petitions having been found in the pigeonholes of the secretary of state's office, unopened and unpresented. Another suspicious circumstance was, that all petitions to the King were not published in the Gazette though the complimentary addresses in praise of ministers, &c. were sure to be there, with a comment, that they had been most graciously received. But who saw there any petitions, complaining of fruitless and ridiculous expe- ditions &c.? He had seen a letter from the right hon. secretary himself, denying that he was under any obligation to read such petitions to his Majesty; and thus were the people debarred from that access to the Sovereign which the law called their inherent right. The hon. secretary had compared the present times with those of 1775. He (lord F.) had no doubt that posterity would regard the claims of the present day against the exercise of undue power by the House, in the same light as the claims pf those days were regarded by the people of the present day. The resistance then made to the undue exercise of power has been sanctioned by the approbation of the present day, and so would the present resistance be sanctioned by the approbation of posterity.

said that the objection to the mode of transmitting petitions through the office of the secretary of state seemed to be that the secretary was under no obligation to read them to the King. But supposing they were presented at the levee, what greater security could there be that they would be read? They were in both cases given to his Majesty with other public papers to be perused at the time most convenient for him. The letter to which the noble lord alluded was addressed to Major Cartwright, who had requested an audience of his Majesty to state his opinions on public affairs—and this being refused, he required some security of the secretary of state that he would read his address to the King. This was impossible—the secretary could only send them with other papers. It never had been the custom to publish all addresses and petitions in the Gazette. Nothing was established against ministers, except it could be shewn that they had deviated from the usual practice. He could not believe that the people of this country were discontented with the present mode of presenting petitions through the medium of the secretary of state, when they considered the causes to which this was owing.

did not know whether it was that the ministers did not understand the question, or purposely avoided it, from being unable to answer. The speech of the first speaker from the treasury referred solely to the claim of petitioning on the throne, which his hon. friend had expressly waved. The hon. secretary had wandered from the real question to talk of his volcanos, and had even resorted to a foreign language for invective. This question was of the most vital importance in itself, and still more important from the manner in which it had been received. He then dwelt upon the highly indecorous, indelicate, and improper manner in which the ministers endeavoured to defend themselves by drawing the veil from the infirmities of their Sovereign. It was impossible for the House to believe that his Majesty was not in a state perfectly competent to the discharge of that most important of duties, the giving a proper attention to the complaints of his subjects. If it were otherwise, it would be the duty of the House to order an investigation. But they knew that this was not necessary, and must therefore reprobate the mode of defence to which ministers resorted. The claim of the livery was founded upon what for a century and a half had been considered as the most invaluable rights of Englishmen, which would be nugatory without access to his Majesty's person. Even in the worst times—in those of Charles the IId, &c. this access had not been refused. The most corrupt ministers had no idea that it could be refused. How complete would have been their triumph if they had discovered the practice which had of late prevailed! It was the right of the livery of London, as it was of all other British subjects, to have access to the royal person, and it was the refusal which was complained of. Petitions ought certainly always to be respectful and decorous—whether to the crown or parliament. (Hear! hear!) He understood that cheer, and in answer to it said, that he thought some late petitions were exactly the reverse of what the idea of a petition implied. There was in the tenor and even in the expression something that warranted the belief that other objects were in the contemplation of the framers than a mere complaint of grievances. But, on the other hand, the obstruction of petitions, properly so Called, was a subversion of the fundamental law of the land.

Upon a division the numbers were—For the motion, 52—Against it 138—Majority, 86.

had no objection to the making of an ample provision in this case; but thought that any grant deemed necessary should rather be charged upon the droits of the admiralty; but before this grant was acceded to, he wished to know what were the circumstances of the duke of Brunswick. It was understood that a new military establishment had been created, from which that prince derived an emolument of from 3 to 5,000l, year. Now if that were the case, he must think, with every disposition to be liberal to this prince, that from justice to the country the proposed grant was excessive.

said hat the emolument derived by the duke from the military establishment alluded to, did not exceed 15 or 1600l. a year; and to the droits of the admiralty, that he could not, from its nature, consider it as a resource upon which to fix a permanent charge.

wished to know what was the amount of the sum on hand as droits of admiralty? This information he required in order to ascertain whether it would be sufficient, by a transfer into the consolidated fund, to purchase the proposed annuity of the Duke of Brunswick.

, considering that the duchess of Brunswick had an allowance of 10,000l. a year, felt himself obliged, however reluctantly, to observe, that 5,000l. a year would be quite a sufficient grant to the son.

The Report of the Committee was then agreed to, and leave given to bring in the bill.