rose and stated, that he held in his hand a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of the City of London, in Common-hall assembled, which he was desired to present to the House. The petitioners, among other things, he observed, expressed their sorrow and regret at certain proceedings of this House, and stated grievances, for which they desired a remedy; that it had been declared in this House, that the doors of Parliament should be open wide to petitions, and therefore they came for relief. The hon. baronet said, it was but fair he should mention to the House, that the petition was not exactly the petition of the whole body of the Livery; because, though the hall was rather full, yet there were many thousands not present. At the same time, he must declare, that the meeting was constitutionally convened by the Lord Mayor, and the sentiments of the Petition were those of the Livery so assembled. The petitioners, observed the hon. baronet, after stating certain grievances of which they complain, beg this House to re-consider the measures lately adopted with reference to the committal of Mr. Jones and sir F. Burdett, to retrace its steps and to expunge from the Journals the resolutions come to on that occasion. Now, these sentiments, though coming from the Livery, it is my duty to convey to the House, as one of the representatives of the city of London, yet I must declare that they are very far from being my own.

The Petition was then brought up and read by the Clerk at the table, as follows:

"To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.—The humble Address, Remonstrance, and Petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of the City of London, in Common Hall assembled, this 4th day of May, 1810.

"We, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of the city of London, in common hall assembled, beg leave, with feelings of the most anxious concern, to present this our humble Address, Petition, and Remonstrance; and we earnestly entreat your honourable House to give to it a favourable reception; for how can we hope for redress and relief, if the bare statement of the wrongs and grievances of which we complain be rejected; We also beg your honourable House to believe, that in the language we may have occasion, and are indeed compelled to employ, no offence is intended to your honourable House.

"The circumstance which most deeply afflicts us, and which most strongly impels us at this time to approach your honourable House is, what appears to us to have bell on your part, a violation of the personal security of the people of the land. We humbly conceive, that, without law, and against law, you have imprisoned two of your fellow-subjects, and that without a trial, without a hearing, you have condemned them. Law requires legal process and trial by jury of our equals. Justice demands that no person shall be prosecutor, juror, judge and executioner, in his own cause. We beg leave to express our conviction that this eternal principle of immutable justice cannot be annulled by any House of Commons, by any King, by any parliament, by any legislature upon earth. But it appears to us that your honourable House have, in the instances of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, assumed, accumulated, and exercised all these offices.

"We feel it a duty which we owe to you, to ourselves, to our posterity, to state, that, in our conception, this jurisdiction is unfounded; and we humbly, but firmly declare our opinion against the existence of this power in any hands;—ajurisdiction unknown to us, a power above the law, and which could be enforced only by military violence; a violence made manifest by the breaking open of an Englishman's castle, made by the preceding and subsequent murder of peaceable and unoffending citizens.

"Permit us humbly to observe, that the construction of your honourable House prevents our surprise at this conduct of your honourable House. We will not enter into the details, so often and so ably stated to your honourable House, by which it appears, that upwards of 300 members of your honourable House, in England and Wales only, are not elected by the people, in any honest sense of the word people; but are sent to your honourable House by the absolute nomination or powerful influence of about 150 peers and others, as averred in a Petition to your honourable House in the year 1791, and which remains on your Journals uncontroverted. This is the great constitutional disease of our country. This is the true root of all evils, corruptions, and oppressions, under which we labour. If it be not eradicated, the nation must perish.

"In support of this our sincere conviction, we need only refer to the never-to-be-forgotten vote of your honourable House, refusing to examine evidence on a charge against lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval, then two of the King's ministers, for trafficking in seats in your honourable House.

"We remember well, that when it was gravely averred, and proof offered, in a Petition which stood on your Journals, and the complaints thereof unredressed for more than twenty years, "That seats for legislation in the House of Commons were as notoriously rented and bought as the standings for cattle at a fair," the then honourable House treated the assertion with affected indignation, and the minister threatened to punish the Petitioner, for presenting a scandalous and libellous Petition. But we have lived to see a House of Commons avow the traffic, and screen those accused of this breach of law and right, because it has been equally committed by all parties, and was a practice "as notorious as the sun at noon day." At this vote, and at these practices, we feel as "our ancestors would have felt," and cannot repress the expression of "our indignation and disgust."

"Under these circumstances, may we not be permitted to ask, where is your justice, where your dignity? Mr. John Gale Jones is confined within the walls of Newgate, for an alleged offence against yourselves, which, if committed against any other subjects of these realms, or even against the King himself, must have been adjudged by the established rules and laws of the land! Lord Castlereagh continued to be a principal minister of the crown, and is now a free member of your honourable House! Sir Francis Burdett, dragged by a military force from the bosom of his family, is committed to the Tower for exercising the right of constitutional discussion, common, and, indeed, undeniable to you, to us, to all! Mr. Spencer Perceval continues a member of your honourable House, taking a lead in your deliberations, the first minister of the Crown, and the chief adviser of the Royal Councils!

"Under the agonizing feelings excited by the late imprisonment of our fellow subjects, can it be necessary for us to recapitulate the many instances, as thus app pears to us, of refusals to institute just and necessary inquiry; to pursue to condign punishment public delinquents and peculators; to economize the means and resources of the state; to administer to the people relief and redress for the various disgraces which the national honour has sustained, for the lavish profusion of British blood and treasure, extravagantly wasted in ill-contrived and fruitless campaigns, and more particularly in the humiliating and ignominious expedition to the coast of Holland, in which the greatest armament that ever left our shores, was exposed to the scorn, contempt and ridicule of the enemy; and the flower of the British army left ingloriously to perish in the pestilential marshes of Walcheren, without succour! without necessity! without object! without hope!

"These and similar proceedings of your honourable House require no comment; but we cannot, by our silence, become accomplices in the ruin of our country; and dare not conceal from you the wholesome, though unpleasant, truth, that they appear to us to have materially shaken what remained of the confidence of the subjects of these realms in the wisdom of your honourable House.

"We therefore humbly, but firmly, entreat you to reconsider your conduct, to retrace your steps, and to expunge from Journals all your orders, declarations, and resolutions, respecting Mr. Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett; and that as sir Francis Burdett has not been expelled from your honourable House, he be no longer prevented from exercising therein all the duties of a member of the same.

"Above all, we earnestly pray your honourable House, in conjunction with sir Francis Burdett, and in conformity to the notice he has given, to devise and adopt such measures as will effect an immediate and radical reform in the Commons' House of Parliament, and insure to the people a full, fair, and substantial representation, without which, they must inevitably cease to exist, a great, a free, a glorious and independent nation."

then moved that it do lie on the table.

stated, that he felt less difficulty in objecting to the reception of the petition from the admission of the worthy baronet who presented it, that it was not the opinion of the great body of his constituents; but even were it the unanimous opinion of the whole of the livery of London, he would resist its reception. Why be felt that to be his duty he would explain. In the first place he observed that notwithstanding all the pains bestowed and abilities exerted in drawing up the petition, it went to carry a direct insult upon the character and dignity of that House. It went to traduce the whole conduct of that House in a manner perfectly unnecessary—uncalled for by any other object than the wish to degrade it in the estimation of the public. Why ask that House where was its justice and where was its dignity? It did not rest satisfied with that insult, severe as it was, but proceeded to comment in the most offensive manner upon the construction of that House, and that from that construction the petitioners were not surprized at their proceedings. He thought it was the more necessary to reject this petition, because the petitioners had endeavoured to take advantage of what had passed on a former night relative to another petition, and had studiously and artfully attempted to word it in such a way as should steer clear of the objections made to that of the free-holders of Middlesex, by stating every thing as opinion and not as matter of fact; but it was clearly evident that the intention was the same as that of the other, and they only cloaked their design under different form of words, which were, in his opinion, equally inadmissible and disgusting. If the House permitted such petitions as this to lie on the table, it would lose its dignity, character, and consequence in the eyes of the whole world. He should therefore, without trespassing further on the time of the House, move that it be rejected.

said he was extremely sorry to see any opposition to this petition's lying on the table. He expressed his great surprise that the right hon. secretary should in the first part of his speech, have assigned, as one reason for objecting to it, that it was not the opinion of a majority of the whole livery of London. So far as that could be ascertained by a public meeting, it certainly was the opinion of the majority, and of a very decided majority. It was altogether impossible that the whole livery, which consisted of 12,000 persons, could get into guildhall, for it would not hold half of them. The late meeting was legally called together by the authority of the lord mayor, and was as numerously attended as any he had ever seen; and out of 3,000 persons then present, he believed that not 50 held up their hands against the resolutions. If, therefore, the petition of such meeting, according to the arguments of the right hon. secretary, were not to be considered the legitimate and real sense of the livery of London, it would be impossible, upon similar grounds, to consider the proceedings of that House upon many occasions, as the proceedings of the House of Commons. If, as had been stated, or rather insinuated, by his hon. colleague, many of those liverymen who were present had been deterred from delivering their sentiments, from a fear of the reception they would meet with by marks of disapprobation from the majority, they certainly might have evinced they did not approve of the petition, and that it did not contain their sentiments, by holding up their hands against it. Every man had the power of doing that: and from the number who availed themselves of it being so small, it was evident that the petition contained the opinions of nearly all who were present. He was always sorry to see the smallest interruption given to any person in delivering his sentiments at a public meeting, whatever side of the question he might incline to; but it was well known, that in all large popular meetings there was no preventing great numbers from giving way to their feelings and shewing their disapprobation of the conduct of public men, which was not agreeable to what they thought just and right. As to those of the minority, who did not think proper to express their dissent to the petition, in the meeting at the common hall, and who afterwards met in another place for the purpose of drawing up other resolutions, by way of a counter-declaration of the livery of London, such meeting was unquestionably illegal—not being covered by any authority, and could not be an expression of the public will of the livery. On the whole, he hoped the House would consider this matter with the serious attention and consideration which the petition of so highly respectable a body as the livery of London in common hall assembled, had always been allowed to merit, and that the House would pause before they suffered themselves to be persuaded to reject it.

, in explanation, said, the right hon. secretary had certainly misapprehended him, He did not mean to state that the petition was not the opinion of a majority of the livery who were present, but merely that it was not that of a majority of the whole body.

said, be wished to make a few observations on the present occasion. He was clearly of opinion, and perfectly satisfied in his own mind, that the House of Commons had not, in any of its late proceedings, done any thing which it had not a perfect right to do, and as such he had given his vote in the case of all the petitions which had hitherto been presented on the subject. He had attended the late meeting of the livery of London, but he was not permitted to state his sentiments, or he would have told them freely and fairly, that he thought the House had acted as it ought to do; but clamour was the order of the day, and he could not obtain the hearing he wished for. He was sure this petition, though certainly that of a body duly and legally convened, did not contain the sentiments and opinions of a majority of the whole livery, but merely those of a junto, who endeavoured to carry every measure relative to the city of London, in their own way. The hon. bart. asserted that the majority of the livery did not entertain the doctrines which the petition contained, and he should be unfit to represent that city if he did not state so much.—He was satisfied from the declaration issued at the counter meeting, that the respectable part of the livery were of different sentiments. He must therefore maintain the sentiments of the declaration, and could not subscribe to the general opinions of the petition, nor lend a hand to support it, but vote for the motion of the right hon. gentleman.

said, the common hall was numerous, and many respectable liverymen were present; still he would not say that the majority of those present were of the livery. It was, however, a meeting legally and constitutionally convened. Since that hall was assembled a counter meeting of the livery had been held, and since he came that night into the House, he understood that the declaration agreed to at that counter meeting had been subscribed in the course of that day by 1,500 liverymen. Now, he could assure the House, that at the common hall, in his opinion, the number of the livery present did not exceed 1,400! The petition was, however, the decision of a legal and constitutional meeting, and being so he would most Certainly agree in the motion, that it should be laid upon the table.

said, if any thing could excite surprize at what passed in that House, it would unquestionably be the conduct of the right hon. secretary on that evening. Even since he had spoken, he appeared to exult in the declaration of the worthy baronet behind him (sir W. Curtis), though he had been told by the worthy baronet that he had misstated and misapprehended him, and founded his first objection to the petition on its not being the opinion of the whole body of the livery. Was there ever such an objection heard of? The House had been told by one worthy alderman (Combe) that it was a very decided majority of 3,000 of the livery who were present, and by another (Shaw) that there were 2,000 present; and yet this is a majority which would not content the right hon. gent. If this doctrine were allowed to hold, what would become of, or what would be said to, the majority of that House? Was it for the right hon. gent. to resort to such an argument, when he and his colleagues had so lately grasped at a majority of 38 for sending sir F. Burdett to the Tower? Let them look also to many other still more trifling majorities under which they had sheltered themselves, and then let the right hon. gent. blush to find fault with the majority to the present petition. The right hon. gent. was equally inconsistent and unfounded as to other objections he made to the petition. He found fault with the language used by the petitioners. What language would he have them make use of? The House had thought fit to commit Gale Jones to Newgate, and sir F. Burdett to the Tower, on grounds which the people think is an assumption of power the House had no right to exercise; and the livery of London as well as others have petitioned against this: they think the House have acted wrong, and they tell them so in very warm language, certainly; but when the feelings are roused the language will be warm, and the right hon. gent. and his colleagues may blame themselves for having forced the petitioners to say what they think. The right hon. gent. then said, that on account of the animadversion on the construction of that House, the petition ought not to be received. The construction of the House of Commons! he exclaimed: look at your Journals, would it not there be found recorded, "that Upwards of 300 members in England and Wales only are not elected by the people; but are sent to the House by the actual nomination or, powerful influence of about 150 peers and others;" and in another place, is it not stated on the same Journals, "the seats in that House were as openly bought and sold as stalls for cattle in a fair." And what do the petitioners say mote? They use the language of truth and of the journals of the House; and yet their petition is to be rejected on account of that language. Without adverting to what was recorded upon the journals of that House, let us consider a very recent case, in no small degree illustrative of its construction. The new teller of the exchequer (Mr. Yorke) upon his appointment to that office vacated his seat in this House. He again applies in a county, where for his private virtues and attention to its local interests he was respected, for a repetition of its confidence. The county of Cambridge, indignant at his public conduct in this House, almost unanimously dismiss him. They speak a language not alone depending upon majorities, but actually recorded in the crown office. That right hon. gent. even subsequent to that dismissal, is appointed to an office of high responsibility, and again finds his way into this House. As the representative of what body of Electors? By what influence returned? Can the right hon. secretary, so jealous of the character of the House, contradict me when I say, that this representative of the people of England is nominated by a peer? "Is it possible," said Mr. W. "that such thing's should be—that they should be known to the people; and that when they speak of them they should not do it with warmth and indignation." He lamented that he was absent when the Middlesex petition was presented, as he should most certainly have voted for receiving it. It had been rejected by the House, though, in his opinion, not to strongly worded as that of Westminster which had been received; because the freeholders had stated circumstances, not as matters of opinion, but as facts actually existing. The petition of the livery (the most moderate of the three) was drawn up so as to avoid these objections, and yet that was to be rejected also. At this rate, if the right hon. gent. continued in office long enough, he would bring on an irreconcileable breach between that House and the people. He Would tell them, if they did sot petition in his form they should not petition at all. How did the people stand now? Said he The right hon. gent says to them, You are not to petition as Middlesex did, nor as the Livery of London did, but you may do as Westminster did, which was the strongest of the three. Mr. Whitbread alluded to what had fallen from the right hon. gent. in last night's debate, respecting the right of the livery of London to have their petition presented to his Majesty on the throne. He contended against the arguments of the right hon. gent. which referred to Wilkes's case, which he could not express in English, but had recourse to the French, with his boutefeus of the day; he maintained that the livery had for a long course of years been always allowed to have that right; and that the infirmities of his Majesty had been indecorously and falsely mentioned to justify the late rejection of the claim—(Here Mr. Ryder shewed an inclination to explain,) but Mr. Whitbread said he would not allow any thing like explanation in the middle of his speech, when he was in possession of the attention of the House; if he had been wrong, he should have been called to order—The House should there fore—[Here the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to order, and said he thought it disorderly to allude to what had passed in a former debate.] Mr. Whitbread said, the right hon. gent. having spoken to order he must desist; but he would not be interrupted by explanation. He then proceeded to state, that at the time when, the petition of the city of London was offered to be presented by the sheriffs, the secretary of state a letter to the city to say, that the infirmities of his Majesty made it impossible to receive the petition on the throne. This he denied to be the fact; the infirmities alluded to could be no bar to receiving them in that way, and it was highly improper to mention them. The right hon. gent had assured the House, that since he had been in office he had received no petition that had not reached his Majesty; but that had not always been the case, for he was credibly informed, and believed it to be true, that when lord Hawkesbury was secretary of state at a particular period, when many different bodies thought it necessary to petition, those petitions were delivered to the secretary of State, and that not one of them had ever reached the King. This being the case, and the people being thus shut out, as it were, from petitioning the King, it became more peculiarly the duty of that House to open wider their doors to the admission of their petitions, and as he saw nothing in the present petition which deserved to he rejected, he should certainly rote that it do lie on the table.

said, he had not read the petition till he came into the House, and as he had so little time to consider it, and to see how far it resembled that which bad been rejected or that which had been received, on the same subject, he was at a loss how to make up his mind on the subject.—He had voted for the reception of the Westminster petition, and for the rejection of the Middlesex, for reasons which, in both cases, well satisfied his mind; but from the shortness of the time, and the cursory and interrupted reading which could only be had at the table, he was not sufficiently qualified to decide, how far this petition was analogous to either of the others; and especially after the opinion expressed by the hon. gent. who had just sat down, that this petition was the most moderate of the three, and in its term adapted to the mode in some measure prescribed by the House. He thought the House could not suffer any inconvenience by adjourning this debate till to-morrow. They would then have time to consider the petition with more attention and deliberation, and would come to the decision with their minds made up on the question; and he was sure they would thereby shew their respect for the first city of the empire. He would therefore move, that the further debate on the question be adjourned till to-morrow.

said, that after the respect paid to the last petition, of adjourning the debate, he should not object to do the same in the present case; but having voted for receiving one of the former, and rejecting the other, he had no objection to delivering his opinion that moment. He did not object to the Westminster petition, because it was worded in such a manner as to convey the sentiments of the petitioners by way of opinion. He did object to the Middlesex, because the things complained of were not stated as matters of opinion, but as matters of fact that actually existed; as this petition was drawn in a manner contrary to the Middlesex, he should vote that it be received.

had objected to the last petition which had been rejected by that House, on the grounds of its being a protest, and not a petition. In the present petition there were many phrases which were considered objectionable by some members of the House; he could not consider them by any means in that light. He could not think that the petition's now asking "Where is your justice? Where your moderation?" was to be reprobated; because he thought the House had for felted, by its own acts, its justice and it character. If the petition was now rejected, he could not think it would be because it was offensive to the House, but because it was offensive to his Majesty ministers. He was sure he did not mean to derogate from the dignity of that House when he voted for the reception of the petition.

was ready to vote for the adjournment, in the hope that it might procure another vote in favour of the reception of the petition. He was sure there was no language in the petition so alarming as the idea that ministers were able to drag and dispose the House of Commons to reject such petitions on such occasions. If the petitioners had learned any disrespectful language, where had they learned it? He had no hesitation in saying they had learned it from the votes of that House. They had quoted it from their own journals. Why then should the House now stand upon the punctilio of nicety and justice, when they had by their own deeds forfeited their claim to them? In his indignation against the offensive language of the present petition, the right hon. secretary of state totally forgot the motions which had been rejected last year, and which had given rise to this language. He totally forgot whether ministers did that in fact which they now considered even the mention of offensive. It was too true, however, they had done so; and it was their conduct which had incurred the present calamitous consequences. A secretary of state, whom he now saw in his place (Mr. Canning), had last year proposed certain resolutions respecting lord Castlereagh, in contradiction to a motion of his, which were adopted, and which, he observed, were the chief cause of the indignation of the public, and were noticed in every petition. He now thought it right to give notice, that at no very distant day he meant to move for the erasure of those resolutions. He was sorry to see the country at large generally ranged in opposition to the House. When he said this, however, he by no means meant to deny the right of the House to commit: on the contrary, on a former occasion he had maintained they had such a right. The House, however, could not expect that any right of theirs should be tamely acknowledged, while they suffered resolutions so contrary to their dignity as those to which he had alluded, to remain upon their journals. He would ask the former secretary of state, and the chancellor of the exchequer, with what feelings they had heard the Speaker and the petitions say, that they had committed acts at which their ancestors would have startled with indignation? Why should not they, though at an humble distance, emulate the purity of their ancestors? He did not wish to speak against the privileges, or to lessen the dignity of that House; but while such practices obtained, he must say, such petitions were justly presented—The House itself gave the provocation, and it must take the consequences. He was ready now not only to vote for an adjournment, but to give notice of a motion for expunging those obnoxious Resolutions from the Journals.

said he opposed the Middlesex petition because it was a mandate; such objection did not attach to the present petition, and therefore he should vote for its reception.

had not heard any reason to convince him that the House ought not to deal with the petition just presented as they had dealt with the last petition presented to them on the same subject. The objection made by his right hon. friend to the reception of the petition was not grounded on the assumption that it did not speak the sentiments of the majority of the livery. That was a question the consideration of which would on no occasion influence the House to receive or to reject a petition. His right hon. friend had been completely misunderstood, and had only argued against the reception of the petition, on the ground that it contained matter and expressions which rendered it impossible for the House, consistently with their duty to themselves and to their constituents, to entertain it; and that therefore it was some consolation to him to reflect, that it did not proceed from a majority of the body whose petition it professed to be. Indeed, when the small number of signatures to the petition was considered, although it did not follow that there were not many individual consenting to its object; yet it was a fair inference, that the number was not so great as Was attempted to be represented. The distinct ground on which he should vote for the rejection of the petition, however, was, that it was wholly introduced to insult the House. If any one could make it appear that such was not the evident object of the petitioners, he would concur in the motion for its reception. In his view of the subject, it was impossible to understand it in any other manner. He trusted, that the House would not confine their examination of this Petition to one or two of the introductory passages, and that they would not be inclined, because the petitioners "affected humbly to conceive," to give admission to a petition of a nature so offensive. It was true, that in the petition rejected the other day the most gross and unshielded declaration were contained; but if other petitions, having the same purpose in view, and comprising the same matter, with the single exception of being somewhat more guarded, were admitted, how idle would the' proceedings of the House appear, and how completely Would they hold themselves up to public contempt. An honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread) seemed to think that petitions of any sort whatever ought to be received. The argument of that honourable gentleman was, that the House of Commons had already lost its dignity and its sense of justice, and that the confidence of the people in it was shaken. Not only did the hon. gent. declare that such were his sentiments, but he added, that the House must not expect the people of England to approach them in their petitions with deference and respect. If that were indeed the opinion of the hon. gent., he might well argue for the reception of any petition, however offensive and insulting. If that hon. gent. were prepared to receive the insults of any petitioners; if he even led the way in insulting the House; if ha contended that the declaration that the House had lost its dignity was the language of truth and justice—then indeed it was no longer surprising that he should support such a petition as that which it was proposed to lay on the table. He could not, however, conceive, that the observations of the hon. gent. grounded on such arguments, would have any weight with the House, however violently they might be urged. The hon. gent. asserted that his Majesty's present ministers were men calculated to bring the country into a difficult situation, but that they were not men calculated to fight the battles of the House of Commons against the people. If that battle must be fought, it seemed that the House would not have the assistance of the hon. gent. On the contrary, it seemed that he was one of those with whom the House would have to contend. Whatever might be the success of that battle, he trusted that the appearance of such insulting documents as that just presented would inspirit the House to resist the attack that was making upon them, and to shew that they were not to be intimidated, although their assailants might be headed even by the hon. gent. himself. As to the proposition for deferring the decision of the present question, he really was at a loss to conceive what doubt could exist in the mind of his honourable friend, with respect to the course which it became the House to pursue.—Having, however, yielded to a similar wish expressed on a former occasion, he should not object to his hon. friend's proposition. He trusted that his hon. friend and the House would in the mean time consider the petition, and determine whether or not it was proper that the dignity and justice of the House should be questioned by petitioners, who "humbly conceived" not only that their proceedings had been contrary to law, but that no united effort of the legislature could make them legal—who stated, that they were not at all surprised at those proceedings when they reflected on the manner in which the House was constructed—who, alluding to a vote of the House, declared that they could not contemplate it without indignation and disgust—and who asserted, that the House of Commons had lost the remaining confidence of the people.—Were not these expressions insults! Could any rational man doubt that it was the distinct object of the petitioners, under the mask of humble conception, to insult the House of Commons more grossly than they had been insulted even on former occasions? It had been said by some one in the course of the debate that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) objected to the reception of the petition, because of the manner in which his own name was mentioned in it. He had however given manifold evidence that such did not form with him a ground for the rejection of a petition. The first petition presented on this subject, and in the reception of which he had acquiesced, mentioned him in a milar manner. He had consented to the reception of that petition, because it came in the first instance from the constituents of the person who had just then been committed by the House to the Tower; because the petitioners had hardly had time to deliberate on the strict propriety of their expressions, and because he was anxious that no captiousness should be shewn by the House on such a subject as the receiving of the petitions of the people. But did it follow that from day to day and from week to week the House were bound to entertain fresh and increasing insults? It was too obvious that there was a disposition existing in many individuals without those walls to degrade and vilify the two Houses of parliament, and he was sorry to add that there seemed to be a person in that House disposed to lend his assistance to such an effort, and to set the example of using the strongest language of offence.—He trusted that after a mature consideration, the House on resuming the discussion, would treat this petition as it deserved—that they would consider that the character of a petition ought to be decent and respectful to the body to whom it was addressed;—that they would determine that although they would not captiously lay hold of any accidental impropriety of language in a petition, yet when there could be no hesitation in believing that a petition was presented for the express purpose of insult, it would be weakness to consent to its being laid on their table.

availed himself of the opportunity afforded him by the new question of adjournment, to reply to some of the observations of the right hon. gent. The right hon. gent. had supposed that he (Mr. W.) was one of those who thought that every petition ought to be received by the House let it be couched in what language it might. This was not the fact. As a member of Parliament he had always conceived himself bound to present to the House any petition communicated to him by any individual for that purpose, unless that petition contained offensive matter or language; and with this sentiment he had frequently suggested their correction by the petitioners of petitions so given to him for presentation. But the petition under consideration was the petition of a constituted and deliberative body—of a body who had aright to address his Majesty on the throne; and Who had exercised that right until obstructed by the present administration. He contended, in opposition to the right hon. gent., that the object of the petitioners was not decidedly to insult the House, and condemned the mode in which the House seemed to seek for insult. The right hon. gent. had accused him of Expressing himself in strong language with respect to the want of dignity and justice in the House of Commons. To this accusation, he would only reply, that Strong as his expressions had been, language itself was deficient in terms of adequate strength to express the sense which he entertained of the want of dignity in the House of Commons, as considering their conduct with reference to themselves, and of want of justice as considering their conduct with reference to others. To the day of his death, he would fight the battles of the people with the House of Commons when the House of Commons were unjust, and he did not know how he could better acquit himself as a citizen. Whoever might lead the battles of the hon. gentlemen opposite, of this he was convinced, that even had the House justice on their side, the right hon. gent. was incapable of being that leader; but he appeared doubly incapable when he took a ground upon which there was not a colour of justice, and when he betrayed the House into steps which they must ultimately be compelled to retread. The right hon. gent. had originally deluded the present House of Commons by the grossest bigotry. It was probable, that unless they were found sufficiently pliable he would be obliged to advise their termination by a sudden dissolution. For his part he had no hesitation in distinctly declaring it was his opinion, that let the existence of the present parliament terminate when it might, it would terminate in disgrace.

declared, that while he had a seat in that House, he would never agree to the reception of any petition which directly or indirectly insulted the House. The present was of the latter description. It was not a petition, but an artful snare to entrap the House. The petitioners set up their opinion against the opinion of the House; but it was the duty of the House to shew the petitioners that they did not regard their opinion, and that they consider their own much better. The petition contained nothing less than an accusation of the House of Commons of murder. He would vote for its rejection. As he was on his legs he would observe that he conceived it to be a very unfair tiling to bring the Teller of the Exchequer on the carpet on every discussion, whatever it might be. He understood that that right honourable gentleman would unquestionably have gained his election for Cambridgeshire had he chosen to persevere.

could not consent to postpone the decision of the House one moment upon the petition before them. Adverting to the observation made by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the paucity of signatures, he explained that that was owing to a resolution of the common-hall by which the number of those who were to sign the petition was limited.

, in consequence of the statement made by an hon. gentleman, that to him (Mr. R.) was attributable the refusal of his Majesty to receive in person the petition, observed, that he had done no more than the hon. gent's own friends. He had acted precisely in the same way as his predecessors had done ever since lord Grenville held the situation which he had then the honour to fill.

said, that it was little to the purpose to state what others had done. The question was, whether he had acted properly—and in his opinion he had acted with very great impropriety.

It was then agreed that the discussion should be adjourned till to-morrow.

rose, in pursuance of a notice which he formerly gave, announcing his intention to move for the production of all papers, connected with an Expedition, which was sent, under the command of rear admiral Drury, against the island of Macoa, in the Chinese seas.—He remarked, that when he gave that notice, he did also intimate his intention to move for the production of some other very interesting documents connected with China, and our possessions in India; but that when he came to consider the variety and importance of the questions likely to arise out of the fatal and ill-advised expedition to which he had adverted, he deemed it to be more prudent, and less likely to embarrass the House, to bring the question of the expedition singly, and unmixed with any other subject to its consideration. He proposed, therefore, to postpone his motion relative to the other papers to a future day. But before he submitted the motion to which he then meant to confine himself, he felt it to be necessary for him to offer some brief explanation, not only of the points to which his motion referred, but also of the grounds, on which he felt himself called upon to solicit the indulgent attention of the House on the present occasion. When he adverted to the nature and to the very remote situation of our Indian possessions; when he contemplated the strange and anomalous system on which the government of that vast empire is administered; when he beheld the extensive, and he might add, the unlimited powers with which the governor-general is necessarily armed, and heard of wars constantly commenced, and oftentimes terminated without the possibility of referring to the constituted authorities in this country, either as to the expediency, or to the justice of them; in such a state of things, and under such extraordinary circumstances, it was natural that this country should feel an anxiety to possess some effectual check and restraint over their rulers in India, which could only be attained by holding them bound by an awful measure of responsibility for their conduct whilst in office. If public men, acting upon their responsibility in the remotest parts of the universe, were at a Certainty, that their measures would be brought under discussion in the House of Commons, as speedily as the distance would admit of, he had not any doubt, but that such a feeling would produce a two-fold beneficial operation—it would serve on the one hand to deter men from the adoption of doubtful, impolitic, or mischievous measures; and excite and stimulate them, on the other, to an active, honourable, and distinguished discharge of their duty. But, no advantage of this nature could be obtained, no adequate responsibility could be made to attach, if it be permitted that transactions involving the dearest interests, the character, the honour, and the blood of the country, should be suppressed or withheld from the knowledge of the House, and of the country. And this he maintained to have been the case in regard to the expedition in question, of which he had never heard the slightest mention made by gentlemen in office, nor had he been able to trace in the public prints of the day any report, or the remotest allusion to it; from all which circumstances he inferred, that, either with a view to serve private purposes, or to screen the guilty conduct of those concerned in the planning and execution of it, unjustifiable measures must have been taken to keep the whole subject from the public view. Extensively and remotely scattered, however, as are the British possessions all over the habitable globe, it may be deemed one of the manifold advantages arising out of the nature of our happy and mixed constitution, that there are to be found, amongst the members of the House of Commons, gentlemen, who from local knowledge, or some particular chain of connexion or inter course, possess the means of obtaining accurate information on all subjects, (however remote the scene of action) in which the honor and the interests of this country are concerned. And he conceived it to be the bounden duty of every gentleman who had the honor of a seat in Parliament, to call to its special notice, all such transactions, as may, from their importance, appear fit subjects for deliberation; being convinced that the circumstances which he should immediately have the honour to submit to the House, would be found to come strictly and distinctly within this description, and to demand most imperatively of the House, that an enquiry should be instituted, and some immediate measures be adopted, with a view to repair the injuries which had been sustained, to preclude the recurrence of similar scenes of disgrace and disaster, and, above all, to convince the world, and in particular the government, and subjects of China, that the constituted authorities in this country were no party (as he sincerely hoped it would appear they were not) to a proceeding, which in his apprehension was, in its plan and progress, as gross a violation of justice and good faith, as it proved, in its issue, a monument of disgrace, obloquy, and disaster. Influenced by these motives arising out of the foregoing considerations, and encouraged by the indulgence which he had uniformly observed it to be the disposition of the House to exercise towards persons unaccustomed to address it, he should proceed, with all possible respect and deference, to state a few outlines of the case to which he had adverted, in the anxious hope, that the House would concur with him, as to the propriety of instituting an enquiry into those transactions, and the consequent necessity of ordering the papers to be laid before Parliament, for which he should have the honor to move—In the actual stage of the business, it was not his intention to obtrude upon the House any detailed observations on the value and importance of the trade which we now carry on with China; it would be sufficient for his present purpose to remark generally, that there is no branch of our external commerce which, for its extent, contributes so abundantly to the revenues of the state, or in which the great mass of the population of this empire may be supposed to take so deep and so anxious an interest. And, therefore, he humbly conceived that any course of operations calculated to place so valuable a branch of our trade in jeopardy, and eventually to deprive us of it altogether, was not only a fit subject for the House to entertain, but one which called most seriously upon every gentleman who heard him (and he lamented the number was not more) to give to it his most mature and deliberate consideration. How far this hazard has been encountered, and to what a perilous dilemma have our interests in China been reduced, it would be competent for the House to form an estimate, when the papers relative to this ill-fated expedition should be laid before Parliament.—Mr. Prendergast then said, that by his information it appeared, that no sooner had the information reached India that the court of Portugal had removed under the protection of the British flag from their European possessions to the Brazils, than schemes of ambition and conquest appear to have opened themselves to the view of our rulers in that quarter. An immediate determination seems to have been formed to possess our selves of the island of Macoa, on which the Portuguese had for a series of years been permitted, under circumstances of singular restriction, and obvious jealousy, to form a small establishment. An expedition consisting of a formidable naval and military force was ordered to be assembled, and the conduct of it was placed under the command of his excellency, rear admiral Drury, by order of the governor-general in council. His information did not enable him to state the exact period of the embarkation of the troops, or of the sailing of the expedition; however, it did enable him to state, that the gallant admiral reached his port of destination about the end of September 1808. On his arrival he represented to the Portuguese governor, that in the spirit of pure friendship and faithful alliance, he was dispatched with a respectable military force, for the purpose of strengthening Macoa, and enabling it to resent and resist any insult or attack, which the French might make upon it. To the Chinese authorities the gallant admin also represented, that animated by similar feelings of friendipsh and regard towards the Emperor of China and his subjects, the British government had entusted him with the command of a mixed force for the double purpose of frustrating and defeating the views of the French trant upon the island of Macoa, and of securing the Chinese seas of the piratical flets of Ladrones, which had of late infestel the coasts and interrupted the commerce of China. The Portuguese Governor hesitated not a moment to decline the proffered aid, which he resisted on the doubleplea of his conviction, that his acquiescence in such a measure would awaken the jeaousy and excite the resentment of the Chinese, and that it would likewise expose him (the governor) to the displeasure of the governor of Goa, and of his more exalted superiors in Europe and the Brazils. To this reasoning the gallant admiral opposed the very concise argument of "if you won't, you must"—and there was nothing eft for the governor in his weak and feeble situation, but to oppose the only resistance which was competent to him to offer, namely, a formal and solemn protest against the measure, as being entirely unnecessary, unjust, and oppressive. It must be observed, and he intreated the House to attend to the circumstance, that, although the gallant admiral when he first communicated his overtures to the governor, represented himself as having been sent in the purest spirit of amity and good faith awards the Portuguese, which induced a belief that he came as the friend, and his troops as the auxiliaries of a faithful all; nevertheless, when by the arm of power he had overruled the objections of the governor, he landed his forces with all the pump and ostentation of victory and conquest, and with every ceremony usually accompanying the character of a conqueror, he triumphantly hoisted the British flag, and possessed himself of the Portuguese authority on the island. Remonstrances and protests poured in from all the Chinese governors and Mandarins, and the viceroy at Canton, in pursuance of the usual Chinese policy on all occasions of discontent against foreigners, issued a proclamation, interdicting all intercourse with the English, and commanding all Chinese subjects serving English masters, in any capacity, to withdraw under pain of death, from their service.—The gallant admiral having established his government a Macoa, proceeded with his squadron, in company with the supercargoes, to the anchorage-ground in the river Whampoa, without any previous permission lad, or obtained from the Chinese govenment, which was deemed the most flagrant insult and indignity that could in possibility be offered to the Emperor, and his government; and from this anchorage-ground, he commenced a fresh written negotiation, expressed in, stronger language than had been used during his stay at Macoa. To all arguments urged by the gallant admiral, whether mild or intemperate, the uniform, reply of the vicero was "strike your flag—withdraw your troops from Macoa, and take them and your ships of war away;—and the reations of commerce and amity shal be renewed." Impatient of further delay, the gallant admiral ordered his boats to be manned and armed, and proceeded on the 8th of Nov. 1808, to Canton, with the manifest view of intimidating the viceroy, (who refused to see on receive him) not only into the measure of personal conference, but into a full compliance with the ulterior objects of the expedition. The viceroy, steady to his purpose, disregarded the blusterings and vauntings of the gallant admiral, and persevered in his refusal to see him, and also declined to receive further written communications from him; and at the expiration of two or three days, the gallant admiral was compelled to withdraw to his fleet, covered with shame, and carrying with him the obloquy, odium, and executions of all the inhabitants of Canton. In a short time after this notable effort on he part of the admiral, advices reached him, that a large military force was collecting near Canton, and apprehensions were entertained as to the safety of the British subjects in that city. In this state of things, the gallant admiral directed the chief supercargo to proclaim the following order to the commanders of all the British vessels at the port of Canton.

"Gentlemen,—I am directed by his excellency rear admiral Drury, to acquaint you, that every British subject should quit Canton in forty-eight hours after this date, as the refusal of the Chinese government to listen to his most friendly entreaties will compel him to command justjce.—Admiral Drury also directs, that all English vessels should be prepared to drop down the river with, as little delay as possible. I regret that it should be expedient to adopt any measures that must occasion inconvenience to many; but rely with confidence upon every person's complying cheerfully with what is likely to prove of public utility, and which the present state of affairs renders unfortunately necessary, assuring them at the same time, that every attention will be paid to the preservation of British property, (Signed) J. W. ROBERTS. Canton, 21st Nov. 1808."

It is difficult for the subjects of this free land to imagine the scene of confusion and alarm, to which this portentous order gave rise amongst the British inhabitants at Canton. These unfortunate victims, to the impolicy and extravagant fancy of our rulers, having scraped and scrambled together as much of their devoted property, as the hurry and danger of the moment would admit, were compelled to abandon their homes and concerns, and to seek, with the utmost precipitation, shelter under the British flag. It might have been supposed, that the failure of the gallant admiral's first vain attempt, by his personal appearance at Canton, to overawe and intimidate the viceroy into an acquiescence with his objects would have served as a wholesome caution to guard him against exposing himself, his people, and the British flag, to a repetition of similar insults, derision, and contumely, as attended that wild and ineffectual experiment; but, in an evil moment, he determined otherwise. The proclamation, which was issued on the 21st. of Nov. drew all the British subjects together at the anchorage-ground (distant from Canton about 25 miles) on the 23d; and it appears, that the gallant admiral, doubtful what course to adopt, remained inactive until the 28th, when again he gave orders for manning and arming all the boats of the fleet, and, with a much stronger force than he had formerly carried with him, shaped his course towards Canton. When the admiral's fleet of boats had proceeded within three miles of this city, a considerable body of armed persons was seen assembled at a small fort, which commanded the river; and no sooner had the gallant admiral approached within range of shot, than a brisk fire of round and grape was opened upon him. Various efforts were made by the admiral to enter into explanation; but all proved ineffectual; The only reply he could obtain to his profesions, and protestations of amity and good faith, was, from the mouths of their cannon; and, at length perceiving that his situation already dangerous, might become critical, he once more determined to repair to his ships under circumstances of disgrace, obloquy and execration, easier to be conceived, than described. Mr. Prendergast here begged permission of the House to state a circumstance which Occurred in the course of this fatal and mistaken experiment, upon the nerves of the viceroy, and the fears of the Chinese. It was alleged that, during the time that resistance was offered from the fort, an attempt was made by a body of Chinese to seize and detain one of the English boats, in which they succeeded so far as to have taken possession of her. An immediate order was issued for the recapture of this boat, and in the course of this duty, his information stated, that 25 Chinese Were killed, and several others wounded. He humbly maintained that, if this ill-fated expedition involved no other circumstance of interest, or concern, than the loss of so many lives, in a course of proceeding which he had endeavoured to describe, and which appeared, to his judgment, to have been a series of aggression and injustice on the part of our commander, in every stage of it; if we took no other interest in this extraordinary expedition, than that which the loss of so many lives, in Such a manner, was calculated to excite, still, he contended, that there was, in this unfortunate result, abundant ground, not only to justify, but to demand of the justice of parliament, that enquiry should be had, and eventually that punishment should be inflicted. Anticipating, however, the possibility that the papers might be refused, for which he was about to call, either on a plea of their being so voluminous as to impose Extraordinary trouble on the clerks of the departments in which those papers were deposited, or on the plea of the expense which might attach to the printing of them he begged leave to submit to the House that he was willing, with a view to obviate either, or both of these objections, to be one of a Committee to examine and select such papers as might be deemed necessary to the establishment of his case, which might be, in his opinion, reduced to a very few in number; and that if any objection should exist on the ground of expence, he was ready to defray all such charges out of his own pocket, rather than the House should be kept uninformed on a subject of such serious importance. He felt no inclination to detain the House longer than to offer the expression of his grateful acknowledgments for the indulgent attention with which he had been honoured, and he should, therefore, proceed to submit his motion.

1. "That there be laid before this House, copies of all dispatches, with their respective dates, which have been received by the right hon. the lords commissioners of the admiralty, and by the court of directors of the East India company, relative to the late expedition, sent under the command of his excellency, rear admiral Drury, against the island of Macoa, in the Chinese seas. 2. Copies of all orders and communications which the right hon. the lords commissioners of the admiralty, shall have transmitted to rear admiral Drury, on the subject of such report or reports as that officer may have made to their lordships, respecting his proceedings in the late expedition against Macoa. 3. Copies of all orders and opinions, which may have been transmitted by the hon. the board of commissioners for India affairs, or by the court of directors of the East India company, to the right hon. the governor general of India, or to the company's supercargoes at China, relative to the late expedition against Macoa, or to any other operations or plans which may have had for their object the capture, or occupancy of that island, by a British force, or by the troops of the East India company."

said, the detail of the course of the expedition was correct, as far as it went; but circumstances had been omitted which altered the complexion of the case. When there was reason to apprehend that the British Would be excluded from the Portuguese ports before the removal of the royal family of Portugal to the Brazils, orders had been sent out to to take the Portuguese settlements in the East, (afterwards countermanded) by force, if necessary, except Macoa, which was not to be taken without the concurrence of the chinese, and it was imagined that the Chinese would willingly accept of our assistance to repel a hostile attack of the French on the settlement, if that Should be attempted. The governor general was apprized by the Committee of supercargos at Canton that the French were preparing to attack the place, and that it might be taken possession of by us, with the concurrence of the Chinese as he understood. It was necessary to act immediately, without waiting for further orders, and the governor sent admiral Drury, who acted in concert with the supercargoes, till they were convinced that, further perseverance would be useless. He conceived that no blame attached to the governor-general or the admiral. He agreed with the hon. gent. as to the importance of preserving our Chinese commerce—but under all the circumstances, he thought there was no occasion for these papers, which were very voluminous, and he would therefore oppose the motion.

disapproved of the occupation of the territory in question. The island was 100 miles in circumference, the Portuguese did not occupy ten miles in circumference of it; the Chinese only allowed them one week's provisions at a time, so that we had no occasion to dread the French getting, or if they did get, retaining possession of it.

thought that no sufficient case had been made out to induce the House to order such a mass of papers to be produced.

thought if there was any inconvenience in producing all the papers called for, there could at least be no objection in producing those which related to the supercargoes, the marine service, and the commander in chief.

declared that in the measures which had been pursued by the court of directors, in consequence of this ill-judged expedition, the court had acquitted the governor general, and the admiral of all blame, and had punished the guilty by dismissing the supercargoes from their offices; a measure of punishment, which must be considered very severe, since it not only deprived those gentlemen of large emoluments, but degraded them in the eyes of the world. In conclusion, he appealed to the candour and liberality of the hon. gent. whether all had not been done to answer the ends of justice, which could have been done.

had no hesitation in replying to the appeal made to his candour by the hon. member who had just sat down, or in stating it as his firm and decided opinion, that so far was the proceeding described by the late chairman calculated to promote the ends of justice, or to satisfy the reasonable expectation of the country, that be (Mr. P.) considered the course which had beta taken, and the decision which had passed, as tending to invert and violate every principle of justice and equity. He contended, that the principle which had been adopted, and acted upon in the course of this proceeding was, in spirit and effect, precisely analogous to the unfair, oppressive and scandalous decision which was past by the court of directors last year, against some of their innocent, but helpless and dependant writers and cadets. In the present case, as in that just alluded to, punishment appears to have been inflicted upon the innocent, whilst the guilty were upheld, complimented, and extolled.—It must be in the recollection of gentlemen, how zealous and active were the exertions of the honourable gentleman, (Mr. C. Grant) and his friends in the direction, to restore to their body the individual, whose patronage had been abused, and who alone was responsible for the trespasses which had been committed; whilst they visited, with a merciless hand, an unmerited measure of punishment upon innocent, unoffending youths, because they could do so with impunity. In the same spirit of oppression and injustice, the directors had, in the case before the House, by the declaration of the hon. member, (Mr. Grant)' singled out as the victims of their wrath and displeasure, those who could not, in possibility, be held responsible for the impolicy, the mischief, and disgrace of this mad and improvident undertaking; whilst they now defend, and acknowledge lately to have complimented, those to whom the responsibility actually belongs, and to whom must, of consequence, attach all the guilt of this disgraceful transaction. He would put it to the hon. gentleman, and to the House, whether the supercargoes, who are now stated to have been degraded and dismissed from lucrative offices, for the share they had taken in advising this measure, were, or could, in justice, be held so culpable as the person who ordered, or the commander who executed this rash and ill-fated expedition? Will it be contended, that the supercargoes possessed the power to order or direct an expedition of this nature, for which they must be held responsible? Mr. P. maintained that they were invested with no such authority; that it was only competent to them to submit, in the most humble tone, their suggestion to the governor-general Who, alone, possessed the power to accept, or to reject such propositions—It had been urged by a right hon. gent. that the expedition Was impolitic, unjust, and disastrous, that as the governor-general had appeared to have acted from the best intentions, he Ought not to be held blameable; but he (Mr. Prendergast) saw no reason to determine why the governor general should have credit for purer intentions than the supercargoes; and as the former was responsible to that House and the country, whilst the latter were altogether unknown in any character of responsibility to either, he contended, that no decision which was confined exclusively to the punishment of the supercargoes for A transgression of this nature, could prove satisfactory to the country. He concluded by conjuring the House to insist upon the production of the papers, which would shew where the blame did actually attach; and, in the persuasion that there existed abundant cause of dissatisfaction, somewhere, he would persist in demanding the papers.

The motion was negatived without a division.

addressed the House on the subject of the conduct of the West India Dock directors, respecting the dividends made upon their capital. The hon. gent. contended, that by the act of the 39th of the King they were restrained from making a dividend above 10l. per cent. In point of fact, however, they had divided 10l. per cent. clear, paying the property tax out of the public funds of the company. This was in effect to divide eleven per cent. contrary to the act he had before alluded to. He felt it therefore his duty to move "That it is the opinion of this House, that the West India Dock Company, in dividing clear 10l. per cent. upon their capital, without previously deducting the due proportion of the property-tax from the whole of their profits, did exceed the extreme rate of interest which they were empowered to divide by the 39th of the King."

observed, that the Committee had reported that the affairs of the Company had been generally well conducted, and in a manner greatly to the public benefit, but they gave their opinion as to the law on this particular point. Now it did not appear to him necessary for the House to reiterate the resolution of the Committee. The resolution of the House ought not to interfere with the construction of the existing law, and if the directors had acted contrary to the law, it would be for a jury to say so. When the West India Dock bill was passed, the property-tax was not in existence. He moved that the debate should be adjourned for six months.

thought the subject should be followed up either in the manner his hon. friend had proposed, or in some other which might appear more eligible to the House. The opinion of the hon. and learned gent. opposite would doubtless be anxiously looked to by the House as to the possibility of setting the question to rest in a court of law. If a better way of proceeding were pointed out by gentlemen on the other side Of the House, he should bow to their decision; but if they did not do so, he should vote for the resolution.

observed, that the West India planters were materially interested in this question. According to the act originally constituting the West India Dock Company, the proprietors were to share l0l. per cent. upon their capital, and it was stipulated, that upon the surplus profits amounting to a certain fund, a proportionate redaction should take place, in the rates payable at the Docks. Now by the system to which the resolution referred to, the 10l. per cent. being taken undiminished, the income tax being paid entirely out of this reversionary fund, that stipulation of the Company was not attended to. Therefore he thought the resolution right and reasonable, and he hoped it would serve to produce a different arrangement in future.

opposed the resolution.

said, the Company had a right to such profits from the public as would make up a dividend of l0l. per cent.; but when their profits exceeded that, the residue was to be applied to the public service. Wishing well, as he did, to the Company, of which no one had spoke too highly, he thought they should be called upon to declare what would be their conduct in future. If they would not submit, the public had a remedy, though to apply it might be troublesome. From the construction he put upon the act he thought the surplus appropriated to the public ought not to be burthened with the property tax on their profits. That ought to be paid out of the 10l. per cent. they divided on the capital. He concluded by expressing his regret at finding himself unable in the present instance to support the Company.

, in reply, stated his readiness to adopt that mode of proceeding Most agreeable to the House.

thought the advantages arising to the country from the Company was incidental, and that the income tax ought to be paid on the 10l. per cent. they divided on their capital.

spoke in praise of the Company, but concurred with the Attorney General in his construction of the act, as involving a question of private right, he hoped the resolution would be but a preparatory step leading to a measure on which both Houses could give their opinion and set the question at rest.

descanted on the advantages arising to the public from the company. He had understood they had a right to share 10l, per cent. on their capital without any deduction for the property tax.

expressed his hope that no proceeding might be adopted by any resolution of the House, but that the question should be tried by a court of law.

said, that if the Company should continue thus to divide it would then be the duty of the House to order an information to be entered against them.

was of opinion that it would not be inconvenient for the House to express its sense by a resolution. It would be extremely difficult to try the question in any way, and at the same time keep the arrears out of sight, which necessarily embraces the interests of the West India merchants.

The question was then put, and the Amendment was negatived, and the original question was carried without a division.